December

10, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 88

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with the routine business of the day, on

behalf of hon. members, I welcome to the galleries today, a delegation from the

Town Council of Gambo, in the persons of Mayor Peter Lush and Town Manager,

Scott Pritchett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I welcome to the Speaker's Gallery,

Mrs. Grace Sparkes, a member of the Provincial Constitutional Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I extend a warm welcome to

thirty-seven Grade XI Democracy students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High

School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I welcome seven students from the School for

the Deaf, accompanied by their teacher, John Reade, the National Director of the

Association of Canadian Education of the Hearing Impaired, and Jack Jardine,

Guidance Counsellor of the School for the Deaf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

concentrated on the agenda today and made sure that I did not miss my turn.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. members of this House

of Assembly of changes which will be taking place, effective January 1, 1992, in

the Management of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Group of Companies.

As my colleagues are aware, the current Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer of Hydro, Mr. Cyril Abery, is retiring at the end of December.

Mr. Abery is a very able individual who occupied various executive positions in

the Newfoundland Public Service during the past twenty-five years. I am sure

that all hon. members will wish to join me in thanking Mr. Abery for his

diligent and dedicated service and wish him well in his retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in light of the changing

priorities of the Hydro Group, and after a review of the existing senior

management structure, Government has decided to change the current structure at

this time. We have decided to appoint a President and Chief Executive Officer as

the senior operating officer of the Hydro Group of Companies, and we have

decided to appoint a non-management external Chairman of the Board who will be a

member of the Boards of Directors but will not be a full-time employee of the

Hydro Group.

In doing this, Government accepted a unanimous recommendation

of the Board of Directors of Hydro which reviewed this matter for me in the past

months, since Mr. Abery announced his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. members of this

House that Mr. David Mercer, who is currently President of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, has agreed to assume additional responsibility as President and

Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its subsidiaries,

the Lower Churchill Development Corporation and Gull Island Power Company, as

well as Chief Executive Officer of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation. Mr.

Leo Cole, who has been President of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation since

1989, will continue in that position, reporting to Mr. Mercer as the CEO.

Mr. Mercer is a native Newfoundlander who received his early

education at Bishop Field College. He subsequently received a Bachelor of Arts

(Honours) Degree in Economics from Memorial University of Newfoundland and a

Master of Arts Degree, also specializing in Economics, from Queen's University

in Kingston, Ontario. Mr. Mercer held a number of executive positions in the

Newfoundland Public Service between 1966 and 1975 when he agreed to join the

newly created Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro organization to become its first

Vice-President of Corporate Planning. Since joining Hydro, Mr. Mercer, has held

a number of senior executive positions, and is presently a member of the various

Boards of Directors of the Hydro Group of Companies.

I am sure that the hon. members of this House will join me in

wishing Mr. Mercer continued success in fulfilling his new duties with the Hydro

Group of Companies.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the position of Chairman, I

propose to make a further statement within the next few weeks, after we have

made a decision on a person to fill this very important position.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: I thank the minister for giving me a copy of

his statement in advance. I, too, would like to express my very best wishes to

Mr. Abery, whom I knew when I worked in the Premier's Office and when he was in

Intergovernmental Affairs. He is a person who has given many years of his life

to the Public Service of the Province. As for the new appointment of Mr. David

Mercer, and, likewise, Mr. Leo Cole, I have had occasion to meet and have

dealings with both of these individuals. I have no doubt as to their competence

and I fully endorse their appointments, as listed. I wish them well in the task

ahead.

With regard to the policy change of no longer having the

Chairman as the Chief Executive Officer, I guess only time will tell as to

whether or not that will be a preferable situation. One hopes, however, that

this administration will seek a reputable chairman as someone of national or

international stature in matters of hydroelectricity and in negotiating

hydroelectric contracts etc., that a Liberal hack is not appointed, another

patronage appointment and another person to back up the minister on the ongoing

litany of statements about the wonderful negotiations we are having with Quebec.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this will go down in history as

a day of great significance. I am pleased to announce that the Government has

given approval for the submission of a bill to the House, for the designation of

the Atlantic puffin as our Newfoundland Provincial Bird.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, a national celebration

known - Mr. Speaker, would you protect me from the Leader of the Opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, a national celebration

known as Wildlife '87, commemorated 100 years of Wildlife conservation in

Canada. As part of the celebrations, The Natural Historic Society of

Newfoundland and Labrador, undertook a survey of provincial residents to

determine the favoured species for designation as a provincial bird. The survey,

which was performed with the assistance of local newspapers, presented a short

list of birds that were suitably symbolic and representative of this Province.

The list included the common loon, the thick-billed murr, locally known as a

turr, the osprey, the eider, the willow ptarmigan locally known, Mr. Speaker, in

Fogo, as a partridge, and the Atlantic puffin.

In the voting, the top three finishers were the puffin, the

loon and the osprey, in that order, with the puffin having the majority of votes

by far.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who voted on that?

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members opposite

voted, I am sure their bird would have been the turkey!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the survey the

Society requested that the puffin be declared as the Provincial bird but the

request was not acted on at the time. The Society recently renewed the request.

The Atlantic puffin is considered to be ideal for declaration

as our Provincial bird for a number of reasons:

about 95 per cent of all North America's puffins breed in

colonies around the Newfoundland and Labrador coasts;

the puffin nests and winters in waters adjacent to both the

Newfoundland and Labrador coasts;

the bird is readily recognizable and well known, and will

serve well to promote conservation as well as provide a unique image in tourist

promotion;

as people with a strong marine heritage, it is appropriate

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a marine bird as our symbol;

since puffin colonies are rare and sensitive to major

environmental disruption, they well represent the vulnerability of wildlife and

ecosystems.

I want to commend the Natural History Society for their work

in advocating the adoption of a Provincial bird. Through their efforts the

Atlantic puffin will join the black spruce, our Provincial tree; the pitcher

plant, the Provincial flower; and labradorite, the Provincial Mineral, all

suitable and appropriate symbols of our great Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to commemorate this historic occasion I

will ask the Page to deliver to Yourself, Sir, and to all hon. Members, a puffin

lapel pin to be worn with dignity and pride. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, may I

take this occasion to wish you, Sir, the staff, the press and all hon. Members a

very Merry Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After that

earth-shattering statement I am devastated. The only thing I can say to the

minister at the outset is that he certainly picked a day that the Premier was

not here to deliver this statement. Because I am sure it would not have gone out

otherwise.

I have had lots of advice as the minister was delivering his

statement. In fact, someone suggested that perhaps he should have nominated the

fellow whom we call "Big Bird" who sits in the Government benches as the bird.

But what a waste of time, Mr. Speaker, what a waste of time! If the Minister

couldn't do anymore than that, after three years, but get up and announce in the

House that he was going to have the puffin as the provincial bird, it would be

better for the minister to be using his time -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: The puffin is in full flight there now, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister couldn't make more constructive

use of his time, than waste the time of the House of Assembly in making this

statement, 'The bird was a national symbol, a national bird,' then there is

nothing to say to it. We welcome the minister's announcement but we wonder why

he took five minutes of the House's time to say nothing.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and

Energy. Is the Minister aware that Noranda Mines is scheduled to close its

office in Grand Falls/Windsor within the next six months and that all ten

positions in that office will leave the town?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have been made aware

that Noranda is apparently planning to move its office from Grand Falls/Windsor

to Corner Brook.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Noranda

just recently - I see the Minister of Forestry's complete amazement at this, the

Minister perhaps should have told his colleague - gave a very glowing and

positive report about all of its activities in the Central Region, and

particularly most of its activities are related up in the Duck Pond/Tally Pond

area, can the Minister possibly tell us why the company would ever consider

leaving the area in which it has most of its activity, and does he know why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am as amazed as the hon. the

Member for Grand Falls that a decision was made, frankly, because most of the

properties that the company is working on are located in the Central area. If

they do move to Corner Brook, as the company seems to be indicating, they will

still have to travel back to the central area to do their work. So, I am as

amazed as you are.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the Minister is amazed. Now, what is he

doing to try to convince them otherwise, number one. Secondly - my first

question still stands - can he tell us why they are moving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot direct a company where

to locate anywhere in the Province. That is a corporate decision that they have

to make and they have made the corporate decision to move. But as I said, I am

as amazed as you are that they have made that decision, because from where I sit

their interests still are primarily in central.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, I ask

the minister, has he had discussions with the company and if so can he tell the

House why the company is moving?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any personal

discussions on the matter. My staff members have. They have indicated to me some

possible reasons but I would not want to repeat them right here.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister

confirm that one of the reasons may be because of a local preference of a new

manager? Is he aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is a

preference of the new manager that is moving into the Province.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions

for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I want to ask the

Minister: is it a fact that the grant for the roads component in the municipal

grant system - last year, I believe, or this year, it was $1,961 per kilometre -

is to be reduced to $899 per kilometre for all municipalities this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this question is similar to one

that was directed to me several weeks ago. The roads component is being reduced.

I am not sure if those figures are accurate as quoted by the Member. I can check

that.

But the roads component is being reduced. The reason is that

the monies paid out under the other two components, the main components of the

grants programme - equalization and incentive - those two portions of the grants

program have been increased dramatically, as a result of the formulas that are

in place. There is only a given amount of money in the entire grants program.

Because of that the final component, the roads component, had to be reduced. But

the other components, the two main components, are increased dramatically.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the roads component when we

were there a couple of years ago was about $2,000 a kilometre, I believe.

Because of amalgamation - what the City of St. John's has to take in in this

area now, extra roads in the Goulds in particular; and with their road component

grant being reduced from $2,000 a couple of years ago to less than $900 now -

does the minister foresee the City of St. John's having to increase its taxes?

Because it will not benefit from the other components. They are one of the

affluent municipalities. Does he see that the City of St. John's will have to

increase its taxes to cover the extra money for these new roads, plus what they

lose on their own roads? If so, how much does he foresee they will have to

increase their taxes?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all roads that are deemed as

Provincial roads will continue to be maintained and serviced by the Province for

a period of five years if they are involved in an amalgamation scenario. There

may be some roads in the Goulds area in that context.

Other than that I would have to check the formulas as far as

the Goulds being added to St. John's is concerned, the roads component and the

households component, which is the other one. There are four components in all.

The hon. Member may be right in the fact that equalization and incentive, the

first two components, may not show on the plus side for St. John's. I do not

know as far as the Goulds is concerned. I would have to check those as well.

But certainly I would expect that they would be increased on

the household side, because they are adding households from Wedgewood Park, the

Goulds and Metro lands. But again I would have to have those calculations done

and report back to the House. I do not know the impact of the roads component

per se as far as the Goulds is concerned being added to the City of St. John's.

It is something that would have to be calculated.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, there is one road in the

Goulds that Highways will continue, that is the main Bay Bulls highway there.

Many other roads the City will have to take over.

The Minister today showed some flexibility on the drastic

deficit of the Aquarena. He expected at one time it was a couple of hundred

thousand dollars, now it looks like it is $1 million. The Minister said that

because this showed such a difference he might give the City some money to try

to rectify it. If the figures that the minister checks out show that the roads

component will - and other grant systems will affect the City drastically by

taking in the Goulds will he consider having some money put into the City

coffers to try to equalize what the cost will be to the City to help them out

over the next four or five years, the road's component and the grant's

component?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this particular item has not

been addressed as far as the City of St. John's is concerned through the

transition process that is in place, my staff and theirs. Certainly, I will

check out the impact of the road's component on the City of St. John's by way of

the addition of the Goulds roads and see what impact is involved. I have said

consistently all along, Mr. Speaker, that if there is an unfairness that can be

shown and proven in the amalgamation, in this case the annexation of the Goulds

and Wedgewood Park, I would address the unfairness and make recommendations to

Government. If that happens to be the case here I will do the same.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: As this Government continues to push, bully,

and force amalgamation upon the people of this Province who do not want it in

various communities, can I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

what is the status of the proposed amalgamation, and indeed the recommendations

of his Assistant Deputy Minister, and one other person, as it relates to the

Burin, Lewin's Cove, Port au Bras, Mortier, Fox Cove proposal?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: The first part of this question, Mr.

Speaker, is totally false. Amalgamation is being well received throughout the

Province. Three groupings of communities are coming together today. Just today

elections are being held in three groupings. Some nine communities are being

amalgamated to form three new towns. We have had great success and, of course,

the Opposition is not happy with that, needless to say. As far as the area the

member mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we have some twelve to fourteen groupings of

communities that I have recommendations now prepared for Government and I would

expect that decisions will be made over the next few weeks as to whether or not

amalgamations will proceed. One of those groupings is the grouping he mentioned.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that amalgamation is

being accepted. Every time we turn on the radio we hear Mount Pearl, the Goulds,

and Wedgewood Park singing the praises of the minister on his proposals. Also

Mount Moriah and the rest of them. In a letter the Premier wrote to the Mayor of

Lewin's Cove he said: I assure you that if the majority of the residents of

Lewin's Cove are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality

then the issue will not be forced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister will the residents of Lewin's

Cove make the decision as to whether or not Lewin's Cove will be amalgamated?

Will the Premier's comments, Mr. Speaker, be his word or will they be just

negated like everything else he has done?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is a decision that has to

be made by Government at the end of the day. I can only make recommendations as

a minister to Government and Government ultimately will decide. We have said

consistently now, the Premier and I, whenever we have spoken on amalgamation,

that if there is a community that dissents given amalgamation scenario, whether

it be one, two, or more communities, depending on the size of the grouping, that

we would have a debate in the House of Assembly. We would not make a decision in

isolation to the House. We have followed that statement throughout the

amalgamation recommendations and decisions so far. I cannot say to you what the

outcome will be as far as Lewin's Cove is concerned. That will depend on a

decision that has to be taken by Government.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the

minister. It is not what the minister is saying, it is what the Premier and the

Leader of the Government have said to the people of Lewin's Cove, and that is: I

assure you that if the majority of residents of Lewin's Cove are opposed to

being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality then the issue will not be

forced. Let me ask the Minister, does he not recognize the petition that has

been presented, signed by 99 per cent of the people of Lewin's Cove opposing

amalgamation? Is that what the Premier is referring to when he says, if the

people of Lewin's Cove are opposed? Or are the people of Lewin's Cove and the

council wrong in assuming that they will not be amalgamated because they have

accepted the word of the Premier as honourable?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the feasibility

process that we have been through with some forty-two groupings in all, in the

Province, 110 communities, is to find out how the people feel, how the

communities feel, how the councils feel about the amalgamation proposed in every

given scenario. We have also had, on top of that process the hearings and the

consultations, the dialogue and so on, we have also had public meetings, we have

had petitions and whatever.

Mr. Speaker, under the Municipalities Act, the feasibility

process does not recognize petitions per se, because they do not speak for the

elected people in the area. A petition could literally be signed I would suggest

- people will sign almost anything if you go to their door. They do not always

look at the content, they do not often even hear what is being said - yes, I

will sign it and they are gone - so, Mr. Speaker, the process is one of

following the feasibility study. At the end of the day, if the feasibility study

results in the commissioner's recommending amalgamation as the right thing to

do, Mr. Speaker, then a decision has to be made by the Government.

Now, whether or not we will look at a petition as opposed to

the results of a feasibility study is a question that the Government has to

address. I can only make recommendations as the minister, and my

recommendations, Mr. Speaker, based on a feasibility process and recommendations

by commissioners and then eventually, Mr. Speaker, recommendations from the

minister, and the Government then has to make a decision.

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

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

Minister of Health. I gave the Minister of Health a little bit of notice on this

question as a matter of fact, in the interest of getting some accurate

information. Now, the minister is aware that at least one case of bacterial

meningitis has been reported in the local media over the last number of days,

and in the interest of getting some information out on this very important

matter to the general public, I wonder if the minister could indicate if this is

the first case of its type this fall?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sickness

and disease and illness is a very delicate, sensitive issue and Government has

to be very careful when we get directly involved, and we have a professional

group of people out there who are administering the health care system and who

have a protocol which they follow, so therefore I will answer the question in

very general terms, and confirm for the hon. member that indeed there has been a

case of meningococcus disease in the Province this fall.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: I thank the minister for his answer. Last

year, when the problem occurred, the department sent its medical officers, I

believe, out around the Province to conduct an education program, informing

parents and students of that disease. Is such a program taking place now to

inform people of the symptoms of the disease and if not, will there be such a

program so that people will get faster medical diagnosis?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not quite

right, and I am not trying to say his information is wrong, but it is a little

bit off, though. There is a protocol which public health officials follow when a

case of meningococcus disease is diagnosed - that disease is one of those which

is immediately reported to the public health officials, and then they meet with

the relatives or the friends of the person and they immediately administer a

prophylaxis, and in some cases where the population will ask for information.

Now, I think the hon. member is referring to Mount Pearl

school last year, somewhere on the West Coast where the public health doctor

went out and explained to the people what the disease was all about and what the

Public Health Department does, they will target certain groups and where the

need is perceived or real, they will go in and explain to the people just what

kind of a disease they are dealing with and they will explain the various

treatments for such a disease. That service is available 365 days a year to

people who ask for it and in certain cases last year, for some reason this issue

had a lot of media attention and I believe some people in the Province, in

certain places were scared. They were probably unnecessarily scared, in some

cases, but where the need arises, targeted groups are given information if they

want it. This is available whenever people want it, but there is no education

program per se where we go out and educate about this disease.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. At the recent

Fishermen's Union Convention, the federal Minister of Fisheries announced the

creation of a task force to study, and I quote: 'What should be done with

respect to catch failures, and how we can get a better system to deal with them,

and to deal with fishermen's income than the present fishermen's UI system

alone.

I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries could advise the House

whether he has been informed of this initiative, and what involvement his

department and the Province will have in this task force?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have not been officially

notified of that initiative that the federal minister announced at the

convention, but I can tell the House that considerable work is being done now by

officials of the Provincial Government with respect to a proposed plan. In fact,

we had a meeting on it one day last week and discussed the matter. That group

will be making contact with Mr. Crosbie, and hopefully, can work with his

committee, if and when it is structured. I guess that is about all I can say on

it at this point in time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Minister of Fisheries tell the House whether or not

his department, or other departments of Government, have commissioned any

studies with respect to this, and , in fact, other than discuss the nature of

management boards, whether they have developed any concrete proposals or

propositions with respect to income support for fishermen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the group that I referred to a

moment ago are now putting together some positions for the provinces to consider

with respect to some kind of a guaranteed income for fishermen, especially. I

expect when that is ready for presentation it will be announced in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. There

is a piece of legislation before our House today that indicates that the Hydro

Corporation can defer certain costs had in 1991 onto the years following - 1992,

etc. - in the calculations it needs to make, I guess, to make presentations

before the Public Utilities Board. Would the minister care to indicate the

nature of these costs that are being allowed to be deferred?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, 1991 is the final year of the

phaseout of the PDD subsidy that used to be paid for Government, and the amount

that is left there is the final amount in the phaseout.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the minister is

still indicating that even though we might have a deferral, in due course,

people of the Province will have to pay the piper the full tune for the cost of

that phaseout of that particular subsidy, be it 1992, 1993, or whenever. Is that

the case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: From now onwards, Mr. Speaker, the

electrical rate payers of the Province will be paying for the full cost of

electricity, including the former subsidy which is now discontinued. It will not

continue beyond 1991.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. Over the last two or three months, the minister has made a number of

announcements with regard to regional recreational facilities in this Province.

The only one that was excluded, which had a feasibility study done that had

previously been approved, was one for Fogo Island. I met the minister on two

occasions to discuss it. The minister had promised to report on the feasibility

study. Can the minister indicate when he is going to have a report done on the

feasibility study for Fogo Island's recreational complex?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member refers to a

report that I said I would get for him explaining why Fogo Island was not

approved, and I will see that that report is made available to the member.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister, it

was three weeks ago that we met, and two weeks ago you said you would have the

report. Let me ask the minister this, then: Is he prepared to go to Fogo Island

to discuss the contents of the report with the Regional Stadium Committee in

place there, and tell them why the minister denied them funding, the only one in

the Province that had a feasibility study done that was approved prior to this

Administration taking power, and theirs was the only one that was rejected? Is

the minister prepared to go to the island and discuss it with them?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that may have been the only

one, at the time that we took Government, to have a feasibility report done, but

I am not sure of that. Certainly, all of the applicants - and there were some

twelve or thirteen applicants for regional recreation facilities - substantially

all of them, had feasibility studies done at the time of decisions being made.

Certainly, I will meet with the councils on Fogo Island,

whatever it takes. I do not know whether it is necessary to go down there or

not. If that is necessary, I will do that, as well. But I am certainly more than

willing to meet with them or meet with the recreation commission, whoever is

responsible.

I might remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that I have

already had discussions with a lot of those councils. The Town of Fogo was in

just this morning, as a matter of fact.

MR. FLIGHT: They did not tell the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there, Sam?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: It is not as if I am unwilling to meet with

the councils, Mr. Speaker. I am more than willing to meet with those councils at

any time to discuss this topic or any other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the

operation that was proposed for Fogo Island was done by a Stadium Committee made

up of representatives of all people on the island, and one council does not

speak for the entire island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the minister then: Is the minister

saying that he is prepared to go to Fogo Island, to sit down with the Stadium

Committee to discuss the relevant issues in this matter and, if so, when is he

prepared to go?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the

member, in case he has forgotten, that we have in this Province some 550

municipalities. If, every time I was requested by a member, I were to go and

visit a community, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly never ever be in this House,

and I would never be in my office.

So, my answer, Mr. Speaker, is: If it is necessary to go to

Fogo Island, I will go. In the meantime, I will discuss the matter with all of

the communities at any time, as I did this morning and as I will do with the

other communities, if they so request. If it is necessary to travel down there,

I will do that, as well.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. Now that the

House has rammed Bill 38 through and has swallowed up the Marine Institute, I

wonder if the minister will tell us if the tuition fees for the next educational

year for students who attend Marine Institute and Memorial University will be

the same, now that the institute is really a part of the university, or will

there be two different fee structures?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the fees will not be the same.

It is my understanding that there may be some increase in fees that would

normally occur, but the fees will be individual to the programs that are

designed by the institute, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister will

tell us: Will there now be two -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: I wonder if the minister will tell us, Mr.

Speaker, if there will now be two student councils, one representing the Marine

Institute Division and one representing Memorial University, or will there be

just one student council representing all the students?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of knowledge

of the educational system, but these are the kinds of things that must be worked

out by students and by the institutions.

Mr. Speaker, this action by the Government was a very

positive action. This was a very positive step forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would

like to have done some of these things when he was the minister or when his

colleagues were in Government, but they did not do it. They know it is the right

decision. We are going to do it right and we are going to work out the details

over the next two or three years of these kinds of initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to make sure that the identity of

the Marine Institute remains, that its programs will be enhanced, that students

will be protected, and I assure you, it is going to be good for this Province

and for the students.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me say

to the minister, what we are worried about is that they do what the Premier and

himself promised the students they would do. We see him waffling on that right

now.

Let me ask the minister, then: will there be a separate board

of directors for the Marine Institute Division or will there be just one board

of directors that (inaudible) responsible to, or dealing with the Senate - the

Board of Regents, I should say.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do know. The legislation

provides for an advisory board specific to the industry. In addition to that, we

have added to the Board of Regents, two well-known persons who represent various

aspects of the fishing industry. All members of the Board of Regents are

knowledgeable about one of the main industries in this Province.

But this year when we replaced the Board of Regents, we added

two persons to bring to that body - in addition to the advisory board to the

president on marine and fisheries matters - Dr. Ches Blackwood, with a

distinguished career in marine and fisheries in this Province, and Mr. Earl

McCurdy. We think these are two excellent appointments to the Board of Regents

of Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the minister indicate

that the Government will not be forcing the amalgamation of Corner Brook with

Massey Drive and Mount Moriah during 1991 or 1992, either because the Government

will abandon the proposal altogether or because the Government will defer it

beyond the end of 1992?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, discussions are ongoing with

Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah as they are with the other groupings

that remain for decisions to be taken. As to whether we will have an

amalgamation take place, in the near future or in the long term, is difficult to

determine. The discussions are going very well and if it is decided that

amalgamation is in the best interest of the people of the area, we will proceed.

If it is not in the best interest of the people of the area, we will not

proceed. But those decisions have yet to be taken.

I have a recommendation in the process which will not be

forwarded to Government. I will not bring it to Government until I am satisfied

that the decision is the right one. I do have discussions coming up with those

three towns very shortly, within the next week or so. We are getting very close

to a decision but one is not made as yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the lack of representation by women in the House of

Assembly, reflects the inequality of women in society and political parties have

to date been unable to provide a means or mechanism to resolve the gross

inequality of representation; AND

WHEREAS gender balance achieved by having an equal number of

men and women would provide greater democracy and lead to policies and laws

which would remove barriers to equality of men and women in society; AND

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has experienced

representation by more than one member per district as part of its political

history which form of representation can be adapted to achieve gender equality.

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support the

principle of representation by two members per district, one man and one woman,

without increasing the number of Legislative seats; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Committee of the House be

established to report to the House on the methods and time-table to be adopted

to implement the new form of representation.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon.

Member for Ferryland asked a couple of questions to my colleague, the Minister

of Development, concerning the Offshore Development Fund, and since my colleague

is absent today, and I am the minister responsible for that fund, I would like

to reply.

First, he asked for a financial review of the fund and I

would like to state that the total allocation in the fund to date, the total

projects approved to date is $252.4 million out of the $300 million fund, that

leaves noncommitted $47.6 million. The expenditures or cash flow to date, of the

$252.4 million committed is $124 million, that is the total cash flow to date.

The second question related to job creation issues. The

objective of this fund was not to create jobs, permanent jobs directly from the

expenditures made, but instead to establish the educational, research,

industrial and social infrastructure which would place the Province and its

residents in a better position to capture future economic benefits of offshore

development. As such, Offshore Development Fund expenditures were not monitored

specifically for employment creation statistics. As well, in practical terms it

would be extremely difficult to determine the true extent of jobs created from

the Offshore Development Fund Investments due to the fact that in almost all

cases, the fund provided only a contribution towards total project cost, that

is, it would be all but impossible to track the exact number of jobs created in

relation to development of the Hibernia project, for example, with Government

contributing $95 million from the fund out of, about a $400 million expenditure.

Having said this however, it is safe to assume that

expenditures made under the fund have created or maintained many jobs for local

companies supplying the goods and services required to complete the twenty-one

projects already approved. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 25, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council On

The Economy". Is this an adjourned debate or is the hon. minister introducing

it? It is second reading.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish An

Advisory Council On The Economy" (Bill No. 61)

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is a

bill to put together two bodies, two advisory bodies that existed previously

last year. The first was the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador that

has been in existence for quite some time, the second body is the Economic

Recovery Commission Advisory Council, and over the last year and a half, it has

been discovered that perhaps much more efficiency can be achieved and valuable

work done if both bodies were put together into one unit, so, Mr. Speaker, what

this bill does is, really to replace The Economic Council of Newfoundland and

Labrador and the Economic Recovery Commission Advisory Board by one body called,

An Advisory Council on the Economy, and this very brief bill simply does that.

This, has in fact in reality in the working of these two boards, this has

already been done and it was done with the agreement of both boards and the

membership was taken some from one board, some from the other so that the total

membership now is only half of what both boards together once were. Mr. Speaker,

it is simply to put into law something that in fact has happened voluntarily by

these two boards.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few brief words on the legislation. As the

President of the Council points out, of course, the act will come into force,

retroactive to May 10, so the reality is that this situation that is alluded to

in the bill has already been in place for six, seven, or eight months now, or

whatever it has been. We have no real difficulty with it.

I presume the minister can tell us, when he closes debate,

that the new Advisory Council on the Economy is working productively. I do not

know if he knows the cost saving. I am not sure what it cost to operate the

Economic Council of Newfoundland nor the Economic Recovery Commission Advisory

Council. I do not know what the costs were. I cannot remember now, but

presumably one of the arguments in eliminating those two bodies, in creating

this new creature, was not only for efficiency, but presumably would also show

some cost savings. I do not know if the minister knows the answer to those

questions, but if he does he can perhaps give us a ball park figure. I am not

looking for the exact amount, or anything of that nature.

The only other thing I will say is that I suppose the

Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador - I have a soft spot in my heart

for that particular body because when it was created it was created to try to

give Newfoundland and Labrador some more presence, additional presence to what

it was receiving from time to time when economic councils from outside of

Newfoundland and Labrador periodically gave their quarterly reports. I refer to

APEC, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which periodically gives a report

on the economies of Atlantic Canada. They would have included Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the Conference Board of Canada. I think, originally when we

established, that is the previous administration, established the Economic

Council, one of the reasons was we wanted to have our own body advising the

Government on economic matters, and we wanted to give it a bit of a presence,

try to put it in the same ball park, if you want, with other bodies like APEC,

the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. And why not?

I remember that that council, when it was functioning,

provided some good advice to the Government, some very good advice. In fact, we

frequently as a Cabinet, I remember, met with the Economic Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we frequently took their advice. In fact, we

frequently included in our budgetary decisions and announcements some of the

recommendations made by the Economic Council, some of which, by the way, this

administration have turned around and changed because they were not working as

well as we had hoped they would, nor as well as the Econonic Council had

recommended to us that they would.

What is rather ironic about it all, of course, is that the

Chairman of the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador that used to

exist, is the same Chairman now of this new Advisory Council on the economy, I

believe. Who is Chairman of this new Advisory Council? Is it Harold?

AN HON. MEMBER: Harold.

MR. SIMMS: Who was Chairman of the Economic Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador when it was initiated.

MR. BAKER: That goes back some time.

MR. SIMMS: When it was started, is what I am saying. The

same person who chaired the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador was

Harold Lundrigan, you see, for the first several years of its existence. The

same person who chaired that now chairs this, a man of impeccable integrity,

great character and good knowledge, a business person whom I have a lot of

respect for.

MR. DECKER: Otherwise he would not have come through

(inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, you see, we had appointed him and so you

knew how good he was. I have no idea what his political leanings are and it is

totally irrelevant to the new Government, I know, because they don't practice

any partisanship any longer. They make no patronage appointments or no political

partisanship.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about contracts?

MR. SIMMS: No, they are not partisan in their dealings

with contracts. They do not appoint former members of the Legislature, defeated

Liberals, to public service positions. They don't do any of that stuff. A

non-patronage, non-partisan, non-political Government is what we have over

there, Mr. Speaker, on that side, and this Advisory Council on the Economy is a

perfect example of the way that they operate. They appointed, as Chairman of

this Council, the same person that we, the Progressive Conservatives, appointed

as Chairman of the Economic Council.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there is not much more you can say about

it, it is already in effect since last May. So, there is not much point in

standing here and wasting the time of the House. We will see in due course and

over a period of time how well this new Advisory Council performs, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister speaks now, he closes the

debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to address this bill with some brief remarks. I have

no difficulty, in general, with the principle of the bill. I know that the

Government does need economic advice as well as it needs all sorts of other

advice. It does not particularly bother this party, Mr. Speaker, whether it is

called the Advisory Council on the Economy or the Economic Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It certainly is integrated with the other initiatives

of the Government in terms of its activities, and I have no difficulty with

that.

What I do say, Mr. Speaker, is that missing from the

Government's initiatives in this area is some leadership in terms of the

economy. We have seen, even today, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries, in

terms of the economic problems of the fishermen - this Government, even though

it has been in for two-and-a-half years is still getting together, perhaps, some

ideas, that they will propose to the Federal Government about catch failure

programs and income support programs for fishermen. They even left it, Mr.

Speaker, to the Member for Eagle River to come to this House with a resolution

on guaranteed annual income or some form of income support for fishermen, rather

than having a government initiative in that area.

We don't see, Mr. Speaker, the kind of initiative one would

expect from the Government of Newfoundland in these tough economic times,

initiatives that would insist, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of Confederation that

we have, the kind of economic policies being pursued by the Federal Government,

would be under very, very strong attack, I would expect, Mr. Speaker, if this

Government was serious about providing economic leadership to the people of this

Province. We have seen them react with their budgets by cutting back on

expenditures in areas that Newfoundlanders need to have increases in

expenditures in order to be able to participate more fully in the Canadian

economy, both as individuals and as a Province. We have seen also massive

layoffs in the public service, again, where the public services in this Province

are significantly less than they are in other Provinces.

Instead of tackling those problems by means of a critique of

the Canadian economy, a critique of the transfer payments, even recently we have

had the Provincial Government through the First Ministers of the Atlantic

Provinces decline to critique the Federal decrease in transfer payments, and

rather chose to do very little about that issue.

When of course we recognize, in this Party, that one of the

principle problems that Newfoundland faces as a Province, as a Government and as

a Provincial economy, is the inability of its economy, under current economic

policies and circumstances, to be able to achieve for its residents the standard

of living that Canadians enjoy in other parts of the country. We still have a

standard of income which is considerably less than 70 per cent of the national

average, when one looks at economic factors, and we do not see any progress in

achieving national averages for per capita incomes and these types of economic

indicators.

So what we really need from this Government is not another

board to give it advice. What we need is the Government to start looking at the

kind of policies that it has and looking at the kind of leadership that it is

taking. Not only in economic issues, but when we now have the opportunity,

through the constitutional debate, to provide some very strong statements to be

made by the Premier and by the leaders of the Government on issues involving the

protection and the guarantee of having for this Province the ability to deliver

on areas such as health, education, other social programs, that would not only

guarantee that Newfoundlanders would have the same rights and abilities to have

access to the level of health care and education that other Canadians enjoy, but

also that - particularly in education - the opportunities that people have to

participate more fully in the economic life of the nation, in their own

development as individuals to be able to contribute to society, that those

opportunities would be maximized.

While that was being done the kind of income support and

money that would be required or would be made available to this Government to

allow that to happen, that itself would engender a significant economic growth

and provide job opportunities for those delivering the programs as well.

So in addition to having an economic council that gives

advice what we really need is leadership by this Government. We have seen

opportunities pass where the Premier has had a chance to influence the national

debate about matters of the Constitution. What we have had instead of some

passion about the needs of the people of Newfoundland, we have heard dry legal

logic and legal arguments about the nature of the structure of the Senate, or

the nature of the structure of the various elements of our society. Ones that

have led to a constitutional impasse in the past, instead of dramatic leadership

by this Province, showing the rest of Canada what kind of country we need and

what kind of interest Newfoundland has in this particular debate.

So I make those remarks to take this opportunity in

discussing this bill, to make those remarks and put on the record my extreme

dissatisfaction with the Government's lack of leadership in the area of economic

issues. Having said that, the bill itself does not do very much other than put

the shoe on the other foot and allow the same sort of thing to go on. The

Government needs advice as I said, it needs all the advice that it can get. One

hopes that they should listen to it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

he speaks now will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me briefly deal with the comments from the

Member for St. John's East. I find it rather ironic that he is speaking about

economic advice and so on, and the Government's need for economic advice, and I

would remind this hon. House that his solution to our problems is simply to go

out and borrow another couple of hundred million dollars. We can do that, he

says, go out and borrow another couple of hundred million dollars and spend it.

Let us throw it around and spend it and then that will be the solution to our

problems. That is his solution to our economic problems. The Member for St.

John's East forgets the fact that even a most responsible Government of this

Province could never, ever borrow that much money on current account, to go out

and blow around anyway. It is absolutely impossible, number one. Number two it

would put our credit rating down below the third world countries. We would never

be able to go to the market and get it anyway, and the few pennies we would

manage to get on the world market would cost us so much that it would bankrupt

the Province. He is talking about bankruptcy, bankrupting the Province as his

solution to our economic woes. I do not really listen to his comments on the

economy beyond that. I dismiss him as having no understanding of what is

happening in this Province or this country in terms of the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of

comments concerning the hon. Leader of the Opposition and what he said about the

bill. He gave a pretty good breakdown of the events leading up to the formation

of this particular group. He mentioned that at one point in time the Province

relied upon figures from the Conference Board of Canada and from APEC and that

his Government thought that perhaps we should have our own local group providing

figures for our Government. That was a marvellous decision. That was a very wise

decision that the previous Government made. I think he was a little bit kind

because one of the reasons why they made that decision was because the research

and the information coming from APEC was not of a standard high enough for the

Government to accept comfortably.

In the interim, Mr. Speaker, APEC has developed into a first

class organization providing a top- notch service to this Province, so we have

now used APEC more in the last couple of years, increasingly more, for our

economic information, which has proven to be very solid. Right now in terms of

APEC there is no need for our own group alone so we are now a more active

participant in the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. Mr. Speaker, the

expertise and the good idea that members opposite had when they were in

Government, and the expertise that was there, is now being used. In the putting

together of the Economic Council and the Advisory Board we have retained the

expertise, and we have retained the research facilities and so on, and this

group is still doing a superb job for the people of the Province. The member

asked whether there were any cost savings, and suspected there might be, and he

is right there again. This Government is always looking for cost savings

wherever they can find them. Mr. Speaker, we have to. In this instance the

amalgamation of the two boards saved us in the vicinity of $125,000.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this

bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish An Advisory Council

On The Economy," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 61)

MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20, second reading -

MR. BAKER: Could we stop for one second, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, to Order No. 22.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The

Electrical Power Control Act." (Bill No. 57).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we started the phaseout of the PDD subsidy a little over

two years ago, we had to make some amendments to The Electrical Power Control

Act back in December, 1989. In making those amendments we had to give the board,

the PUB, the right to allow Hydro to defer expenses, during the period of the

phaseout, to allow it to have regular adjustment to the rates rather than big,

irregular adjustment to the rates. Also, at that time, because we were going to

have the regular rate payers pay the subsidy, we had to give Hydro the right to

cross-subsidize across other rate payers. At the time the cross-subsidy was

expanded to include the Island grid plus industrial customers.

Deferring expenses is not normally allowed in public utility

practice, and therefore, it required the amendment. Now, since the PDD subsidy

has been phased out, we can go back to the normal practice. Also, since the

Labrador grid was excluded in terms of a cross subsidy two years ago, we are

also proposing to change the cross-subsidy rules.

Primarily, the amendments being made today to The Electrical

Power Control Act will remove the exclusion for Labrador into connected

customers regarding the sharing in these rural losses in cross-subsidizing, and

secondly, it is going to remove Hydro's right to defer expenses - for costs

after 1991.

I can refer specifically to the bill. It is not a long bill.

Clause 1 would amend

section 2(

i) by redefining the definition of rural

customers to include new customers who were not previously served by the Power

Distribution District. These are new people who have come onto the grid in these

rural areas since January 1, 1990.

Clause 2(1) would amend subparagraph 3(c)(ii), by replacing

the phrase "cost of service" with the phrase "forecast cost". This change is

necessary to reflect the change in the language of the power policy as contained

in the 1989 amendment to the Act. This change would make paragraphs 3(

b) and (

c) consistent with the new provisions, subsection 3(2) and sections 4.1 and 4.2, as

contained in this bill.

Clause 2(2) would add a new subsection to clarify the power

policy in the case of the Hydro Corporation for the purpose of forecasting costs

in relation to electrical rate cross-subsidization.

Clause 3 would repeal and replace the current sections 4.1

and 4.3 so that the Hydro Corporation's right to allocate to other customers the

losses it incurs in serving rural customers is maintained, and the Hydro

Corporation's right to defer expenses is limited to 1991 - no deferral beyond

In setting the rates to be charged retailers under the Act,

this amendment would also direct the Public Utilities Board to look at the Hydro

Corporation's forecast cost and deferred cost under the amendments proposed in

clause 1, and the new

section 4.1.

Section 4.2 of the existing Act is now spent,

because the subsidy has been phased out completely.

The final clause of this new bill, clause 4, would repeal

section 20 of The Electrical Power Control Act. This

section 20 was a

transitional provision relating to contracts with retail customers which have

now expired. Specifically, this refers to a contract between Hydro and

Newfoundland Light and Power which expired more than a year ago.

That is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few brief comments. I have said much over the last year or

so with regard to the record of this particular administration and its treatment

of hydroelectric rates. Needless to say, its position in Opposition and its

position in Government have varied greatly, and electrical rates have increased

probably 25 per cent or better since this particular administration came to

power.

This piece of legislation we are doing here today is

essentially a cleaning up, facilitating piece of legislation, that allowed the

Government to pass over a $30 million subsidy that it used to pay to Hydro to

pass on to the ordinary ratepayers of the Province. It gives Labradorians the

joy of sharing in cross-subsidization which I am sure they really wanted to get

in on insofar as it costs them extra money.

But, all in all, we have a Government here that, in terms of

electrical rates, have imposed guarantee fees on Newfoundland Hydro's

borrowings, payroll tax on both public utilities in the Province; has

established a rate stabilization fund which it dips into at will, which has,

itself, caused a number of rate increases over the last few years; and more

importantly, I think, than anything else, and not directly touched on in this

bill, has created the position of a consumer representative, which I think

leaves the consumer of electricity at a disadvantage in fighting these kinds of

bills that this particular administration brings before this House.

I have said much on this over the last year or so, and, of

course, I will be saying more at the next rate hearing Newfoundland Hydro has. I

today officially gave my notice as an intervenor against that particular rate

increase. That is all I have to say at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy,

if he speaks now, will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say

except that the rate increases that Hydro has received since we started this

subsidy phaseout is only 4 per cent at the retail level as a result of its last

hearing. That is the only increase and this is the second time it has been back

to the Board. Otherwise, I am pleased to move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Electrical Power

Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 57).

MR. BAKER: Order 23, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Mechanics' Lien Act". (Bill No. 58).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that

has been a little while in presentation, related to larger contracts, and has to

do with the application of The Mechanics' Lien Act to these larger contracts. It

makes special provisions for contracts over $20 million. This is something that,

at this point in time, is needed in relation to further Hibernia development, so

I am very pleased to introduce this bill.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to

address this bill. I wish the Minister of Justice were in his seat because this

bill gives rise to a situation that is becoming very common in Newfoundland and

Labrador today. I say to the President of Treasury Board, I appreciate that this

deals with the larger contract, which is a serious problem; I wish it was

expanded to deal with smaller contracts, as well. I am finding many cases today

where contracts - and it is all relative. You are talking a $20 million

contractor, therefore you are talking a large contractor. So the contractor's

ability to finance the amount of holdback that may be involved in a contract of

that nature is greater. Nevertheless, the injustice is still there.

Quite often, an owner will hold back 10 per cent of the

contract. In that case, it is a $2 million holdback which may be held back

because there $100,000 or $150,000 in deficiencies. What I like about this Act,

if I read it correctly, is that it provides a sliding scale, where if the

deficiency is $150,000 the court may accept those liens, give notice thereof,

and provide that some security or cash deposit plus a deposit on cost would be

made to secure the lien holder. But it does not tie up $2 million for a year or

two years, or in the case of litigation in the courts, even longer.

The reason I wanted to speak to this is because I had a case

this summer of a friend of mine who was a contractor, who had a contract

probably just over $1 million. For his little company that was the largest

contract he had even undertaken. The contact went very well but there was a

dispute with the owner and the owner has launched a legal action amounting to

just under $1 million which was totally spurious, which anybody who looked at it

with any knowledge of construction at all would say, there is not a hope that

this particular claim would be upheld by the courts. Even worse, Mr. Speaker,

there is no responsibility on that person making the claim to ask the courts for

a hearing date. Perhaps my friend for St. John's East, if he is listening, might

want to speak to it. The onus is on the complainant to ask for a court date and

the defendant in this case was not able to arrange that the matter be brought

before court, so here was a holdback of $1 million after the job had been done.

And for this little company it almost, literally, put that company into

bankruptcy. The owner almost lost all of his equipment and his own home because

it came to a point where in order to finance this large project he had to take

financing on his own home. He took that risk for the first time in his

construction career and he almost lost it all. Mr. Speaker, there has to be an

injustice here. In the final agreement it never did get to court. It finally got

to the point where the contractor's lawyers advised him, 'Look, this could take

so long that you are better off making a settlement.' And I think there was a

settlement of $80,000 or $90.000 which was totally unwarranted, but it was

better to pay the $80,000 or $90,000 than to leave that $1 million tied up for a

year or two, or God knows how long, the end result being that the owner, I think

very deliberately and, calculatedly, picked up $90,000 that he or she was not

entitled to, simply because the contractor was in a catch-22 situation, there

was no way out.

The weakness I see, therefore in this legislation, and

obviously the Mechanics' Lien Act is to protect the owner, or to protect

sub-contractors who are not happy, so anyone can place a lien. but I am not

aware that there is any mechanism in there that if a false lien is placed there

are penalties. What onus is there on the person who is applying a lien against

the contractor for costs in case this lien is proven to be spurious? Here was a

case where $1 million was held up for no valid reason. There may have been some

slight argument but certainly it was not $1 million worth. Maybe it was a

$20,000, $30,000, or even a $50,000 disagreement on whether or not the work was

completed totally in accordance with the contract. Certainly, it was not a

million dollar problem but that owner was able to lodge a $1 million action and

basically force the contractor to reach a settlement which was totally unjust,

totally unreasonable, and totally unwarranted. The contractor said, I either

give him $70,000 or $80,000 or I go bankrupt. Now, that is not just to me, Mr.

Speaker, and I think the law needs to be looked at very carefully. I wish the

Minister of Justice were here to hear what I said. I will refer a Hansard to him

and write him on it tomorrow when I get a copy of the Hansard of today because I

think it is an issue that needs to be looked at and I am aware that it is

happening more and more often. It is not only contracts of $20 million more. The

case I related is not specifically relative to this legislation, but it is a

similar problem, and I am aware of even some of the larger contractors who are

doing $2 million, $3 million contracts that have a 10 per cent holdback, tied up

for a long period of time simply because a sub-contractor fails to complete the

landscaping or leaves a piece of eaves troughing off a building or something of

that nature, and if you have to take action against a subcontractor to get him

to complete his part of the work, other than do it yourself, in which case you

may be prejudicing your legal case, I do not know, but you may well. But there

are cases where contractors are having the same sort of difficulty, in that

large amounts of money are tied up for a long period of time.

So, as I read this legislation, I think this is a step

forward, but it only relates to the $20 million contract, where that contractor

can probably better deal with these problems than the contractor whose million

dollar contract is the biggest contract he has ever undertaken and is not in the

financial position, does not have depth to handle these types of difficulties.

So, in supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government to look

further and to see if, indeed, our legislation does not need to be corrected to

solve those inefficiencies and to perhaps come back with another bill in the

spring session, which we could put through just as quickly as this one will go

through. Because I think it is a good move forward, Mr. Speaker, and I support

this particular piece of legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise to

support the legislation and also to make some remarks on the Mechanic's Lien

Act, in general, following on the comments of the Member for Mount Pearl.

First of all, let me say that I support this legislation,

because I understand this legislation is designed to facilitate the smoother

operation of the Hibernia project, and I would like to commend the Government on

making changes in the legislation to allow this project to operate in a smoother

way. But, in saying so, Mr. Speaker, I wish to add that it seems that the

Government is prepared to respond very quickly in legislative ways to problems

that have been identified in areas where the amounts, the people, the players

are big and able to make a good case to the Government, and they very quickly

get a response to the Mechanic's Lien Act.

I too, would ask that the Government have a look at the most

recent study done by the Law Reform Commission of Newfoundland on the Mechanic's

Lien Act. It is a very technical piece of legislation, mostly very complex and

dealing with the achieving of some balance between contractors, owners and

suppliers and working people, who rely on the Mechanic's Lien Act, sometimes as

their last resort because the person for whom they worked, went bankrupt or went

out of business or they cannot find them and they cannot get paid, so Mechanic's

Liens are very important protection for workers and suppliers, Mr. Speaker, in

the event of business bankruptcies and that is fairly common in the construction

industry.

We have a lot of players, many of whom are not

well-established, and it is a pretty risky business to be in, as the Member for

Mount Pearl has pointed out. But the Law Reform Commission has done a very

extensive study of the Mechanic's Lien Act, and has come up with a number of

technical problems that have been identified and that need to be addressed. And

I hope that the Minister of Justice will commit his department to a speedy

review of the report of the Law Reform Commission and bring forward amendments

to prevent the kinds of abuses that can go on; the Member for Mount Pearl has

pointed out one where, through legal manoeuvring, a lawyer is able to advise one

party that by playing the game a certain way, by playing hard ball on a

contract, you can force a settlement where one is not justified.

There ought to be, Mr. Speaker, some flexibility there where,

if there is evidence that that is going on, someone can go in the court and make

the case to the judge and have a power to discharge the requirements of a

holdback or set it at a certain amount to cover the particular claim, or provide

other security by way of a bond or otherwise to replace the holdback. Because,

as the member has said, there are many contractors, many small businesses in

this Province who would be reluctant to get involved in a contract where the

financial requirements were so onerous as to cut into the profits to the point

where it is not worth competing. If this Government has decided, Mr. Speaker, to

open up the bidding to all over the Atlantic provinces for projects over

$25,000, then we are going to have, perhaps, all the more reason why businesses

in this Province ought to be able to have more flexibility in dealing with the

technical requirements of contracting in order to be able to be in the business

altogether.

So, we do have to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that while we support,

in this case, a measure that would assist the larger contractors on large

projects such as Hibernia, to be able to have a more efficient means of dealing

with holdbacks, I would like to see, for the support of small businesses in this

Province, a more flexible obligation in the area of mechanics' liens. If the

Minister is prepared to commit himself to a speedy review and bring some

measures back into this House in the spring session, that will assist them.

So, Mr. Speaker, because this bill will facilitate the

operation of the Hibernia project, which this party supports the implementation

of in a proper and sensible manner, then I would support the principle of this

bill and be happy to see it given second reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister speaks now, he closes the

debate.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the

excellent suggestions that have been offered by members opposite, and I will

certainly be taking the matter up with the Minister of Justice and ask him to

have a look at Hansard, as well. So, hon. members can also write him to remind

him, and perhaps some extra good can come of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 58)

MR. BAKER: Order 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour

Relations Act, 1977 (No. 3)." (Bill No. 47)

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

Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some time to introduce Bill 47, "An Act

To Amend The Labour Relations Act." I will try not to belabour the point, but I

do believe it is fairly significant because of the long history attached to a

number of the issues that are contained in this bill. There has been a troubled

past relating to certain aspects of labour relations as it relates to the

construction industry and the whole issue of double-breasting which is dealt

with in this bill. It has been a bit of a difficult area that has been under

review for some time. So, I would like to take a few minutes to mention some of

the details of the bill to the House and to read it into the record.

Last year, in the spring sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker, a

similar bill was here under the title and numbered as Bill 26. Bill 26, which

addressed the same issues that are here in Bill 47, went before the Legislative

Review Committee last winter, which was so capably chaired by the hon. Member

for St. John's South. Because of the significance of the matters contained in

the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Committee took this particular bill and the contents

of it on the road, went into Labrador West, travelled the Island and provided

more than adequate opportunity for all those who have a vested interest in this

area to make their views known with respect to the changes that were proposed in

the then Bill 26.

With the report of that Legislative Review Committee in hand,

Mr. Speaker, I then commenced, beginning immediately upon my appointment to this

particular portfolio in June, to have a series of meetings with the major

players that had a specific interest in the revisions contained in the clauses

of this bill. As a result of the recommendations from the Legislation Review

Committee, all of which are incorporated in the changes in this bill, except for

one - there is still one outstanding, and I fully expect that the Opposition

critic and so on would have some remarks - but I fully expect, because of the

extensive consultation that was undertaken and the extensive representations

that were made to the Legislation Review Committee, that the Chairman of that

Committee, the hon. Member for St. John's South, might also make a few comments

on this bill.

Because each of the recommendations of that Committee which

endorsed the changes that were being proposed in the bill are incorporated in

the new Bill 47, and there is one outstanding recommendation. That Committee

recognized in its travels that other than the specific items that we are trying

to address in these revisions to The Labour Relations Act, in Bill 47 now, there

are a number of other outstanding issues that have been under review for some

time that still need to be addressed by the government of the day. The Review

Committee's final recommendation was that there would be either a task force or

a royal commission established to look at labour legislation generally in the

Province, so that Government could take advantage of some expertise in the area

to look at the basic principles and philosophy of its labour legislation, as to

what it is intended to accomplish and whether or not the 1977 Act - which has

been amended several times - now meets the intent of the basic policies,

philosophies and principles that The Labour Relations Act was originally put

together to address.

So we are still looking at under what kind of a guise or in

what kind of a description that total review would take place at some later

date. Whether that total review will be a task force, a royal commission, a

one-person study group or something of that nature. But that is the only

recommendation of the Review Committee that has not been dealt with directly to

this date, Mr. Speaker.

In the consultation process we had meetings over the summer -

more than one meeting with each of these groups - with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Construction Association;, Newfoundland and Labrador Employers Council;

the Newfoundland Construction Labour Relations Association; the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Labour; the local branch of the Canadian Federation of

Labour; the Newfoundland and Labrador Non-Union Construction Association; the

Building Trades Council; the individual unions that wanted to come in and point

out particular items in the legislation that were of concern to them; the

individual employers and representatives of businesses that had concerns that

they wanted to express directly instead of going through their representative

agency, whether it be the Employers Council or the Board of Trade and so on.

As a result of that consultation and looking at the

recommendations of the Review Committee, there were enough changes agreed to by

Government once I made a presentation to them that rather than bring in

amendments in Committee stage to Bill 26, which was on the order paper, the

changes and amendments were significant enough that we brought in a new bill

which is the one that is before the House now, Bill 47.

Those changes are continuing, actually. I give notice now,

and I will provide copies as well to the Opposition critic, that in Committee

stage of this bill there are three other minor - wording changes, I guess.

Nothing in terms of principle. But because the consultation is continuing even

to this day - there was a meeting held yesterday with the affected and

interested groups - that there are some minor wording changes that I will give

you notice of. You can study to see that they think the words will flow better.

Nothing changes in the principle or the idea or the intent in the Act. But some

wording changes have been looked at even since we drafted Bill 47 some month or

so ago in relation to the previous consultation.

Just to read into Hansard for the record the basic changes

being contemplated, proposed and put forward for ratification in this Bill

before the House, there are five major areas addressed in terms of changes to

The Labour Relations Act at this time. The first one relates to the functioning

of the Labour Relations Board. The appointment of the Chair is intended to

change from the current two year appointment to a five year appointment. Some

representations even suggested that the appointment should be for a period of up

to ten years so that these people could be put into the positions and do the

work without interruption and without undue pressure and so on, and to remove

the uncertainty so that they could operate in the Chair - the most important,

essential Chair of the Labour Relations Board - to deal with certification

requests coming through on behalf of employee groups. So that will go from two

years to five years.

There are also adjustments to the appointments of the members

to the Labour Relations Board, again maintaining the balance of employee and

employer representation, but removing some of the arbitrary specification of

'one of these' and 'one of those' types of things that is in the existing act.

So it will just make for a smoother functioning of The Labour Relations Board

and provide more continuity and security in the position of the chairperson and

vice-chairperson of The Labour Relations Board.

With those changes incorporated, it is fully expected that

the Labour Relations Board would be a much more smoothly functioning body than

it is right now, even though they have done a good job in the past year or so of

clearing up a backlog of matters that are before the board for adjudication, and

are now, in the latest report, well on top of things. There are very few, if

any, delays and even though people are expressing some trepidation that the

changes contemplated in this act might cause for a rash of activity before the

board, as people try to sort out the new arrangements and make requests to the

board for their judgement, that there might be a flurry of activity as people

adapt themselves to the new rules of the game as it were; if that is the case I

have given assurances to all parties involved that under the act we would make

hasty appointments of additional members, and additional vice-chairs to the

board if required, to assure that there is no unnecessary or undue backlog as a

result of changeover to the new rules and procedures that are contemplated in

these changes, as outlined in Bill 47.

The second item dealt with is the appointment of a

jurisdictional umpire. There are, from time to time, jurisdictional disputes in

certain construction sites, and the bill gives rise to the appointment of a

jurisdictional umpire who, that one person, would make a speedy resolution and

determination as to which group, which certified bargaining group, should

properly do the work that is being contested. We feel very strongly that the

appointment of a jurisdictional umpire at this time will go a long ways toward

alleviating some of the difficulties that are experienced from time to time at

construction sites, as one union or the other has some disagreement over who

actually should be doing which portions of the work.

There is also a stipulation which clears up the designation

of special projects and is necessary, actually, because it makes a clarification

so that the kind of arrangement that is currently proceeding at Bull Arm, in

relation to the Hibernia project, would be given firmer Legislative approval,

and would be put in place for other such special projects in future,

particularly as it relates to the time line and the classifications.

A fourth major item contemplated in this act and proposed for

ratification relates to the concept of multi-trade bargaining. We have discussed

this fully with employer and employee representatives, particularly in the

construction industry. Again, while there is some expression of uncertainty as

to whether or not it will work in our environment, most people have expressed

some degree of comfort due to the fact that in

section 70.17 of the new act, it

spells out clearly that the multi-trade bargaining will be done as a pilot

project, as a trial run, as a test, and at the end of one round of such

bargaining, the whole process will be fully reviewed by the minister, with input

and consultation to determine whether or not it has been an improvement in terms

of the current rules, whether it has shown no difference, or whether it has been

actually detrimental in the construction industry. Then, based on that

assessment, it will be determined whether or not this provision stays in the act

and multi-trade bargaining continues on, or whether we will revert to the

current bargaining of trade by trade bargaining.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 47 deals with the whole notion of

declaration of common employer. It point out, due to the consultation again,

that a common employer can be declared and shall be declared by the Labour

Relations Board upon application, provided that in the opinion of the board, as

spelled out in

section 88.1(4) that there has been some infringement of

bargaining rights held by a trade union, in respect of the members that it

represents, or that in fact the action taken by a company by having a non-union

partner or a non-union other sister or brother company is, in fact, determined

by the board to be in existence for the purpose of preventing an employer from,

or allowing an employer to avoid the provisions of the act. So the board has to

determine, when considering whether or not it will judge that a common employer

status applies, that, in fact, moreso than just common ownership, board of

directorship, common direction, and so on, the workers, the employees would have

to be shown to have been deprived of some bargaining right or some proper right

under this act, under the Labour Relations Act, that they should have had, and

if that is the case then the board is then instructed that it can indeed find

that there is a rule of common employer to be such and that the certification

applying to the unionized branch of the company would extend then to the other

branch of the company that have common ownership, common direction and so on.

We have had extremely intense, long lasting, and continuing

ongoing consultation with the major players representing employers and

employees. Bill 26 as it was before the House in the last session contemplated

and proposed extending the common employer legislation to all sectors in the

Province and as a result of the consultation we have agreed in Bill 47 to have

it apply only to the construction industry at the request of the employers and

the unions. We have indicated again in the consultation process that if it is

designated that there is a need to extend the common employer provisions to

other sectors we would certainly look at that by way of amendment in the future.

There are some very significant changes here, Mr. Speaker, and as a result of a

very long lasting and wide ranging consultation we are confident that at least

the provisions being put forward in Bill 47 have every opportunity to work

fairly for both the employers and the employees, which is the original intent of

labour legislation in the Province to provide some kind of a level playing field

so that both the employer and the employee would have some kind of equal

opportunity to successfully move forward and meet their agendas.

I apologize for taking a little longer than normal, but

because of the significance of the items addressed in Bill 47 I felt I needed to

mention those five items in particular for the record because I am very much

aware and very cognisant of the fact that the members of the House from time to

time might tend to pull out a copy of Hansard and say this is what the minister

or the member concerned said on such and such a date. I wanted to make sure that

there would be no down playing of the significance of the five basic items that

are contained in Bill 47.

I certainly, Mr. Speaker, look forward to hearing the other

contributions to the debate and any questions or concerns that are raised I look

forward to addressing when I rise to close debate in second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To hear the minister speak you would swear that he solved all

the problems that exist between the trades and construction sectors of the

Province, Mr. Speaker. That is far from the truth because while this bill is

going to solve some of the problems there is an inherent situation out there

that this bill does not address at all. This bill does nothing to stop companies

who have already engaged in the practice of double-breasting for the last number

of years, it has not done anything to solve that problem. On occasion I have

talked to the minister. I have gone across the House to talk to him about that

concern that the trade unions have expressed to me, that while it prevents new

companies establishing themselves and setting up the situation known as

double-breasting this bill does not prevent those who have done it for the last

two, three, or four years, in fact someone who did it as of yesterday. Under

this bill that will still be allowed to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. WINSOR: Because the bill only applies to the date of,

what we call, commencement, according to the clause in this one. That will not

apply to existing companies, only companies that are setting up after this bill

comes into effect. It does not do anything for companies that have already

engaged in the practice. The minister has already indicated that will indeed

occur.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with that, of course, because of the

failure of the bill to address that problem, it creates certainly anything but a

level playing field for companies that have to engage in contract bidding with

non-unionized companies. It is a fact of life, that the non-unionized companies,

for the most part, pay wages that are less than the unionized companies are

forced to pay. It gives them an unfair advantage in winning contracts and,

consequently, many of the trade unions are unable to find work for their

employees, their union members actually, as a result of this process being in

place. So, it does not create a level playing field. It is going to do it

perhaps tomorrow and down the road, but for what happened in the past there is

no measure in this bill to address it, and the unions would very much like to

have seen this occur.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that occurs - I do not think the

minister is really serious when he says that the Labour Relations Board is

caught up on all matters or close to it. Mr. Speaker, that is not what my

constituents tell me, who put cases before the Labour Relations Board. It is

anything but the situation. It takes months, months and months to get a hearing,

and the minister knows that that has occurred. Unless the minister is prepared

now, today, tomorrow or next month, whenever this bill is passed, to get extra

people in labour relations to deal with situations that arise in the future,

then by the time a work site or a job has commenced and finished, then the

Labour Relations Board will not even get a chance to hear the case.

The minister knows of a situation, for example, where the

Teamsters Union, independent truck operators, have tried for months at

certification. They have gone before the board and back and to the minister and

back and, as of yesterday, for whatever reason, that Labour Relations Board has

yet -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if that virus that

we talked about today has struck that minister there again today or not, or a

nasty pill. I do not know what he takes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to what I said. He tried to

get me off my train of thought. The minister knows that the Labour Relations

Board, that has not been effective in the past, we see no provision, only the

minister's assurance - Mr. Speaker, frankly, many of the people who worked with

him on the NTA will tell you that that man's assurance cannot go very far. Mr.

Speaker, if that is the only legislative safeguard we have, the minister's

assurance that he will do things to adequately deal with it, then I have reason

to be concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is kind of interesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a vicious and personal attack

(inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, there could be worse coming.

The minister has indicated that he has had wide-ranging

consultations with unions. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many trade unions have

actually seen a copy of this piece of legislation. How many? In fact, I know

four of them yesterday did not even know the minister had prepared the bill. I

spoke to the minister about it and, in fact, informed him that there was a

concern among the trade union movement that they had not seen a copy, and the

minister said that he gave one to an umbrella group and he expected them to

circulate it. I think the minister could have gone a little bit further.

There was only a small list of people engaged in the trade

union movement who would have wanted to have some input into what went on. This

occurred, I think he said, last winter, the Committee headed by the Member for

St. John's South made their recommendations. I wonder has the minister had

consultations with the various unions since, because they are pretty concerned

about some of the things in this double-breasting. In fact, one of them

indicated yesterday that companies now use another technique to avoid

double-breasting. They use, I think the term he used was a payroll company that

they have now set up. While this legislation is going to prevent

double-breasting, the employers already started some months ago and found

another mechanism that they are now using to avoid having certified unions in

the workplace. So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps -

MR. GRIMES: How are they (inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Well, the Minister of Labour is quite aware

of the procedure that companies -

MR. GRIMES: But you're not.

MR. WINSOR: Oh, I will be perfectly honest with you, the

first time I heard it was yesterday when I called some of the trade unions to

inform them, and they told me that their greatest concern is not

double-breasting at this point in time, it is payroll companies, a new thing

they have started recently that avoids having unionized members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Another way around, and the minister

indicates that he too has been made aware of it. Perhaps when he goes to the

Committee stage he will have another amendment that will tighten up this

loophole so it will not occur.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the actual things that are

contained, the first

section dealing with the appointment of people to the

Labour Relations Board - not a whole lot in it. The appointment of a

jurisdictional umpire: that is I think good news for the construction sector.

After consultation with the different unions the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

will make the appointment. I hope that it will be consultation, that it will not

be the minister or the Premier appointing without a consultation, without them.

The other clause, the declaration of a special work site, as

in Bull Arm, that has worked quite well. In our meeting out there a while ago

with several of the unions they indicate that perhaps this has been one of the

best construction work sites that they have ever worked on in this Province.

There has been virtually no grievances - one or two grievances - since the thing

has been in place, and is working quite well.

The area that they are concerned about as I indicated earlier

is Clause 6 of the Bill which deals basically with the legislation that is known

as double-breasting. The unions' main concern is that this bill does not

adequately address the companies which have already engaged and started in the

practice. Furthermore, there is a real fear out there, because of the slowness

of the Labour Relations Board, that by the time they hear of a concern or a

company that has set up a new company called double-breasting then the job site

long have to be shut down and people will be long gone, the company will be

non-existent, and that is a real fear out there that this will occur. The

minister has already indicated earlier that he would appoint new people to that

Board if the pressures or the demands - and we hope the Minister is true to his

word.

Perhaps what the minister should do is set a time frame, that

once someone applies for certification that within a number of days that that

case will be heard and they will be certified or whatever. Because now it just

seems to take months for that occur.

Mr. Speaker, any other thing that we have to say we will say

it in Committee stage of this bill. Thank you.

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few short

comments on this, what I would classify as an historic piece of legislation.

There is more in this bill today for the construction trade union movement than

in all the rhetoric from the hon. Member for St. John's East and all the other

rhetoric that we have heard. There is more in here today on behalf -

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: He can say what he likes -

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon.

Member can make references to things that I have said -

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

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon., Member is getting up,

listing out rhetoric which I suppose (Inaudible) - I have not even spoken on

this bill, the bill is just before the House. I do not know how he can do that

and still maintain any credibility in his speech, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: The more things change the more they stay the

same. More rhetoric. Anyway, we heard on the other bill just previously the hon.

Member for St. John's East blasting the Government, blasting the Premier, and he

even brought - one of the quietest members in the House got up, the President of

Treasury Board, and his dander was even up. He even got the President of

Treasury Board's dander up, with obviously, rhetoric. I will not change that

word, and the hon. Member can jump up and down all he likes.

Now the Member for Fogo obviously - I understand. He talked

about the minister and what people at NTA say about the minister. Now I would

like to remind the hon. member that he is playing a lot of catch-up in this

area. So I will forgive him for some of the things that he does not know, which

is about 95 per cent of what the bill contains.

Mr. Speaker, for years and years and years the construction

unions in this Province, for a lot of years, and I can take you back to

Churchill Falls and Come By Chance and what have you, have suffered the

consequences of what has been known as double-breasting and/or the void of a

common employer. I will deal with that as the third part of my few comments.

First of all, for years historically, one of the real

problems has been with The Buildings Trades Council is what they call the

mark-up on the construction project itself. That is where one trade claims a

certain amount of work, and there has always been a constant bickering and/or -

not bickering as such - but meetings that have caused construction delays, and

caused all kinds of problems. This legislation has put in place a jurisdictional

umpire, and that jurisdictional umpire will be there full-time to handle these

types of problems, so obviously the legislation is extremely positive from that

point of view.

The first area really that the legislation deals with is The

Labour Relations Board, and the move of lengthening the appointment of the

chairperson. I think this is extremely important, because what we have seen over

the years is people who come and go, and a lot of cases that are on the agenda

and become aware to the chairperson or what have you, do not get before that

person and a new person has to familiarize himself so that is, without question,

a very positive move.

Now the area that may be of some concern is the area of

multi-trade bargaining. Multi-trade bargaining has not had a great track record

across this country. Nor has it had a great track record in other countries. You

take eight or nine mechanical trades, six or seven civil trades, and sit them

all down in a bargaining room together and try to work out an agreement for a

mega project such as the one at Hibernia, or even down the road when hopefully

we will see other production platforms, and the old agreements run out, it is

going to be extremely difficult to say, put the labourers in with the

millwrights and pound out a collective agreement. We had great discussion in

Committee over this particular area.

There was great representation by the boiler makers and some

of the other heavy trades, and rightfully so. My experience over the years in

construction is that it is extremely difficult to take these types of trades,

mix them up, and try and rationalize because, after all, one trade, if the

labourers look at the benefit package which is obviously that much greater than

some of the mechanical trades such as mechanical engineers and/or the

millwrights or what have you, then they have a tendency to hang around and not

sign the agreement, waiting to see who will be the first one. So multi-trade

bargaining has been tried in BC; it has been tried in Alberta; it has been tried

across the country, and the only place that it really has any significance of

working to some degree is in the Cape Breton area of Nova Scotia. So I am

hopeful that the multi-trade bargaining can go on in an uneventful way and that

we will see one or the other, either it being a success, or we will be back in

this House this time next year, or maybe three or four years down the road when

this administration may have too many members to even bring it to fruitful

opposition. Who knows? But we may need to change the multi-trade bargaining.

Now the common employer, and this brings me to a point that

the hon. Member for Fogo got on with when he talked about the concerns of the

trade union movement about companies who now are presently existing in what we

call a double-breasting format. Now this is the very Government that sat by and

listened to double-breasting year in and year out - and the hon. Member for

Humber Valley nods his head because he knows what I am saying to be correct -

and never gave any credence to the building trade movement and went on until

they had some kind of a memo from Premier Peckford, which they lived on within

the last year. That is certainly not satisfactory, but the Member for St. John's

South who belonged to the trade union movement, I remind the Member for Burin -

Placentia West who is not listening to me, and when he is up ranting and raving

about what is going on in the Burin Peninsula, then surely heavens he is saying

it because he is representing his people in his district and if I am not

entitled to do that and the hon. member finds it uncomfortable, then if he wants

me to, I will sit down -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: There is no need for the hon. member to be

shouting at me, I have a lot of construction constituents and I think this is a

solid piece of legislation and our friend from Fogo, who gets up and gets on

with, I suppose a lot of foolishness for the want of another word, and tells the

hon. minister that he has not informed the trade union movement, which is

entirely incorrect, the building trades which is comprised of fourteen different

trade unions have been totally informed on the double-breasting legislation,

these are the kind of things he gets on about and then he talks about the large

AN HON. MEMBER: Sam is saying that is not true.

MR. MURPHY: Well if it is not true, then I apologise, but

I understood the hon. member to say that there was no consultation between the

minister and the trade union movement and you asked how many trade unions had

this particular piece of legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: They have not seen the bill.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, those

whom I know in the building trades, which are quite a few have seen the draft

copy of this bill, I would inform the hon. member. I do not know with whom he is

talking, maybe he is talking to the nurses' union or somebody, I do not know. He

talks about companies going up the spout, it was only a couple of weeks you were

down to McNamara-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - so we went to Committee, we listened to

some tremendous briefs from both sides of the coin. And the Member for Kilbride,

who was vice-chair of that Committee, will tell you we had briefs that were at

least two feet high, and to wallow through them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) they were not very brief.

MR. MURPHY: That is right, they were not very brief and

we took what we felt was a consensus and a fair consensus, and I think somebody

has referred to this piece of legislation as being a very exceptionally fair

piece of legislation that will help not only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, the hon. member, I mean he can get up

and speak. I know where he stood when he was in Committee, I am not going to

speak for him now he might have changed his mind since then but I know where he

was when the Committee met.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is right I suppose when you are as

affluent as the hon. member, it is difficult to remember other things, that is

right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: So, Mr. Speaker, just those few short

comments to say that this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Why do you not get your mike turned on? I

mean, one way or the other you want the attention - I am up speaking on a bill

that I feel is extremely important, you do not. If you do not think this bill is

important, I will tell you what. It is extremely important to the people who are

going to work in Cow Head and the Marystown Shipyard, it is important and you

are saying it is not important! Is that what you are saying? If the hon. member

has anything to say, why does he not get up and say it instead of shooting

little digs across at the House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Listen, every time that we stand up over

here, you get excited, if we do not stand up, it is a gag order. Now, make up

your mind. If we get up to speak on a piece of legislation, you get excited, if

we do not get up, then it is something else! You are playing partisan politics,

all I am saying, it is a good piece of legislation and why it is a good piece of

legislation and I have to take needles from you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: You are a deputy, deputy whatever. I do not

know what you are, deputy whatever. You should rescind it. Somebody should have

a look at it, you are making deals, but anybody else can get up. The Member for

St. John's East is up on every bill. Let him get up, that is what he is here

for, to represent his constituents, whether I agree with him or not, and I

applaud him for getting up and giving his opinion. I get up to speak for two or

three minutes and the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West is hollering across

the floor: 'No deal, Wins, we'll be here till Thursday.'

What kind of foolishness is that? When the hon. Member is up

I do not say anything to him. Let him carry on. Don't open my mouth to him.

Never, never. I sit here. A lot of the things the hon. Member says I agree with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now, now. I hear people throwing up shrimp

boats and all that kind of stuff, I totally disagree with that. I think it is

awful to be throwing up - just because the hon. Member gave the union some bad

advice, why should they resurrect that? I do not think that is fair. I do not

think it is fair at all. The hon. Member for Kilbride got up the other day and

talked about me, and I fully agree with him. I do not have the funds to buy a

house in St. John's. I am lucky to have a house in Tors Cove. Now the hon.

Member for Kilbride of course, everybody knows, it is a toss-up between him and

the Member for St. John's East who has the most.

Anyway, the Member for Burin - Placentia West can thank

himself for what is going on here right now. All he had to do was let this hon.

Member make his few comments about the bill and that was the end of it. No no,

he has to be cracky over there, "Deputy Dawg," yes, cracky. Anyway, Mr. Speaker,

I would like to say that the day is not far away when the construction industry,

the trade union movement, will thank this Government, as I said to the hon.

Member for St. John's East. We have done more with this Bill for the

construction trades than anything he has done to date since he has been in the

House of Assembly. With those few comments, and the approval of the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, I will sit down.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was not

going to get involved in the debate but I felt that it was necessary after

listening to the Member for St. John's South. Not because of what he had to say,

because -

MR. R. AYLWARD: What did he say, anyway?

MR. TOBIN: I do not think anyone knows what he said. But

he said enough to confuse most of us because we do not know if whether what the

minister said is right or what the Member for St. John's South said is right

regarding this bill. One thing is obvious: that there is one of them who does

not know what they are talking about. It is either the minister who does not

know what he is talking about when he introduced this bill, or the Member for

St. John's South does not know what he is talking about. Because the two of them

said exactly the opposite.

Now probably, Mr. Speaker, neither one of them knows what

they are talking about. Maybe it is my colleague for Fogo who knows what he is

talking about in this bill. But one thing is obvious - and I am eagerly awaiting

for my colleague for St. John's East who is going to speak on this. I think he

is going to have quite a few comments to say about it. But I would like to ask

the minister when he stands up Thursday or Friday to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Thursday or Friday. Tomorrow is Private

Member's Day, so it will be Thursday. After the way the Member for St. John's

South got on this evening that is the way it will be. I would like for the

minister when he gets up to tell us if what he said is right or what the Member

for St. John's South said is right. Because we are totally confused on this

piece of legislation.

I would suggest that what he probably should do is take the

Member for St. John's South aside, or the Government House Leader should, and

tell him that when he does not know what he is talking about he should not get

into debate and confuse the issues. Because if this piece of legislation - I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the Member for St. John's

South, this piece of legislation that he talks about as so good, would probably

be made law today. But the Member for St. John's South has caused the delay

because he has totally confused everyone by not knowing what he was saying.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have

an opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill 47, "An Act To Amend The Labour

Relations Act, 1977 (No.3)."

As the Minister of Labour quite rightly pointed out there are

five separate areas dealt with in this piece of legislation. Some of these are

appropriate changes to be made, and I can support them. The changes in the

appointment of the Board and clearing up some of the difficulties with respect

to the term of office of the Board I think it is a good idea to have a five year

term. I think the Government was wise to reject the recommendations being made

to make the chair of The Labour Relations Board a full-time position. It appears

that such a position is not really necessary at this time. I suppose if the

Government were to consolidate a number of the labour related boards into one

board and have the same board deal with labour standards and perhaps certain

kinds of workers compensation types of applications, you might be able to have a

sort of a labour court type of operation, but the bill is not intended to do

that, and I think to make a full-time chair for The Labour Relations Board would

not be necessary at this time.

The idea of a jurisdictional umpire to help sort out some of

the jurisdictional problems between the various trades is probably something

that is a useful thing to be done. I will not deal with the technicalities of

it, but certainly the principle is a very useful thing.

The area of multi-trade bargaining is one with which I have a

great deal of difficulty. The experience of other provinces is that it has not

been particularly helpful. I know the minister says that he wants to do this for

a trial period, but I understand that the trial periods in other provinces have

not proven very successful, and he has not really given any reason why this

would work here, or why he thinks it would work here. My sense is that the

imposition of multi-trade bargaining upon the construction sector will result in

an unfortunate degree of rigidity in bargaining, and prevent bargains from being

made where they otherwise could be. Mr. Speaker, the road is difficult enough

for employees to attempt to reach collective agreements without creating further

structures that would provide for more opportunities in most cases for employers

to find loopholes and problems with the procedures by which certain things come

about, in particular, collective agreements or bargaining structures, and serve

to stall the process as well as impose rigidity upon bargaining units and

bargaining agents where perhaps certain agreements cannot be reached with

particular individuals for very good labour relations reasons. The existing

circumstances have not proven all that disruptive. The courts have played a

significant role in that field. While I am not always happy to see some of the

solutions that the courts have imposed, particularly in the area of injunctions,

it has created a certain amount of stability in that area, and work is being

done to improve it.

With respect to the common employer provisions - I have just

passed over, I guess, the issue of special projects. I am not sure that the

minister has adequately explained the need for the revisions sought to

section

70 of the act with respect to special projects. It strikes me that they are

making some changes here which are not necessarily dealing wit