April 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to inform this Honourable House that

today April 28 is the day of observance for workers who have died, or been

injured or disabled on the job. At noon today I attended a wreath-laying

ceremony representing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador at the Ocean

Ranger Memorial with the assistant deputy minister from the division responsible

for Occupational Health and Safety within the government who also laid a wreath.

The Canadian Labour Congress has observed this day for the

last number of years as one way to draw attention to the sacrifice which many of

our workers have made in earning a living for themselves and their families.

As Minister responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, I

am committed to effective safety standards, including enforcement, to ensure

that every worker is afforded an opportunity to work in a safe, hazard-free

environment. Workplace accidents affect not only workers but their families and

co-workers as well.

Mr. Speaker, the department is taking a proactive approach

with respect to occupational health and safety. We want to deal with the

prevention of accidents in the workplace rather than being involved after the

fact. Employers, employees and the department have to work together to attain

this goal. Only with the co-operation of all will we be able to reduce accidents

in the workplace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I want to thank the minister

for providing me an advanced copy. We on this side certainly want to associate

ourselves with the remarks of the minister and commend the minister for

acknowledging the tremendous effort of workers in this Province.

The last part of the minister's statement, I think, is very

significant: that the department is going to actively promote the prevention of

accidents in the workplace rather than being involved after the fact. I think,

Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the most important thing that might have come out of

all of this is an acknowledgement that there are unsafe conditions in the

workplace, and we hope that the minister will not only do this with words, but

some actions to make sure that accidents do not occur in the workplace.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to

reply to the ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have unanimous

approval?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to also add my words in support of the

observance of the day of mourning to remember workers killed or injured in the

workplace and commend the minister for giving a statement on this matter today

and representing the government at the ceremony.

Hon. members may also know that not only has this day been

celebrated by the Canadian Labour Congress for a number of years, it is also an

official day of mourning by virtue of

an Act of the Parliament of Canada passed

last year, and there is currently, by notice of last sitting day, a Private

Member's resolution asking this House to support the same declaration by the

government as an official day, and I would like to ask the government to

consider doing that - it may not be something that would need to be debated and

perhaps all members could have it passed tomorrow by unanimous consent.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying for some time

now that foreign overfishing is as damaging to this Province as the loss of the

automobile industry would be to Ontario, as detrimental as the end of the wheat

crop to the Prairies, and as devastating as the loss of the forest industry to

British Columbia. There is no question that Newfoundlanders are intimately aware

of the common destiny of the fishery and our province's future, but as this

government has been setting out to convince the world to take action against

overfishing, we have been concerned that maybe we are standing alone in a

country indifferent to a small province with a big problem.

Today I am pleased to report to the House that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are not alone. Canadians do care. Canadians understand

the gravity of the problem, and they know that now is the time for action. In

fact, our fight against overfishing is overwhelmingly supported by the people of

Canada, and they are with us in calling on the federal government to take urgent

action against the scourge of overfishing.

We know this because we asked Decima Research to poll

Canadians on their attitudes towards the fishery in general, and foreign fishing

in particular. The results which I will now share with the House are startling,

encouraging, loud and clear.

Mr. Speaker, 82 per cent of Canadians are gravely concerned

about the future of the fishery, and a majority blame foreign overfishing as the

primary reason for depleted fish stocks.

The lack of enforcement of international quotas is also

recognized as a significant contributor to the crises in the fishery.

Ninety percent of Canadians think that overfishing is a

serious environmental problem. In fact, an impressive 84 per cent say that

overfishing is as great an environmental threat as acid rain.

The survey also reveals that when Canadians think about

overfishing, they are thinking not only about the environment, but they are also

thinking about our economy. Indeed, 94 per cent of them think that overfishing

is an economic problem.

When asked whether the depletion or possible extinction of

the fish stock is primarily an economic or an environmental problem, 39 per cent

said economic - that is a statistical tie with 36 per cent who said environment.

One in four Canadians volunteered both as being of equal importance.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt: the people of Canada

understand that overfishing is a serious problem that menaces our environment,

threatens our economy, and needs to be solved at the source.

Foreign overfishing is seen as a direct threat to Canadian

sovereignty, which explains why the people of this country are virtually

unanimous in their support for greater surveillance of the 200-mile boundary.

That is why there is strong support for action, even for the use of the Canadian

Navy.

The sentiment is so intense that the poll found support for

fishermen themselves assuming some responsibility of forcing foreign fishing

vessels out of the area around the 200-mile limit. This will come as welcome

news to those who took the Newfoundland protest directly to the Europeans at sea

a few weeks ago.

An overwhelming three-quarters of Canadians support

unilateral extension of the management of fish stocks beyond the 200-mile

boundary. Fifty-four percent agree with the specific statement that Canada

should extend its management by "patrolling and enforcing fishing quotas outside

the boundary." When told that five years of diplomatic negotiations have failed

to solve the overfishing problem, support for this measure rises to an

impressive 66 per cent.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this Government will be

unrelenting in its efforts to put an end to foreign overfishing. Whether we are

speaking up for action against overfishing in Ottawa, New York, Brussels, or

even Spain and Portugal, we know that Canadians are pulling for us in Calgary,

Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal - places where the fishery isn't a way of life.

They know that this problem isn't the parochial concern of one province. They

know who's causing it, and they know that overfishing won't just go away by the

waving of a diplomat's hand.

The Decima poll was conducted only last month, but before our

ships set sail to protect the fish on the Nose and Tail, before the Minister of

Environment and I went to Parliament Hill, and before the Premier went to the

United Nations and to Europe to make our case to the world. Mr. Speaker, there

is no doubt in my mind that the people of this country are with us now more than

ever.

Foreign overfishing is taking place close to Newfoundland,

but this catastrophe is close to the hearts of people right across our country.

They are telling our federal government and all Canadians to stand up for Canada

confident that Canadians want foreign overfishing stopped, and they will support

the federal government in unilateral action, if necessary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

From the outset, I suppose it would be proper to say, that is

penetrating insight into the obvious, I would think. Who today in this

Legislature or anywhere else is surprised that Canadians think that foreign

overfishing is a problem? Who today is surprised that Canadians, and

specifically Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, think that it is a great economic

problem for us? It is not a great economic problem for Canada because of the low

percentage it is to the total economy of Canada, but for Newfoundland, I would

suggest to the minister, it is probably a 99.9 per cent concern. So, Mr.

Speaker, there are no big surprises here that the majority of people in Canada

are concerned about foreign overfishing. There is no surprise that the people of

Canada think, indeed, that it certainly is an environmental concern.

When you look at the government of the provinces engaging

Decima Research to do a poll, the first question I would like to ask the

minister is: How much did it cost the taxpayers of the Province to find out the

obvious? How much did it cost the people of this Province to have Decima do a

poll on Canadians to see if they were concerned about foreign overfishing - what

the impact of foreign overfishing was in this country? It is unbelievable, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty thousand dollars or something, I

suppose.

MR. MATTHEWS: I would say it is probably $40,000 to

$50,000. Then again, to see the reference in the statement the minister gave a

few weeks ago about the diplomatic efforts over the past five or six years. What

is the Premier of the Province doing today? Playing catch-up football

diplomatically in Europe. Someone referred to it as an extended vacation,

visiting the troops in Europe, eating Belgian chocolate. Is that not diplomatic

effort, Mr. Speaker? If it has not worked, what is the Premier of the Province

doing over in Europe today, if diplomatic efforts are no good whatsoever? I

think the government has to make up its mind, either diplomatic efforts are no

good totally, or they are partially good, or they are all good.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, it is like his handling

of the fisheries in this Province, talking about polls, where 70 per cent of the

people in this Province say that this Minister of Fisheries and this government

are handling the fisheries situation very poorly in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Seventy per cent, Mr. Speaker. So I do not

dispute the statistics in the poll that Decima has found, but I want to say that

it is almost - the minister talked about statistical comparisons when he talked

about the economy and he talked about the environment. He talks about 80 per

cent of Canadians concerned about foreign overfishing. Seventy per cent of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very concerned about what this Minister of

Fisheries and this government are doing for the Newfoundland fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is Volunteer

Week. It started on April 26 and will end on Saturday, May 2. It is a week when

we say thank you to the many individuals who contribute countless hours to

making society a better place in which to live. The year's theme is: Volunteers

- the Heart of the Community. If you look at the list of people who offer freely

of their time, the list is truly the heart of the community: the firefighters,

first-aid workers, coaches and officials involved in amateur sport, hospital

auxiliaries, and people who offer their time to the various boards and

committees. The corporate sector is also involved in voluntarism. Many companies

encourage their employees to volunteer their time aiding community groups.

In 1987 a national survey showed the importance of

volunteers. Around 13 million Canadians volunteer, either through community

groups or by simply helping their neighbours. Each person contributes almost

four hours a week, and that contribution is worth an estimated $13 billion

annually. That's "billion".

There is also recent evidence indicating that volunteering

contributes to a more healthy individual. According to a study from Ontario,

volunteering can give a greater sense of self-worth, reduce heart rates and

blood pressure, and give a boost to both the immune and the nervous system.

To conclude, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are known for

their generosity and for their willingness to help others. On behalf of the

government, I would like to thank all those who volunteer. I also encourage all

residents of the Province to continue to give freely of their time and effort in

helping their communities by continuing to volunteer. We will all be rich from

their efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to stand and

speak on behalf of our caucus, and say that we fully support, endorse and

commend the efforts of the literally thousands of volunteers in this Province

who have done tremendous work over the past number of years.

Mr. Speaker, never before has it been so important to have

dedicated and committed volunteers, because to commit yourself in this Province

today to become a volunteer to serve on a council, for example, you have to do

it realizing that the grant structure in this Province is such that it is almost

impossible to allow yourself to serve as a volunteer. Children are going around

this Province, Mr. Speaker, as volunteers, knocking on doors to try to solicit

funds to help purchase school books and school supplies because of the inaction

of this minister and this government. We have volunteers, Mr. Speaker, going all

over the Province trying to raise money for procedure rooms in hospitals. We

have volunteers going all over the Province trying to raise money for everything

because this government have basically cut out everything to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: You have the firefighters, Mr. Speaker, who

are to be commended. You have this government closing up - as we have seen

recently in Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, they couldn't get their act together.

Volunteers throughout rural Newfoundland - yes, Mr. Speaker, in your district

too - the firefighters, the councils, the people who work with the school

boards, hospital committees, are to be commended, Mr. Speaker, because if it

weren't for these men and women who volunteer many, many hours of work, there

would be no services in this Province worth talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to tell that the cat is away.

When he is away the mice continue to play.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions that relate to the

administration of justice in this Province and, quite frankly, I am not certain

who to ask the questions of. The Minister of Justice does not have a seat in the

House. The Premier, who is a lawyer, is away in Europe. The former Minister of

Justice, who now occupies the Department of Transportation, is not the acting

Minister of Justice so we don't even have a lawyer, apparently, acting as

Minister of Justice. I presume I will ask the question of the Acting Premier.

Maybe we don't have one of those either, but I will take the chance that it is

the Government House Leader. If it isn't, I will ask him to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, now that this government has released the Hughes

Commission report after it has had the report for some eleven months, as we

understand, I ask the Acting Premier, Will the government be immediately tabling

it's response to the recommendations in that report in the next few days?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The short answer is

no. I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that up until the day

that the report was released, members of Cabinet hadn't had copies nor seen, nor

read copies of the Hughes Commission report. The reason it was held was obvious

to anybody who understands the court system, and that is that the report could

not be released simply because of a fear of interfering with the process of

justice in terms of the court cases.

So, Mr. Speaker, for that reason, the report was kept under

wraps. Very few people saw it. I believe three elected people and four or five

officials had seen it up to that point.

Cabinet will, over the next short while, be examining the

recommendations of the Hughes Commission report, and I am hoping, within a very

short time, will make decisions with regard to a response. But it cannot be done

immediately, simply because we have not had the time to examine the report up to

this point in time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am quite surprised.

Is the minister saying that the government have had the report now for eleven

months but the Cabinet did not have a look at the report? Did he also say that

three or four elected people did have access to the report? Well, if three or

four elected people - we will assume they were all ministers, and perhaps he can

confirm that for me in his answer - if three or four ministers had access and

read the report, why did not the Cabinet have a chance to have a look at the

report in the eleven-month period?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question, of

course, has been answered a number of times - I don't know where the hon. member

has been - and everybody is sick and tired of hearing the answer, but I will

give it again.

Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the Hughes Commission report

was submitted to government quite some time ago. At that point in time there

were court cases ongoing, prospective trials and so on, and it was determined by

the Minister of Justice at the time that to release the report could possibly

interfere with the process of justice, could interfere with fair trials being

carried out throughout the system, and that is the reason it was held.

Now, it is pretty obvious to anybody who knows anything about

the court system that this was something that had to be done. Because that was

being done, the only people who had access to the report were the Minister and

his officials in Social Services, and the Minister and some officials in

Justice. Beyond that, the report was kept under wraps and was not distributed

until it was available to everybody. We will now consider the report and, in a

fairly short time frame, make decisions with regard to the recommendations and

publicly report them in this hon. House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, again, let us try to get some

clarification. The Cabinet operates under an oath of secrecy. Every minister in

the Cabinet has given an oath of secrecy. I want to ask the minister this: Did

Ed Roberts, who presently holds the portfolio of Minister of Justice but is not

elected to this House, have access to this report? If so, then why didn't other

Cabinet ministers who have been elected to this House not have access to the

report?

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

MR. BAKER: Now I can see, Mr. Speaker, what he is getting

at. What a silly approach!

Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roberts, when he became Minister of

Justice, a Minister of the Crown, did, at that point in time, have access to the

report. Certainly, it is obvious to all members of the House, it is obvious to

everybody, that that was the situation. It is kind of a waste of a question in

Question Period isn't it?

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will be up to

others to judge what questions are a waste, not up to the Government House

Leader.

Let me ask him a specific question, Mr. Speaker, dealing with

some of the recommendations in the Hughes Commission report. Mr. Hughes

recommended the establishment of a police commission. I ask the Acting Premier,

Will the government be moving in this spring sitting, to introduce legislation

to create such a police commission? Because it, too, has certainly been

considered by government, perhaps for longer than the eleven months they have

been sitting on the Hughes Commission report?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out

something that again should be obvious, and I am assuming that everybody

understands, but in view of the member's question I sometimes wonder. I would

like to explain that this was an examination into primarily the justice system

during the 70s. This was primarily an examination into that justice system and a

lot of recommendations that came out of the Hughes Commission relate to the way

justice was administered in the 70s. I am very proud to report to hon. members

that many of these recommendations were already implemented in the normal course

of events.

Now, there are two or three outstanding items. The police

commission was one, and I believe the solicitor general position is another

recommendation, and so on. These will be taken into account by Cabinet and we

will very shortly be discussing these recommendations and notifying the House as

to what the position of government is. Mr. Speaker, that is where it stands. I

don't know how many times I have to repeat this to the hon. member. He just

doesn't understand.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the acting Premier and the acting

Minister of Justice, I guess, which again pertains to the Hughes report. In

Recommendation 33, Justice Hughes made a strong inference that government is

liable to those complainants who are wards of the Director of Child Welfare. I

ask the minister, Does government acknowledge liability in this case?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, inferences that may be there are

things that the hon. gentleman gets out of it, so I cannot respond to his

interpretation of something that is in the report.

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

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

Therein lies the problem -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and until it is dealt with by the

Premier, we are going to continue having a problem, like we have a Minister of

Justice who does not sit in this House and is not answerable to the elected

representatives of the people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Justice Hughes recommends that government

set up a compensation fund for victims of child abuse who were wards of the

Director of Child Welfare. Government recently cancelled the crimes compensation

program, from which I understand these individuals could have received

compensation. Will government now reinstate these programs?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I keep repeating that Cabinet

will, in the very near future, consider the outstanding recommendations that

have not been dealt with in the last number of years, the outstanding

recommendations from the Hughes Commission report, and when we have made up our

minds we will then report to this House as to exactly what the position is. I

would suggest that some of the inferences the hon. member is getting at, some of

those recommendations, simply do not exist.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, this is not an inference, this

is a specific recommendation from Justice Hughes, and recently government

cancelled that particular program. The minister, in answering the Leader of the

Opposition, said that government had already enacted some of the recommendations

of the Hughes report, so I guess my supplementary is, Was the cancellation of

that particular compensation fund for victims of child abuse, one of

government's reactions to the Hughes report? Can the minister answer that? Is

that why that program was cancelled, in anticipation of a response to the Hughes

report?

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, there was no such fund set up

that the hon. gentleman just described. It just simply did not exist. There was

a crimes compensation fund which was instituted by - and I will repeat it

several times - by the federal government, the federal government, the federal

government, Mr. Speaker, where there was a small contribution made by the

provincial government towards that particular program. Then, Mr. Speaker, a year

ago the federal government cancelled the program - the federal government

cancelled the program. I will repeat it again for the hon. member if he does not

Now, Mr. Speaker, what did we do in response? Did we cut off our funding to that

whole program as a provincial government? No. There is $1 million in this year's

Budget. There is not enough to fund the total federal program - the federal

program, so we are phasing out that program and we are putting our money where

we feel it is most effective and that is in the direction of counselling, and so

on, and getting people through the very difficult trial period and after the

trial period, Mr. Speaker. So we are stepping in, trying to fill, as best we

can, the void created by the federal government, who started the program and

then cancelled it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Council

can squirm all he likes, but the two or three people whom he already told the

House had the copy of the Hughes report -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ministers.

MR. MATTHEWS: - ministers, some elected and one not, knew

the contents of the report and were sitting around the table and made the

decision to wipe out this compensation program for victims.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right, right on!

MR. MATTHEWS: - Mr. Speaker, the minister can squirm all

he likes, but those people who had the information sat around the table and made

the decision to cancel that program. He can say all he wants but that is the

truth of it.

MR. SIMMS: Right on!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - Now, I want to ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary: Is government prepared to submit claims for

compensation to arbitration, as recommended by Justice Hughes? Will they do

that?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to see the hon. member squirm and try to

turn the blame around from the federal government to the provincial. It is

amazing. He always does it. He has done the same thing in the fishery, tried to

turn things around so that all of a sudden, a federal program that was brought

in and cancelled, now, all of a sudden was cancelled by the provincial

government, but, Mr. Speaker, that simply will not wash.

Now, in answer to the question he asked, I will repeat again,

in case he didn't hear me the first four or five times. The outstanding

recommendations of the Hughes' Commission will be considered by Cabinet and an

announcement will be made, our position will be made clear, as soon as the

Cabinet decision is made. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not, on the spur of the

moment, going to be stampeded into making decisions by the tirades of the

members opposite.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a question for the Premier, but in his absence, I will

ask the acting Premier, the President of Treasury Board. Does the minister

consider the fact that the wife of the Minister of Justice is a partner in a law

firm which holds a substantial contract for providing legal services to an

agency of the government, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, to

be a conflict of interest under the current conflict of interest guidelines?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, the law

firm of Halley, Hunt was given a contract to handle the legal business of

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, in a normal process whereby every four or

five years we change the law firms which are providing the services to

government agencies. No, Mr. Speaker, we do not see that as a conflict.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Several ministers were directed by the Premier to divest

themselves of various interests they had. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture for example, was directed by the Premier to get rid of a particular

business he had. On this particular matter, the Premier took a completely

different position from the one he took then. My question is, why the

distinction between that and what appears to be a more serious violation, and

why is he showing such favouritism to the Minister of Justice in light of the

fact that the present contract says: a contract for the supply of goods and

services? The present one already covers that.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is

confused, because his original facts are not correct. His premises are not

correct, therefore his conclusion, obviously, cannot be correct.

Mr. Speaker, the contract to provide legal services to

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador rests with that particular law firm. It was

awarded some time ago, it will not be re-awarded to that same firm and if, for

instance, the contract had been awarded while the present Minister of Justice

was in Cabinet or had an interest in that firm, then it could be conceived as

being a conflict, I suppose. But there will be no award to that firm when the

normal time is up, when the contract comes to an end.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to

explain how it was different, that the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture had

entered into an agreement, I think it was with Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation, prior to his becoming a minister, the Premier said that he had to

get rid of it, and the same type of contract had been entered into prior to Mr.

Roberts becoming a minister. Now, how is that different? One, he supplied a

building, the other, the firm supplies a service. How is it different? Can the

minister explain how that's different?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman can

assume it is the same, I don't. I don't know the exact circumstances that he

refers to. I do not specifically recall the exact circumstances he referred to

in the beginning with the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I believe that

the minister was renting a building, or part of a building, to the Liquor

Corporation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes. The minister was in the process of either

selling the building or divesting himself and so on. That happened over a period

of time, Mr. Speaker. It was not that the Premier ordered him right away to get

rid of it. That is not what happened. In this instance the determination is made

that when that normal period comes to an end that that contract will not be

re-awarded to Halley, Hunt. In following our policy we will rotate the

government business to other law firms so that will not be re-awarded.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this just doesn't wash. What he

is saying for one does not apply for the other. Given the fact that during the

1989 election campaign the Premier said: I consider it totally incompatible for

a minister or a member of his family or company in which the minister or a

member of his family has any interest to carry out work for the government. Why

has the Premier reduced his standards in the case of Mr. Roberts? We have two

petitions: one, the current regulations; also, the Premier's 1989 commitment.

Why has it been reduced for Mr. Roberts? What is the explanation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is being

treated exactly as anybody else would be treated, in accordance with the

conflict of interest guidelines, and all procedures have been followed. I could

check into the total situation in terms of Mr. Roberts and perhaps the Premier

could deal with that when he gets back. As far as I am concerned he has been

dealt with exactly the same as anybody else would be dealt with under the

current legislation, and that is dealt with properly.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is

very difficult to deal with questions relating to the Hughes report, I guess, or

anything else, when you have a Minister of Justice who is not elected in this

House and a Premier who has only been here five days since the House opened this

year. So I will ask the deputy Premier. Maybe he can answer this question, maybe

he could explain to the people of this Province and to the House why it is

taking so long to get a seat for the Minister of Justice, a non-elected Minister

of Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in light of his

preamble, that is

a strange question, because -

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

I remind hon. members this is Question Period. In order for

the Question Period to flow smoothly, hon. members should at least maintain a

modicum of decorum. I say to hon. members to my right, particularly, if they are

not satisfied with the answer, that the time will come again.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of his

preamble the question is surprising. He said: because the Minister of Justice is

not - he cannot ask the question to the Minister of Justice because he is not in

the House. The obvious statement, how could he possibly ask the question of the

Minister of Justice if he was in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice - it

takes you a while to follow that, doesn't it? I understand that. It'll sink in

about ten minutes from now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will take

his seat in this House as soon as a seat becomes available for him to run in. We

cannot create an extra seat. In the normal course of events seats generally come

open every so often. The next seat that comes open I assume that the Minister of

Justice will perhaps run in that seat, or if not the next one that comes open,

then the one after. He will soon get a seat.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do

notice the backbenchers over there laughing that we have a non-elected Minister

of Justice. The backbenchers over there are the ones who should be embarrassed.

Because they are incompetent. The Premier thinks they are too incompetent to go

in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe the acting Premier can

answer this. It has been 165 days now since the Premier announced in this House

- 168, I believe it is, or 165 - that he was going to put a non-elected person

as Minister of Justice, that his own backbenchers were too incompetent to handle

the portfolio, and he would bring in a non-elected person.

Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Premier once again answer, for

the people of this Province, and relate to them, why arrangements were not made

in the time between the announcement of Mr. Robert's appointment and the time

that he cleared up his law practice, which took a couple of months, I believe,

why weren't arrangements made in that time to allow for a seat for him so he

could be an elected member of this House of Assembly and answer for the

responsibilities that he is given?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon.

gentleman that the people of the Province decided that they weren't capable of

coming over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: I have forgotten what the question was now.

Mr. Speaker, I know what the question was. I was just kidding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members opposite that

times have changed, that there is a new government in power in this Province and

there is a new approach to politics. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we don't -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: - we don't turn around and point a finger at

someone and say: you resign. We don't control those things. Mr. Speaker, they

speak as if you could easily arrange for that. In other words, you could order

someone to resign or something. Mr. Speaker, that is not the proper way to do

things. What you do is you wait until a seat comes open, and seats come open for

a variety of reasons I have heard. So, Mr. Speaker, you wait until a seat comes

open and, when a seat comes open, then you expect that within the next seat or

two seats that come open that the Minister of Justice will then run and get

elected and sit in the House. That is the normal course of events, Mr. Speaker,

and that normal course will be followed. It is as simple as that.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a new era in politics, no doubt about

that, and we do have a real change in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we have a

Premier over talking to the Armed Forces in Lahr in Germany. I don't know if he

is trying to start a coup or something like that and appoint more of his Cabinet

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have reminded hon. members on several occasions that

supplementaries are to get into the question. Hon. members are continuously

taking advantage. The Chair does not mind the odd occasion but when it becomes a

practice then the Chair must intercede. So I ask hon. members, please, to get to

the question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Acting Premier: Why was it that the

Member for Windsor - Buchans at one time had to give up his seat to find a seat

for the Premier? Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Member for Bay of Islands had

to give up his seat when the Premier couldn't get elected in the last election?

And why was the Member for St. George's asked to give up his seat, and he

wouldn't give up his seat? Can the Acting Premier answer these questions, Mr.

Speaker, and can he also answer the question as to what happened to the Member

for Naskaupi, if we have one or if we don't have one? The sick Member for

Naskaupi, I guess it is right now, who announced he was in and announced he was

out, Mr. Speaker, what happened to him after the Premier went up and begged the

Liberal Association to allow Ed Roberts to run there, had to beg them? What

happened to the Member for Naskaupi who backed out on the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

and did not resign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again I will say to the hon.

member that he is still living in the past, obviously. He has an

interpretation

of events, Mr. Speaker, and he tends to rewrite history every time he opens his

mouth. He has his own version of events, Mr. Speaker, and all of these versions

of events that he just gave this hon. House, every single one of them, are

totally wrong, every one of them without exception.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

As the Minister is aware, Mr. Speaker, over the last

three-month period three cases of meningitis have occurred in the Labrador West

portion of the Province. One person has died just recently and another died last

year. That indicates, as the minister said in his press statement of April 24,

that there is active transmission occurring within that affected age group.

Is the government considering, in light of this most recent

tragedy in Labrador, a province-wide vaccination program?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to have a

sensible question asked for a change. I thought the whole Question Period was

going to be a total waste.

I tell the hon. member that the meningococcal disease is

being dealt with in Labrador West. The professionals who are dealing with this

matter have advised me that it is not necessary, nor is it appropriate, to

embark on a full-scale vaccination for the whole Province. The way this

particular disease is treated, normally the doctors isolate the region where the

meningococcal disease is found, and the first thing they do is give an

antibiotic which is given to the people who are in close contact with the person

who has it. If it continues to cluster around a community or a school or what

have you, then as a last and final resort they vaccinate. They tend to avoid

vaccinations because vaccinations are only 60 per cent effective, and there is

the danger that people might feel that everything is just great after they have

the vaccination, which is not the case.

So there are a whole lot of approaches taken to deal with

this particular disease, and they are all being taken in Labrador West. There is

an orderly trail to be followed, and that is being done by the professionals who

know much better than I do how to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary.

In view of the fact that this is the fourth case now that has

occurred in Labrador West, is it reasonable to assume, let me ask the minister,

that had government moved some months ago on this vaccination program in

Labrador West, instead of waiting until now, that these tragedies could have

been avoided? In other words, is there a lesson for us to have learned in all of

this, and why has government waited until now on this vaccination program in

Labrador West? And is there any danger that if they do the same thing on a

province-wide vaccination that there might very well be a very hard lesson for

us to learn?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is raising some

questions which are probably the trap that the layman will fall into every time.

Now the advice that I am getting is that vaccinations are to

be used only as a last resort. As I pointed out earlier, there is no such thing

as a safe vaccination against meningococcal disease. Now people might not like

to hear that, but it is the reality. The reality is that there are certain

diseases which there are no absolute vaccinations against. Cancer is one, and

meningococcal disease is another one. Sixty per cent of the time it is accurate.

To embark on a full-scale vaccination of the Province could have made matters

worse because we would have given 570,000 people a vaccination which would only

have been 60 per cent accurate. Five hundred and seventy thousand people would

have felt that they were absolutely, totally safe. They could well have shared

the same bottle to drink out of, the same glass to drink out of. They could have

continued to share cigarettes, and probably would not have been as careful as

they have been without being vaccinated. So, Mr. Speaker, the advice I am

getting is that it was not the proper thing to do. I am advised that the only

time to vaccinate is in very, very special cases.

The hon. member will recall that we vaccinated the children

in a school in Mount Pearl, I think it was last year or the year before, in a

special case; but the full-scale vaccination - my advice is that this would not

have been the way to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired. The Speaker has

too - just about.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

House the 1990-91 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service

Commission.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow on

the Order Paper I have a notice of motion there, and with the concurrence of the

House if it is in order, and if the House Leader would agree, I would like to

change the

Be It Resolved to read:

Be It Resolved that the government take

necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of

Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure. Is the hon. member

introducing an amendment to his resolution?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is for the

concurrence of the House to remove the

Be It Resolved and replace it with this

particular

Be It Resolved.

MR. SPEAKER: I would assume that should be done in

tomorrows debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: He is asking for the concurrence of the

House. I realize that. Obviously he does not have the concurrence of the House.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the following members - and I am not going to read out the

members, Mr. Speaker - what I want to do is give notice of the formation of the

Estimates Committees, the Government Services Committees to handle Finance,

Works and Services, Employment and Labour Relations, Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, the Housing Corporation, and the Social Services Committee to handle

Social Services, Education, Health, Environment and Lands, and Justice, and the

Resource Committee to handle Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and

Energy, and Development, and of course the Executive Council and Consolidated

Revenue and so on will be done in the House in the normal manner. I would like

to give notice of this for tomorrow.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise here under Notices of

Motion. I may be out of order. The last day we sat, I believe it was Friday,

April 10, the hon. Member for St. John's East gave notice that he would on

tomorrow move the following resolution, and the last resolve is 'Be It Therefore

Resolved that the House of Assembly supports the recognition of designation of

the 28th of April of each year as a day of mourning for persons killed or

injured in the workplace and directs the government to declare such a day as an

official day of mourning by such name without creating a legal holiday.

Now of course a technicality kept this from being on the

Order Paper, I believe, Mr. Speaker. It was not printed for some reason. So I am

just wondering if the Government House Leader might concur and we could deal

with the hon. member's resolution by unanimous consent. It does not need a

debate. Since today is the 28th we thought it would have been on the Order Paper

today, but for some technicality or something to do with printing it is not. The

notice was given, I believe, on the 10th of April, the last Friday that we were

here before we recessed.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this particular notice that was

declared all across Canada that this day be a day of mourning for persons killed

across Canada. Now the last time I looked we were still a province of Canada. We

are still part of that country, Mr. Speaker, and what we do or do not do has no

bearing on the situation because it has already been declared for all parts of

Canada, and, Mr. Speaker, we support that. So there is nothing else that we have

to do because it has already been done. It is just an example of the member

trying to get his name in the paper and so on. That is generally what it is.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter was raised

as a point of order and I may speak to it as such. The fact that the Parliament

of Canada has designated today as a day of mourning doesn't necessarily imply

anything other than the federal government has, on behalf of itself and the

federal jurisdiction, done so. Obviously we have provincial holidays and there

are federal holidays, and the Province has a jurisdiction in workplace safety

and health just as the federal government does in its federal jurisdiction. So I

think the Government House Leader is splitting hairs here and trying to avoid

action by his government in, what it says here, supporting and the recognition

and designation of that day as a day of mourning for persons killed or injured

in the workplace. Now, if the government supports it, then presumably they will

give unanimous consent to such a resolution. If they don't support it, then they

won't.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give

unanimous consent for the hon. member's little charade. It is obvious to

everybody that this has already been done by the federal government, number one.

Number two, we support that, we are part of Canada and it has already been

declared for this Province, as for every other province in Canada. Because if it

weren't that way - and you don't need to shake your head - the federal

government would have no jurisdiction anywhere and it wouldn't apply anywhere in

the country. So it doesn't make sense. So, Mr. Speaker, it has already been done

for the country and I am not going to give unanimous consent to be part of a

little game being played by the Member for St. John's East.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member asked that there

be unanimous consent and there is not unanimous consent.

Just to point out one thing for hon. members, as I understand

it I believe the Opposition House Leader indicated that maybe the resolution

wasn't on the Order Paper today. It is my understanding that it is a private

member's resolution and it wouldn't be on the Order Paper today anyway, it would

only be on Wednesday's. That has been a procedure of the House for some time.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Extend Restraint

Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province." (Bill No. 17)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware whether this is the

first time or whether it is the picking up of an adjourned debate. Is it

adjourned debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourned debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10. The Chair was asking whether this

was the first introduction of the bill or whether it was a debate that was

adjourned.

MR. BAKER: Adjourned debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate, yes.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I introduced the bill. If I speak

now, that finishes second reading.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, get up then.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been waiting for some time

just to tell hon. members that, please, they should stand in their places. If

the Chair had recognized the hon. the President of Treasury Board, that

precisely would have been the procedure, but the Chair was not quite aware who

introduced the debate. So I ask hon. members, please, to co-operate in that

respect.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for not getting up fast, but, Mr. Speaker, I was

aware that somebody on that side had adjourned the debate at the last sitting. I

was not sure which one of them adjourned the debate and I was waiting for that

person to conclude their debate. But I understand it was the Minister of

Development and he is not here to be able to conclude the debate. So I will have

a few words to say on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

The numbering of it as 17, Mr. Speaker, is ironic as last

year we had 16 in just about exactly the same type of bill. I think I described

Bill 16 as the 'Putting the boots to the public servants bill', Mr. Speaker.

That would be a more apt name for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, what I saw happening last year in Bill 16 and

this year in Bill 17, and most likely next year in probably a Bill 18 - it

depends on whether the Premier wants to call an election next year or not - we

still could have Bill 18 because I don't think the Premier would mind.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is taking away rights that people have

worked very hard for over quite a few number of years. Public servants in this

Province put a lot of work into establishing their association, as it was called

at one time, now it is called a union. NAPE is the union for the public servants

of this Province, the major one. They also have a union for the nurses.

Different unions in the health care system. We have CUPE representing some of

the public servants in this Province. Each and every one of those groups has

worked very hard over the years to try to negotiate with different governments.

Not only this one but with different governments. To get some benefits for their

members, or for themselves, I guess. Their union is only a collection of

themselves and they have someone to speak for them.

So they work very hard to try to get these rights in an

agreement, negotiated rights. Governments of this Province negotiated with the

unions representing public service. The governments of this Province agreed to

give these union and representatives of the public servants certain rights and

privileges and certain benefits, which a bill like Bill 17 wipes out in one fell

swoop, without any consideration of negotiations, without any consideration of

what has gone on in the past. A bill like Bill 17 shows the unfairness of having

an employer who holds the big stick. It shows the difficulty that public service

unions have in negotiating with their employer, when if the employer cannot get

what it wants at the bargaining table, it always has another step, to come to

the House of Assembly to do whatever it wanted to do in the first place.

The public service unions, or the members of the public

service, have only one option. They can go and bargain and if they do not agree,

if they cannot agree on some kind of a collective agreement, they have one

option that is to either drop it, I suppose, or to go on strike. That is the

option the public service has. If the government of the day does not like the

fact that they could be legally striking, what governments of the day usually do

- including one that I served with - is to bring in a bill in this House of

Assembly and legislate these people back to work.

I do not think it is very fair for governments to be able to

use this avenue in collective bargaining. I heard the president of the teachers'

union suggesting that there is no collective bargaining in this Province any

more. He called it collective begging. That would more aptly describe what you

would have to do with this government to get some types of concessions.

By doing what this government has done for two years in a row

creates among the public servants of this Province a destruction of their

morale. It certainly would destroy any productivity that might be necessary in

our public service. It certainly builds up a lack of trust between the

government, which is running this Province, and the people who have to do the

day-to-day work. When that happens, when you have this lack of trust, when you

have this affect on productivity, and when you have people so dissatisfied with

what the government is doing to them, it affects the services that go out to

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province.

I do not blame the public service in this Province for being

disillusioned and disappointed in what this government is doing to them. Quite a

few of them, I would say, quite a few of those people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. R. AYLWARD: They reacted probably the way they should

react when we gave them a dart, Mr. Speaker, they did what they should have

done. Both the union leadership and the members did exactly what they should

have done. I might not have agreed with it at the time, I might not have liked

what they were doing, and I certainly did not like the fact that they worked

extremely hard to elect the 'real change'. I argued with many of them while I

was doing my door-to-door campaign about this 'real change' and I argued

vehemently with a lot of them who were friends of mine who were members of NAPE

and who were upset with the PC's of the Province at the time. I said to most of

them, if you want to put in a new government, try to realize what you are

putting in.

First of all, you are putting in a man who cannot afford to

be Leader of the Opposition of this Province. You are putting in a person who

has to have a bonus cheque sent to him every month to a total of $50,000 or

$55,000 while he was Leader of the Opposition - sent to him secretly so that no

one in the Province knew where it was coming from or who was giving it. We know

now who was giving it, Mr. Speaker. We know now that it had to be Tom Hickman

who got these hospital contracts for - oh, it is going to cost the Province some

$18 or $19 million over the term - the twenty-five year term of the contract. So

we know at least one person who was giving the $50,000 or $55,000 a year now -

probably a great contributor, but I say to him, it was money well invested. I

say to him, it was money well invested from his point of view, because if he

gave a third, or maybe even one half of that fifty odd thousand dollars a year,

he has his money back more than tenfold in one simple little contract. Mr.

Speaker, not only does he get his money back in that contract, but he did not

even have to be the lowest bidder on the contract, which is quite convenient.

MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio on a

point of order.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no one should be allowed to make those kind of

scurrilous attacks and hide behind the privilege of the House. Go outside if the

member wants to make those kind of statements. He has no proof of the

allegations, but I guess he has been spending too much time in his tomato

patches and he is sunstroked. No one should be allowed to do that.

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

If the Member for Kilbride is speaking to the point of order,

there is no point of order. I call on the Member for Kilbride to continue his

remarks.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the rookie Member for Mount Scio in his

only term in this House of Assembly wants to get up and participate in points of

order. I do not think yet, in all the times that he has raised a point of order,

that the Speaker of the time has ever ruled it to be a correct point of order.

So I guess he will learn eventually by trial and error what is a point of order

and what is not a point of order.

But if he did follow the media over the last little while, I

think he would see that I was not shy in saying the same things on the public

airwaves, in my office, in this building, outside of this building, whenever I

was asked, because I firmly believe that the contracts that were given out for

the three hospitals were a complete waste of public funds, and it was illegal to

do so.

According to our Public Tendering Act it was illegal to give

out these contracts the way they were given out, but in this Province now when

you have a dictator running it, it does not matter I guess what is legal and

what is illegal. It is whatever the Premier wants that is going to happen, and

if that be a Minister of Justice who does not have to be elected, well sobeit,

because our Premier would like to have a Minister of Justice who is not elected

- besides the fact that he does not have anyone competent enough in his back

benches to fill the post. I guess that would only be a sidebar to the Premier,

but I guess that is up to the backbenchers on that side if they want to put up

with the embarrassment of working for a Premier who has absolutely no confidence

in their abilities to carry out any functions in the Cabinet that he represents.

AN HON. MEMBER: When does he comes back off holidays?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That is where he is.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe one of these days when

he does get back off holidays, with him and his wife travelling around Europe on

taxpayers dollars, we might get some answers to some of the questions that are

being raised in this House of Assembly.

It is obvious that the acting Premier, or the Government

House Leader, has no intention of giving any answers to any of the questions

that we have to ask, and it is very obvious that the Minister of Justice is not

going to go seek very quickly a seat in this House of Assembly.

I would really like to know what the Member for Naskaupi is

holding out for. What plum is he looking for? What job does he want? Maybe we

could accommodate him. If you would tell us what job he is looking to get, or

what blackmail he is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I bring to the hon. member's attention the requirement

relating to relevancy in a debate. We are talking about Bill 17 and though the

Chair does not want to become too restrictive it is the job of the Chair to

expedite the business of the House and when a member seems to be into some area

that has no apparent relation to the bill the Chair has no choice but to bring

it to the attention of the member.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I was talking about a former Cabinet minister who at one time

made a decision on Bill 16 which is exactly the same as this Bill 17, and if

Cabinet ministers who make these decisions on the bills and who bring them

before this House when they write them up, are not relevant to the bill, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know really who is. The present Member for Naskaupi was a

member of the Cabinet that brought in Bill 16 and the present non-elected

Minister of Justice is a member of Cabinet now who is presenting to this House

of Assembly this bill, so I guess a few comments on the ministers of this House

would not be totally irrelevant from the bill.

I am very concerned about the Cabinet ministers and how they

make their decisions in this Province, whether it is held over their heads that

they, like the Member for Port de Grave, would be thrown out of Cabinet for very

little reason and somebody would replace him again. Maybe the rest of the

Cabinet ministers are being threatened with this, too, and the Premier will

replace the member as he did the Member for Port de Grave, with some other

non-elected person. The Member for Port de Grave did not get replaced at the

time with an non-elected person but he was the one who made room for some of the

changes.

Was the Member for Humber West, when he resigned, threatened

to do something at the time by the Premier to force him to resign so that we

could get an non-elected member put in Cabinet? I am not sure if that is correct

or not. I had some statistics when I was asking these questions today about

non-elected members of this House of Assembly. From the time of the announcement

of the present Minister of Justice I think it has been some 165 or 168 days

since that announcement. One might remember that throughout our history we have

had, on different occasions, people put in Cabinet who were not elected. It is

not totally unacceptable, I guess, it is not totally unusual that non-elected

people be put in Cabinet, but you would expect that within a reasonable time

after being put in Cabinet they would try to find a seat. I guess defining

reasonable would be - the President of Treasury has a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Maybe he could call a general election

next week. That certainly is an option for the Premier at any time. That is his

call and I have no problem with that, if that is what he wants to do. What he

has done now is put a non-elected person in the Cabinet for 165 days and over

our history some of the people who were put in Cabinet and some of the times

they did serve - I have a list of them here, I think the first one was in 1952

and it was a man named Arthur Johnson. I do not even know the name.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair again finds it an obligation to remind the member

that the Chair does not want to restrict the member but we do have to follow the

rules. We are talking about Bill 17, "An Act To Extend Restraint Of Compensation

In The Public Sector Of The Province." The Chair may not be following the hon.

member's line of argument but the Chair sees no connection between Bill 17 right

now, "An Act To Extend Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The

Province," and in the present line the hon. member is pursuing. He could do it

on a money bill but where we are talking about, "An Act To Extend Restraint Of

Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province," the Chair, unfortunately,

sees no relationship. If the hon. member can convince the Chair there is a

relationship, the Chair will allow it to continue, but the Chair sees no

relationship between Bill 17 and what the hon. member is now doing.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will

try to relate a bit closer what I was trying to do by showing the fact that the

Premier has non-elected people in his Cabinet, and that it has been done in the

past. We are talking about wage restraints in this bill. Mr. Speaker, we have an

unnecessary salary in that Cabinet, as far as I am concerned. We have a

non-elected person put into the Cabinet of this Province who is drawing a salary

the same as the public service. Mr. Speaker, he has a MHAs pension presently in

his pocket. Every time he comes in to receive his pay cheque he has a MHAs

pension that he is receiving already. Mr. Speaker, we ask the public servants of

this Province to restrain, and yet we can put non-elected people in the Cabinet.

How many are in the back benches over there? There must be ten to fourteen of

them over there who are getting salaries from the public service, anyway. Why

don't you pick one of them and put him in there so we don't have extra salaries

in the Cabinet, so we don't have to be paying out? We can restrain them. You

could, Mr. Speaker, say maybe to the public servants of this Province if we did

by example what we ask them to do. We have three other people on that side of

the House who receive pensions in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, two who

receive pensions from a public -

AN HON. MEMBER: A public-funded institution.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is a public-funded institution. I

don't know how the pension fund is funded, Mr. Speaker, but we have two people

in this House of Assembly receiving pensions from Memorial University.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. R. AYLWARD: We have another person in this House of

Assembly receiving a federal MPs pension, as far as I know. We have a Minister

of Justice who doesn't have to be elected receiving a MHAs pension, and then we

ask the public servants of this Province to restrain. I think it is very

relevant, Mr. Speaker, that we be able to relate. We have the Member for

Naskaupi who is not even working, who is not doing anything, who has admitted

twice that he wanted to resign from this House of Assembly, and who changed his

mind. He changed his mind, Mr. Speaker, and now he will not resign. He wants to

go on sick leave. There is no such thing as sick leave as a MHA. I don't think

there are any sick days that MHAs are given in a collective agreement. We are

trying to take sick leave away from the managers in this House of Assembly as a

restraint measure, yet we have the Member for Naskaupi in this House of Assembly

who can put his feet up on his coffee table and look at television all day for -

how much would he be getting? - $60.000 or $70,000 a year to put his feet up on

his coffee table. And we ask the public service of this Province to restrain.

Now if that is not the biggest joke that ever was, Mr. Speaker, I don't know

what is.

I have been told that on the news today, some people in the

Naskaupi area, particularly some of the leaders in the Naskaupi area, have the

same misgivings about what is happening there as I do. We know that the Member

for Eagle River has taken on the responsibilities and we congratulate him for

it. He is a great, fine, energetic young man who can't even handle his own

district, and now he has two districts, Mr. Speaker! He is trying hard but his

own Premier called him an immature little fellow and could put him in Cabinet,

so now he gives him two districts to look after. And then again we asked the

public servants of this Province to restrain. I am surprised they are not up in

the galleries here going off their rocker, Mr. Speaker, about -

MR. MURPHY: You drove them out of it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Probably. Maybe I did, Mr. Speaker. Maybe

I did drive them out of it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Maybe you will have them back, too.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, they might be back here in

shorter time than the hon. the Member for St. John's South might like to

realize. They will be around. But, Mr. Speaker, what do we have going on now? A

government should show by example, if they are going to bring in bills like

this. The example of this government is to pay out an unnecessary salary for

someone who has admitted he is not going to do any work for his constituents,

and then put an non-elected person in Cabinet, which is another unnecessary

salary this government is paying out to someone who can't even get a seat in

this House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Town Council in the District of

Naskaupi today raised the concern of not having representation in this House of

Assembly. Now, I don't know if the Member for Eagle River has written them yet

and told them that he is looking after it. Probably he has written and told them

he will be looking after that district. I am sure that will alleviate

immediately all of their concerns, Mr. Speaker, because they know the Member for

Eagle River will be looking after his -

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be looking after them from

Ottawa.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - the member who could not make Cabinet

as the Labrador Cabinet minister; it is fairly common in this House of Assembly,

to have someone in Cabinet to represent Labrador, but he could not make that

grade. And he will eventually, I have no doubt that eventually he will mature

enough to get the Premier's confidence to put him in Cabinet but he may have to

go through two or three elections yet and by that time probably there will be no

Cabinets around for this Premier to be able to put him in Cabinet. But I would

say, once the Member for Eagle River cools his heels over here in Opposition for

a few years, he will be looking to cross the floor to join the Tories when they

are over on that side and try to get a shot at Cabinet.

But if he does what I would like to do in the Elections Act,

we should put in a clause that nobody anymore crosses the floor one way or the

other and he would not be able to come over.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is what we asked the

public servants in this Province to do and what the Government of this Province

is doing by example. It is very obvious, the example this government is giving

the public servants, and it is no wonder there would be unrest. It is no wonder

they would feel slighted by having this type of legislation shoved down their

throats every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shove billy knockers down their throats.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I wish they would shove one down your

throat sometime. Mr. Speaker, this Bill 17 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that parliamentary?

MR. R. AYLWARD: - It is probably not parliamentary, Mr.

Speaker and I withdraw it. I would not want to see a billy knocker down his

throat, he would swallow it and he wouldn't even miss it.

Last year we had Bill 16, and it was my opinion at the time

that not enough fuss was made of Bill 16. And I believe while I was speaking in

this House of Assembly at the time, I suggested if someone, whomever, the public

service union leaders or the public service, themselves do not take a very

forceful stand on Bill 16 - I think if you research Hansard, I said you will

have another Bill 16 this year. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have it; we have another

Bill 16 and I can only make another recommendation to the public servants of

this Province and it looks like they might heed some recommendations this time

around. I would make another recommendation to the public servants, that if they

do not take a very, very strong stand on Bill 17, we will have a Bill 18 next

year.

Now, I think the public service leadership of this Province

realizes now that they certainly have to do something very forceful with this

government in order to make the point that they are not going to stand for this

year after year after year. They are not going to stand for this type of

legislation, they are going to have to make a stand and force this government

into a collective bargaining era, they have to get back to the table.

Now, if the government has an agenda for wage freezes or for

zero and zero or for minimum raises, let them put it on the table before the

public service unions so they can negotiate it. If they are going to get a zero

and zero or you are going to get a zero and three, let the public service unions

negotiate something else on the other side of the bargain, maybe a work security

might be a reasonable saw off for giving up some wages or benefits. I think the

public service of this Province might wish to listen to that because there were

some 2,000 or 3,000 of them laid off last year. I think most public servants

felt fairly secure in their positions until this government took over, but last

year we supposedly had lay offs of between 2,000 and 3,000 people, so obviously

there is no job security with the present public service in this Province, so

that if the government wanted some concessions on wages and benefits, if there

was, truly a problem as bad as the government says with the finances of this

Province, why do they not go back to the bargaining table and bargain with the

public service sector unions so that if they have to give up on one side they

might be able to gain on some other issues?

But, Mr. Speaker, what this government does is go out and

sign contracts with them, as they did last year, sign contracts only days before

they brought in their Bill 16, and then come into this House of Assembly and rip

up every contract, every agreement, that they had with the public servants of

this Province.

Minister of Transportation in this House a few months ago who said he would not

be Minister of Transportation for awhile until certain private things happen.

But he had no ministerial responsibilities, he was not doing the work of the

Department of Transportation at the time, admittedly so, and the Premier

admitted that he was not. So we can only assume at the time that he would not

have been paid as a minister for those few months before he resigned as

minister, and while he was not serving the duties of Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

We would assume he was not getting paid, because they are

asking public servants to restrain. So, certainly, if a Minister of the Crown is

not doing his job, not living up to his responsibilities, he would not be paid

for it. Now, I believe he was being paid for it. As a matter of fact, the

Premier told us in this House that he was being paid for it.

Another restraint we have, an example of what government is

doing in this House, is that we have a non-elected Minister of Justice in this

House of Assembly today who has an executive assistant. Now, what for? He does

not have a district. Why does he have an executive assistant? Is that not

another savings, is that not another restraint that government could show the

public servants of this Province? No wonder they are upset when they see that

this government who preach restraint and preach cutbacks, preach for everyone

except themselves. They will not show by example.

We have conflict of interest legislation that the Premier

interprets differently day by day. How can the Public Service Commission or even

the general public have confidence in governments which bring in this type of

legislation, when we see what the government is doing in this Province by

example?

We have a Member for Naskaupi who is admittedly not going to

do his district work, said so, wanted to resign, on two different occasions said

he would resign, yet he wants to stay around now and get paid as the Member for

Naskaupi.

MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to get up,

but I would like to say to the hon. House and to the Opposition House Leader

that I regret statements that are being made by members opposite in terms of the

Member for Naskaupi being sick and not doing his job and all this kind of thing.

I would like to remind members opposite, in this point of

order, this is a two-edged sword. The Member for Naskaupi is maybe one of the

few members in this House who is actually following the Standing Orders of the

House. Any time - and Your Honour knows what I am talking about - the member

could not be in the House, he wrote and explained the reason why he could not be

in attendance in the House. Standing Order 80 says: "Every member is bound to

attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given to him."

That is a Standing Order that perhaps all members here should

pay attention to. The Member for Naskaupi has indicated to His Honour that at

the preset time he is ill and somebody else is picking up his duties - as he

should, as he is bound to do by the Standing Orders, to explain why he is not

present in the House. Like I said, there is a two-edged sword here.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: There is a two-edged sword, and both

edges are being shoved down the public servants' throats, Mr. Speaker, by Bill

17. The Government House Leader can say what he likes, get up here and try to

justify what he likes. The Member for Naskaupi wanted to resign. He came to me,

personally, and told me he wanted to resign. He came to me and told me! That is

what he wanted to do! And the reason he didn't resign until April was because he

couldn't get his severance! Now, put it up front and say it! That is why he

didn't resign until April! Now I don't know what has happened since April 20,

that he won't resign. That is the truth, that is not made up.

Mr. Speaker, the public servants in this Province have to

live with what this government says. So do the members of this House of Assembly

and so do the members of that government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Was the hon. the Member for Kilbride speaking to the point of

order?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

Just before the hon. the Member for Fogo speaks, the Chair

thought it an appropriate place to read the Standing Order with respect to

relevancy. I don't think I have spoken too much about relevancy and I think it

is probably an appropriate time to do it. Hon. members would know that when we

are speaking to certain bills, some bills are a little bit more flexible than

others. The matter of relevancy is always difficult to call but hon. members

will know it is there for a particular reason, to expedite the business of the

House so that members cannot delay by just simply talking about anything under

the sun.

I remind hon. members, as well, that the Speaker is speaking

and when the Speaker speaks no one else is supposed to, because what the Speaker

is now about to say has something in it for all hon. members.

Talking about the matter of relevancy, I refer hon. members

to 51 (

b) in our own Standing Orders which says, "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman,

after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the

conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition, may

direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member continues to speak, Mr.

Speaker may name him, or, if in Committee, the Chairman shall report him to the

House."

So the Chair just wanted to remind hon. members of that

rather important ruling.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words on Bill 17,

part 2 of the

government's restraint legislation. As my colleague said, it is interesting to

wonder if next year we will see stage three of this particular restraint bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my few remarks, I want to first go back and

look at what the President of Treasury Board said on, I guess, Friday, April 10,

when he introduced Bill 17. He looked at the history of why Bill 16 had to come

as a prelude to Bill 17. He said at the time, and I quote him, "As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, year after year, notifications would be received from Ottawa

that equalization payments would be higher than expected and the previous

governments lived pretty high off the hog on those amounts of money that every

now and then they would be notified would be coming from Ottawa over and above

what was expected." He goes on to say that he expected there would be a

reasonable expansion of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, most of this work that was going

on, most of these nogotiations with the public sector unions, didn't take place

in 1989 when the government assumed office. It was close to the end of March of

1990 - 1991 when negotiations were ongoing. I think they inherited one year of

contracts. Then it took just about another year to get negotiations completed. I

think the first one they completed, as an administration, was the one for the

nurses' union. There might have been one or two small bargaining units, but I

think the first substantial one that was completed was the contract that was

given to the nurses' union which, if my memory serves me correctly, might have

come about as the result of an arbitration award. It was about to go to

arbitration to negotiate a conciliation board report or something. Anyway, they

negotiated a settlement -

MR. BAKER: There was no conciliation board.

MR. WINSOR: Okay, the government negotiated a settlement.

It was with some other group they had an arbitration award, the firefighters I

think. The firefighters?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The uniformed services people.

Anyway, the minister entered into an agreement, and that was

the first one. Then there was a fairly significant period of time between the

expiration of the other agreements that had already been in place from years

previous. Mr. Speaker, I guess it was March of 1991 that many of them were

really signed but they covered the year previous, and the precedent had already

been established, what government was giving. It had been decided earlier in the

nurse's union that raises were to the tune of perhaps anywhere from 7 to 10 per

cent a year depending on what the union was.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of support on your side.

MR. WINSOR: You do not have to worry about support on

this side. That is not a consideration. The hon. Member for Eagle River should

not worry about what support is on this side.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible)

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, can you silence the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island. I do not know what he has had today but if you could

silence him so I can continue I would very much appreciate it.

Most of these agreements were signed around February and

March 1991, in fact one was signed seven days prior to the minister introducing

the Budget, the highway workers. I think it was MOT. It was only a small number

of days. Some of them were even signed after, Mr. Speaker, so what the minister

did prior to his introducing Bill 16 was sign contracts saying he was going to

give workers this and knowing that a few days later he was going to introduce a

piece of legislation taking it away from them. The minister nods that is right.

Most of it was retroactive pay. I happen to know because some of my friends

thought they were doing really well because they would get this retroactive

money for the year previous. Then they discovered that in March when the Budget

was approved for 1991 the wage freeze was going to affect them for that year.

What I am saying to the minister is that he knew in advance prior to negotiating

these agreements that this was going to come. It is not as the minister said a

result of something that mysteriously happened from Ottawa, that we had cutbacks

in transfer and equalization payments and a whole series of things. The minister

knew in advance and that is fundamentally what most people find so objectionable

to Bill 17. It is not that Government introduced a wage restraint. That is not

the problem that most people have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Union leaders knew in advance.

MR. WINSOR: The minster says union leaders knew in

advance. I am not sure what union leaders knew because I was not privy to the

meeting but if the minister says it I will accept his word for it. Is the

minister saying that at the time the contracts were signed that union leaders

knew?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINSOR: All of them?

MR. GRIMES: Two of them.

MR. WINSOR: Two of them knew but only of the last

contracts that were signed because some were signed several months before. They

possibly knew when the highway workers or the MOT workers contracts were being

negotiated, they possibly knew at that time, those two contracts, but not the

bulk of them. The membership certainly did not know. Anyway, the point is that

the minister in his answer on Page 740 does not tell it all. What Bill 17 is

about, and I guess what upsets most people, is that part two of the wage

restraint bill throws collective bargaining out the window. That is what it

does, Mr. Speaker, and the minister alluded to that fact towards the end of his

introduction of the bill: I introduce this bill with a lot of sadness, sadness

for having to break some collective agreements, with a lot of sadness for the

people in the Province, he goes on to say, so the minister acknowledges that

what he has done is to break the collective agreements that were entered into.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have to tell the truth.

MR. WINSOR: The minister says he has to tell the truth.

What I would like to know is why the minister did not make it abundantly clear,

because if he did it was only to a small number of people, that in March of 1991

when the Budget was delivered, why did the minister not tell the people that I

told your leaders this months and months ago. The first time I ever heard the

minister say it was in this House today, that the union leaders were aware and

signed contracts knowing that a wage restraint was coming. Two contracts the

minister says. Could I ask the minister if they were covering large groups of

people or small bargaining units?

AN HON. MEMBER: The NAPE one was a bargaining unit

(Inaudible)

MR. WINSOR: So one was a large one and one was a smaller

one. Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 came last year and however the minister managed to do

it, I have to tell the minister he did a good job because he had convinced a

large number of people in the public sector wage bargaining units that this year

they were going to get an increase. They believed - many of them told me they

had been told they were going to get 3 per cent. I was actually surprised that

the 3 per cent was for next year, because they were led to believe by someone -

maybe some of the minister's friends had floated it around - that they were

going to get 3 per cent this year, and were going to restore to normal times in

the following year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that did not occur, and we have nothing in

this piece of legislation to indicate that it will not occur next spring - that

when the government of the day introduces a piece of legislation, we will not

say if the same Premier or not is going to be there because he could be other

places - that we might not have another bill similar to Bill 17, call it Bill 18

or Bill 19. I suspect that they will change the number. They could not have

sequential bills like this - 17, 18 and 19. It could not go on forever, but what

it is saying is that collective bargaining has effectively ended. Now I note

that the minister made mention of the fact that the NTA, in its contract, had an

option to reopen. Now what are we going to reopen on? I wonder why anyone would

want to enter into a negotiation process when you already know that you have

been given zero.

AN HON. MEMBER: We? Are you saying we (inaudible)?

MR. WINSOR: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am sure you said, what are the unions

(inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: As a union I am saying, what are we going to

negotiate for? The unions should be saying, what are we going to negotiate when

we already know that we got zero - that we got zero, and that the following year

it is going to be 3 per cent as maximum total compensation. Now there are some

questions that need to be asked about the 3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the 3 per cent that the minister talks about,

and I would like for the minister to listen, because several groups in the

Province are starting to ask. The 3 per cent that the minister proposes as the

cap for next year, would that include a total compensation package, including

say a government's portion of any share of increase in pension premiums? Would

that be the case? The President of Treasury Board I know was not listening. The

3 per cent total compensation package in the next year of the wage restraint,

would that include, for example, if a settlement has been for pensions where

employees have to increase by say 1 per cent, that 1 per cent would come off the

3 per cent, and then government matches with a 1 per cent? Would that come off

the total?

AN HON. MEMBER: Total compensation (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: So the minister is saying that in effect if

there is a negotiated pension increase in the next year of the contract, then

the members of that particular union will get, if it is 1 per cent, only a 1 per

cent pay increase, because government would match it with one?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Well you have to make up your mind. We have

two sources.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three per cent total compensation.

MR. WINSOR: Three per cent total compensation which would

include -

MR. BAKER: You are right. If you decide 2 per cent is

going somewhere else, then there is only 1 per cent left for salary, yes.

MR. WINSOR: Okay, so the government's share of the

pension would be included in the total possible 3 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure. Yes. Cost (inaudible)

MR. WINSOR: That is what the minister is saying? Because

several union members have asked me, because some of them have pension increases

slated and they are saying, okay if -

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers.

MR. WINSOR: Teachers are one, and with the report of

several other bargaining units in the Province with the pension, I would not be

surprised that we might see some pension increases there as well. In addition to

that, we have already seen this year, an increase in the insurance plans of the

public sector unions in the Province, and because members pay a portion,

government pays a potion towards it. Is that a part of the 3 per cent total

package too?

AN HON. MEMBER: Government's portion would be - yes.

MR. WINSOR: Okay, that is all I wanted to know. The

minister is saying then that any financial consideration is part of the 3 per

cent.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at then, because of the

elimination of the school tax, which for many public sector people results in

their paying more -

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Teachers - a number of people. Several

hospital workers, nurses, x-ray, lab. Yes, there are a fair number of people who

will be affected adversely by the imposition of this increase in income tax. Add

to that the fact that no pay increases come about for the last two years;

inflation has run 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent - it is difficult to determine what

it is, and where you live is certainly a factor. For people who live in isolated

coastal communities the real inflation rate is much higher than if you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The minister might say no, but if you have to

get a chopper and get on and off an island and that kind of thing, it becomes

much more expensive.

Anyway, the minister has answered my question, that the total

package will come basically off the backs of the worker. If you are going to get

the 3 per cent, then you are going to have to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. The backs of the government.

MR. WINSOR: Backs of the government, the minister likes

to say. Now, Mr. Speaker, what happened in this Legislature a few days ago is

the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Labour if this type of thing

were to occur in the private sector? For example, if Abitibi-Price had done what

government has done, decided that it is going to tear up contracts that had been

fairly bargained with its employees, what would government do?

I think the minister responded something to the effect: well,

that has not happened. It's not allowed to happen. It is passing strange that it

cannot happen for the private sector but it can happen for the public sector.

That is an anomaly that certainly needs to be addressed. Because you cannot have

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: He won't need it any more, the minister won't

need it any more, you see.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: He's okay. The minister won't need it any

more. You don't have to worry about the minister. Besides that, the minister is

so concerned with the public well-being that he certainly would not be so

concerned and selfish as to think about his own pension that might come at some

time down the road. That is not the minister's concern and I am well aware of

that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to what I was saying about

this strange twist that we are going to have in the public sector and the

private sector. Because we have two standards set up now. We have a set of rules

that is going to govern collective bargaining in the private sector, which says

that a contract is a contract is a contract. Then we have a set of negotiations

for the public sector that says a contract is a contract until the legislation

changes it. We can do that with the introduction of every budget.

Now that is pretty difficult to accept.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Legislature (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The Legislature can do it, but the

Legislature chooses not to do so. Mr. Speaker, we have to look no further than

the present crisis in the fishery. Many of the fish plants in this Province are

in great trouble from a number of things. Market, resources, a whole number of

things. I refer specifically to one that has caught my attention in the past few

days, the one with respect to the crab fishing industry.

Last year it was fairly abundant, the evidence was fairly

clear to the fish processors in this Province, that if they continued to pay the

price that they were paying for crab, and if the supplies were to continue as

they were, then they were going to be in a serious situation this year. They

were going to have large inventories of crab that they were not going to be able

to sell. But they could not go back to fishermen and say: we are going to pay

you forty cents a pound, instead of sixty or sixty-five cents, because we have a

negotiated agreement.

They did not do it. They went and bought crab all last fall,

late last summer, fishermen requested and got extensions to the season to buy

more crab at the sixty to sixty-five cents. Now what happens? It works fine for

a year. Now this year we are told that the prices are going to be in the range

of thirty to thirty-five cents a pound. Caused by last year having to live up to

those agreements has given them this inventory.

Now plants that I know of that service the northeast coast, I

know one plant that has $1 million worth of inventory of crab that it bought

last year. It cannot get the prices, but it could not tear up the collective

agreement it signed with the union either. It had to live by that agreement. The

question is: why doesn't the government that negotiated with its employees? I

suspect if a private sector company had attempted to do what government had done

it would be drawn before the Labour Relations Board, it would have been raked

over the coals, and it would have been ordered by the Labour Relations Board to

pay.

Then, undoubtedly, that would have been challenged in court.

No doubt the courts would have upheld the contract. Because one of the

principles of our law is a contract is a contract. Now I fail to see why

government has not used the same rule in dealing with its employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, I want to know (Inaudible), because the

minister did not explain it. I went through everything that the minister had

said, and the minister did not explain it. The reason I want to know why - and I

am not accepting the minister that: things happened, that we have less money now

than we had before, because the minister knew when he entered into these

contracts that he was going to have less money. The minister knew when he signed

contracts last February that he was going to have less money, and yet he

proceeded to sign, to offer contracts of 5, 6 or 7 per cent to employees when he

knew there was no intention of living up to that signed agreement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what I find wrong with Bill 17. We

have had wage restraints before in this country, and I suspect we will have them

again too, Mr. Speaker. In fact it was interesting, last year I was on a flight

going to Gander with a Cabinet minister and I said to him: Why did you introduce

Bill 16 as it was? Why didn't you do what the other governments have done

because you are intending to do the same thing again next year. You are

intending to have Bill 17 or Bill 18 or impose this for another year. He

scratched his head and he said: Yes, I think we should have gone with the two

years, take all this suffering in one year instead of having to do it in two.

And the President of Treasury Board smiles. He probably thought the same thing

too, that we should have done this last year and had it over with because we

have rekindled, we have relit that fire now. The protest movement has been

relit. We knew this last year. We knew this when we did it last year. We had no

intention of living up to this commitment that we had made, that we are going to

break that collective agreement that we entered into back in March of 1990 or

89, whenever they entered into them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a key word in this one that is going to

allow them a way out next year is: to a maximum of 3 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker,

the maximum could be zero too just as easily. And I don't think we will need a

Bill 18 next year. We might need a little slip thing, an amendment to Bill 17 or

something to call for zero again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Negotiate.

MR. WINSOR: Negotiate the minister says. Yes, because the

contracts all expire next year. If the contracts expire at that point in time it

will be all meaningless anyway because a number of them will expire. There are

going to be very few -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do when the teachers went on

strike?

MR. WINSOR: What did I do when the teachers went on

strike? I did the same thing as you colleague sitting next to you did. I did

exactly the same thing that your colleague did.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do?

MR. WINSOR: Ask your colleague what he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Well I did the same thing. I protested like

the minister did. I am just telling you what I did. I did the same thing he did.

He was a front leader in protesting and I did the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Against the Tory Government?

MR. WINSOR: Yes, against the Tory Government, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, against the Tory

Government. And I expect the number of teachers I saw in this Province who

protest -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say: We will remember?

MR. WINSOR: Did I say: we will remember? No, Mr. Speaker,

I did not say we will remember. I was one who forgot, Mr. Speaker, because in

1985 I was one of those who did work for the Tory party in Newfoundland too -

and I make no bones about it - as a campaign manager in 1989, but I did not

forget. And I made every occasion when I met a government member, I let them

know that I did not like what they had done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then you ran for them.

MR. WINSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister should not

talk about running because I will tell what happened at the NTA meeting when a

minister didn't run and chose not to attend a certain function that he was

invited to. Two ministers, Mr. Speaker, chose not to attend, and I will even

tell the reason they quoted. I can even tell the reason. So the minister should

not get me going on that tangent because I will tell a lot of things that

happened at the meeting about the applause that the minister got and so on, and

the statement that someone made after. Mr. Speaker, I did not attend the

convention, but there were a lot of people I have talked to since who have made

sure they let me know what the Minister of Labour and the Minister of

Environment said and did, and I think television told us all how the Minister of

Education felt at the convention. But that is getting away from the matter at

hand, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) standing ovation.

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be

detracted. I want to talk about Bill 17 because I think it is important that we

get back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: That is another issue, Mr. Speaker, and we

cannot get sidetracked into it, and the Minister of Education agrees with me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to keep on the good side of the Minister of Education

because I requested a little favour of him today. So I will save my remarks on

the Minister of Education for much, much later into the debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with this Bill 17 is not the

wage restraint. I think if you talk to union leaders, and if you talk to the

people throughout the Province it is not Bill 17, it is not the wage restraint,

it is what has happened to the collective bargaining process in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue that we have to keep focused on because I think

there is a recognition by everyone that governments of all stripes in all parts

of this country are experiencing tough financial times. What we have to look at

in this bill though, are the methods that have been employed in collective

bargaining and the things that are happening to collective bargaining as a

result of Bill 16 and Bill 17, because I am not sure at this point in time what

the value is of coming to an agreement, a collective agreement with government

in this Province.

If you entered into a contract, and contracts were always

held to be sacred, but no more, and that is where this process breaks down, that

the things which had been agreed to in previous contracts, nothing is sacred

anymore because tomorrow morning, this administration could wake up and say: I

think we are going to attack another sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The minister says it is nonsense. The

minister is intending to do it in workers' compensation in a few days time. The

minister in fact has done it. He has already done it - to changes to the

Workers' Compensation Act without anyone even knowing anything about it. The

Minister has already done it.

The Act has not changed but regulations have changed and

changed within the last two or three days too, some of them have and the

minister should be aware of it, but things could happen - tomorrow morning

someone could wake up and say I can see how we can save a number of dollars if

we would do this to a collective agreement, and there is nothing to prevent

them. The minister says it is nonsense.

There is nothing to prevent the piece of legislation from

coming to the House of Assembly and saying that we are going to do away with

this or restrict replacement employees to half the wage they had formerly,

substitute teachers to a third and the list can go on, because once you have

started, once this process is started, where does it end? There is no end in

sight to what could go on here and I think what is really important in this, is

for the government to recognize that collective bargaining for the government

should be the same as collective bargaining or bargaining for any employer in

this Province and I find it regrettable that the Minister of Employment and

Labour can sit around the Cabinet table and allow a bill like this to come forth

saying that we are going to make a distinction now in labour negotiations in the

Province, we are going to write one set of rules that govern the public sector

and we are going to write another one that governs the private sector, because

contracts are contracts, and the minister as a minister I think, has been

derelict in his duties, in allowing this piece of legislation to come forth as

the Minister of Employment and Labour, it is his responsibility to protect all,

public sector and private sector. I think the minister has failed to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a former President of the NTA.

MR. WINSOR: I promised the minister that I would not

bring up anything about his former involvement in the NTA, so I have chosen to

take the high road and we are going to ignore that because I think the minister

has been told in spades - the minister has been told in spades and I will not

say where, but he was told in spades what people thought of his involvement and

how he performed as a minister in protecting the interests of the public sector

unions in this Province. The minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Who, Mr. Warren?

MR. WINSOR: No, Roger Simmons was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and Grimes and who else?

MR. WINSOR: I do not know. It is interesting to note the

former President, Mr. Simmons, was one of the very few former Presidents who

were teachers, who attended a certain banquet, a certain function at the annual

meeting and every other year, they show up in swarms but this year, two, were

noticeably absent from the meeting. One just drifted in late in the night, nine

or ten o'clock on Friday night and they even forgot and gave him slight

applause, but someone reminded them that there was some indication of how tired

they were because they even gave the minister a slight round of applause, so Mr.

Speaker, I think that is in its - that will take care of itself, what the labour

unions have to say about this.

I just have a few minutes left. I want to look back at Bill

17. Bill 16 was the beginning, Bill 17 has been a continuation, and Bill 18 or

19 or 20, that could possibly come next year, and any other arrangements.

Because -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that will be an election year.

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that matters.

Because I think a part of the plan of this administration is to destroy the

union movement in this Province. They have now planted some seeds. They cannot

fight government any more, so you know what unions are resorting to?... fighting

among themselves. They cannot fight government, because government is going to

use the heavy hand of legislation. They have resorted to having to start to

fight among themselves.

So I ask the people opposite when they vote, as there will be

a vote on Bill 17 next week or next month or next year, ask them to reconsider

what they are voting for. You are voting for the end of democracy - or the true

collective bargaining process. It no longer is applicable in this Province.

Because what you sign one day need not be what you'll get the next day. We had a

situation within days after government signed a contract with employees in this

Province, it turned around and tore up the contract and basically wrote a new

one.

You hear the President of Treasury Board saying: what else

could we do? What would we do? We would lay off some other people, is that what

we would do, lay off some other people? Well, Mr. Speaker, you did both. You

gave no wage increases -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Got him up.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to

make some comments with respect to Bill 17. I might mention, before I begin my

comments, in respect to some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Fogo,

I did have the great privilege of attending part of the annual general meeting

of the Newfoundland Teachers Association just this past week. Due to the fact,

actually, that I was out of the Province at a meeting of labour ministers in

Toronto, I missed the annual dinner for the first time in thirteen years. I

explained a week before that to the executive that I regretted I could not

attend. That I had every intention of being there.

Because the one thing that teachers always did, and still do

understand, from their dealings with me, is that there will be no hiding away or

no excusing any behaviour. Any actions that you take you have to be willing to

defend them. That was always the modus operandi that we used within the

Newfoundland Teachers Association when I had the great privilege of being part

of their executive and being president for a while. At the time I had also the

great privilege of being a leader for a period of time to represent the

collective views of teachers specifically.

Some members of that organization have written me, others

have spoken to me, and asked about: what about a change in face, what about a

change in position, how can you do this and how can you do that? I have

indicated to them that there has been no change in the things I believe in.

There are different decisions to be made. Right now I have the great privilege

of representing one of fifty-two constituencies in this Province. We are charged

with the responsibility of making decisions for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, including teachers. When we make decisions now we make decisions

on behalf of everybody. We do not have the luxury to be saying: what would be

best for any one group at any one time?

The decisions are made collectively in the best interest of

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at all times. I do not apologise to anybody

for any of the decisions that I have been part of in this administration. I

indicated to them the only thing that I regret is that today I did forget my

button. Because at the Newfoundland Teachers Association annual meeting, the

President of the NTA came to me with a badge similar to the one that the Member

for St. John's East is wearing now, where they had 17 with a cross through it,

showing their objection to Bill 17, and he said, 'Well, you wear that button.'

MR. HARRIS: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the

button. I can give him an extra copy if he wants to wear it in the House as he

did on Friday night.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was about to indicate, the President of the NTA gave me

a copy of this badge and I promptly, without hesitation, took the badge and put

it in my lapel. I was wearing a raglan at the time because I had just come back

from the airport upon returning from Toronto. And he said, in presenting it to

me, 'You are not going to wear it?' I said, 'But why wouldn't I wear it? All the

button symbolizes to me is that you people, as teachers, wish there was no Bill

17 in Newfoundland.' I said, 'I agree. I wish there was no Bill 17 in

Newfoundland.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I said, 'Everybody on this side of the House

- every single soul in here - every single soul on this side of the House wishes

there was no Bill 17 in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly!

MR. GRIMES: As a matter of fact, we wish there was no

Bill 16. We wish there was no Bill 16.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you did in 83 and 84 and 85.

AN HON. MEMBER: The devil made him do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just so that I could finish the

story of the evening a little before I get into my remarks about the bill, when

I then took off my outside garment and hung it up, with the courtesy of some

members of the executive who even showed me where to hang the garment and so on,

they were expressing their discontent over the decisions, but they are not bad

friends of mine. They disagree with a decision that we have been part of, and

wish we had made another decision, but that does not mean - we have always

learned, most people, by the way, who rise to certain positions and so on, learn

to differentiate between the issues that you debate and the decisions that you

have to make, and people. Just because you disagree with a decision that is made

does not mean you think it is a bad person making the decision, and it does not

mean that you don't like the people. It doesn't mean you have to be bad friends

or anything else.

The hon. the Member for Fogo, in his remarks, indicated, as a

teacher in 1983 during the lockout, when the provincial Progressive Conservative

Government locked the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador out of their

classrooms, that he supported the protest of the association that he was a

member of at the time, but the first thing he did when he got back in the

classroom was work for the same government. So he went out and protested. He

showed that he did not like the action at the time, but he chose his political

allegiances despite the fact that he did not like that decision; he did not like

that action; he did not like being locked out; but as soon as he got a chance

again to show which political party he supported, he went out and supported, and

ran for and organized for the same Progressive Conservative administration that

forced him out on the street, the only time there has ever been a total lockout

of teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador in the history of the Province, done by

the previous administration.

Anyhow, to finish the story, I then went into the main

assembly hall, the main meeting room for the annual general meeting, with my

suit jacket on, and someone said, 'You don't have your button on anymore.' I

said, 'Well, give me another one.' I said, 'If you want me to wear a button with

'I don't like Bill 17' on it' - and again, whoever passed me the second one

said, 'Aren't you being hypocritical? You are part of a government that brought

in this bill.' I said, 'No, I understand what the badge means.' I said, 'If it

means something different to you, then let me know. I understand, this badge

means that the teachers of Newfoundland, as one group who were assembled at

their annual meeting, were suggesting that they did not agree that there should

be a Bill 17 in Newfoundland.' I said, 'That is what this government would like

to have. We would like to have no Bill 17, but that does not stop us and does

not allow us to be totally blind to the decision we had to make.' I said, 'If

you want the decision to be couched in terms of education, then that is a very

clear choice for me and,' I said, 'If you sat in the same room, I challenge any

one of those people and any teacher to make a different decision, because the

choice is clearly this, if you look at education, and it is the same thing in

health and other services, in education the choice is very clear.' The choices

were that we could have honoured the contract; had no Bill 17; paid increases to

teachers, but in the school that I left after the last election, and that I may

go back to at some point in time - and if I do I will not regret it, because I

love teaching. It is a great experience, a great profession to be involved in,

but I tell you one thing, we had a K to XII school, one class of each grade. The

reality for that school board was that if the increases were paid, probably

grades V and VI would have to be taught in the same room, instead of in

different room. We would not make that decision, because our concern was for the

education of the students. And we said: 'We have, for the first time ever, put

more funding in education, directly impacting on students and the curriculum and

the courses that they will have. In places that I came from, in Bishop's Falls,

they will