April 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 24

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I stand on, I will not call it a

point of privilege, I suppose, but clarification. A few days ago a statement I

made was looked upon with some scepticism by the government when I said I

thought they were running a polar bear in St. Mary's - The Capes. I think the

fact now that it showed up at a bingo last night in St. Joseph's proves that I

was correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. The government has

withheld from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the entire Hughes

Commission Report, recommendations and all, for the more than ten months the

government has had the document. The government now seems to be looking for

excuses to keep the report hidden even longer. What does the Premier say to Mr.

Justice Hughes' statements quoted recently by CBC Radio, number one, that if

some of his recommendations are not implemented soon, it will be too late to

achieve the desired ends; number two, that his report will soon be cold mutton;

and number three, that it is nonsense to suggest that the report has anything to

do with new police investigations into activities at Mount Cashel in the 1940's

or the 1950's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have forgotten the first question. The

second question was that if it is not done soon it will be cold mutton. Only

Judge Hughes knows whether what is in the report is mutton - cold or hot. For

what it is going to be, I cannot accept any responsibility. The first question I

have forgotten. It was, why we were withholding it? Let me tell the House that

we are most anxious that that be made public as quickly as it can. We have no

reason whatsoever to delay it. We would like to do it right at this moment. We

would like to have done it six months ago. We acted properly solely out of

concern for the administration of justice.

When the report was about ready to be released, at the

conclusion of the last of the trials, all of a sudden, there was made public, or

made known, the fact that there was another police investigation relating to

some years earlier. The Attorney General at the time took the sensible

precaution of saying to the Director of Public Prosecutions, check the report

thoroughly to make sure that if we release it we do not prevent the proper

completion of any investigation and the prosecution of anybody that should be

prosecuted as a result of it. I hear Mr. Justice Hughes subsequently being

interviewed on the radio, or at least a report of what he said, to the effect

that there was nothing in the report that related to an earlier investigation.

Well, I am glad to hear that and I assume that the Director of Public

Prosecutions will come to that conclusion and the minute he does that report

will be released. It may well be that he has it done now and it may well be that

we will be able to release the report perhaps on Monday as soon as the Attorney

General returns.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House there is no desire to

withhold publication of that report for one minute longer than is prudent in the

interest of the administration of justice.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I put to the Premier that it is a

government decision to withhold the report. It is not the decision of the

Director of Public Prosecutions or not the decision of any civil servant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is up on a supplementary and I ask the hon.

member to get to the question.

MS. VERGE: I ask the Premier, since he has the power,

will he release the report immediately and not hold it back from the public one

day longer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is dead wrong

again, as is usual. The report was withheld by the Government on the

recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is what was done

with it, because we did not want to interfere with the proper conduct of any of

these trials and cause a mistrial to be held and have persons who ought to be

prosecuted or convicted to escape their responsibility.

Now, let me tell hon. members we have nothing whatsoever to

cover up. Remember, it was this government that altered the recommendation in

terms of reference to the original report to include an inquiry into the

operations of the Department of Justice on the matter, so we have nothing to

cover-up. We made it a proper report and it would have been a whitewash if we

had not done so.

Mr. Speaker, the report will be released perhaps on Monday.

What the hon. member is saying about it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In

the ordinary course, the matter will be dealt with in a responsible manner, as I

have indicated, and I am quite anxious to have it made public at the earliest

possible opportunity.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is nonsense. The government could have released the

report months ago and the government could have released the report when it

first promised, the day after the trials were over.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: My supplementary is: why didn't the Premier

release the report when the trials were over? The Kenny trial has been over for

a couple of weeks now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The government could have released the

report immediately we received it. Now, that is what would have been done in the

ordinary course except that trials were in progress and we acted prudently and

properly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it would have been released immediately the

Kenny trial was completed, except for the fact that this additional

investigation was underway. We acted prudently and properly. I have no reason to

doubt the word of Mr. Justice Hughes, that there is nothing in it that would

affect an earlier investigation. But I had nothing to do with it, the Attorney

General informed me of what he has done and I have no quarrel with what he has

done. I didn't direct it, the Cabinet didn't direct it; he acted responsibly as

an Attorney General and directed the Director of Public Prosecutions to do an

immediate full scale review and see whether there was anything that would in

anyway impair further investigation or the conduct of any trials arising out of

it.

Now that is twice that I have explained it. I do not know if

the hon. member thinks - she can ask the question again, the answer will still

be the same, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this same government was the one which sat on

the Arts Policy Committee Report for months. I ask the Premier, in light of the

fact that the Royal Commission on Education has now reported, when can we expect

to see the report of that commission to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would expect it pretty well as soon as

it is printed. I don't think that there is going to be any reason to delay it;

it is not printed yet. They have submitted it in four or five copies of fairly

thick bound single side print and you obviously cannot print it in that form or

make photocopies to send out, but it is in the process of being printed right

now, so shortly after the printing is completed, the government intends to make

it public.

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

Cape, on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: A supplementary to the Minister of Education.

Government's centralization plans continue to unfold. First

in post-secondary education, now we see it (inaudible). I ask the minister: are

elementary and secondary education next on the agenda, when will we see

government's plan to centralize school boards?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is

going to have to wait until the government decides what it is going to do with

the Royal Commission Report, if he is linking the question to that earlier

question. I would say, however, that over the last twenty-five or thirty years

we have had consolidation of school boards. I think at one point in time we had

280 or 300 school boards. It came down to thirty-five, twenty-five years ago. It

is now twenty-seven. I would expect boards themselves, and perhaps government

will examine the recommendations of the Royal Commission Report in view of what

is best for education.

I think we have improved education in this Province in the

last few years, and centralization of school districts and schools in some cases

have contributed to the improvement of the quality of education in this

Province.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, five seems to be the magic number

with this government: five regional offices for Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador, five post-secondary regional boards, five health care boards. Is the

government looking at five regional school boards to operate all the schools in

the Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this

government promised real change in education, and the rationalization of the

post-secondary education system, which has worked extremely well, was one of our

achievements. Mr. Speaker, the other government thought about it, as the former

minister knows, and they did not do it. They wanted to rationalize the

post-secondary system. This government did it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: But as to whether or not we are going to have

five school boards or five whatever, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a

position to comment on that question at this point in time.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister's

lack of comments speaks for itself. It is no secret that the government is

planning a very large reduction in the number of boards because the boards have

been told there will be fewer than ten. I ask the minister: how does the

government propose to deal with the constitutional rights of denominations to

administer their own school boards within the context of five to nine regional

boards?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Let me correct the

hon. member's preface to his question. The government has not told anybody there

would be eight, ten, five or twenty boards. I might say that in the Province of

New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, they had forty-two school boards last year, and this

year I think they have twelve or fifteen. The government has not made any

decision with respect to the consolidation of school boards. We are waiting for

the report of the Royal Commission, and I am sure in due course these issues

will be debated in public.

I might say, however, Mr. Speaker, that the government is

delighted that after seventeen years of dilly-dallying on education we created a

Royal Commission and that we are going to do what is right in education. We

believe that every child in this Province has the right to quality education

irrespective of where they live or what they do, and we are going to provide

that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: The minister continues to talk about the great

things they are doing in education. I ask the minister: will he have a poll

conducted to see what the people think? Whether this present government or the

past one did more for education in this Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have seen some polls. They

talk about five districts for health and five for post-secondary. There may be

five members left after the next election if the polls are any indication. We do

not rule by polls, we are doing what is right for the future of education and

the future of our people, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Education shouldn't be so pessimistic. They will probably have more than five

re-elected.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Works,

Services and Transportation, and it is regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway,

which he is very familiar with by now. Of course, he is also aware that the

company, McNamara Construction, which is doing the construction work on the

bridge, last year ploughed the road to facilitate a longer construction season

to enable them to place the piers and the abutments in place to facilitate the

construction again this year, and to complete certain phases of it last year.

Will the minister now allow a certain amount of funds to be

spent on ploughing the road from western Labrador to the Ossock Bridge, to allow

the construction company to start to put the approaches to the bridge and to

allow them to complete the decking on top of the bridge so the bridge can be

constructed earlier than August, mid- to late-August, to facilitate the earlier

opening of the road, Mr. Speaker?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to this

matter, this matter has gone to tender, a contract has been awarded, and it is

the contractor's responsibility to complete the work according to the tender. I

understand that the work is scheduled to be completed this year. I do not know

that advancing that work, if it could be advanced by a month or so, is really

beneficial. As I have indicated in previous answers to the hon. member, the

amount of money spent on maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway from Lab City

to Happy Valley - Goose Bay is dependent on a large number of factors, many of

which have not been resolved yet.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his answer said

he did not know whether it would be beneficial. In conversation with the

construction company, they have suggested that they could be able to start

construction on that bridge as soon as they are able to drive down the road.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the construction of the bridge were finished earlier it

would facilitate thousands of miners who are going to be laid off in late July.

It would facilitate their driving completely through this Province to get to the

Island portion of the Province and thus create thousands of dollars worth of

expenditures in this Province, rather than forcing these residents of Labrador

West to drive down through Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is waiting for the question.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

They then wouldn't have to drive through these three other

provinces, they would be able to drive all the way through this Province. So,

Mr. Speaker, it would be beneficial not only to the residents in Western

Labrador but to the whole economy, because all the money spent would be spent

here in this Province.

Would the minister reconsider and have that road ploughed?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, it may not be, in fact,

beneficial to have the road ploughed depending on the condition of the road as

it exists at this point in time. As the hon. member is aware many gravel roads

in the Province are subject to spring thaw at this time, which makes their

condition very rough and I don't know that ploughing would actually be

beneficial.

With respect to the work to be done, Mr. Speaker, this work

tendered it. To now do this may, in fact, be providing assistance to the

contractor who was awarded the tender and I don't know if that is appropriate in

these situations. The contractor knew he had to complete that work and he knew

the conditions under which he had to complete it. To do this now would be to

provide assistance. I do not know whether that would be reopening The Public

Tendering Act. In fact, I don't know if ploughing the road would make the road

in better condition to travel over.

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's questions about workers

coming from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province to work somewhat

surprising in light of the fact that just a few days ago they were advocating a

policy whereby workers in Labrador had to stay in Llabrador and workers on the

Island had to stay on the Island and workers on the Burin Peninsula had to stay

on the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I don't know, I probably

shouldn't have asked the minister the question because he is embarrassing

himself even more.

Mr. Speaker, these miners are being laid off. It is not jobs

they are looking for when they come out there. They are coming out here to visit

their families.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member should know by now that we are not to debate

answers. The hon. member is up on a supplementary and should ask the question.

MR. A. SNOW: Doesn't the minister realize that these

people are not coming out here to drive trucks and open new mines on the Island

portion of the Province? What they are going to be doing is driving out here to

visit their families, spend some money and enjoy themselves on the Island

portion of the Province. They are coming here on vacation, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't

the minister realize that?

The construction company realizes that they got their

so-called subsidy or grant upfront. They were paid $1.5 million extra on this

bridge by this regime, Mr. Speaker. So they are not looking for a subsidy there,

they are looking to be able to get this bridge completed earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member, when the Speaker rises no member

should continue talking, and that the member should proceed to take his place.

The hon. member has not asked a question, in my view, and the

Chair has been waiting for the question. In any event, on a supplementary the

member is aware that he cannot be making a long

preamble. So I would ask the

hon. member please to get to the question immediately.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker if I offended the Chair I

apologize, but I thought I did ask the question. I prefaced my remark with: Does

the minister not realize that the people who want to use this bridge, want to

use this road, are the people not coming out for employment but coming here to

the Island portion of the Province, rather than driving through Quebec, rather

than driving through Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If that was the question, it

has been asked.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to ask

a question, that is fine. First he asked: Would I open the road for unemployed

workers?. Now he is asking: Would I open the road for tourists to come to

Newfoundland from the Island portion of the Province, or people who live in

Labrador who want to visit their families on the Island portion of the Province?

Mr. Speaker, let me make one thing clear. When I go to

Labrador I hear one complaint... how come so little money was put in the Roads

for Rails deal for Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: How, in an $800 million deal, was only $9

million allocated for Labrador? If that administration had the commitment to the

Trans-Labrador Highway that this administration has, it would be done by now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: The railroad is still operating in Labrador.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my question -

MR. A. SNOW: And you probably did not even realize it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister

responsible for cultural affairs I would like to ask my question to the Premier.

The last two years this particular government has increased the grant to Them

Days Magazine from I think it was $20,000 in 1989 up to $40,000 - the grant to

Them Days Magazine. Could the Premier advise if the $40,000 grant that Them Days

Magazine has received last year and the year before will continue this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will take the question under advisement

and advise the House, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the details right at the

moment.

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

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

I ask my second question to the Minister of Finance. As the

Minister of Finance is responsible, and has brought down his Budget, could the

Minister of Finance advise if the grant for Them Days Magazine, which was

$40,000 last year, is the same as it was last year or is it less?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That question will be taken under advisement, as the Premier

promised, and that is how it will be.

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

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

I would ask the Minister of Finance, or the Premier, I

understand the House will adjourn most likely today for the next two or three

weeks. Would the minister or the Premier kindly advise this House today if that

grant will remain the same as $40,000 or more or less?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, usually

when I am asked questions like that I try to get it within half an hour if I

can. I even sometimes interrupt the House to provide the answer. Today will be

no different. If I can get it, it will be done.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture. The minister will be aware that last night there was a meeting held

in the Goulds concerning the agricultural zone for the northeast Avalon. I guess

the general thrust of that meeting would be to try to get a review, or get the

zone removed completely. This causes, as the minister will know, a lot of

uncertainty amongst the farmers in that area who are presently trying to invest

money on their environmental manure management systems, their new barns, and

trying to keep their business going. Could the minister inform the House what is

the Province's stand on the agricultural zone for the northeast Avalon?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I thank the hon. member for his question, Mr.

Speaker. I am aware there was a meeting held last night and the focus of the

meeting was to discuss the agricultural zone. I want to inform the hon. House

and the hon. member that the position of this Government is that we recognize

how valuable the agricultural production is on the northeast Avalon. We

recognize how scarce good agricultural land is on the northeast Avalon and it is

our intention to protect the agricultural land that is presently in the zone and

to guarantee that the farmers on the northeast Avalon continue to produce and

continue to make the same contribution to the economy that they have made in the

past.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Kilbride on a

supplementary.

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

I appreciate the minister's answer. It will certainly go a

long way to alleviate the farmer's concerns in the area. There will probably be

a request to the minister to review this zone in the near future. I ask the

minister if he is planning to review it again and if so would he do it as fast

as possible so that the farmers can get on with their business and know if they

are going to be in business again in the next year or the next two years?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows being a

past minister of agriculture the zone was created, I think, in 1973 and he knows

there have been reviews and changes and land has been deleted. When it can be

justified there is an occasional deletion from the zone and that has been

happening since 1973 but government is not planning on a general review of the

zone. The zone, I suppose, in one sense is always under review but it is our

position that the zone as it exists will be protected and that any requirement

for a deletion will be judged on its own merits.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last night at

the University while participating in a forum the Minister of Finance made quite

an inflammatory statement and said that public servant wages in this Province

were obscene. I would like for the Minister of Finance to explain to this

Legislature and to the people of the Province how he could make such an

inflammatory and derogatory statement about public servants in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the hon. member

there last night. Perhaps he was hiding under the seat, as he darn well should

hide, when you look at their financial record over the past seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the remark I made was that a

certain group of people were dominating that forum. There were only a few people

there and most of them were people who seemed to have a particular point to make

and kept making it over and over and over as if the only problem in this

Province was the fact that we had not raised public servant wages. There are

very serious problems in this Province. We have serious problems with respect to

the fishery. We have an unemployment rate getting up to 20 per cent. These are

very serious concerns yet the only concerns portrayed by those people who were

pushing this point were that they had not got their 23 per cent raise.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Make no wonder there were not too many

people there when they found out who was going to be there. Having said that I

would like for the Minister of Finance to answer a very simple question for me.

Would the Minister of Finance tell me what the pay scale is for those at the

lower end of the public service, the clerks, the stenos, and so on? Would the

Minister of Finance tell me what their wages are and if he thinks their wages

are obscene?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the wages of

people on the lower wage scale in the public service are not high and people are

finding it hard to live. I might add this though, and I made this point last

night, that one third of the people in St. John's Centre are working for the

minimum wage which is $4.75 an hour. These are people who work in service

stations, who look after the sick in people's houses, who work in shops and

places like that. They all earn the minimum wage or pretty close to it, less

than $10,000 and there is no public servant who is not making twice that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the minister

there are some public servants who are making very low wages, and if you

compound that now with the second year of a wage freeze where they have lost

about 10 per cent of their purchasing power they are finding the situation very,

very rough I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the most obscene thing here is that the minister

would make such a remark, especially in light of the benefits he is receiving as

a member of this House and through prior service. That is the only thing that is

obscene.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to ask the hon. minister to do what

I consider a very honourable thing in light of what he said last night which has

slighted a lot of public servants in this Province. Will the minister stand in

his place today and apologize for making that very inflammatory remark to public

servants?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will backtrack nothing and I

will say it again: That the economic circumstances facing this Province today

with the lowering of the federal transfer payments to this Province - now they

are 45 per cent instead of 50 per cent - and the situation facing us in the

fishing industry, with the slowdown in Hibernia, with the recession in this

country and throughout the world, it is not appropriate for people to be trying

to increase their own piece of the pie at the expense of everybody elses.

We were unable to raise social services, Mr. Speaker, this

year by any more than 2.2 per cent. That is the type of person I am very much

concerned with. We are concerned about the public service wages. We wish we

didn't have to freeze, but we had no choice but to do so.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

There has been great emphasis placed on foreign overfishing

and I think it is of grave concern to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr.

Speaker, I am confused, as a lot of people out there are confused, as to who is

speaking for the government. The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, an

ex-Cabinet minister, says that we should use gunboat diplomacy and violence. The

Minister of Fisheries came close to that yesterday evening when he said: The

diplomatic era is over, so what other era is left? But the Premier has stated

unequivocally: This type of action is out of the question.

Mr. Premier, I ask: Who speaks for government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: On fisheries matters generally, the

Minister of Fisheries speaks for government. Accept what he says without

question, he is speaking for government. The Premier, as the Premier does in

respect of all departments, speaks for the government generally and occasionally

functions in respect of matters arising in any minister's department. That is

nothing new, that is perfectly normal, and when I speak I speak for government.

There has been nothing said differently. The Minister of

Fisheries has said absolutely nothing that in any way is different from what I

have said. I may have said more, he may have said more, but there has been no

contradiction.

Now, no member who is not in Cabinet speaks for government.

It doesn't matter who it is. No member who is not in Cabinet speaks for

government. Now, in the meantime, I heard a report this morning. I don't recall

- yes, I think I heard a voice report about the hon. the Member for Port de

Grave. I don't know whether he said what the hon. gentleman says he said, but

what I heard on the radio certainly didn't indicate it. What he has represented

to the House is totally inconsistent with what I heard attributed to the Member

for Port de Grave.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I take pleasure in tabling the Annual Report

of Newfoundland Farm Products, 1990-1991.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move the following resolution.

WHEREAS it is desirable to designate a day of mourning to

remember workers killed, disabled or injured in the workplace and workers

afflicted with industrial diseases; and

WHEREAS such a day of mourning would confirm and emphasize a

commitment to the issue of Health and Safety in the workplace; and

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada has designated the 28 day of

April as such a day of mourning, with such day not being a legal holiday or

non-judicial day.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly supports

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

mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace" and directs the

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

without creating a legal holiday.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act,

1989", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill No. 18).

MR. BAKER: Order 11, Mr. Speaker.

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 hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before getting to the content of this particular bill, I

would like to, first of all, go over a little bit of the background leading up

to the necessity for introducing such a piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, we took over the government of

this Province. At that point in time, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years, the

economy of Canada, particularly of central Canada, had been particularly strong.

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 government 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, because the economy of central Canada was

going strong, tremendous expansion. There was continued expansion, Mr. Speaker,

in the world economy and projections were that the expansion would continue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we brought in a Budget and the Budget was

in line with the reality of the time. We increased expenditures in health care;

we added acute care beds; we added chronic care beds. In terms of education, Mr.

Speaker, we increased the equalization payments to the boards and put more money

into the educational system. We increased scholarships; we provided more money

for student aid and, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that are good,

the kinds of things that this government has always wanted to do, the people on

this side of the House.

But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, unfortunately, that

expansion did not continue. At first, Mr. Speaker, the first warnings that we

got were that the economy of central Canada was slowing down, that the

equalization payments that we get would not be as high as expected, that the

federal government is very worried about their other transfers and were putting

certain limitations and caps on the other transfers. But primarily we were told

that our equalization payments would be down. As a matter of fact, at one point

in time we were told that there was an overpayment and we would have to pay back

that overpayment, which is a normal occurrence in terms of the agreements

between the governments.

So, Mr. Speaker, we were given an indication that the economy

would, in fact, slow. Here in Newfoundland we were heartened by the fact that

the Hibernia project would get underway and provide a large number of jobs for a

limited number of years. We were heartened by that fact but, at the same time,

we knew our transfers, our equalization would not increase at a rate that had

been expected.

At that point in time, Mr. Speaker, we indicated our concerns

to the people of the Province, concern that there was going to be a shortfall in

revenues, and that at the present rate of expenditure, we could not keep up the

present rate of expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, before this downturn happened we were receiving

over 50 per cent of our revenues from Ottawa - over 50 per cent of our revenues

from Ottawa. That has very rapidly deteriorated - very rapidly deteriorated. So,

Mr. Speaker, we were told that transfers would be down, and, in fact, they have

been less than expected in every single year since that first Budget. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in the past three years, if you were to total up

the amount of money we could have expected to have gotten through normal

expansion, if we look at that figure and compare it with what we actually got,

the total over the last two and-a-half years that we are below that expected

level would probably hit $500 million. What we couldn't have done with an extra

$500 million!

Mr. Speaker, there is no point in crying about that. What I

am talking about today is reality. That happened. There was a slow down in the

Canadian economy for whatever reason. I don't want to get into those reasons.

That is a fact. In many parts of southern Ontario the economy has been

devastated, therefore the money is not there to pay to us in equalization

payments. So, Mr. Speaker, whether that Canadian recession was a home generated

recession or the result of the international situation, I do not even want to

get into.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one more thing. There

have been tremendous changes in the world, it is not just Canadian. And I wonder

if hon. members realize that for the last fifty years - now fifty years is a

long time. I was not very old fifty years ago, I must say. Fifty years is a

long, long time. Do members here remember, does anyone recognize what the world

was like fifty years ago? Well, I want to tell hon. members, and this is

something that they might be very, very surprised at, that last year for the

very first time in fifty years, the economy of the world shrank. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is a very unusual occurrence. We are not in normal times. We are

not in usual times, and the concept of continued expansion has to be thrown out

the window. The world economy has declined.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that has been happening to us, and again, I

do not want to get into the reasons for it. It's nobody's fault. Maybe the fault

lies with the attitude, not only in Newfoundland, not only in Canada, not only

in North America, but the attitude in the world that expansion could go on

forever. Maybe that is where the fault lies, I don't know. But these are very

unusual times. Members opposite might like to pretend that this is just a normal

situation, and this government over here now is causing all this to happen.

Again, I want to stress, these are not normal times, either in Newfoundland or

Canada, or North America, or the world. So we have come upon unusual times.

Coupled with all that, as if that were not enough, what else

has happened to us? The world economy has shrunk. Central Canada, the engine

that fuels the activity in this country and that provides money for equalization

payments, that engine has slowed down. We have not had the revenues.

What else has happened to us? On top of all this, because the

world economy is shrinking, there have been soft markets in paper and so on. We

have had problems with the mining and forest industries in the Province. The

fishery - the fish apparently are no longer there. The fishery, the backbone of

this Province, the industry that we rely on for tens of thousands of jobs can no

longer be relied on, apparently. The fish are not there. So, on top of all these

external factors, we have that happening to us.

Mr. Speaker, these are not normal times. In our lifetimes,

this has not happened to this Province before. Since we became a province of

Canada, certainly, this has never happened to us before. These are unusual

times.

So that is kind of an overview of the situation facing this

government and some things that have happened. The rest of what I want to say I

would like looked at in the light of all of these things that are mere facts,

that are facts that cannot be argued. These are facts.

Now, what did we do? How did we respond, when this sequence

of events overtook us, or when we could see things happening? One of the first

things we did - one of the first things I, personally, did, directed by Cabinet

- was to call in the public sector union leadership. We sat down in the Treasury

Board boardroom, leaders of all the public sector unions, and I went over the

situation. Now, at that time we didn't know the full impact, we didn't know

about the situation in the world, and we didn't know about what was happening to

our fishery. We called in the public sector unions and said: Look, there are

things happening, our revenues from Ottawa are disappearing.

Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, in terms of revenues from

Ottawa: The revenue from federal sources, as I indicated before, as a percentage

of our expenditures is way down, which means that what we have to get from the

Province is up. But what I would like to point out is that this is, I have been

told, the only province in Canada where this has happened, that the revenue from

federal transfers has actually dropped in absolute numbers. Mr. Speaker, this is

the only province in Canada where that has happened.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 - 1990, there was $1,359,000,626. Do you

know what it was in 1991 - 1992? It was $1,328,000,000, lower in actual numbers,

lower in actual dollars. Now, if you add on over that two-year span the

inflation and so on, you will see what a tremendous drop in actual money we got

from the federal government, not as much of an increase as we expected but a

drop in actual dollars. Mr. Speaker, I am told this is the only province in

Canada that this happened to.

So, Mr. Speaker, I sat down with the public service union

leadership and I explained this to them. I said: Look, we are being told from

Ottawa that there is going to be a tremendous drop in transfers. We can look at

our own numbers and see that the activity is going down. We are in a very

serious situation. Right away we have to start taking measures to stop

expenditure, to control our expenditure - and we did. But I would like you, as

leaders of the public service unions, to be aware of what is happening to give

you an opportunity to provide some input. Because, as I pointed out to them,

over 60 per cent of our expenditure goes into salaries, goes into your

membership. This is what is happening to our revenues. This is what is

happening, and we give you an opportunity for input.

Mr. Speaker, they sat around the table, they nodded and

listened to what was said and accepted the numbers that were given. I said: Now,

in a month or so I would like to get together again and hear any response that

you might have. Mr. Speaker, at that point in time I, being a little naive, I

suppose, being still relatively new at the job, assumed that you did these

things quietly, that you sat down with responsible leadership in the unions and

you privately and quietly discussed these matters to give them an opportunity

for their input privately and quietly, so that you would not make a media circus

of this. That was my approach the first year.

Mr. Speaker, a month later, I wrote letters to the leaders of

some of the major unions, particularly the NTA and NAPE and CUPE, indicating

that I hadn't had any response, that they were supposed to get in touch with me

but they hadn't and that they had had adequate time, and did they feel that

there was need for another meeting, did they want more input? Again, I had no

reply, so I phoned and suggested that we get together again.

This time, I got together with them individually. Because

again, being naive, I thought, well, being a group, nobody wanted to open up, so

I would talk to each of them individually. I went through the trouble of talking

to each of them individually, explaining the situation anew, explaining that

there had been further deterioration, and just having a conversation about the

possible solutions to the problem. I indicated to them at that time that we had

a budget coming up in three or four months and that we were going to have to

deal with this problem. Now is the time for input.

Mr. Speaker, I kept trying, quietly, confidentially, to get

input from the leadership. Sadly, there was none. So, last year, we had to do

the Budget without input from the leadership of the public sector unions, and we

did the Budget. What we did was this, essentially: in order to survive we cannot

go out and borrow huge amounts of money. In order to survive as a province, in

order to keep our services, we had to eliminate about 1,700 or 1,800 jobs and we

had to freeze the public sector wages, because you cannot pay out money that you

do not have coming in. That is something that has not sunk in to most of the

members opposite yet. You cannot pay out money you don't have coming in. So we

did that, and they were harsh measures in terms of the public service, but it

had to be done. Thank heavens it was done.

So, at that point in time, we were of the opinion - and we

were being told by the financial people and so on - that Newfoundland would

experience in that year some growth, that the Canadian economy would recover.

Remember the stories about this recession and it was caused by the GST and it

would recover as soon as the effect of the GST went through the economy and all

that kind of stuff. So the economy was going to recover. So we could see a bad

year but we were very hopeful that the next year, this current one, we would see

some improvement.

Public service unions, after the last Budget, denied that we

had ever had any meetings, in spite of the fact that I have letters on file, two

of them, concerning the meetings, and so on. They chose to ignore totally the

problems being faced by the Province and simply sat back and let happen whatever

would happen. Well, we still felt rather hopeful. We thought that by the end of

last year we would be coming out of this period, we could see the increased jobs

in Hibernia, we could see the possibilities in the fishery, we could see the

solidifying of the markets in the paper industry, and all of the economic

experts across Canada were telling us this. We could see this. We were not as

optimistic as they were but we felt we would be into some kind of a recovery. So

we did a one-year wage freeze and we eliminated close to 2,000 jobs.

Now then. Since then, we have been hit with the world

situation, the fact that this was not just a recession of southern Ontario

caused by the GST or free trade deal, or whatever it happened to be, that this

is a fundamental change that is happening in the world, causing chaos and

financial disruptions all over the world. The fish, seemingly, disappeared.

We could see these things happening, so once again, we knew

that we were in for at least a second and maybe a third year of very, very

difficult times. This time we contacted the public sector unions. This time we

made sure everybody knew about it, so afterwards they couldn't go to the people

and say: 'I am sorry, we never even met with those people.' As a matter of fact,

I heard from the Minister of Finance that one of the union leadership last night

tried to deny there were ever meetings this year, even though he is on

television coming out of the meetings, tried to deny in public that there were

ever any meetings this year. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is beside the point.

We had our meetings.

As the financial situation changed week by week we kept the

public sector union leadership informed.

AN HON. MEMBER: First time ever.

MR. BAKER: Up-to-date on the financial situation of the

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never been done before.

MR. BAKER: We asked them for input. We gave them all the

information they wanted so they could provide input. And, after many, many

meetings, Mr. Speaker, after delaying the Budget - because we had said we would

not make final decisions, one, until after the federal Budget came down, and

two, until after they had adequate chance for input, we would not make any final

decisions in terms of their membership. We waited and waited, and we sat down

and had meetings.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as I have said many times before,

the union leadership chose to be part of the problem and not part of the

solution. They chose to ignore a fundamental fact of life, the fact that you can

only pay out what you have coming in. They chose to ignore the fact that there

was something happening in the world. They chose to ignore the fact that there

was something happening to the Canadian economy and the North American economy,

chose to ignore the fact that the money was not coming in. They put their heads

in the sand, Mr. Speaker. They kept to their very narrow outlook, which is: Give

us the money. Don't cut any of our jobs. Pay us everything. Keep paying the

money out, regardless of whether or not you have any coming in. Now, that,

essentially, was their view, keep paying it out until we bankrupt this Province.

They did not even recognize, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to increase the hourly

rates by 10 per cent that we would then have to lay off 10 per cent of the

employees. They refused to recognize that reality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of the sickly, unctuous

hypocrisy coming from the Member for St. John's East. I am sick of it. I am sick

of it. This is the gentleman, when told that in three of the provinces in Canada

this year that have NDP governments there are actually going to be cutbacks in

money going into health - which we have never done - there are actually going to

be cutbacks in health, his response was: 'Well, they have to do that.' But when

we apply it to this Province he believes we have a purse that we can open up and

dump the money out somehow. Mr. Speaker, I am sick of his hypocrisy and

two-faced attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hypocrisy at its best.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the great NDP hypocrisy at its

best.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back Peter Fenwick, for the love of

God!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, so we had our meetings. Nothing

came of them and we brought down the Budget.

Bill 17 derives from that Budget. In that Budget we increased

money going to the school boards to put into the schools. We increased that

because that is something that had to be done. We opened some chronic care beds

in this Province. That was something that had to be done. But, Mr. Speaker, we

have decided that we will not increase this year the public sector wages. If we

were to do that, we would have to lay off more people. We would have to get the

money from somewhere. We would have to lay off more people. We only have so much

money coming in; therefore there is only so much that can go out. We have

protected the jobs of the public sector employees, without any input, without

any encouragement from the union leadership. So that is what Bill 17 is about.

That is what Bill 17 is about, and that is the background

leading up to bringing in this particular bill. What it does is, it says that

this fiscal year there will be 0 per cent increase in total compensation - 0 per

cent increase in total compensation; that contracts that are in place, except in

instances where there are special provisions, will expire on the normal date,

but that this year there will be zero increase in total compensation, and that

the next year, and we had to go that next year because we do not want to give

the people the false impression that there is a pot of gold there somewhere that

is going to magically appear, that all of a sudden during this fiscal year, the

Province is going to have another $300 million or $400 million worth of revenue

coming in, because that is simply not there. So we have to indicate that to come

out of these two years of no increase, we have to come out slowly. So, the next

fiscal year, not this one but the next one, we would limit the total

compensation increase to 3 per cent. That is the best that we can predict.

Now, in this bill there are some exceptions, and I would like

to dwell for a moment on those exceptions. They are listed in

Schedule B.

The first group of exceptions are some hospital classes that,

unfortunately, two years ago, were left out of consideration during

reclassification of the nursing assistants. The nursing assistants were

reclassified, received wage increases, substantial wage increases, and in the

normal give and take with the unions we sat down and said, okay, which other

groupings would be affected by this reclassification? In that process,

strangely, they were forgotten about by their own union. They were forgotten

about. It recently came to our attention through some individual who had

contacted me, as President of Treasury Board. I looked into it and discovered

that these classifications should have been moved, back when the nursing

assistants were reclassified. So, Mr. Speaker,

whereas we cannot go back and do

it retroactively, we are now moving these classes where they should have been.

These are classifications that require nursing assistants' training and so on

before they can get into the jobs. That is one exception.

The second exception are the student assistants, and you can

see there the details. The student assistants, two years ago, signed their first

ever collective agreement. Part of that collective agreement was that at some

point in time they would be classified, because they had never been classified

before. Temporarily, they were on a wage scale that was very low, until they

would get classified. The mechanism was in place for their first classification.

We went ahead with the classification and felt that we had to implement that

first classification regardless of the restraint period. That was only fair,

that is the other exception, and hon. members can see the increase in hourly

rates that the student assistants will get.

AN HON. MEMBER: The student assistants (Inaudible)

MR. BAKER: At the new level. Well, I will deal with the

steps in a moment. At scale. I have to point out a mistake in the bill here, a

typographical error that I am sure members noticed and I have to correct and

point out. On Page 13 under Other Groups: l. Student Assistants, and 11.

Facility and librarians. Now, I do not know how we could change facilities at

MUN. That should be Faculty and Librarians of the Memorial University of

Newfoundland. That should not read 'facilities', Mr. Speaker. We are not going

to adjust an internal anomaly to the facilities at MUM but to some faculty

members. These are the three specific exceptions dealt with in this bill and

once these are taken care of then these groups become part of the wage restraint

period as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is another exception I suppose I should

point out. We are told that we should have added something to the bill, and we

did, and that concerns the normal operation of a collective agreement. Normally,

day by day, week by week, there are items that come up. The union contacts us

and says: this is in the collective agreement but it should have had a slightly

different

interpretation and would you change the wording to give this

interpretation? If we both agree by mutual consent then we go ahead and make the

change. So, the mutual consent idea - in terms of changing things by mutual

consent - it is specifically stated in this bill that that is still possible, we

are not closing the door in terms of mutual consent.

There is also something else I would like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, and it relates to a question asked by the Opposition House Leader a

moment ago. What about the steps? Last year during the wage freeze the steps

were not considered part of the wage freeze, were not considered part of the

total compensation, and in this coming year they will not be as well, the step

increases are an intricate part of the pay scale and as people move from one

step to the other we assume that is not an increase in the pay scale even though

technically it costs a bit more money. The step increases will not be considered

as part of that freeze. The theory is that somebody starts to work and it takes

a few years to become a better and more proficient worker and some of them go

through step increases to recognize that fact. Mr. Speaker, the step increases

still will occur outside the restraint, so I hope that answers the hon.

gentleman's question.

Mr. Speaker, that is Bill 17. It is based on the foundation

that Government collects money from people and we as a provincial government

collect money from the federal government. We have a certain amount of money and

we have to spend that money and we have to make decisions about the ways the

money is spent, how to spend the money the best way possible for the people of

this Province, and we find ourselves in a bind, quite frankly. We find ourselves

in a serious bind where the revenues have not come therefore the expenditures

cannot be made, and the one complicating factor that some members opposite seem

to ignore, although the Member for Mount Pearl, to give him credit, recognizes

the complexity and the difficulty with the financial situation of the Province.

He has always done that every time I have heard him or seen him. Some members

opposite do not seem to accept the fact that there is not a limitless pot of

money out there where you can simply go and borrow. This year we are going to

borrow close to $250 million more than we are taking in. That is a lot of money.

That is more than we should be borrowing. On current account, there is $30

million of that. We are borrowing $30 million to pay the light bill. There is a

limit, with our credit rating, to how much we can borrow.

Now that is not accepted by the Leader of the Opposition, who

has been going around this Province making speeches. I have talked to people who

have heard him. I have seen the reports in the press. Going around making

speeches, saying that we could have easily borrowed another $100 million or so.

The Leader of the Opposition has told those people out there that that is his

position.

MR. FUREY: He learned that from Mulroney. One thing in

MR. BAKER: I have heard many members opposite, and

particularly the Member for St. John's East, who figures we could go out and

borrow $200 million or $300 million more and it would make no difference. There

is no limit to the Member for St. John's East at all. We can go out and borrow

all this money. But, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we cannot. That we have to

be very careful. That we cannot have happen to us what happened to Saskatchewan

in the last couple of months, where they have had their credit rating lowered

twice and are now down where we are, and if they are not careful it will go down

further.

I believe that is one of the NDP governments.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Ontario?

MR. BAKER: Same thing. Ontario has had it's credit rating

lowered.

MR. FUREY: BC is the only responsible one.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, they are going through very

difficult times. These provinces are cutting back on health care. Even in the

worst of the times we have been through in the last couple of years we have not

cut back in actual dollars. We have not cut back on the health care system, we

have increased the funding. Not as much as we would like, not as much as the

people in the system would like, but we have actually increased funding, not cut

it as some other provinces are going to have to do.

As the other provincial budgets come down, and as people

realise what is happening in the other provinces, they are going to realise that

what we did last year made it easier for us this year. That our Budget this year

is going to look like a land a of milk and honey compared to some of the other

provincial budgets, and what is going to have to be done in the other provinces.

Bill 17 is a result of necessity. I guess we had a choice. We

could have said, for instance, to each of the bargaining groups, we could have

said to the teachers, for instance: fine, we will give you a 6 per cent salary

increase, but we are going to have to cut 500 teaching positions. We could have

said that. We could have said to other segments of the public service the same

thing: we only have so much money, so if we give you this we are going to have

to cut jobs. I suppose we could have gone ahead and done that. But I believe

that would be irresponsible. I believe that part of our job as government is to

consider the job security of the public service, is to consider the type of

service we can deliver to the people of the Province. That is what Bill 17 does.

I have introduced this bill today with a lot of mixed

emotions. I do not like to bring in legislation that negates some collective

agreements. Although I would like to point out at this time that the exception

is the teachers' collective agreement. Their agreement was signed after the wage

freeze last year, which they recognise in their agreement, that the wage freeze

is in place. They even recognise the possibility of an extension of the wage

freeze, because in their collective agreement there was a clause that said that

if there is an extension of the wage freeze then the collective agreement opens

up again. We re-open.

So in full recognition of what could happen, we have now

extended the wage freeze and they have now re-opened negotiations. That was all

taken care of in their agreement. But in some of the others it was not. I do not

like breaking collective agreements.

So 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, for the people in the fishery particularly, who may not have an

income this year and cannot pay taxes to this government. Who may be looking for

means to put food on their table. A great deal of sadness for these people. With

a great deal of sadness for the people in the forestry industry, where the

markets are soft and there have been indications of perhaps downtime and so on.

MR. FUREY: Some layoffs on the Northern Peninsula.

MR. BAKER: Layoffs on the Northern Peninsula, yes. For

the people involved in the mining industry, we have the one mine left. Mr.

Speaker, these are the foundations of this Province - the fishery being the most

important. I feel sadness for the people who are going to be affected in these

areas. Coincidentally then, they cannot provide us with money. I feel sad for

them. I also feel sad for the public servants of the Province. I do not like to

freeze wages, but I also do not like to lay people off. But perhaps the greatest

reason that I feel sadness for the public servants of the Province is for the

fact that I have not seen, in the two years that we have been trying to deal

with this problem, one spark, one iota, one indication of any leadership from

the leadership of the public service unions - not one spark of leadership, and I

feel very sad for the membership of these unions when there is no leadership at

the top.

I feel sad, but I also feel proud. I also feel a great deal

of pride in the fact that we are in the process of going through times that are

unusual in the world - that are not the normal ups and downs that a province

runs into - times that are very, very unusual for us as a Province. We are going

through the most difficult times that this Province has seen since Confederation

- since the great depression. We are going through those very, very difficult

times, and I am proud that we have been able to handle it in the way it was

handled. I am proud that we have been able to put more money into health care. I

am proud that we have been able to put more money into education. I am proud

that we are surviving and are going to survive this very unusual time. I am very

proud of that, and I am proud that we have shown the leadership to do what had

to be done, and not to be pushed around by every single pressure group one way

or the other. I am very proud that we have taken the right decisions, and Bill

17 is one of these right decisions.

Aside from the sadness and the pride I also feel at this

point in time a lot of hope - hope that because we handle things properly,

because we handle the financial situation of this Province properly, because we

do the things that must be done, that this Province has a bright future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Government House Leader finished off his remarks saying

how sad he was about certain things, and I would say for good reason. There are

a lot of sad people in the Province today. There have been a lot of sad people

in the Province now for over a year, going back to the Budget Speech of 1991

when government announced the drastic layoffs in the public service; when the

Minister of Finance stood in his place and said he reluctantly would impose,

effective April 1, 1991, a one-year wage freeze throughout the public sector.

Of course, when the Minister of Finance announced that last

year, public servants were outraged. Public servants were outraged, Mr. Speaker,

that they would have their wages frozen for a year. They were outraged that so

many of their fellow employees were going to be given the boots - given the

boots by the Government House Leader, the President of Treasury Board who has

now left. They were outraged about that because collective agreements at that

time that had been negotiated in good faith were torn up in front of their

faces. Just a few months before, government had gone to the bargaining table and

negotiated wage increases, and, in some cases, pretty significant and

substantial wage increases with the leadership of the nurses' union and other

unions which represent the various public servants of the Province, good

increases, in some cases, and then saw those agreements being torn up in front

of their faces and they were upset with that.

They were very upset with the one-year wage freeze, as they

thought. One-year wage freeze, the Minister of Finance said in his March Budget

of 1991, but what do we find this year? Public servants in the Province thought,

when the minister stood in his place just a month or so ago, he was going to

announce that the wage freeze would be lifted. I really expected it, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought that the Minister of Finance,

when he brought down his new Budget a month or so ago, was going to announce

that the wage freeze would have been lifted. I really expected that. Because

public servants did not think that after having their agreements torn up last

year, in the 1991 Budget, having their wage increases cancelled - she is coming

apart altogether, there is no doubt about that, it is all coming apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did Vic Young say?

MR. MATTHEWS: Vic said the arse was gone out of her.

Public servants didn't think that the Minister of Finance

would come back and extend the wage freeze for another year, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, there is a request from hon. members

opposite that the Member for LaPoile take his own seat wherever he goes; when he

visits other members to have a chat, he should take his own seat with him,

because they at least want their seats left.

But, Mr. Speaker, it has been quite an upsetting twelve

months for labour in this Province, plus the two reasons I have mentioned, the

drastic layoffs and the wage freezes.

We are talking here and we talked last year about Bill 16. I

mean, Bill 17 is only an extension of Bill 16; that is really what Bill 17 is,

an extension. We talked last year about trust, lack of trust, mistrust and all

those adjectives that we use to describe what had happened last year when

collective agreements were torn up, wage freeze imposed. It was a violation of

trust by this government which had negotiated just weeks before, in some cases,

with unions in this Province for significant wage increases. And what public

servants couldn't understand, was how could government go to the bargaining

table, just a few short weeks before and negotiate those agreements, knowing

full well that they were going to come in and tear them up a few weeks after

they imposed a wage freeze, and they haven't recovered from that.

Now, the President of Treasury Board, the Government House

Leader, in his closing remarks, talked about the leadership of the unions. He

questioned, really, whether there was any leadership in the unions, but I want

to say to the President of Treasury Board and the Government House Leader and

members of the government opposite, that you should not read into the leadership

of the unions what the real feelings are among public servants.

The public servants in this Province are pretty much upset, I

say to members opposite, so if the President of Treasury Board, the Government

House Leader thinks now that public servants out there really don't care, they

are not upset about this, then he is in for a shock because they are upset. The

public servants in this Province are very upset. There is a lot of grumbling and

moaning around the different departments of government and the Crown agencies.

There is a lot of discontent. I think it is fair to say that the greatest

discontent is with this government, there is no question, but as well, there is

some discontent with the leadership of the various unions, as the Government

House Leader has indicated, there is; there is no question about that. We have

all picked that up, I am sure.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a violation of trust

here by the government. The public servants in the Province and the unions will

never trust this government again, and, of course, they are not going to have to

trust them much longer. They are not going to have to trust this group much

longer to deal with, there is going to be a change. And I see the Member for

Port de Grave nodding his head over there to approve - he knows, he is out and

about this Province more than any other member opposite, I say to him.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Cross the floor, Mr. Speaker, ask him to

cross the floor.

MR. MATTHEWS: Cross the floor, yes, I have heard tell,

Mr. Speaker, one time way back in the 1960s, was it, when a couple of members

came - I am not sure how the story goes- they came and their chairs had been

moved to the other side for them and bolted down, but I don't think we have ever

seen a member take his seat up in his arms and walk with it. But we need to be

careful because we do not want to have to force members back with too many

coming across.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why the hon. the Member for Eagle

River is over here.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Eagle River is over here

again. Look, here he is, trying to persuade the Member for Torngat Mountains to

lobby for him now to get him over here.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying before I got interrupted by the

chair moving that the Member for Port de Grave -

AN HON. MEMBER: Look, he gave back the Member for Eagle

River his chair and took the one from Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member of Port de Grave is about this

Province more, I would say, than any other member opposite. He is out and about

the Province on the fisheries issue. He knows what is happening out there. He is

picking it up in his own district. There is a shift on out there, Mr. Speaker,

there is a mood change. So it won't be too long now and the public service will

be dealing with a new group of individuals, a new administration, one that they

will be able to trust, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. NOEL: Tell us where you are going to get the money

for the wage increases.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Pleasantville, it

is all a matter of priority.

MR. NOEL: What would you cut out?

MR. MATTHEWS: There are things I would cut out, Mr.

Speaker. This government is wasting a few million dollars, I say to the member,

on a number of things that could be used to lift the wage freeze, to give public

employees even a modest increase, which I really expected the government was

going to do. I really did. I thought we would see that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has left. I was

hoping he was going to be here, because some of my remarks were to be for him

and about him. Maybe he has gone out to try to justify to the press why he had

to do this.

He talked for a while about attitude, and the attitude change

in the world. There is no doubt there has been a change in the world. He talked

about the shrinking of the world economy, and tried to tie it all into why they

had to take such draconian action last year and this year with public servants

of the Province. But the biggest attitude change, Mr. Speaker, has been with

this government and this administration. That is the biggest attitude change

that has taken place in North America, because they have obviously plotted to

deal very harshly and roughly with the public servants. They obviously believe

that there were too many public servants when they came to power and they were

going to unload thousands of them. As reflected last night, Mr. Speaker, in the

comments of the Minister of Finance up at the university, they obviously thought

that the public servants of this Province were making too much money, so they

have deliberately plotted to deal with it.

For the Minister of Finance to go up to the university last

night and say that for public servants to request a wage increase was obscene,

that reflects an attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MATTHEWS: That reflects an attitude of this

administration -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: - from the Premier all the way down to his

Cabinet ministers - the Minister of Finance, to say of public servants in this

Province, who had their wages frozen last year and again now this year, that to

ask for a wage increase was nothing short of obscene. Mr. Speaker, there is

nothing obscene about wanting a wage increase. These people, as I said earlier

in Question Period this morning, will have their spending power decreased by 10

per cent by the actions of this Minister of Finance, and he talks about

obscenity. Yes, there are obscenities going on in this Province, I say to the

Minister of Finance, and he is exercising most of them by the action that he has

taken against the public servants of this Province in the last two years.

So that is the real attitude problem that we are facing, Mr.

Speaker. And all of the actions that this government has taken in the last two

years, the fiscal actions that they have taken, have been counterproductive, Mr.

Speaker. They have been counterproductive. The financial situation of the

Province has worsened, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, in the last three

years. So it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the financial direction that this

government is undertaking has been counterproductive. The bottom line of the

Province has not improved, it has worsened.

So I say to the Minister of Finance and the ministers

opposite that they need to change the financial direction for this Province, Mr.

Speaker. They need to stimulate the economy of this Province which they have

flatly refused to do. And the Minister of Finance, last night, as I said, went

to the university and made those derogatory put-your-foot-in-your-mouth

statements. At the same time, just a few weeks ago, with the same people that he

said were being obscene for asking for a wage increase, the Minister of Finance

in his Budget document announced that he was going to increase the personal

income tax on those people by 4 per cent, 4 per cent between now and January 1,

1993. Where are the people going to get the money to pay the income tax, I ask

the Minister of Finance? A 6 per cent increase in personal income tax in two

years by this Minister of Finance, yet he says that people who want an increase

are being obscene.

So the Minister of Finance has decreased the spending power

of those public servants by so much. How does he expect them to be able to

survive? The real concern, Mr. Speaker, as I said this morning, is for those

public servants who are on the lower end of the pay scales. We are not talking

about those who are making $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 a year. We are talking

about those people who are on the lower end of the pay scales. They are not

living very well, I say to the Minister of Finance. They are not making a lot of

money.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) well, if you don't want wage

increases for the upper scale (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that's not what I said, I say to the

Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: He will have time to speak in the debate. I

hope he will stand in his place and express his opinion on Bill 17, this bill

that extends wage freezes in this Province for another year. I hope he will

stand in his place and talk about it, and give us his true feelings on it. Is he

in favour of extending the wage freeze for another year? Is he in favour of

giving public servants a modest wage increase? Or what is he in favour of? Maybe

we will hear before this debate ends, Mr. Speaker.

I want to go on to say that never before have we seen this

Legislature used by a government in the way that the Wells administration has

used it. It brings these kinds of bills into this Legislature to tear up

negotiated agreements, and it is a reflection, in a way, on this House of

Assembly, a real reflection, not only on the government. Because what is

happening is that government is using the powers of this Legislature to tear up

agreements. I think that is unwarranted. I hope that once this Bill 17 expires,

we will not see this kind of action by this government again.

Now, in Bill 17, of course, in the minister's Budget Speech,

he went on to say that next year, there will be a 3 per cent increase. He

promises 3 per cent increase, that will be salaries and total benefits. It is

not for salaries, it is a total maximum package of 3 per cent. But after what

happened last year with Bill 16, and with the minister's Budget Speech which

promised a wage freeze for one year, which was supposed to expire on March 31,

1992, then how does the Minister of Finance expect the public servants of this

Province to believe that the government will even honour the wage increase he

promised for the next fiscal year, as set out in the Budget Speech of last

month?

What has made it even worse is that the President of Treasury

Board, in a few public statements, has gone on to indicate: Well, the 3 per cent

will be there if the Province can afford it. So again, we will not be surprised

if next year we come back and whoever the Minister of Finance is at the time - I

am sure it will not be the present Minister of Finance; there will be a new one

- that they will rise and announce that this 3 per cent promise has now been

eliminated. That is what the public servants of this Province will expect.

So it is a very serious situation. The morale of the public

service has decreased as at no other time in our history. Members opposite

always flick back and say: 'Well, what did you do in the mid-1980s when you were

the government - 1984 and 1985? No one on this side denies that when we were the

government we imposed a two-year wage freeze. We did that, and we did it for all

the right reasons, and public servants were annoyed by it. But we did not tear

up collective agreements. We announced the two-year wage freeze -

MR. EFFORD: You put them in jail!

MR. MATTHEWS: No, we did not put them in jail. I say to

the hon. Member for Port de Grave, that talking about - I had better not say

anything. I should just continue to speak. Because, you know, jail - I had

better stop.

I just want to say to him, Mr. Speaker, that what we did not

do, we did not tear up collective agreements. We announced a two-year wage

freeze and as collective agreements expired, then those affected workers had a

wage freeze for two years. That is quite different from what this Government did

last year when they negotiated increases with the nurses union and others, good

increases, and a few short weeks after tore up the agreements and froze the

wages. Mr. Speaker, that is a big difference and one that public servants and

the people of this Province will not forget for a long time because it was the

first time it ever happened in our history. Government bargained dishonestly

with the public servants and public service unions and they will not forget it.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board and the

Government House Leader talked about how sad he was to have to do this today, to

introduce this bill and to introduce second reading of the bill. I would say

that he would be very sad. He talked about why he was sad and who he felt sorry

for and like him I do feel very sorry for the public service of this Province

who will have to go another year without any increase in wages or benefits, with

the Minister of Finance imposing a 4 per cent increase in personal income tax,

imposing a payroll tax on the resource industries of this Province like the

fishery, forestry, and agriculture for the first time in our history. The

Minister of Finance did not only freeze their wages he drastically increased

their taxes. How does he expect people to survive and live in this Province when

on one hand he takes away their wages, he cuts their wages, and on the other

hand he takes more taxes from them? The tax increases that this government has

imposed in three years on the people of this Province is unprecedented. Never

before has a government in three years imposed such drastic taxes on the people

of this Province. Of course it will all come out in the wash one of these days

when the Minister of Finance, the Premier and other ministers have to defend

their government's record.

DR. KITCHEN: Bring back the school tax.

MR. MATTHEWS: Never mind bringing back the school tax I

say to the Minister of Finance. You talk about other deception, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier in the last election went about this Province promising to abolish the

school tax, and what did Newfoundlanders and Labradorians think? We no longer

have to pay a tax for schools. That is what people thought. What do they find

now? Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as a result of Government action,

will pay more tax that will go into education, about 30 per cent more. They are

having people pay the school tax to the end of June this year and at the same

time they have increased personal income taxes and they have introduced the

payroll tax. So people are going to be paying all that between now and the end

of June on a promise by Government to abolish school taxes. In my own area of

the Province, Mr. Speaker, where we paid around $100 school tax, in my own

situation around $100, but on quick calculation because of measures taken by the

Government I will now pay about $255, an increase of $155 because Premier Wells

abolished the school tax. Now, that has not got out about the Province yet, the

way it will before too long.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hope he does not abolish any more.

MR. MATTHEWS: People will be very upset because they

thought when they announced they would abolish the school tax they would not

have to pay that amount, but now they are going to pay double or more in some

cases. They have imposed it on seniors who did not have to pay it before so

these are the actions this Government have undertaken, Mr. Speaker. They have

increased taxes in this Province in three years to a level it would take most

Governments ten or twelve years to increase by the equivalent amount. That is

what has happened, Mr. Speaker. Bill 17 is regressive, Bill 17 is regrettable,

Mr. Speaker, and it is an extension of Bill 16.

Certainly when the Premier and the members opposite promised

a real change in this Province voters never thought for a minute they would see

collective agreements torn up that had been signed just weeks before. They never

thought they would be facing drastic tax increases. They never thought they

would be facing forced amalgamation, Mr. Speaker. They never thought that was

the real change that Clyde Wells and his Government was going to inflict on the

people of this Province. They never thought it for a moment but that is what

happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations knows what real change (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is not here this morning and I would say he is too ashamed to be here.

I would say he is too ashamed to come into this Legislature this morning and

have to put up with the second bill in two years on wage freezes and on

rollbacks. I would say the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is too

ashamed to come in here, a former president of the Newfoundland Teachers

Association who went about the Province in the mid 80s defending teachers,

calling for increases, and fighting the Government of the day. In one case he

got before seven or eight hundred other teachers and wept openly in front of

them. He said: I cannot get any more from this terrible Government.

Yes, he cried at his clinics in front of seven or eight

hundred teachers. I cannot get any more from this terrible government. He gets

elected in 1989, becomes Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for the

Province, and what does he do? Bill 16 and Bill 17 speak for themselves. I do

not have to say any more, Mr. Speaker. They tore up collective agreements. They

imposed wage freezes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance on a point of order.

DR. KITCHEN: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not know

if the hon. members will give me an opportunity to answer the question that the

Member for Torngat Mountains asked earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: He has leave.

DR. KITCHEN: He asked about the grant for Them Days

Magazine. Last year it was $40,000 and the grant this year will be $37,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I thank the minister. I have no problem

giving leave when the ministers have answers to questions which we have asked.

We are more than delighted. We thank the Premier for undertaking to have the

answer come forward, and the Minister of Finance for giving it. We are

delighted, but again -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Another reduction.

MR. MATTHEWS: - another reduction. Them Days Magazine, so

valuable to Labrador, gets a $3,000 cut this year from this government.

What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, was about the Minister of

Labour. The Minister of Labour who before he was elected pretended to be the

great defender of labour - President of the Newfoundland Teachers Association -

the stand-upper for rights of teachers, and great benefits and wages. The

minister, you know what I am talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. MATTHEWS: - Yes, the Member for Port de Grave knows,

and he says, oh, oh. That said it all. What has he turned into now, Mr. Speaker?

A real wimp. A real wimp; but as they say, his day in court will come. His day

in court will come, like others opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might have Jack representing him.

MR. MATTHEWS: He might have Jack represent him. He might

have the Member for St. John's East represent him. I would say he would have

good counsel. I would say he would have good counsel, I say to the Member for

Port de Grave.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Whatever he charged would be worth it.

MR. MATTHEWS: It would be worth it, yes, that is right.

It would be worth it. A good member, a good lawyer. What can we say, Mr.

Speaker?

It is regrettable to have to stand here today to - I really

did not think that this year we would be standing here debating a bill that was

extending the wage freeze on the public service of the Province. It is very

regrettable, very regressive. It is not going to do anything to the economy of

the Province, I say to the Minister of Finance. We will hear again, in his

quarterly report and in his mid-year report how the financial position of the

Province has further deteriorated. We have had it now three years in a row.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little behind.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, his budget has never been close to

accurate, his predictions. He has gone in one year from a $5 million surplus to

just about $100 million deficit. It is acceptable now for this Minister of

Finance to be anywhere from $80 million to $100 million out on what he predicts

in his Budget. It is amazing how the Premier can tolerate such inaccuracy, but

of course the Premier is part of it, because the Budget decisions in essence are

done by the - that is why the Budget this year was delayed by three or four

weeks. The Premier was away. He was not here. They could not finalize the Budget

until he came back, so we cannot blame it on the Minister of Finance. He only

reads what the government decides, and we know who the head of the government

is. It is the Premier, and of course the Premier has to take the responsibility

for extending the wage freeze on the public service of this Province for another

year.

It is a most regrettable bill, and I really hope that since

the minister in his Budget announced that we will go through this year's freeze

and then in the next fiscal year there will be a 3 per cent increase of wages -

total package, I believe. It is not all going to be wages now, Mr. Speaker. It

will be a maximum of 3 per cent, I believe, is it? I hope that when he, or

whoever the Minister of Finance is next year, when they rise in their place to

bring in the new Budget Speech, that at least they will honour that commitment

that they made this year, because last year they broke their commitment. They

said it was a one year wage freeze last year, Mr. Speaker. Now it has been

extended to two, and if you reflect last year in the Budget they promised that

the delay in the Fogo Ferry was going to be for one year. I am sure we all

remember that. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: A one year delay in building a new ferry at

the Marystown Shipyard for the people of Fogo - not so, Mr. Speaker. It was not

announced to be constructed this year in the Budget. So it is a common practice

of this government that they say one thing one year, but they do not keep their

word.

It is most regrettable, and I look forward to other members

debating this controversial piece of legislation and I am sure that before too

much time is up, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see the public servants and the

unions in the Province show the government in spades what they feel about this

piece of legislation that they have had forced on them.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Development wants to talk

about French wine. I cannot sit down without that. For those in the gallery who

don't know, the Minister of Development yesterday made reference to the Prime

Minister who on his way to Paris flew over the Grand Banks and while he was

flying over the Grand Banks he was sipping French wine.

Now, he is taking everything out of context because the Prime

Minister has made a commitment that he is going to come down and look at the

foreign overfishing issue on the Grand Banks for himself, and I thought that was

positive. I thought if he would go out there and look at it himself and see the

foreign boats it was positive, but the Minister of Development yesterday had to

be a little sarcastic and get his little digs in about the Prime Minister flying

over the Grand Banks sipping his French wine.

AN HON. MEMBER: He apologized for that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is something that I want

put into the record here. It is not only the Prime Minister who likes French

wine, the Minister of Development is a lover of French wine.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. And he is so vain, Mr. Speaker, that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No. Would you know the type of French wine

that he likes, the name of it? Now first when he told me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he said it was called Furey. But once

getting it from the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, legally through

customs, I found out that the wine in essence was called Fleurie, but of course

it was close enough to the minister's name that - I am sure when he has people

at home now and he entertains with his French wine, he convinces them that it is

really Furey, but it is Fleurie. But he loves French wine, I want to go on

record, so he should not knock the Prime Minister about that. He knows what I am

saying is true because it is a great wine, he tells me and he has had it. I

wanted to clear that up, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is positive that the Prime

Minister will see the situation for himself, and I hope he doesn't take too long

doing it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks on Bill 17 and plead

with the Minister of Finance that next year, please lift the wage freeze and

give them the 3 per cent increase that you promised.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for Port

de Grave I would like to welcome to the galleries this morning on behalf of hon.

members sixty Grade IX History students from Assumption Junior High in Avondale

in the District of Harbour Main with their teachers Peggy Dunphy, Mary Whelan

and Jackie Tilley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to take this opportunity to welcome

the students to the gallery. I think it is very important for the students to

take some time out to come to the House of Assembly to see actually what takes

place in here. A lot of people don't take it very seriously, but it is something

that the students should be fully aware of especially to learn a part of what is

taking place in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today, and in

particular the bill that is being debated here now, Bill 17.

Now the terms that we use here in Bill 17 are hard for some

students to understand. It is even hard for some of us to understand the legal

process that takes place and the terminology used in the House of Assembly, but

it comes down to the basic facts of people wanting something and not being able

to get it. Of course, naturally the humanistic approach to that is that they are

dissatisfied with the fact they are not able to get the increase in wages that

they would like to have. Everybody in this House of Assembly and everybody in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador sympathises with people in this day of

the economic hard times we are facing, facing the cost of living, facing the

ever increasing cost of day to day essentials they need for their families.

So nobody in the House of Assembly and especially nobody in

government likes to be in a position like the hon. the Minister of Finance. Each

and every year he must come down with a Budget and make some hard, rational

decisions to do with the amount of money that the government takes in, as I was

referring to yesterday, and to make sure that the money is distributed in an

equal and fair manner which benefits everybody in the Province not putting any

special emphasis or special preference to any one group. Naturally people are

not going to agree with it, especially those people who have to go through a

wage freeze. I would be no different if I were working in the public service

sector so I am not going to be hypocritical and say that I would be. Everybody

has some aggressiveness, everybody likes to get ahead, and everybody likes to

improve from year to year, and everybody likes a little more. There is no

question of that. You can't fault those people for asking, and you can't expect

everybody to say you did a great job when you brought in the wage freeze.

Naturally those people are going to be upset. It is only natural. No matter what

labour force you are in, everybody wants to earn more. If we were not like that

we would be no use to the people we work for, or we would be no use to

ourselves. Because we would be laid back, filled with complacency and apathy,

and not caring what happens today or tomorrow.

So it is a natural instinct to care and it is a natural

instinct to want more, and students should recognise that. You have the right in

this country, in this Province, to speak your mind. You do not have that right

in most parts of the world. But you do have that right here in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in the country of Canada to speak your mind and to

protest, as long as it is done within the law of the land and as long as it is

done in a peaceful manner.

That is the people's right, to do that. If the teachers do

not agree with the wage freeze, if the public servants working for the public

service commission do not agree with it, for the government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, or nurses or anybody else, they can protest. But you have to

understand why it is done. It is not done by choice by the Minister of Finance.

He does not sit down there at the beginning of the year when he is preparing his

Budget and say that: I am going to give a certain sector a wage freeze because I

do not like them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure he does.

MR. EFFORD: That's silly. That is absolutely silly for

anybody to mention, or even to think about that. You have to realise that

decisions have to be made, and you have to realise that governments cannot spend

money if they do not take money in. It is like when I was in private business. I

operated business for some seventeen or eighteen years. Each and every year

according to the balance sheet and according to the amount of sales, the amount

of revenue we took in, we made preparation to spend next year, either to

increase that business, maintain the same level, or decrease, depending on how

good your previous year was. Government is no different. You cannot spend money

that you do not receive. It is a very simple process.

When the economic times come down hard on us, like the

failing of the fishing industry here in Newfoundland, like the recession across

Canada that has already been talked about so many times, government still has to

make those decisions. I get upset when I do not get the things I want in my

district, because I am elected to represent my district. I argue and fight and

try to get what I can. It is the natural way to be. But at the end of the day,

whether you are satisfied or not, you know and realise, Mr. Speaker, that is the

amount of money that is there, and you try to get the best share you can for

your district and the people you represent.

Especially the students. They should be fully aware of that.

Because it is their future. Some of us old guys here now, some will soon be

finished with, another eight or ten years, some less than that. But it is their

future. They are the future of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and

they should be fully aware of what is taking place, and that they have to go

through these things in the future. Unless the proper management plan is put in

place, and unless the economic conditions are dealt with of the day, and

prepared and better in the future, it is going to be gloomy. It is their future,

their Province, and their country. They have to be fully aware.

That is why I say, it is good to see students in the gallery

to go through the learning process at this stage, to see what they will have to

do. Some of them may be politicians. Some of them may be MHAs here in the House

of Assembly, on one side or the other. One of them may even be Premier of the

Province in the near future. It is all up to the individual themselves. It is

very clear that the proper management plan must be put in place, unlike the

previous government in seventeen years. Nobody was ever concerned about the

future, they were concerned about the things of the day. That is what really

disappointed all of us when we were on the opposition from 1985 to 1989. We

totally brought day after day in Question Period about what was taking place

today versus the debt that the Province was facing, versus the needs of the

future.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay shakes his head and says

that is not right. Well, it is so right. Because if it was not right we would

not have a debt in excess of $6 billion, with a population of 550,000. When that

previous administration took over in 1972 there was a debt of around $800

million. When they left seventeen years later there was a debt of over $6

billion, with interest payments in excess of $600 million a year.

Now I say to the students in the gallery, and I say to all

the public servants, I say to all the teachers and nurses: if we had only half

of that $600 million that is paid out in interest payments each and every year

to pay on the debt, how much more money could you pay for students' education,

health services, social services and increase in benefits. I do not think we

would have to have a wage freeze this year if you had half of the interest that

we pay each and every year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: In fact the minister just turned around and

said you would probably have a good increase this year, so it is not that nobody

wants to give out the increases, it is not that anybody wants to have wage

freezes, it is the mere fact that you have to deal with the economic situation

of the day, the debt incurred by the former administration has to be paid,

unless by some miracle it is wiped out and I do not think we are going to get

that miracle from Ottawa because they won't pay attention to the crisis facing

Newfoundland and Labrador today. They will not talk about the fishery.

If we could get our fishery back to the state where we could

make some money on it as I said so many times and again yesterday, revenues

would be generated so you would not have to have a wage freeze, but, Mr.

Speaker, we have to face up to the reality that Bill 17 is necessary. We know

nobody likes it on either side of the House, I certainly do not like it, I have

to go out to my district and I have to try to get re-elected in this next

election and I know I am going to get opposition from people who want to have an

increase and from people who do not want to go through a wage freeze, it is the

bare fact of politics, but we have to try to spread the message that it is the

best thing we can do under these difficult times.

Surely, we have our own ideas of how he or she would approach

the situation if they were in the position to do it, it is all fine to play

politics here in the House of Assembly, but it is too bad -and I have to wait

for a few minutes for the hon. Member for St. John's East to come back, and deal

with the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern, to whom I listened on CBC radio

this morning making some statements regarding these difficult times and the

expenses that are occurred by MHAs. How hypocritical some of the statements that

were made by the Member for St. John's East sounded, so I will wait until the

hon. member comes back into the House of Assembly and deal with that situation,

because I could not believe it this morning when I heard him on radio at least

trying to put a message out to give some confidence that nobody in this House of

Assembly is wasting money.

Everybody in this House of Assembly should be responsible and

should be at least assuming their duties, representing their constituencies with

the least amount of money, but the impression was left this morning that we are

irresponsible, that money is being thrown away, but the hon. Member for St.

John's East did not tell this morning that while he lives in St. John's and

while he is drawing a full salary as an MHA in the House of Assembly, he is also

working at a full-time position in a law office and drawing a full-time salary.

When I was elected in 1985, as did many other members in this

House of Assembly, what did I do? I had three businesses and I was making lots

of money, I am not ashamed to say it. I have been referred to as one of the

richest members in the House of Assembly, that is not correct but I am not broke

either-

MR. MURPHY: Harris is the richest.

MR. EFFORD: - but I made that money in private business,

as did a lot of other members in this House of Assembly, but when I was elected

in 1989, I sold all of those businesses. I could have kept them, could have

worked at them part-time, could have been a part-time MHA and could have drawn

both salaries, but I committed to the people of Port de Grave that I would

represent them on a full-time basis in this House of Assembly and I have done

that. I represent them, Mr. Speaker, on a full-time basis in the House of

Assembly and I am not ashamed -

MR. MURPHY: There is a reason for that.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of the salary I

draw as an MHA. I earn that salary, I work twenty-four hours a day, if necessary

seven days a week for the people of Port de Grave district and for the people in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as my responsibility as MHA in the

House of Assembly. I will take a backseat to nobody and I will hide my head in

shame for nobody in this hon. House and nobody in this Province. I knew what the

salary was when I was elected and I was willing to take that salary and I was

willing to give up the businesses when I got here.

I did not do it and it was not, I should say, forced upon me.

But when I hear the statements coming forth from the hon. Member for St. John's

East, being hypocritical, in giving out the impression that he is working for

the poor people, that he is doing everything he can to help the poor people in

this Province, at the same time he is drawing down those salaries, working on a

retainer for Memorial University as a law firm, working for the people in the

Workers' Compensation Board, drawing $300,000 a year for his law firm and on and

on. Renting houses to social service recipients, landlords, poor people's

landlords in this city, drawing down a salary from that. How big a hypocritical

statement can you make to the people of this Province and expect them to believe

it? If you are going to criticize something stand up to what you are doing and

say what you are doing instead of criticizing an hon. member if he gets some

compensation for his expenses in working for the people in his district. Be

honest, the one thing I have been since 1985. I have said what is on my mind and

held nothing back but I have been prepared to take the same consequences myself.

I don't agree with people being hypocritical and trying to hide behind closed

doors and shutters and the backs of other people. People in the Province see

that. If I were drawing down pensions and salaries and lawyer's fees I would not

worry too much about $40.00 a day for meals, but when it is the only income you

have, when the House of Assembly is open and that is the only income you have, I

don't think it is too bad and I don't think the people of this Province worry

too much about it. They do worry about the kind of situation they themselves are

facing from day to day when they don't have money half the time to buy clothes

for kids and the things that kids need to go to school. That is what we are here

for. That is why we are here in this hon. House of Assembly. The only good thing

I can say about the hon. the Member for St. John's East, from the report I got

last week from people on the street, I had to commend him, the only time since

he came in here that I could say one kind word about him, and I want to repeat

that again, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely kindhearted of the hon. the Member for

St. John's East to be so concerned about the fifteen victims he is representing

from Mount Cashel that he is doing it free of charge. Now, that is a good thing,

Mr. Speaker. That is one of the best things I have ever heard about any

politician I have ever known in this House of Assembly since back twenty-five or

thirty years, the fact that an individual would work for fifteen victims free of

charge where otherwise, he could have possibly made about $300,000 or $400,000.

He realizes, Mr. Speaker, what these individuals have gone through. He realizes

they are victims of crime, and he realizes that money is going to go right to

the individuals themselves and their families to compensate them for the horrors

they went through in those years at Mount Cashel.

So, you have to commend the hon. the Member for St. John's

East for having the kindness within his heart to make sure that those victims

receive the full compensation package, because legal fees are very expensive,

but we know what the hon. Member for St. John's East is intending to do. He is

not concerned about himself in that particular instance, he is concerned about

the victims of Mount Cashel whom he is representing, and that is fantastic. That

is about the only kind word I can say about the hon. Member for St. John's East

since I have known him, because otherwise, he comes in here about-faced every

day, he never looks at a situation, and he criticizes before he knows what is

really taking place. I guess, one good thing out of all the bad things is not so

bad after all and we have to commend him. All the people in the Province,

especially the victims themselves, should commend the hon. the Member for St.

John's East for working free of charge for those victims of the Mount Cashel

Orphanage, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the revenues of Newfoundland and Labrador will

improve but we have to put some common sense into what is about to take place.

The hon. Minister of Development spoke yesterday about the Prime Minister flying

over the Grand Banks, as he said, sipping his French wine and looking down at

the foreign overfishing on the Grand Banks. Now, are we realistically and

logically saying that is sensible, that in 1992 the Prime Minister of this

country must still fly over the Grand Banks to see if they are actually fishing

there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, that is assuming that the jet stream

is right when he is halfway to Paris.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, the jet stream has to be right for that.

Just imagine, in 1992, the Prime Minister of this country is not yet fully aware

of the seriousness of the foreign overfishing that is taking place on the Grand

Banks and he still has to fly out there to find out if it is really taking

place. Make no wonder we feel sorry for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. What hope do we have for the future if our Prime Minister, after all

the controversy, after all the statements that have been made, after all the

begging and the pleading: 'Mr. Prime Minister, we need help here in this

Province,' and it did not just begin last year.

In 1980 and 1981, there were individuals in this Province who

cried out year after year, the Inshore Fishermen's Association, Cabot Martin,

and many other people, Dr. Leslie Harris and the former Minister of Fisheries,

the hon. Tom Rideout. I heard them scream from 1985 to 1989. The former premier

of this Province, the hon. Brian Peckford, for years and years, shouted at the

top of his voice about the seriousness of the overfishing on the Grand Banks,

and it is only now in 1992 that the Prime Minister of this country decides that

he is going to fly out over the Grand Banks to see if foreigners are actually

out there fishing.

Boy, oh, boy! What a miserable state of affairs we are

facing! We wonder why the revenues in this Province are down, why we are in

turmoil, why the wage freeze is on, why we are facing such desperate economic

conditions, why we have plant after plant closing, why business after business

is going bankrupt, when the Prime Minister of this country is not even aware of

the crisis the main industry of this Province is in. We are to be pitied,

because we have no hope for the future of it all.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely deplorable to think that would

happen. They are trying to shed their responsibilities, put it off, play

political games, and not face up to the real seriousness of what is taking

place. If only the people of this Province, the teachers in the galleries

yesterday, and the public service wanted to have a wage freeze lifted, and

wanted an increase in salary, would come to realise the only way it is going to

happen is we have to get our resource back! We have to get people working. When

people work, they spend money. When people spend money they pay taxes, sales tax

and income tax and so on. When they pay taxes, governments take in more revenue.

When governments take in more revenue, they spend more money. They don't bank it

in savings accounts, they spend it for the needs of the people.

That is the only way the wage freeze is going to be lifted,

that is the only way increases are going to be given. What we have to do as one

united force in this Province is to recognise that and accept the reality that

unless things change in our industry, unless people get back to work, and unless

we have an unemployment rate down around 10 per cent or less, things are never

going to change, except to get worse. You cannot pay out money - as I have said

this morning two or three times, and said yesterday, and said so many times, as

the Minister of Finance, things are not going to change.

So you have to get the main industry back. You have to get

the fishing industry back, and you have to get people working. Everything

becomes simple then. Then your spin-offs come from that. Your small businesses

increase. New technology comes in and everybody benefits from it. That is what

the students should be aware of, what needs to take place to bring back the

economy of this Province. There is no one person at fault. We are all at fault

because we all allowed it to happen over the years. If we are going to change it

in the future, Mr. Speaker, we are all going to have to work with the same force

to prevent it from getting worse and to bring it back.

Then, Bill 17 would not be here in the House of Assembly, the

wage freezes would not be here, and the families who are out there doing without

money, and the thousands of plant workers and other people in the labour force

who are now unemployed would be working for the most part, those who wanted to

work. We would enjoy the economic benefits that the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador could allow them. We would not be complaining, would not be so

negative, we would be more positive.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's put all of our energies in the right

direction, and let's try to bring back Newfoundland's economy the way it should

be, and then everybody will be able to celebrate. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, on behalf of

our party, must welcome the students today. It is a pleasure for me to rise and

see so many young people in the galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I have recognised the hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I want to tell each and every one of you why

we believe that this bill is regressive, why we believe this bill should not be

on the floor of the House. It is because your fathers, mothers, sisters and

brothers are deprived of the monies necessary to send you to school; because a

great number of Newfoundlanders are entirely dependent on the public service of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and their money is being stymied!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: You are not getting the money. The hon. the

Member for Port de Grave - and I agree with most things he said. Perhaps if some

of us have to take a cut, that's what is necessary so your fathers and mothers

can arrange for you to have better schooling. Perhaps that will be necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look this way!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them why (inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: I can look anyone straight in the face and

say what I have to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, tell them why (inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: When I hear the blarney about what we did,

and what they did when they were in Opposition, about us putting this Province

in debt at $6 billion. Every day of their lives they were over there they said:

'You are not spending enough money, you are not putting enough money into the

economy!' They badgered us, they drove us, saying the people were not satisfied

with us.

MS. VERGE: Look at what they promised when they were

campaigning three years ago.

MR. PARSONS: The restraints in this are not what you

promised three years ago. Live up to your promises. We looked at Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians and said: 'We didn't lie to you, we didn't make false promises.

MR. FLIGHT: You did so! For seventeen years you lied

(inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: I heard the hon. the House Leader talking

today about the school tax being regressive, about it not being for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Let me tell the people in the galleries today,

the young people in the galleries, that last year, the money derived by the

School Tax Authority amounted to $32 million. Next year, from taxes out of your

parents, your uncles, aunts, sisters, brothers, will be equal to $70 million, or

close to $70 million! - a tax grab. What they told you about the elimination of

the school tax only gave them initiative to increase the taxes on your people.

MR. HEWLETT: And on senior citizens.

MR. PARSONS: And on senior citizens, by 4 per cent next

year. Mr. Speaker, it is a farce. They talk about this bill being in the House

because: we had to bring it in here. They blame everyone. In the years that I

have been here since this government took over it is one story after another.

Blame the federal government. No matter what happens in Newfoundland, it is time

we stand on our own two feet and do something about our own economy, do

something for ourselves. All we talk about is what everyone else is doing wrong.

The rate, today, classed as insufficient for survival for a

family is around $19,000. There are people in the civil service and in other

areas involved in this Bill 17, who are well below the poverty level. Last year,

or the year before last, those people through their unions negotiated with the

government in good faith for a raise. Because of the economic climate at that

particular time, their raise was not forthcoming, and I, for one did not totally

disagree. I said if there are restraints that have to be brought in, then that

must be done.

But after two years with no raises, no nothing - to bring in

this legislation, Bill 17, which means during the restraint period that no

monies - the monies negotiat