VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977 NO. 104

June 2,1977 Tape 3639 - '~orning AH-1 The House met at 10.00 A.~L Hr. Speaker in the Chair. ~rn.. SPEAKER: Order, please! NOTICES OF ~·fOTION Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. ~nister of Hunicinal Affairs. ~1R. DUm: Hr. Speaker, I give notice that: I will on tomorrot-T introduce a bill, "An Act 'ro Amend 1'he r.nmmunity Councils Act, 1972" (Bill No. 75) '1R. SPEAKER: P.on. Minister of Education. ~rR. HOUSE: ~r. Sneaker, I ~ive notice that I ·...rill on· tomorrmv- ask leave to introduce a 'bill, "An Act: To Amend The ~femorial University (Pensions)Act " (Bill No. 72) MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Social Services. ~. BRETT: Hr.

Sneaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child Helfare Act, 1972." (Bill No. 69) HR. SPEAKE'?. : Bon. ~unister of Justice. HR. HIC~1AN: ~1r. Speaker, I give notice that I ~·rill on tomorrmv- ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies •.nd Errors It!.

The Statute La~v-." (Bill No. 63) On behalf of my colleague the :~inister of Health~ a bill, "An Act To Amend The Embalmers And l<'uneral Directors Act, 19 75." (Bill No. 71) And on behalf of my colleague the hon. theMinister of Finance I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask the Rouse to resolve itself into a Bommittee of the ~~ole to consider certain resolutions for the granting of supply to Her Majesty and,again on behalf of the hon.The Minister of Finance- YR. RO:RERTS: Not Interim Zupply, is it? :1.01.99

June 2,1977 Tape 3639 - ~rorning A.'9:-2 :'fR. HICIG·!AN: ~To, Interim is through. ~-ffi. ~OBERTS: I fain Supply,is it? ~. HIClC-~AN: Yes, the ~'!ain Supply Bill. HR. ROBERTS: · r;re have our work cut out. ~!R. H!CKHAN: Yes, that is right. To move the House into a Committee of the ~fuole to consider certain resolutions in relation to the advancing or ~uaranteeing of certain loans. HR. )TEARY: So legislative draftsmen are working for their money these days. Yes, Sir. O'Ri\L QUESTIONS MR. SPEA. TG:R: Hon.Leader of the Opposition. }1R. ROBERTS.

A question for the ~linister of Public Harks and Services in his capacity as the minister !esponsible for the administration of the Public Service Commission. F-as he as yet undertaken an investigation into the fact that the ~linister of Transportation and Communications has breached

section 12 of the act in appointing as foreman at the highways unit in Rene~.,.s a man other than the man recommended by the !'ublic Service Commission despitethe fact that

section 12 of the act says specifically "No appointments or promotions to positions tvithin the public service shall be made except on the recommendation of the commission )'? ~'!R. SPEAKER: Ron. minister. ~~. ROUSSEAU: Mr. Speaker, the hon.Leader of the Opposition I think was written by the chairman of the I'ublic Service Commission at my request and the reply was given;and as far as the details are concerned, if there are recommendations by the comrnission~and I have not suggested how many there are in this one because I have not seen it - ~~. ROBERTS: There ~-1ere t"iTO. HR. ROUSSEAU: I do not knm.r ho~Y' many there t.rere, There may be one, two or three

June 2,19 77 Tape 3639 - Morning AP.-3 ~'R. R0'3ERTS: ~To, there ;.;ere ~·lO. HR. ROUSSEAU: -and it is at departmental discretion ~vhich of the three they choose. So,as I suggested to the hon.the Leader of the Opposition and as I think the chairman also suggested in his letter­ I received a CO'IJY of it- was that it is the departmental prerogative to choose the one,second or third on the list and that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted the list he would check with the individual aepartment concerned. HR. ROBERTS: MR. SPEAKER: ~!r. Speaker, a supplementary. A supplementary. ~ffi..

ROBERTS: I cannot argue ~.;ith the minister under the rules, but he "is wrong. Is the minister aware of

section 12 of the act ~-Thich says specifically: "That no appointments or promotions to positions within the public service shall be made except on the recommendation of the commission?" The ap'J)ointment made in this case was not that recommended~ the man recommended did not get the job; the man who got the job ~.;as number t't<O on the list. And I might add,the Minister of Transportation and Co~unications has declined to answer a letter I send him three weeks ago, Sir, He obviously is not going to ~ive any information. Is the minister aware of the fact that the ·statutes of this Province have been breached in this case and he is responsible? l"R. FOl!SSEAU: In the

interpretation of the Civil Service Commission that · when there are two people, if there are indeed t'tvo ,and I take the han. the Leader of the Opposition's su~gestion that there are two - three there may be;one, as I say, and there lD.ay be three - ~1R.. ROBERTS: There ~¥ere two. ~R. ROUSSEAU: -that either of the two ,or either of three if they are there,or the one person,if it is chosen to grant that person or not is within the meaning of the statutes as we interpret it. 1.0201

June 2,1977 ~i!t. ROBERTS: HR. SPEA..T{ER: ~1R. ROBERTS: Tape 3619 - !-~oming ~!r. Speaker, a further supplementary. A supplementary. A .. JI-4 Hr. Sneaker, the minister has given us a legal opinion •. Hay I ask whether he has taken the advice of the law officers of the Cro~·m on this point ? I have not taken advice from the law officers-! have no right to do that-but I have spoken to one or two brethren of mine at the bar who tell me that the

section is mandatory, that it is specific and that it says that no appointments or promotions - there are some exceptions,but they do not apply here; you know,the staff of the Premier's office and so forth. That is not the case here. It says specifically that no appointments or promotions to positions ~vithin the public service shall be made except on the recommendation of the commission. I am told, Sir, that is mandatory and I am told that on the facts as we now understand them the government have acted unlawfully in this appointment and that the Minister of Public Horks is responsible. MR. ROUSSEAU: Mr.

Speaker, that I guess is a question,as the hon.leader says,of a legal opinion,because as far as the departments have been concerned to the best of my knowledge is that if t1vo names appear or three names appear these indeed are recommended. Now they may or may not be recommended in order of preference~but as far as the departments are concerned when one - well one name, obviously there is no problem-when t1;vO or three or four or five names are recommended then indeed as long as the name chosen is one that is on the list from the recommendations of the rublic Service Commis~ion then it is my

interpretation that is within the­ but I Nill certainly check the matter out to alleviate any anxiety the Leader of the Opposition has. }iR.. ROBERTS: A further supplementary. 10202

June 2, 1977 Tape 3640 (l'rorning) PK - 1 HR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. ~1R. ROBERTS: Hr. Speaker, the minister obviously has not taken legal a~vice, and I do not doubt he believes what he says to be true, but I think there is doubt about it. Hill the minister undertake to get a lega~ opinion quickly to see whether the government have acted illegally- they have acted improperly in this case- but have they acted illegally in appointing this man who was not the man recommended by the Public Service Commission?

Instead they have recommended-. or appointed, I am sorry, a man who was not the man recommended, a man who was infinitely less qualified. MR. SEEAKER: The han. Minister of Public Works and Services. MR.. ROUSSEAU: Hr. Speaker, I do not think it is even a matter of legalities, it is a matter of

interpretation. There were two names on the list,so I will assume that to be correct- I do not know }fR. ROBERTS: That is correct. HR. ROUSSEAU: but I will take the word of the Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: I have the letter. MR. ROUSSEAU: If there are two names on the list therefore two people were =ecommended by the Public Service Commission. And it is in the discretion of the department involved which of the two or which of the three or which of the five or vrhich of the twenty that appear on a letter of recommendation from the Public Service Commission - MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

That is like Alex Walsh and the tenders out at - -I·!R. ROUSSEAU: - which one to choose . HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. HR.. SPEAKER: The han~ member for LaPoile~follm.;ed by the hon. member for Eagle River. NR. NEARY: r-1:=. Speaker, this is the norning that the hon. Hinister of Public Works and Services is going to be in the hot seat, Sir. I would like to put a question to the minister concerning the flogging of these vouchers that we read about in the Auditor General's 1.0203

June 2, 1977 Tape 3640 C!orning) Mr. ~~eary: Report for the year before last, and now confirmed by the Public Accounts. Committee. Has the - HR. ROBERTS: The minister was refusing to answer questions. PK - 2 i·!R • NE.A..'tY : ~-:IR. ROBERTS: Has the minister undertaken an immediate investigation Public serv~nts refusing to answer questions. put to them by the Committee _yesterday. }ffi.. ROUSSEAU: Oh ,r thought you meant the minister. ~1R. NEARY: Has the minister - !!R. ROUSSEAU: And excuse me - MR. J. -.DINN: On a point of order. ~~!R. ROUSSEAU: Go ahe~d, 'Jerry'. lfR. SPEAKER: On a point of order. :-m..

DINN: The han. Leader of the Opposition just stated that public servants refused to answer questions put to them by the Committee yesterday. As a member of that Committee it is a well known fact within the Committee, and if the han. Leader of the Opposition had attended any of the meetings he would kn~v that the Committee operates under the perfect right of the· person attenuing that Committee to refuse to ans'tvoer until he gets infonnation. And, Hr. Speaker, for him to say that a man refuse to answer a question of the Committee is perfectly within his rights to do so. HR. SPF.AI<.ER: The bon.

Hinister of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of }!unicipal Affairs ought to know, I do not know if he does know, but he ought to know at best he is giving a difference of opinion; but it is not even that because the facts are that yesterday in the Public Accounts Committee a proper question was put to a public servant and that public servant declined or refused to answer that question. HR. DINN: He was perfectly within his right. !1R. ROBEFTS: I did not say he was not >dthin his rightso The ministers are often within their - MR. DINN: Sit down! :10204

·.i June 2, 1977 Tape 3640 (Morning) PK - 3 ~fR. ROBERTS: Hr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order. Hold on now! No! Just . hold on now! ~1R. ROUSSEAU: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. ~1R. SPEAKER: The hen. gentleman is on a point of privilege. Perhaps before hearing ~im.if I could dispose of the point of order, !ctually there is no point of order in that the difference of opinion between the hen. minister and the Leader of the Opposition is a difference of opinion, pure and simple.

There could have been a point of order, indeed it was a breach of order in the interruption of the hen. member tvho was asking the question. The hen. Minister of Public tvorks and Services. HR. ROUSSEAU: Mr. Speaker, as minister of the department I am responsible for the department down there, and I assume full responsibility for that department. And no official of the Department of Public Works yesterday declined or refused the question - ·- HR. SIMMONS: What? MR. ROUSSEAU: The question - !IR. SPEAKER: Order, please! ~fR. ROUSSEAU: The question was taken under advisenent. HR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of privilege. As I said previously,there was no point of order. But I interrupted the hen. minister when it was apparent to me the information he wished to convey on the point of privilege in order to discourage as much as possible getting the attention of the Chair through a point of privilege to get inside of a point of order. The han. member for LaPoile. ~-IR. NEARY : ~!r.

Speaker, in connection with the hundreds of thousands of dollars, literally I suppose millions of dollars of work that was given out without calling public tender by the minister's department, would the minister indicate if an investigation has been undertaken to find out if there was anything unlawful or illegal about granting contracts for this work without calling public tenders in accordance with the Public Tendering Act of this Province? HR. SPEAKER: The hen. I1inister of Public Harks and Services. 1.0205

June 2, 1977 ~ape no. 3641 Page 1 - !llS ~r. Rousseau. ~r. Speaker, ·you know, yesterday's meeting, I thought, of the Public Accounts Committee went very well. I attended as the Minister of ?ublic Works. i:!y deputy minister was there and tl·70 other officials, and we attempted in every way to provide the information that we had. And t;.;hat information 1ve did not have we said that we "torould undertake to get. ~1ow obviously since the Auditor General's report I think this department has moved and moved quite relevantly the points brought up by the Auditor General. That point has been made to the House.

It 1;-;s.s made to the Committee yesterday. A lot of changes have been made in internal controls to control the ~~aknesses pointed out by the Auditor General. ~ow the points that are raised is a difference of opinion, whether it is an abrogation of the Public Tender Act or not. Because a lot of these jobs were small jobs and done over a period of time. Nmv some of the questions raised yesterday at the Public Accounts Committee were such that the department undertook to find the answers to these questions and bring them back at the next meeting. Obviously nobody comes in with their fingertips full of information.

The information that was requested at the previous meeting, insofar as it 1-1as possible~1vas given at yesterday's meeting. Everything that we had at our disposal yesterday was given. The information that we did not have will be given as soon as possible. And in the meantime we are doing everything possible within the department to ensure that the sort of thing pointed out by the Auditor General will not happen again. !1R. NEARY: HR. SPEAKER: }IR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary. ~vould the minister care to identify the hangar at Torbay Airport that was involved in one of the cases where a large number of vouchers were issued to repair a hangar at Torbay? Would the minister identify that hangar? lffio it is occupied by? Is it the hanger that the government uses itself or is it the one rented out to Mr. Collins of Air Transit? ~ich hangar is it? MR. ROUSSEA.U: Hangar 3. MR.W....ARY: But --:.;hose? HR. ROUSSEAU: The government . hangar. :10206

June 2, 1977 !-!R. NEARY: MR. SPEA..~R: . MR.~EARY: Tape no. 3641 Page 2 - ms A supplementary question, }rr. Speaker. A supplementary. Does the minister see any need at all to call in the Commercial and Fraud Squad of either the Newfoundland Constabulary or the RC1P to look into the distribution of these vouchers, the peddling, the giving out of these vouchers? Apart from what the Public Accounts Committee is doing, does the minister see any need for an investigation other than the questions that are being asked by the Public Accounts Committee in connection with procedure and so forth? MR..

SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. ROUSSEAU: As I understand it if there is indeed any wrongdoing then I would assume that that would be a discretion of the Acditor General's Department. At this point in time, No, we are looking at it internally ourselves, and should we find any wrongdoing, we will correct the situation. But the question of the Fraud Squad or a police investigation would be one that would flow out of undoubtedly any information that the Auditor General might bring to bear. Now that is not pre-supposing that it may not happen at some point in the future from a departmental point of view.

We are looking at it internally now. MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. J. WINSOR: ~!y question is also directed to the Minister of Public vlorks. Would the minister please tell us if there is an RDiP investigation ongoing into what ':vould appear to be some irregularities in his department? t-IR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. NR. ROUSSEAU: Not to my knowledge, ~:r.Speaker. And I say that, Not to my knowledge. MR. J. WINSOR: A supplementary. MR. S~EAKER: A supplementary. HR. J. ~ITNSOR: I would direct my question to the Hinister of Justice.

Does he know of an investigation ongoing in the Department of Public ~vorks? MR. SP~KER: The hon. minister. HR. HICKMAJ.'l': I ~.;ill have to take that as notice. :1.0207

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3641 Page 3 - ms HR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Eagle River. Before he asks his question, I would like to welcome to the House on behalf of hon. members twenty-six Grade VII students from }~ry Queen of the Horld School in St. John's accompanied by two of their teachers, Sister Eugene Tapper and Sister Theophane Curtis. I know hen. members join me in welcoming these students and their teachers. Sm!E HON • MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ MR.. SPEA..T{ER : The hen. member for Eagle River. MR.. STRACHA.'if: A question for the hnn. Minister of Mines and E~ergy.

Could the minister update us on any negotiations or any coming together of minds between Brinex Corporation and the department regard~ng the uranium situation in Kitts Pond and ~lich~lin and particularly the revenues which would accrue to this Province from such a project? Are there any negotiations ongoing and whether Brinex Corporation are L~terested in discussing this in a meaningful way? :1R. SPEAKER : The hon. minister. MR. PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I answered those questions during the estimates, indicating that discussions were ongoing with BRINCO and their subsidiary,BRINEX,on the whole business of uraninum development in Labrador. I cannot negotiate in public and, therefore, I cannot indicate to the hen. member or to this House whilst negotiations are ongoing the extent of the negotiations, the substantive nature of the negotiations.

After these negotiations have been finalized, then government,through me or through the Premier or through some other method,will be informing the public of Newfoundland, and if the House is open, through the House,just exactly what the finality of those negotiations will be. 1_0208

June 2, 1977 )ffi.. STRACHAN: HR. SPEAKER: ~·ffi.. STRACHAN: Tape 3642 (Horning) A supplementary. A supplementary. PK - 1 It is now the 2nd •. of June and Brinex have been given statements,or all through Hinter given statements as to Hhether they will go ahead with the project this year or not. I am wondering whether Brit;1ex has intimated to the minister and his department Hhether they are going to go ahead this year with development of the mine or ~·Thether they vrill slmv dmm the pace because of uranium prices in the rea~ket or for various other reasons that they have? . NR.

SPEAKER: The han. :·!in is ter of Hines and Energy. HR. PECKFORD: l>fr. Speaker, I am a~v-are it is the 2nd. of June, 1977, I am also aware that there are other studies ongoing that Brinex and BRINCO have unde~vay both on an environmental aspect of the YThole development -as well as the economic feasibility of the operation. On both accounts these studies are still ongoing. The studies have not been completed.

I understand that the economic feasibility in­ house studies that BRINCO and Brinex are conducting themselves will not be in the hands of senior management until the end of July, after Hhich time undoubtedly an analysis of that by senior management have to take place. Secondly,on the environmental study,that is not completed. And I do not have a firm date as of the last week or so when that is suppose to be completed. It 'tvas suppose to be completed ,from information given to me a couple of months ago,by the end of the Summer.

Therefore considering those two factors of the t'tvo studies, considering that indefinite time frames are still anticipated in receiving those final studies it is not easy for me to indicate with any definitiveness whether in fact development can proceed in 1977 or not. NR. STRACl!.AJ.~: HR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. A final supplementary. ·1.0209

June 2, 1977 Tape 3642 PK - 2 MR. STRACEA.l.~: . Understanding that the company is continuing to build up and have invested a considerable sum of money already in the project .. and, as I understand :i,t. ,ar-~ continuing to out equipment in there this Summer, plus facilities, does the minister expect that their decision will only be a decision,if anything,to defer because of the uranium world market prices rather than a decision to cut out altogether if the market is low? HR. SPEAKER: The han. Hinister of Mines and Energy. }IR..

PE CKFOPJ): From my negotiations and discussions with senior management of BRINCO,they have not decided to definitely go ahead 1:vith :he development and just defer the time frame., .albeit sufficient or substantial amounts of money have been expended by the corporation in looking at the deposit. So therefore I just could not say whether in fact - I am not in a position· to be as definitive as the han. member in the sense that he says or implies or infers that the only question at stake is when the development i·l'ill occur.

From . my discussions BRINCO has not decided that there will be a development, whilst the han. member seems to think that they I have decided that and it is only a matter of time. I am not as definitive on those points as he. HR. STRACF...AN: A final supplementary. ~1R. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. STRACHAN: Could the minister then simply indicate whether • • l'. ,.,_ it looks hopeful or mt? ·- :rou __ lql.o~,_simp],e_. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. PECKFORD: Very often, Mr.

Speaker, my opinion on such matters is questioned by han. members opposite.so therefore I did not think it carried too much weight. In my own opinion I think it does look hopeful considering the world market of uranium, and the ongoing discussions that Canada are now having with the European Economic 10210

. ' June 2, 1977 Ta?.:: 3642 G·!orning) PK - 3 ~fr. Peckford: Community, individually and collectively, and with Japan, and recognizing that as in recent days apparently West Germany and some of the other European countries have been negotiating very seriously with South Africa for the supply of uranium or a long term basis~ ~·7hich I do not think is in .the best j,nterest of the \·Jestem Horld right no~,r. ~1R.. SPEAKER: The hen. member for LaPoile followed by the hon. gentleman for Stephenville. I-1R..

NEARY: As a watchdog over the rental of office space, I /~vender if the han. the Premier could give the House an updating nmv that they have received a report of the task force?· Has any decision been taken ~.rhether the government is going to build a ne~v building, an extension to Confederation Building, a new Hcuse of Assembly~or whether the government is going to go for the proposals that have .been made from D~wntown D~:reiopers to rent office space? XR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREHIER MOORES: :tr. Speaker, the answer to that is that the report - as I advised the House -has been received.

It has been given to the Department of Public Works and the other associated - AN HON • ME11BER : It is only a draft. PRID1IER MOORES : Yes, I--know it is only- a draft report, but it has been given to the appropriate officials to do the proper analysis and that has not been received as yet, but I Hould think it is probably momentarily to get it, one or two days I would taink. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the han.

Premier indicate to the House if the hon. gentleman will be keeping his commitment, his promise to the House, of appointing an ind~pendent committee representing members of both sides of the House to look over the report, and to make recommendations before the government decides what course of action they are going to take in connection with office space? :10211.

June 2, 1977, Tape 3643, Page 1 -- ms MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, if we get the report when the House is in session, we will certainly make the information .. available to the House. As far as the unbiased members of the House serving on a Committee, I think that is a good idea, Sir, if we can find any unbiased members. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the member for Twillingate. MR.

SMALLWOOD: In view of the fact that I have served in the two buildings in which the House of Assembly has met for the last one hundred years or more, would the Premier give me the assurance that he will not build a new House of Assembly building and my assurance is that I will not run again? I mean, I will stay out of that building if he does not have it. But if he cannot promise not to build a new House of Assembly building how can I promise not ever to run again? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier.

PREMIER MOORES : I am not sure if that is a fair question or not, because a lot of people would suggest that we put up a marquee this afternoon if it was. But, Sir, taking everything into consideration I think that is an unfair request, because I have heard the hen. gentleman from Twillingate make these assurances before, and I think he is one of the few people in the House who deserves to retire. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question to the han. gentleman, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

NEARY: Could the hen. the Premier assure the House that no deals, that no commitments have been made to private developers to rent office space either on a short-term basis or a long-term basis until the government has the report in its hands and decides what the future is going to be as far as government new buildings or office space is concerned? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: I most certainly can, Mr. Speaker. There have absolutely not been any commitments made to any developer with office space or without. 1.021.2

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3643 Page 2 - ms ~"R. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Stephenville. MR. ~!CNEJL: Hr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Could the Premier indicate to the House who will accompany the Premier to Montreal to carry on negotiations regarding the possible sale of Labrador Linerboard? MR.. SPEAKER : The hon. Premier. PREMIER MOORES: I have not planned on any great delegation going up, Mr. Speaker. It ~.;as a matter of going up and finding out the degree of interest. Tt~nen negotiations start, and if they do, there ~lill obvious~y be a great many people involved.

But being a government of restraint and trying to look after the purse strings as best as possible, r,.;e figure as fe~il as possible to go to do the job. ~fR. HCNEIL : HR. SPEAKER: MR. i·ICNEIL: A supplementary. A supplementarv. Could the Premier indicate if there ~vill be anybody from mill management going with the Premier? NR~ SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. PR~1IER MOORES: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. MC~IL: MR.. SPEAKER : MR. MCNEIL: A supplementary. A supplementary by the original questioner. Could the Prem.iGr indicate if there has been any negotiations with Consolidated Bathurst?

And to this point~ has there been any progress in the negotiations with Consolidated Bathurst? }1R.. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. PRID1IER MOORES: First of all it is not a matter there being any progress. There h~e been no definitive negotiations with Consolidated Bathurst, Mr. Speaker. ~fR. SPEAKER : The hon. member for LaPoile. HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Mini~ter of Mines and Energy, Sir, in connection with Churchill Falls.

As the House knows, a substantial penalty has been imposed on this Province for being unable to supply power to Quebec Hydro because of faulty generators :10213

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3643 Page 3 - ms NR. NEARY. at the Churchill Falls pwer site. Would the minister indicate to the House now what the status of this Province is as far as recovering the cost of the penalties, the cast of repairing the generators and so on? How much have "::"e paid? How much have ~•e had to pay out in penalties? Can this be recovered? Is there a court case pending? Just what is the situation? Could the oinister tell us where we stand on this? ITo we have any legal rights? ifuat is happening?

Or do we have to lash this out and get nothing back in return from Canadian General Electric or whoever was the cause of the trouble? HR. SPtA.l<ER: The han. minister. MR. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member right off the top of my head the exact amount of penalties paid, but I will undertake to get that for next week,to give the information to the han. member in the House next week. Secondly, talks and negotiations and discussions are underway between CFLCo and the company concerned to see whether we can work things out to our mutual benefit .without having to go to court.

However, if that is not possible, we will be seeking legal opinions hopefully that will indicate that we have a strong case as it relates to the quality of the generators installed in that there is some liability upon the company and, therefore, will take whatever legal measures are necessary based on the advice that we receive from our legal advisers. But the matter is still at the stage of talking between both sides. ~. NEARY: MR.. SPEAKER: MR. NEA...~Y: A supplementary question, Hr. Speaker. A supplementary.

Could the minister tell the House if the generators now have all been repaired and put in good shape and if they are all working now smoothly? Just what is the situation 1.021.4

June 2, 1977 Tape 3644 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: now as far as these generators are concerned? Are any down at the moment or being rebuilt? Have they all been rebuilt or what is the score on that? }ffi.. SPEAKER: The han. minister. MR. PECKFORD: I think the ones that were initially in poor shape or found to be defective are repaired. There is some question about some of the other generators and whether they in fact have the same problem as the first two or three, and there is a likelihood that additional generators will have to be fixed and renovated, and of course that is of additional concern to us.

However, I will give a full and detailed up-to­ date status report on that whole situation for the han. member next week. NR. NEARY: HR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A. supplementary. Could the minister tell the House whether the repairs of these other generators that the minister obviously is concerned about will cause further penalties to be ?aid out by Churchill Falls Corporation to Quebec Hydro? If so, who will be responsible for the repairs of the generator and who will be responsible for paying out the penalties?

Will it be the Churchill Falls Corporation - in other words, the people of this Province-or will it be Canadian General Electric, the people that installed the generators? HR. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is the whole problem with this. In the first instance,obviously lf CFLCo cannot deliver the power that it has agreed to deliver on a given date to their customer, namely, Hydro-Quebec then in the first instance CFLCo,the ones who are partners or party to the agreement,would have to pay the penalty.

And that is the whole crux of the problem, that there might be some liability~in our opinion and from our legal advisers,upon General Electric to either pay that full shot or .partially that; hence the whole concern with it is- that any additional generation would therefore - CFLCo would incur additional financial penalties for which we would have to see whether in fact G.E. were liable for some of it legally,or all of it. !-lR. SPEAKER: The han. Leader of the Opposition. 10215

June 2, 1977 Tape 3644 EC - 2 ~!R. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Hinister of Finance. Yesterday he took notice of a question which I asked about changing the highways contracts. The problem is urgen~ in that a lot of truckers in the area are getting very upset and disturbed, and they were made this promise by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture The minister obviously has not an answer yet. Could he undertake to get me one today if at all possible? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. DOODY: I t!~.d- not under _stand the urgency was such.

I was waiting • for the minister to come ba~but I will look into it. MR. ROBERTS: But ~ynard' did make the promise, vou see. MR. DOODY: That could very well be. I do not know. }ffi.. ROBERTS : He did and that is what got them up in arms. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. NEARY: My question, Sir, is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The city of St. John's I believe has requested in writing an extension of the boundaries of the city of St. John's to include the White Hills, part of East Meadows and so forth.

Would the minister tell the House what action has been taken on the request from the City to extend their boundaries? MR. DUm: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did get a request for specific areas to be made part of the city and we have not taken any action on it. We are also waiting for their recommendations with respect to the Henley report as the city is the only municipality in the area that has not sent in recommendations as to whether they agree or disagree with certain recommendations. So we have received the request. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

NEARY: No, not a supplementary, Sir. , The hon. gentleman has also received a 1..021.6

June 2, 1977 Tape 3644 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: representation from the Newfoundland Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in connection with having the sales tax on electricity in electrically heated homes - that is used for heating homes and cooking - eliminated. Has the minister taken any · action on that request? MR.. SPEAKER: The han. minister. MR. DL"rn: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing that right now with different ministers involved. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Port au Port • • MR. HODDER: A question for the Minister of Public Works.

Would the minister give the name of the advertising firm or firms which are doing work for the Department of Tourism, the Department of Forestry and Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries? MR. SPEAKER: The han. minister. MR. ROUSSEAU: I will have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. I presume the gentleman is referring to the vote in Public Works estimates of this year, is it? MR. HODDER: Yes,. You know, the spruce budworm-:. and I think there is a firm doing some ~ark for Fisheries. MR. ROUSSEAU: You know, why the ~inister of Public Works ?

I think that question would be more properly directed to the departments involved because Public Works certainly has no involvement with it up to now. Now the vote that was contained in the estimates for 1977 - 1978 to my knowledge has not yet been allocated.

That would come under thejurisdiction of Public Works in answering anything to do with that, but what has been done previously to the best of my knowled~e, although it will undertake to dig deeper into it~ does not come under the purview of the Department of Public Works but each individual department themselves in their vote that was put aside for that in the last year's budget. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. :1.0217

June 2,1977 MR. SPEAKER: ~- ffi.. NEARY : Tat;>e 3645 - Horning AH-1 The hon.member. Hr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.th.e Premier, if I could get the han Premier's attention there· The han member for PLacentia East . is no doubt talking about the Argentia Naval Base, the North side ~h~~ _! ~ not settled yet.

But would the Premier tell the House notv ~vhat is happening in connection ~vith the Come By Chance oil refinery,and can we have an assurance from the P~emier that before any decision is made by the receivers· that the matter will be brou~ht before this House-the same as the Leader " of the Opposition requested the other day in connection ~vith the Linerboard.mill in Stephenville -before any changes are made, any sales are made that this House will have a chance to debate the matter before the \-Thole thing is settled? :M.R. SPEAKER: The hon.Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Hr.

Speaker, there are lots of things that I could try to commit but what the receiver does in this particular case representing another government is not one of them. ORDERS OF THE DAY: MR. HICKMAN: Order 5, second reading of Bill No. 34. Hotion second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide Uniform !1inimum Standards Of Conditions Of Emt;>loyment In The Province." (Bill No. 34). MR. SPEAKER : 1"-ffi.. ROUSSEAU : The han. Hinister of !-!an-oat-.Ter and Industrial Relations. Hr. Speaker, I have pleasure in introducing this long awaited bill.

It would appear that my introductory remarks will be somewhat long and for anybodv on the other side of the Hom:;P­ or this side of the House who is interested,! will try to go through the relevant sections so that if any points arise, because it is very difficult of course with a bill of that length to be able to be aware of all the provisions therein, but I will go t!lrough the relevant points especially those that are no~-1 new and maybe hon.members might wish to jot down any pertinent points they have and from thereon we can discuss the bill. 10218

June 2,1977 Tape 3n45 - Horning P..R-2 ~ -m. ROUSSEAU : The actual bill, "An Act To Provide Uniform Hinimum Standards of Conditions of Employment In The Province " is in part a consolidation of provisions contained in the follmving bills, and they · are pointed out in the explanatory note, ~r. Speaker, "The Annual Vacations With Pay Act," "The Employment Notice Of Termination Act, 11 "The Employment Of Children Act," ~-1hich "t>Tas never proclaimed, "The ~1inimum TN' age Act, 11 "The Hee!dy Day Of Rest Act'" 11 The ~-lorkmen r s Hages Act, II "The Termination Of Emplovment Act," which was proclaimed in May of 1976 and

section 6 to 9 of "The Hours of Work Act." There is another act ~vhich should accompany this and it is one involved with"The Shop Closing Hours II ",., Act and that may indeed come up I hope in close proxi~ty to the passage of this bill. Now if I may go over the sections, Mr. Speaker, in respect to this bill,

Section 3 provides that contracts of employment provide not less than what the act requires but clauses of collective agreement ~resently in affect may continue until the expiry of the agreement. In other words,if a collective agreement does not abide by the minimum regulations under this act then the act may enable the continuation to the expiry of the present collective agreement and after that of course the new collective agreement must be in accordance with the provisions of the new act.

Section 4 suggests that nothing in this legislation will prevent an employee from receiving terms and conditions more favourable than those set out in the act. \ole have had a problem here in that every time you set the minimum wage of course everybody thinks that is the ~vage. But that is a minimum and certainly anybody who could in a collective agreement advance beyond the provisions of the act in respect to their collective agreement of course is not contrary to any provision in the act.

Section 6,l-rhere a business is transferred and is continued after the transfer the employment of an employee is :1_0219

June 2,1977 Tape 3645 - ~forning AH-3 ~'fR. ROUSSEAU : deemed to be continuous as far as the act is .. concerned. In other words,if somebody buys a company from somebody there is a collective agreement then the ne~1 owners must agree that this employee has had contin~ous employment from one company1be it the same name or another name,that he has with the previous company. Previously this was in the act - ~·tR. 1-JHITE: Does this apply to all companies in Newfoundland - ~m. ROUSSEAU: It will. MR. WHITE: -or registered in Newfoundland? MR. ROUSSEAU: Registered in Newfoundland.

Previously this was in the "Annual Vacations With Pay Act" but ~vould now have a general ap!'lication in this bill. A lot of these provisions in this act ~.rere restricted to some degree in other acts but now they will have general application of course in respect to labour standards in the Province.

Section 8: This requires that annual vacation of two ~·Teeks - one two ~veek period or two one ~.reek t"eriods-must be given to employees.~As pay for vacation an employee must receive at least four per cent of gross earnings for the previous work year. Before it ~-1as not gross earnings ,it ~vas net earnings. But nmv it is gross earnings so that is a significant change in that the four per cent vacation pay is now on gross earnings rather than on net earnings.

Section 10~ An employer is required to pay an e~loyee his vacation pay at least one day before commencing the annual vacation. Thatis similar to t~e existing legislation. Section· 12: Unless the parties agree the employer shall not require an employee to take annual vacation during a pe~iod an employee is serving his notice of termination. That often happened when somebody is serving his notice of termination. Of course the employer would give him the annual leave and get rid of him right away. That would now be contrary to the ne~v act. :1.0220

June 2,1977 Tape 3645 - Morning AH-4 MR. ROUSSEAU: · Se·ction 13 authorizes the Lieutenant-Gov~rnor in Council t~ make regulations respecting annual vacation.

Section 14: Mr. Speaker, I think is a very important one because in essence we are talking about for a great part non-unionized people in this situation.

Section 14 makes provision for at least five paid statutory holidays plus any special day or days proclaimed by the Lieutenand•Governor in Council and and this is a new provision. 1..0221.

_, June 2, 1977 Tape 3646 (~Iorning) PK - 1 Hr. Rousseau: Now

Section ·14 (2}, the same

Section 14, but Subsection (2) makes provision for collective agreements to provide for different public holidays; however the number ~hall not be less than those set out in the Act, that is five paid plus any statutories that the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may proclaim.

Section 15, an~ this is a new section,'Other than an essential undertaking,' and I refer to

Section 18 there,.' an employer shall not require an employee to ~vork on a public holiday . 1 And this is, of course, as I say, E new provision.

Section 16~~vhere a publ~ holiday falls on a non working day the employee is entitled.to an:additional day off ~vith pay. That is also ne-.:-1.

Section 17 is also a new provision. Where an employee agrees to work on a public holiday the employer may at the option of the employee (1) pay double time or (2) give the employee another day off within thirty days of that day or (3) add the day to the employees annual vacation. That must be done with the employees consent, a day off when he ~.;orks on a public holiday if in his opinion he so desires to ~,rork. And this, of course, is a new provision as ~vell.

Section 18, to which I referred to ~vhen I w·as reading

Section 15, 'An employee can be required to work on a public holiday in essential undertakings and those in public interest.'

Section 19, and this is also a ne-.:v section, ~-1r. Speaker. In order to qualify for pay on a public holiday he must have been employed for at least thirty days before the holiday, have not been absent for more than fifteen days during the previous thirty days, and the employee ~vorks the day before and the day after the holiday. As I say,this is a new provision •. The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council,in

Section 20, may make a proclamation declaring that public holidays are applicable to all undertakings or to such classes of undertakings specified in the order. In other words,when the special days are indicated as I :10222

June 2, 1977 Tape 3646 (:t-1orning) ~-fr. Rousseau: . suggested in

Section 14 at five paid =plus 't·Ihatever is proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, the Lieutenant Gove~or- in-Council may make them applicable to all undertakings.

Section 21 is a new section. This refers to defining PK - 2 the regulation of the standard working hours and week for employees in any prescribed undertakings.

Section 22~this requires twenty-four consecutive hours off in every ~veek must be granted to employees. That is the same as existing legislation.

Section 23, that eight consecutive hours off 'tvod:, must be given every employee in each twenty-four hour perio'd of employment. That is neH. Eight consecutive hours off within any twenty-four hour 1v-ork period.

Section 241 that rest periods after five consecutive hours of Hark must be given as follows: (1) one hour to employees in retail and wholesale undertakings and that is the same as existing legislation, !·1r. Speaker, and (2) one half hour to other em~loyees and that is a new provision in this Act.

Section 25 overtime formula in qualifying periods for all employees or different categories may be described by regulation. And 26, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulation with respect to hours of work.

Section 27~This is with respect to the Labour Standard Board making recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council concerning minimum wage rates and their application. Now as I suggested when we were talking about the estimates of the Department of Labour and Hanpower that the }iinimum Hage Board which just had a new chainnan appointed to it, and the two members H"ho have served on it for some time, would merge when this Bill was passed; would merge into the new Labour Standards Board. And the difference of course is, and as I suggested then during that debate,that the new Labour Standards Board -o;.;ould have a much greater stroke then the existing Minimum ~vage Board. 1.0223

June 2, 1977 Tape 3646 01orning) PK - 3 ~!r. Rousseau:

Section 29:Provisions outlining the authority of the Labour Standards Board to issue orders with respect to handicapped employees. For the Labour Standards Board,section 30,to review the regulations and order~ every ~o years without - now they do it at the request of the minister, but they will do it every two years. But it encompasses all items under Labour Standards,not just the Minimum ~~age.

Section 33 is a new section. The maximum interval for the payment of wages is half a month~ In other words 1 every employee in this Provine~ must be paid at least every half month.

Section 34 is a new section. The

section sets out the time and place respecting the payment of wages etc. and respecting payment in legal tender. It is not often that this may occur but sometimes it does and ~ve want to ensure that if it does that legislation would be available to combat it. ~' DOODY: Are government bonds alright? :1.0224

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3647 Page 1 - ms Hr. Rousseau. It depands on where they are from. Section (35) is an improvement, we think,on the existing provisions, and it sets out the particulars to be fu.rnished to an employee on his statements of earnings ~vhen paying ~·7ages. That is important, because many people, of course, do not have the bookkeeping ability to do many of these things, but it is, we think, basic that everybody who receives payment for work should have an itemized report of what his earnings were and what his deductions are and, of course, his net total of take-home pay.

Section (36) I!'.akes it illegal to stipulate 1vhere an enployee may spend his 1vages, and that is a ne1.J' provision. And that, you know, while it may seem to be a frivolous section, is put in there because of certain problems we have had so that it is impossible no-.:v for an employer to tell an employee where he can spend his wages. Section (37), a person who is owed wages- and this is new, Mr. Speaker - a person who is owed wages has priority over all other creditors, including the Crown~to the extent of two thousand dollars provided his claim is recorded with the Director of Labour Standards. MR.

DOODY: Does that include the Federal Crown? MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes. - ~~m.. DOODY: The Federal Crown, income tax deductions? MR. ROUSSEAU: Oh, I tvould .have to check that out, r!r. Speaker. Including the Crown, I would presume that it is the Provincial Crown. I would assume it is the Crown in generality, the Federal and the Provincial, I hope. If it is not within our purview to do that, I am sure that the federal government, through our provincial minister, will let us know.

But a person who is owed wages now has a priority over all other creditors to a maximum of two thousand dollars and only when it is logged with the Director of Labour Standards. MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) accrued vacation pay to be considered wages in the event of a lay-off? MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes. :10225

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3647 Page 2 - ms MR. FLIGHT: Accrued vacation pay considered Hages? MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes. Well now that depends, you know. It depends on the unemployment insurance. There are different ways of doing it; whether it would be a lump sum or whether it would be drawn out over a period of time or 'tJhat. So that would certainly make it dependent on the way in which it was paid. Section (40) is a new section.

An employee who has been employed for a continuous twelve month period shall be given unpaid maternity leave as follows; El~ven weeks preceding the estimated date of birth; any period between the estimated and actual date of birth;and six weeks immediately following the actual date of birth. In Section (41), following completion of maternity leave an employee shall be given wages, duties, benefits, etc·. not less favourable than those subsisting prior to the maternity leave. Section (42), during the period an employee is on maternity leave, she does not accumulate benefits conferred by the act.

An employer cannot dismiss an employee because of maternity leave. And this, of course, is a new provision. Also Section (44), Mr. Speaker, is a new provision. Children under sixteen years of age shall not be employed in unwholesome or dangerous occupations as set out in this

section nor shall they be employed between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00A.M. in any day. ·. Also they must be given at least twelve consecutive hours free from -employment each day and children under fourteen years of age can be employed only in prescribed undertakings. The written parental consent for employment of children is required in Section (46) and that also is a new provision. Section (48) is also a new provision. 1-iritten notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice is required when an employee wishes to terminate his employment or when an employer wishes to terminate a contract of service.

And there are some exemptions pointed out there, Mr. Speaker, in Sections (47), (49) and (50). 1.0226

- r:- June 2, 1977 Tape no. 364 7 Page 3 - ms :1R. ROUSSEAU: Section (51) , The ?eriod of notice is one week· for service of more than one month but less than t>vo years and t'".JO ~veeks for service of two years or more for 10227

June 2, 1977 Tape 3648 (Horning) PK - 1 Hr. Rousseau: termination. Period of notice one week for service, more than one month but less than two years; and over o•o years it is two weeks of notice. At p~~-~~t __ notice is equivalent _to the pay period, c..nd that may be weekly or whatever, so this is consistent ~vith the half monthly pay item that I mentioned before.

Section 53 is basically the same as the existing legislation. In order to terminate fifty or more employees within a four week period the employer must given written notice of intention to terminate to both the employees and the minister. The periods of notice are eight, twelve or sixteen weeks respectively depending on the number of the employees. And

Section S5,the Labour Standards Board is appointed to investigate and recommend to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council on labour standard matters. That is similar to the Minimum Wage Board. The provision now, Mr. Speake~, the minimum on the }."inimum ~-lage Board is three, the maximum is seven. We have normally gone along with three members on the Board, one member who is an independent appointment, one nominee of labour, and one nominee of management.

Section 56 indicates that the Labour Standards Board may convene conferences of employers and employees. This is sit:1ilar to the present rule of the Minimum Wage Board but it now encompasses all matters under Labour Standards.

Section 57 refers to t~e appointment of staff.

Section 58 the Director of Labour Standards receives and investigates complaints,determines deficiencies and arranges settlements. Also \¥here necessary the Director may prosecute vrith approval of the Department of Justice. This is similar to the present responsibility.

Section 59, Hr. Speaker, requirement for the employer to keep records and make them available to the department. And this is really a consolidation of all record keeping requirements under existing different pieces of legislation. 1.0228

June 2, 1977 Tape 36 48 (~· forning) Hr. Rousseau: · ·Basically the same is existing legislation

Section 60 respecting the powers of entry, interview and an inspection by the Labour Standards staff.

Section 61 is new, Nr. Speaker. The establishment of PK - 2 an unpaid wages account to receive unpaid wages from employers prior to remitting to employees subject to audit by the Auditor General, and this, of -course, is a new provision. That is in

Section 61. And I thiak the regulations under

Section 62, general application to the Act stipulates some of the points ra~sed therein. The

Section 63 and 64 is a new section, and a ne~v concept. It is the establishment of a Labour Standards tribunal to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council to adjudicate referred cases determinations of the director which would be at the first level may be appealled to the tribunal, and of course the tribunals find it may be appealled to the district court. That, Hr.

Speaker, is necessary because of the high back load of cases at the Hagistrate's Court, a lot of times people do not pursue prosecution because of the time constraints that it takes a long while, and that the courts are obviously loaded with other items, and that we think the question of the Labour Standards violations are important, that we are now setting up the Labour Standards tribunal and of course they will now adjudicate on all cases that were previously referred to the courts. Indeed they will have the power to define rightness or wrongness and to order satisfaction to the employee t·y the employer.

And we think it ~-till greatly speed up the question of violations of the Labour Standards Act. By the way that tribunal has not been set up nor do we have anybody in mind, obviously it will be set up when the Act is passed.

Section 65 is a new section. C~ditions to be met by employers or employees in making application for the review of a decision. And

Section ·J 66 and 67 and 68 are new sections of course which flow from the appointment of a Labour Standards tribunal, and an appeal of the tribunal decision to the district court and the penalties. 10229

june 2, 1977 P!.< - 3 Hr. Rousseau: And also

Section 69 is ne'tq-. In order that the tribun~ may be filed with the Registrar of the Sup1;eme Court, which I think my colleague the Hinister of Juat_ice ~. ay inform the House of the import of that, I think all decisions that are referred to the Supreme Court, of course at the magistrate 1s-level and other levels that will also be done by the Labour Standards tribunal.

Section 71 is a ne'tv section. The Directors of corporations :1.02d0

June 2, 1977 Tape 3649 EC - 1 MR. ROUSSEAU: may be personally guilty of offenses where the corporation has committed an offense whether the company director was involved by direct act or acquiescence.

Section 72 is similar to existing legislation in the provision for civil recoveries.

Section 73 is broader than the existing provisions for discrimination against an employee,which is an offense, is broader than they were in existing legislation. And of course,

Section 75,which indicates that the existing Hinimum Wage Act and Labour Standards Acts are all repealed and when this Labour Standards Act is proclaimed - and it will be proflaimed on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council .- there are some consequential changes in

Section 76 to

Section 82. Repealing of certain acts and parts of certain acts is also in those sections, 76 to 82. So, Mr. Speaker, I have one copy of my notes and maybe if somebody outside wants to Xerox them; if hon. members of the House would like to have them, they are more than welcome to have them. There are only short notes on them. We think it is a move forward in the question of labour standards. This has been on the drawing board for quite a while.

As I indicated during my debate on the estimates of the Department of Labour and Hanpower, the Minimum Wage Board has been authorized to conduct a review of the minimum wage and associated sundries in this Province and I presume will be doing so at a date in the near future. I suggested also that Mr. Harry Renouf had been appointed the new chairman of the Minimum Wage Board along with the two existing members representing management and labour on the board. They will undoubtedly be just changed into the Labour Standards Board when this Act is proclaimed. Minimum wages, of course, have come a long way.

I remember in the early 1970's it was about ninety cents and then there was a differentiation between men and women and there was a differentiation between sixteen and eighteen. These have all now since been changed. MR. NEARY: There were a lot of exclusions from the minimum wage • 1.0231.

June 2, 1977 Tape 3649 EC - 2 MR. ROUSSEAU: A lot of exclusions and so on. One that was· really repugnant was the sixteen to eighteen - MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. ROUSSEAU: - because there were people~ I remember when that was brought in there were people who were hiring - MR. NEARY: Terrible, terrible. MR. ROUSSEAU: - individuals at sixteen years of age and paid them less than the minimum wage and then when they became eighteen years of age were terminated and somebody at sixteen was hired again. And this w~s of course repulsive to the decency of any huma~ being. So that has been changed. ~IR.

NEARY: The big lobbyists, boy, the big '!Jusinesses. you know, those lobbyists put the pressure on the government! HR. ROUSSEAU: To change it? HR. ?'lEARY: No, no1 To keep them, to have these exemptions. ~1R. ROUSSEAU: Oh, yes~ To keep the exemptions. we pretty well ·think this is a good bill. lve think it is comprehensive. We feel that - MR. OOODY: (Inaudible) any influence on this communist government over here. ~1R. NEARY: you know. MR. ROUSSEAU: attempted - MR. NEARY: :HR. DOODY: HR. ROUSSEAU: of two good friends. ~1R. NEARY: HR. ROUSSEAU: You cannot go too much the other way either.

To the best of our knowledge 'tve have You do not 't-tant to add to inflation. Like compulsory insurance. Far be it from me to interrupt the dialogue No, no, it is all right. l•7e think the Act ls a fo~vard looking Act. We have held discussions on this Act with various representatives of 1.0232

Jtme 2, 1977 Tape 3649 EC - 3 MR. ROUSSEAU: labour and management. We have also done so on a Labour Relations Act which is a bigger problem. I think it is fair to say - and that is a facetious remark - I think it is more fair to say that we have reached more consensus on this one than we certainly have on the Labour Relations Act,which I hope will be coming up later today or tomorrow. It is very difficult trying to get the views of both labour and management on things, but I think by and large - I hope this will be welcomed.

It is an attempt to provide as much protection as is possible within the la't-7, and as the hon. member from LaPoile (Mr. ·Neary) says, without creating an imbalan~e,to protect the employee, especially those emplpyees, Mr. Speaker, ~iho are not unionized, who have no right to refer their decisions to anybody but the department, find themselves in awkward positions. We think this Act will go far in cementing their rights, 1..0233

June 2, 1977, Tape 3650, Page 1 -- ms MR. ROUSSEAU: and we think that it is a good act., We think that the move of this government from 90~ to $2.50 now as the minimum wage has been a good move. It is high in some people's estimation, and it is not high enough in others. But certainly in this day of inflation and rising costs, spiralling inflation and spiralling costs, the need for a reference to the minimum wage should be made probably more than it has been in the past, and we will certainly intend to do that. MR. NEARY: It adds to inflation. MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes. MR. NEARY: Really • • . MR.

ROUSSEAU: But still and all, so do all MR. NEARY: Now you are talking. You are starting to get the right idea there now. MR. ROUSSEAU: We have many factors that - MR. NEARY: The Gross Provincial Product. MR. ROUSSEAU: - go to creating inflation. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I will leave the Chamber for a minute now and pass this out to the girls out in the Clerk's Office and maybe I could get a couple of copies xeroxed there of the notes so that if any members want to zero in on a specific item they certainly may do so. MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, the initial remarks are that I suppose it is a good idea to bring all the existing legislation with respect to labour in terms of employment and one thing and the other all under one act, and I suppose that is about all one can say for this. It is a consolidation of existing legislation. There is hardly anything in it that can be considered of major impact, I suppose, and that is contingent upon how the government proposes to appoint the Labour Standards Board and the Tribunal Board.

These are the two major things, I suppose, that come out of the act, the establishment of the Labour Standards Board to enforce the regulations and the tribunal. But again I said it is contingent upon how these two boards are established, and I will elaborate on that a little later. :10234

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3650 Page 2 - ms :1r. Lush. But certainly·the bringing of existing legislation that we have under one piece of legislation is certainly a good idea. However, I do believe that it is incumbent upon the minister to make sure that people in the Province, that labourers, that employers and employees,are familiar with the act, that they are familiar with their rights under the act, and I think it is going to take major publicity by the government to make employers and employees familiar with their rights as they now exist under this particular legislation.

And I mentioned some time ago, when I was speaking to one of the minister's items, I was talking about the importance of education .. in this Province, of educating people, employers and employees,~bout unions, about collective agreements and all this sort of thing, and I think this is becoming more important now with this bill that there be an education programme set out to acquaint ·the people with collective bargaining, collective agreements, because I am sure that there are a lot of people •Nho do not understand the process of collective bargaining, and I think it is incumbent upon the minister to make sure that there is some type of educational programme, some type of ongoing programme so that employers and employees alike and union people can become educated with respect to the minimum standards of labour conditions in the Province, and with respect to the whole idea of unionism and collective agreement.

There is a massive job to be done, and I was extremely disappointed to see that there was money taken from the budget this year. Last year there was $20,000 voted, not a large amount,granted, but there was $20,000 voted for what was called labour education. This yea-r there ~vas no such vote. And I am just wondering whether the minister thinks that all the work that needs to be done on labour education is done in this Province, and I can assure him, and I am sure that he must realize, that there is a lot o.f work to be done.

So there is going to have to be a lot of work done to make sure that employers and employees know just what their rights are under this particular bill. There are a lot of :10235

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3651 Page 1 - ms :rr. Lush. individual clauses, I thiru<, that can result in misunderstanding ~~d I will get to these a little later. As I was reading them I found many of the terms to be confusing and many of the clauses to be confusing, and this is the difficulty with this stuff. You know, it is too bad that these things cannot be written in a language tr.at people can understand. This is written for common fol~, for common people. And, you know, it is in a j~rgon that you have got to be a Philadelphia lawyer to be able to. understand what it all means.

And I cannot for the life of me see when we are doing something for our .people, for the ordinary people, ~vhy ':ve cannot put it in their language. I cannot figure it out why this cannot be done and even a resume at least of what is here. And, you know, ~.men you start reading about the vacation and the holidays and the way that jargon is put there, you know, it becomes very, very complicated for people to understand. .~d, you know, I do not think it is necessary to have legislation here where some worker has to go and pay a la~vyer to interpret to him what it all means. I find that unfortunate.

I would hope that the minister can somehow make some resume of 'vhat is here and to give it to employers and employees so that they can understand 1;11hat all this is about. As I have said, it is certainly necessary for some job, a massive job of publicity letting employers and employees know what their rights are under this particular legislation. I would hope that the Labour Standards Board will enforce the legislation. Let us hope AN HON. MEHBER: HR. LUSH: The tribunal. The tribunal.

If this legislation can be enforced, I ~vant to ask the minister does the legislation have sufficient teeth to cut down on the illegal work stoppages in this Province? Does this legislation have that particular teeth? MR. ROUSSEAU: No, it has nothing to do with it. :1.0236

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3651 ?age 2 - ms / ::rR. LUSH: Nothing? Oh, no, I am sorry. TI"at is the next one, is it not? That is the next one. Yes, okay. Now I just wanted to talk about a couple of pieces of clauses there that I think are not clear. They can cause some misunderstanding. They can cause some confusion. First of all, again, I just want to finish up my overall remarks by saying that, you know, I just think it is motherhood stuff. I do not think there is too much in it you can condemn.

I think ,probably you can condemn it for not going far enough, but it is just motherhood stuff, just an adaption and a modification, if you will, almost a pure adaption of a lot of the labour legislation that i~ in existence across Canada and North America, just a follow-up of the - }fR. ROUSSEAU: It is new to this Province. MR. LUSH: Pardon? MR. ROUSSEAU: A lot of it is new to thi~ Province. MR. LUSH: Not new to the Province, but it is motherhood stuff with · respect to labour standards. You know. a lot of it is just . . . an extension of the Wagner Act, actually, of 1935. There is very little new in it.

And what is new is not too specific - HR. ~Y: , Once we copied it from Saskatchewan, and that is why we went into Confederation. MR. LUSH: And a lot of it comes from the Car~dian Labour Code - is it? - a lot of the things there. A ~ouple of things, maternity leave, would naturally be very beneficial and the women of this Province would be proud about that. But I just wanted to allude to - I think it was employment of children. Again I think the bill is a little too general. I -think it could be a little more specific.

I have been reading, for example, bills across Canada, Saskatchewan and Nelv Brunswick, and their bills are lot more specific on this respect with employment of children. They specify the type of work that you can engage people in at speci:ic age levels. This one is a little too general. It does not go into details sufficiently as to the conditions of employment of children, the types of work that you can hire certain people for and the types of work that - I think there is a general thing there which says the type of work you cannot hire them for. But 10237

- ---o..!.A.-- .. ---- Tape no. 3651 Page 3 - ms ~r. Lush. throughout Canada it is a lot more detailed than here with respect to the hiring of children. They lay out the kinds of work that children cotild be employed for and the types .of work that they could not be employed for in detail rather than in just general and specific terms. So this one here, there is a loophole he17e. Employers could get out under this act here and. hire children because it is too general. This particular act is not specific enough. Let me see, Notice of Termination. There . is also a point I want to make there.

Let me see which·one that is. Notice of Termination. Which clause is that? Fifty, is it? Fifty-one, fifty-two, notice, provisions relating to - I will find this, Mr. Speaker, in a moment. 1.0238

June 2,1977 Tape 3652 - ~'!:orning AH-1 ~'!R. LUSH: It has to do with e~loyers. Yes, now I have it. It relates to the conditions under which an employee may be terminated and it lists these,and that is alright. The conditions under which - let me get my own self straightened out on this.

Paragraph 47 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and not~dthstanding anything in this Part, where a period of notice of termination of employment is provided fo.r in a collective agreement within the meaqing of The Labour Relations Act, 1977, or in a wr~tten concract of service between the e~loyer and the employee - let us see -is the period of notice required by the employer as is . the case. So it goes on stating what the conditions qf separation are and ev~rything is normal up until

Section

Section 50 says that the employee does not have to receive any notice or any pay or anything else if, it says, the employer has mistreated the employee or acted in a manner that has or might endanger the health of well-being of the employee. Now i ' this seems to be giving the employer a licence to mistreat his people.

I do not know why this particular clause was put in at all,everything seems to be covered over in the other part, but here they have given the employer the licence to mistreat an employee. 1 So for the employer, there is . no notice necessary now that the employee can just be dismissed because the employer was allowed to mistreat him.

I think this is a ridiculous piece of legislation giving employers,as I said~the licence permitting them to mistreat employees and why that particular piece of legislation was put there I do not know, I cannot see the justification for it- there is no justification for it, there cannot b~- a piece of legislation that ~..rill allow an em-ployer to mistreat an employee. A licence,this is what this particular legislation is, giving the employer a licence to mistreat employees and that should be wiped out, it should be rescinded, it should not be there at all. :10239

June 2,1977 Tape 3652-~orning AH-2 HR. LUSH: The minister should come up with some explanation as to tmy it is there. AN RON ~1EMBER: t.Jhat clause it that? HR. LUSH: Clause 5fl. It allows an employer to void

an act for his own benefit. If he wants to get rid of a particular person and does not want to follow through the various provisions of the act he can mistreat the person, can mistreat the person~and can void the act for his own benefit. Why,as I say,that particular piece of legislation is there I do not kno'tv and if it cannot be explained in a satisfactory way I think it should come out of there. I see no reason for it at all. That is 50(

a) that an emnloyer-Pardon! HR. ROUSSEAU: Subsection (1) (

a) MR. LUSH: (1) (

a) right Sl(

a) gives the employer a licence, gives him the lega~ right to mistreat employees. I understand it. That is the way MR. ROUSSEAU: "lou are 'tvrong and I will explain it to you. ~m. LUSH: Pardon! MRS 'll.~aciSAAC:

Section 48 does not -apply. MR. ROUSSEAU: I will explain that. That is for the employee and not for the employer,but I will explain it later. MR. LUSH: Coming back on a specific clause again,there is one having to do with unbroken rest periods. I have - heard some complaints about that one and I am trying to find out which

section deals with it. Paragranh 24: it says th there that there should be a rest period of an hour given where there is a continuous t't-1enty-four hour neriod of 't-10rk. Again, people suggest to me that this is going to be a nrohlem where neonle work :t0240

June 2, 1977 Tape 3653 (Horning) PK - 1 ~!r. T. Lush: twenty-four hours, _r£ this is going to ~, ... C::lll~P soml" nro~_e!!'!s, I!!aybe the minister should elaborate on this and explain to the House whether it ~vill or not, and give us some clarity on that. - - ~ · Another one _relates to vacation n~y. A question here for the minister on this particular one, and this is 9 (3) ,v,acation pay, "Ho payrr..ent is required to be paid by an employer under this

section unless the employee has been employed by the employer for five consecutive Hark days or more." Now get this again, 1'No payment is required to be m~de by an employer under this

section unless the employee has been employed by the employer for five consecutive r,.rork days or more~· Nm,;r that is a change in the legislation. I just forget what it ~•as, but it certainly was not five days;it ~.;ras r:1uch less than that. So does this mean that if a person works for four consecutive days that he will not get vacation pay, he has got to work for five consecutive Hark days? AN RON • ~- lE~ffiER: One ~.;reek. 'HR. LUSH: One tveek. So if a person, you know, got a job t·7here he ~.;orks four days he does not get any vacation pay,is that vhat it means? ~1RS.

HACISMC: (Inaudible)four days this week, four next and four the next. illt. LUSH: Well then,what does it mean? This is the thing, this is ~.;rhat - HRS. MACISAAC: Four days only. :M...~. LUSH: Does it mean five consecutive days in a week, can a person take - does it mean just five consecutive days? MRS. HACISAAC: Five days,period, and then your employment terminates, That is the way I read it. I may be wrong. ~tR. LUSH: Okay. Well this is v1hat people are asking questions about,things they do not understand. Now these are just all the queries I have on the specific pieces of legislation, Hr. Chairman.

I just want to make some comments on the Labour Standards Board. I mentioned earlier 1..0241.

June 2, 1977 Tape 3653 (Morning) PK - 2 Mr. Lush: that the Labour Standards Board and the Tribunal Boards are going to be very important in the carrying out of this paricular piece of legislation. Both Boards have the potential of being nothing but an arm of government. Unfortunately, the position is I think the Standards Board and the Tribunal Board are both appointed by government. They are all appointed by government, every single one of them.

And so there is a danger here that this can become a thing of patronage, that the government can get p~ople in this that are not going to be independent, are not going to work for the cause of labour, but are going to be yes men for the government. And I hope that does not happen. The success of this piece of legislation, the way that this is administered, the way that it is enforced certainly depends on these two Boards, and they certainly they cannot be political bodies. And it is too bad that it is set up this way, that they are appointed by the government.

I just forget the Tribunal Board now: are all three members appointed by the government, the Tribunal Board? MR. ROUSSEAU: No. The Minimum Wage Board, you me~n. There is no Tribunal Board now, there is only a Minimum Wage Board - MR. LUSH: But there is going to be one. MR. ROUSSEAU: - which will become a Minimum Standards. MR. LUSH: Right~ Right~ So they are all appointed by the government, right? MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes, but the independent Chairman is appointed and the other two members are representatives that are recommended to government by Labour and by Management, one of each plus the independent. MR.

LUSH: Okay. But the Labour Relations Board again, all members are appointed by government. There are three - right? - the Chairman - 1J)242

June 2, 1977 HR. ROUSSEAU: HR. LUSH: Tape 3653 (Horning) 'No there is - excuse me ,if I may? Yes, okay. PK - 3 }1R. ROUSSEAU: The Labour Relations Board has nothing to do tdth this, but it is appointed; there is a chairman, and a vice-chairman independently appointed - MR. LUSH: I ~ sorr •r. I wade a wistake: the Labour Standards Board. MR. ROUSSEAU: Well, the Min~um Wage _Board, which will become the Labour Standards Board, is appointed. _ ~n independent chairm.q.n. __ lfr.

E_. n _. __ _ Renou£, has just been appointed a couple of ~veeks ago, and also there is a representative recommende~ to government by Labour and by ~!anagement, and both those have been appointed. They are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council but on the recommendation of ~ployers and employees. HR. LUSH: This is tvith respect to the two members ,though? ~-m. ROUSSEAU: Yes • }!R. LUSE: The Chairman is certainly ?1R. ROUSSEAU: Oh, yes. The Chairman is on my advice - MR. LUSH: The Chairman is !!!ade without any reference to anybody. MR.

ROUSSEAU: - on my recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. MR. LUSH: And the other ~vo members certainly have to be referred or get recommendations from employers and unions and whatever. :1.0243

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3654 Page 1 - ms :fr. Lush. The Labour Standards Board, Hr. Speaker, is an important '?card here for the administration of this act and again I ~.rould ho~e that it will become a good board. The government have the opportunity of making it a good board by making the proper appointments to it. And I would hope that it just does not become a position to pay off some political person. I would hope that it is going to be ~.rell ·administered, and it can be. MR. ROUSSEAU: Has Mr. Renouf a good appointment? MR. LUSH: Pardon? . MR. ROUSSEAU: Hr. H. D. Renouf~t.ras he not a good appointment? ~IR.

LUSH: I have got no quarrels against him, no. MR. ROUSSEAU: He ~-till be chairman ,.,f th~ new Labour Standards Board. "MR. LUSH: So overall, Mr.Speaker, you know, I do not think there is anything earth shattering at all about this particular bill. It is a combination of a lot of things that are motherhood within labour, but certainly not to condemn it. There are some things there that are made legal, some things, some rights, for example, vacation with pay,that workers need to know that is their right.

And even today it is surprising how many letters I get from people wondering tvhether or not an employer is supposed to pay them vacation pay. Well, it is here now. And let us hope that the minister will do the job so-that people will know what their rights are, employers and employees,and that it is written in intelligible language, that people will understand just what their rights are under this particular bill. And this becomes more important than the other one that is coming up,which is massive. And these two bills together written in their present jargon, the workers of this Brovince have not got a clue.

MR. ROUSSEAU: The minister has a hard time reading it unless it is translated. MR. LUSH: Right. :1.0244

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3654 Page 2 - ms ~. LUSH: So there is something that got to be done so that·this stuff is put in every day language that all of us can understand, ~v-orkers can understand it, and everybody else. But as I have said before, there is nothing earth shattering I see there. It is motherhood stuff. But yet there are some things that are important to our people, and I think they should know about them in their own term.s • MR.. SPEAKER: The hon.member for LaPoile. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, one thing for sure,you cannot legislate good labour relations.

Good labour relations,Sir, can only be brought about through the right attitude on the part of labour and management. And I do not believe the minister is attempting in this particular bill to legislate in any tv-ay, shape or form good labour relations. It can only come about through good will and through the right attitude and that is something that I have been preaching now in this han.

House for the last several years, the need to go right do~vn to kindergarten, right back to kindergarten right on through to university,and to educate our people in to the philosophy and the ideology of good labour-management relations and what the trade union movement is all about, and -.:vhat management is all about. I am not taking sides at all, Sir.

I am just saying that the fault sometimes for a breakdown in labour-management negotiations, a breakdown in communications, the admission of failure on both parts is brought about in most instances through ignorance, igno~ance of what labour- management relations and negotiations are all about. And the government itself has been the worst violator of this. The government itself has sho~'ll . a very, very poor ex§lmple indeed ~.;hen it comes to labour- management relations in this Province •.

Well, it is true, Sir, and we have an example before · us at the present time, and tv-e have seen other examnl~=>" over the past several years where the government itself has sho-.:vn complete ignorance of what good management-employee relations mean. Nm.;, Hr. Speaker, it is virtually imtJossible for the minister, for the government, to bring in legislation covering

June 2, 1977 Tatle no. 3654 Page 3 - ms ~Ir. 'Nearv. everv Aspect of labour and management relations. Sometimes I 'i7onder if ~ve 4o not go too far. The l'!inister of Finance the other day - HR. ROUSSEAU: That is not this act. That is the next one. ~m.. NEARY: No, I know. I realize · l.t is not. Bill 62 really is the one where I am really going to get into the philosophy and the ideology and the spirit of good will that does not seem to exist in this Province. But we are bringing in.a piece of legislation here really.that is a consolidation of all the other pieces of labour legislation. Some of it is new. Some of it is old. 1..0246

June 2, 1977 Tape 3655 EC - 1 }!R. NEARY: Some of it is a hangover of the labour legislation that was copied from the Saskatchewan labour legislation years ago that seems to have stood the test of time. One time Saskatche~van, >vhen it had an NDP government,was supposed to have the best labour legis­ lation in the whole of Canada, and fortunately the former Premier of this Province and the former Ministers of Labour were wise enough to copy the Saskatchewan legislation. But of course, times have changed and there is need to update some of this legislation.

But as the Minister of Finance told us yesterday in his few remarks when we ~7ere talking about pensions oTl Pri~ate Members' Day, it is unfortunate indeed, Hr. ·Speaker, that we have to bring in so much legislation when the workers themselves, when the employees themselves should be doing more to help themselves. I do not know what the percentage of unionized workers is at the present time in this Province. Perhaps the minister could tell me - out of a total work force ~vhat percentage are organized, are unionized? It would be a very small percentage. Would it be 50 per cent? HR. ROUSSEAU: Less than that. MR.

NEARY: Less than 50 per cent? MR. ROUSSEAU: I would guess 35 per cent. MR. NEARY: I would say it is roughly around 40 per cent. MR. ROUSSEAU: Say 35 per cent or 40 pe.r cent. MR. NEARY: Forty per cent of the workers in this Province probably, or between 35 per cent and 40 per cent. The minister probably can find out for me now because I think that is quite important ~vhen we are talking about this Act, because we are bringing in laws and legislation here to do things that the employees should be doing themselves. And I do not understand, Mr.

Speaker, why, especially in the white-collar industry - Did the minister find out the percentage? MR. ROUSSEAU: It is in excess of 35 per cent and you add the Public Service and the teachers, etc., so I would say 40 per cent maybe. ¥.R. NEARY: Well, that is right. I used t~e figure of forty - well, maybe slightly less than that, but around 40 per cent of the :10247

Jtme 2, 1977 Tape - 3655 EC - 2 ~m. NEARY: workers of this Province are unionized, organized into trade unions. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand why this percentage is so low, why the workers are not organized because, as the House knows, in unity there is strength. If the workers are tmionized they are going to get better working conditions, better hours of work, better pay and so forth, better pensions and so forth and so on.

But you have about 60 per cent riding along on the coattails of the 40 per cent who are organized, because the 60 per cent automatically expect to get the same benefits and the same privileges as those who are unioniz~d. And sometimes the employers play the game of. giving it to them an~vay. I know one fish plant operator in this Province that is not unionized~ his plant is not unionized. He ' watches what the other plants are doing and the moment the union negotiates an increase he will grant the same increase to his employees to keep the union out.

And you have the same thing in the retail business, but you have it more so probably in the service station industry - service stations. HR.. ROTTSSF.ATT: ~1R. NEARY: . ~ffi.. ROD'S SEAU: MR. NEARY: And Real St. Marie. I beg your pardon? And Real St. Marie • And you have it with this company down in Labrador City~ this French Canadian company that we have had so much trouble with. They have fought tooth and nail to keep the union out. They have done everything. I suppose they have broken all the rules and all the laws in the book. But in the service industries it is very difficult to get people unionized.

And it is rather tragic~in my opinion. It is unfortunate indeed that they do not do more to help themselves and therefore the minister has to bring in this kind of legislation to do - ~1R. ROUSSEAU: MR. NEARY: MR. ROUSSEAU: MR. NEARY: Some of them are frightened. I beg your pardon? Some of them have a fear of - There is that fear. 1_0248

June 2, 1977 Tape 3656 (:--!orning) Pk- 1 MR. NEARY: There may be the fact that they do not understand their · h that ;-~g ts, they are afraid of the employer; the=e is still,I suppose,a certain amount of that in this Province, although it has changed to a large degree. .But I know· in gas stations, we have got gas stations by the hundreds in this Province, and I doubut if one of them is unionized. There may be one or two but I got my doubts.

I kno~v years ago ~vhen I was active in the trade union movement it used to concern us to no end when we ~vould look at the retail business, service stations, gas stations, gas pump operators, garages, service industries. It was very difficult to organize these people into a union. I remember >·Then I was active iri the trade union movement .there was a big drive put on to try to organize the retail clerks. P~d they just could not see the benefit of it. I do not knmv if they were family affairs or if this was inherent in the retailing business,but it is still the same today, it has not changed.

It is very difficult to get the employees in the retail business organized. It is a real problem. And therefore the government has to sort of come in with tris kind of legislation to fill that vacuum to do things that the workers whould be doing themselves through negotiations >vith their employers. And in a lot of cases the legislation is merely a hit and miss affair. It may be good and it may be bad. It may be right and it may be wrong. The minimum wage has always been a subject of controversy, '"hether you are going too far or whe.ther you have not gone far enough.

The government and the minister are always riding the razor's edge when it comes to the minimum wage. And r.re still have not resolved that problem. A lot of these clauses in the new bill are new·. One that I notice there that I >Jould like to ask the minister to give us some comment on is

Section 15, other than in an essential undertaking, reference

Section 18, an e~ployer shall net require an employee to work on a public holiday. Now this raises the whole 1..0249

June 2, 1977 Tape 3656 (~forning) PK - 2 Hr. Neary: question that ~•e had a feu years ago of an employee in the Department of High~;vays who because of his religious beliefs refused to r.vork on a Sunday, and the Departtlent of Highways fired that particular gentleman. So .I would like to ask the minister now if this will - MR. ROUSSEAU: No,~.;e did not. ~1R. NEARY: I beg your pardon? :-rR. ROUSSEAU: No, no. MR. NEARY: The man was fired, Sir, and then later a grievance ~vas clade and there ~V'as quite a fuss kicked up around the Province, and the man was reinstated. ~1R.

ROUSSEAU: But there were certain, you kno~V', options that he had, you kno~1. :·IR. NEARY : I do not know t.;hat other options the man had, he was fired. He ~vas told his services ~.;rere no longer required, and later he ~vas reinstated. He appealed the case, made a grievance, I think, and appealed it, and, you know, will

Section 15 or will

Section 16 or

Section 17, which are all new sections, I tvould like to know if they will cover this kind of situation, where a man because of his religious beliefs refused to work on a holy day or a holiday or on a Sunday or on special holidays will he be protected under this new Act? And in connection with

Section 19, Sir, ~·7hich is again a new section_and the minister is gone out of the House nm• so maybe I could just sort of while away my time here 1.-1hile I am waiting for the minister to come back. Yes,the minister is coming back - undE;'r -

Section 19 ,'t..;rhich is a new section, in order to qualify for pay on a public holiday he must have been employed for at least thirty days before the holiday, not being absent for more than fifteen days dnring the previous thirty days. Hell,the standard procedure in all union contracts that I have seen is that in order to qualify for a statutory holiday, a public holiday you must have worked the day before and the day after, and I think that is a pretty fair proposition. 10250

June 2, 1977 Tape 3656 (Morning) PK - 3 ~-1r. Neary: I -.1onder if the ministe .r \·rould consider_ I do not know during the Committee meeting or not or maybe at a later date_ consider making that in order to qualify for the public holiday, the statutory holiday, as my hon. friend sitting in the gallery 1-..nows when he' ~-tas a member of my union,that if you worked the day before or the day after you qualified to be pa~d for the public holiday or the statutory holiday whatever the case may be. :1R. ROUSSEAU: __ !hen if a person goes to work for one dav. and then the next dayl_ ___ J{ormally it has been thir~v d~ys. vou know. :1.0251.

June 2,1977 Tape 3657 - ~orning AH-1 HR. NEARY: Anyway , that is something \-7orth t~inking about because that is the standard procedure today, Sir. And. ~fr. Speaker,

Section 23, that ei~ht consecutive hours off ~vork must be given every employee in each ~enty-four hour ?eriod of employment, I 'tmuld like to ask the - where has the minister gone now? The minister is running around like a jack-rabbit. h11ere is the minister no~-1, is he hid under any of the desks? CAPT. WINSOR: He is outside 3etting a coffee. HR.. PECKFORD: He is listening. HR. NEARY: Well,if the minister is listening I wonder if the minister could tell us if

Section 23 is going to conflict in any T.vay lV"ith existin~ r:rork.ing agreements, existing c·ontracts ? That is the part dealing with eight consecutive hours off work must be given every employee in each ~venty-four hour period of employment. This is new. Hill that conflict in any way .with existing contracts or agreements and if it does will the agreement supersede'? }!R • ROUS SE..A..U : Yes. :fR. NEARY: The agreement, the contract will supersede this legislation. ~-fR.. ROUSSEAU : Well

Section 4 says that nothing in this legislation will prevent any employee from receiving terms and conditions more favourable than those set out. These are just minimum standards. ~ffi.. NEARY: Ol~ay, that is fine, Sir, as long as it does not conflict with existing agreements or contracts it is probably alright. This act makes it illegal to sti~ulate where an ernoloyee may spend his l¥ages. I think that is a pretty good move. I wonder has there been very muc~ of that in the past? I thought ~ve had gotten away from that now in this Province., of the merchant having control over the - }':R.

DOODY: It 'tvas pretty common at one time. HR. NEARY: It 'tvas common at one time. But the minister might 10252

June 2,1977 Tape 3657 - !·forning AH-2 HR. ~TEARY : tell us if there is very much of it going on nmv - where you ~vere subservient to your employer, "t-There he had you right across a barrel, ~"here he would give you credit and you never kne~v where you stood with him. And when you would go in to get your cheque he would probably give you a plug of tobacco and a bit of molasses and a bag of hardbread and that 't-Ias your payment. ~-lell this elii!'inates - AN HON MEMBER: Tory times. HR.

NEARY: Hell,not Tory times are hard times. ~.Je ar" getting back to that again, I believe. ·I imagine this will eliminate that sort of thing if there is any of it going on now. And I imagine there is some of it going on probably in the rural, in the isolated areas, in certain oarts of Labrador and Newfoundland, I imagine that the merchant prince concept still exists and this is a good way to get rid of it, a good ~vay to eliminate that sort of nonsense of making the ~vorker subservient, a slave to the employer.

And I am glad to see that clause in there, perhaps the minister can tell us if there are very many examples of that now in this Province.

Section 44 - Children under 16 years of age shall not be emoloyed in unwholesome or dangerous occupations. These are rather broad and vague terms. HR. ROUSSEAU: The Labour Standards Tribunal ~'lould' in any difference of opinion& - ' the Labour Standards Tribunal - ~ffi.. NEA"RY : The Labour Standards Trib .unal will probably have to spend many a restless night trying to sort that one out. And then,of course,they cannot be employed - children under sixteen years of age cannot be employed ~vithout the consent of their parents. That is a good idea. I commend the minister for putting that in there.

And then apart from these felv observations, Sir, I do not see too much wrong with the bill. It is a merely a consolidation of all the other labour bills that ~ve have in this :10253

June 2,1977 Ta'Pe 3657 - Horning .w-3 NR. NEARY: Province. There are some ne-,:v- features to it. Nmo1 the most important part of this new legislation is the Labour Tribunal and I am afraid that like a good many other members of this House,. I am not really, and maybe I should be, hut I am not familiar of how a Labour Tribunal operates. PP..T"hAps the minister could take a few moments in closing the debate on second reading just to stipulate and be a little specific on how the Labour Standards 1.0254

June 2, 1977 Tape 3658 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: Tribunal will operate. For instance, will it take the place of a labour court? I am all for _- myse~f, by the way - I am all for a labour court in this Province because I do ~ot think, Sir, that -labour/management problems should be brought down before the regular courts of this Province, because you-are dealing with people in most cases who do not understand - first of all they do not understand the philosophy of labour relations, they do not understand the labour legislation. I doubt, Mr.

Speaker, if there is one lawyer in this Province who has made a study of labour legislation. MR. ROUSSEAU:_ MR. NEARY: Bill Wells,! would think. Bill Wells! Sir, if Mr. Wells has made a study in labour legislation I would say, Sir, that he certainly did not show it during the illegal strike between Iron Ore Company of Canada and their employees when he went down in court and made the most irresponsible, obnoxious statements,provoking people, workers, that I ever heard in my life. And if that is the kind of labour lawyers we have in this Province - I say God help us. The man should have been barred!

Not only were they irresponsible and obnoxious but they were untrue and they were proven to be untrue, where the gentleman went down and painted a picture of a whole community being on the rampage, out in a drunken stupor~ burning and tearing everything apart in Labrador City. Is that the kind of labour lawyers we are developing in this Province? All that man would do is cause trouble. I lashed out at him. I have not heard a peep out of him since.

I do not know if the employers now have dropped him - THill not touch him with a barge pole,and I do not blame them - because all that kind of injection into negotiations and into disputes, all that does, Sir, is cause more trouble. That gentleman would start the Third World War if you left him alone. But, Hr. Speaker, there are really - and we should encourage more lawyers to study the labour legislation in this Province. Somehow or other they have not picked it up.

Maybe there is not as much money in it as there is in downtown processing real estate business, drawing up first and second mortgages and conveyance~. There may not be as much money in it. But I 10255

June 2, 1977 Tape 3658 EC - 2 HR. NEARY: believe, Sir, there is a good living in it for a fe~.; lawyers and I would like to see a few of our younger types, our young men that are coming out of law school,specialize in labour law. The ~linister of Justice knows that there is not a man in this Province that you can point your finger to and say that he has specialized in labour law. Al.'i HON. MEMBER: Leo Barry has. MR. NEARY: Leo Barry, Sir, has not specialized in labour law, although Leo Barry was appointed to the Labour Relations Board and it was probably a good appointment.

The only man that I remember during my association with the trade union movement that started off working practically tooth and nail for the trade union movement was Frank Ryan. Frank Ryan started out to be a good labour lawyer - ~1R. DOUuY: He has come a long way since. MR. NEARY: - but then he got off the track. During the TI{A dispute he went over and became a part of management, went to work for Price (Nfld.),which was the AND Company at the time, and is now being retained~and I would not be a bit surprised but a member of the Board of Directors of Price (Nfld.) HR. S!-f..AL-LHOEH>: He is on the Board.

He is Chairman of the Board now I think. MR. NEARY: Chairman of the Board. \-Tell, I mean he is a very - -HR. SMALLWOOD: - very able · fP.llow. MR. NEARY: - very able man, and I must say I have nothing but the greatest respect for him. The unfortunate part about it is that he did not continue his career as a labour lawyer and I ~•as disappointed over that. But there is a great future in this Province, and I believe the minister will agree~ there is a great future for young men who are starting out practicing law. :1.0256

June 2, 1977 !-!R. ROUSSEAU: ::-rR • NEARY : Tape 3659 (~oming) PK - 1 Let you and I form a consultant firm? ~~ell I tell you,I often thought about it0 I often thought about it because the whole t:hing is lo"Dsided in thi. ~ Province. Employers, management, !:he ones ~vi th the most money dominate the scene now and will usually win, and maybe that is one of the reasons why so many workers have been discouraged from getting organized.

Because even under this legislation-as good as it is, or as bad as it is-there are a lot of times when you have long'7;drawn-out legal ~.;rangles ,like the one up at the Battery Hotel. I think it was probably the only unfair labour practice that ~.;e have had in this Province that was brought before court in recent times. I do not know if there has been any since. ~R. ROUSSEAU: Quite a few. HR. NEARY: There have been some since.

But what they do, they fire everybody, They fire the employees, who then have to go down and get a lawyer, and they have to go into court,and nine chances out of ten they ;.are j~st poor, ordinary workers who do not have the money to pay expensive lawyers, and ~hey do not have the time, and they are looking around for jobs, and they are tormented on how they are going to keep their family, keep the roof over their head, keep a bit of food on the table while the thing is being dragged out before the courts, and sometimes it takes a year, a year and a half, two years before you can get an unfair labour practice charge completed. ~.

DOODY: ~1R. NEARY: Hell, the procedure is too long dralvn out. They have got a union at CJON. They have got a union at CJON, yes. I do not kno~.; if the newsmen got a union or not, but they have NABET, is it? But the procedure is - HR. ROUSSEAU: In 1976 we had eleven employers prosecuted, we had sixteen charges laid, and we had fourteen convictions. 10257

_., June 2, 1977 Tape 3659 (i'!orning) PK - 2 ~fR. ~-TI::ARY: Fourteen convictions. That is not too bad, Sir. ~-JR. ROUSSEAU: Out of sixteen charges. ~~R. HEARY: ---- Hell,that is very good. I am glad to hear that. At least the employees are becoming more aware now of their rights and they are using the Act more than they were before. But there is still that fear and that threat fro~ the employers who, if they are anti-labour, you knm·7, they . cvill find sot:le way to put the boots to the employees. Now I do not knO'tv if this Labour Standards ~ribunal can help in that situation or not.

I ~..rould prefer myself to see a labour court in this Province, and in this regard - }!R. RQUS SEAU: I had enough trouble getLing the Tribunal. ~fR. "LmARY: The minister had as much trouble nor.7 getting that Tribunal through Cabinet cvhere he was dealing with the ultra-Conservatives - - ~- !R. ROUSSEAU: ~Io, no, no, But, you knmv, v7hen you take away the jurisdiction of the courts people are naturally, you knm·1, Hhich - : fP.. )TEARY : But you are not taking away the jurisdiction of the court because you can appeal here to the district court. ~-m..

ROUSSEAU: But still they are replacing to some extent the courts, you knoH, Magistrate Court. DR. FARRELL: The minister has no problem in this Communist Cabinet. HR. NE.-'\RY : You know, the minister had as much trouble I ~.;auld say getting some of this legislation through as I used to have trying to get reforms in Social Services,Hhen I \Vas Hinister of Social Services. I can point my finger at the ultra-Conservatives who would object to any legislation that would lean a little bit towards the ordinary person, towards the ordinary worker of this Province.

I could go up and do~m the ranks and I could point my finger at the ultra-C.onservatives, And the minister is not one of them,I can tell the ·minister that. I can tell the minister ~v-ho some of them are. But I Hould like to know more about this Labour Standards Tribunal. I think it is very important. It is a major step. As I say,I would have-liked to see a labour court myself to remove- because now, I mean, you knmv, if you are not satisfied with the decisions of :1.0258

June 2, 1977 Tape 3659 (1-~orning) PK - 3 ~1r. Neary: the Labour Standards Tribunal your only recourse is to appeal to the District Court, and I presume you can go on from there to the Supreme Court. So really it is jest another obstruction. It 'N'Ould be better to go straight into a labour court right off the bat, and then probably if you did that you ~vould not have men like Len Lake do~Jn serving ten days on the Salmonier Line today if you had a labour court or even probably if you had the Labour Standards Tribunal set up.

Because with the Distr~ct Court and the Supreme Court everything has to be either black or white. And in a Labour .. Court I think the philosophy, the ideology,the reasoning it, the frustrations, the human element will be taken into account. So an~vay it is a good first step. I am all for it. As I say, if I · ,: had my way we would go straight to a labour court in this Province. But this will do nothing, as I said in my opening remarks, this will do nothing to improve labour-management relations in this Province.

It will give a bit of protection to the workefS who are unprotected, who are not organized into a trade union movement at the present time. Sometimes I wonder if we bring in too much legislation if these workers will ever get organized. They will say, all you have to do if you want to get an increase in your 10259

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3660 Page 1 - ms Hr. Neary. minimum ~Y'age, if you want to get more holidays, if you ~.-ant to get more time off, if you want this and you want that, is go to the government and get a piece of legislation brought in. This has always been a fear in the backs of the minds of those who run the trade union mov~ent across this country, that sometimes you can overdo the legislation, and sometimes it is labour's own fault because they clamour for improved legislation when they know that the workers themselve~ are really the ones to blame.

They have not done anything to help themselves, and they look to the government sometimes for too much when they should actually be out -getting organized and trying to do things to help themselves. So the only thing really, Sir, that I would like for the minister to help me out a bit on is the Labour Standards Tribunal, tell us how it is going to work. I presume that labour and management will have input into it.

They r11ill be able to make recommendations of -;qho will be appointed, representing labour the same as the Labour Relations Board, and management will be able to make recommendations and the minister will appoint the chairman. And then what happens to people like ~r. Renouf of the ?ti.nimum Wage Board? ~.J'ill they be absorbed into the Labour Standards Tribunal in some way or other? Will they be dropped? Will all the members of the other boards that are in existence, the Apprenticeship Board, I presume - what other boards? - there is the Minimum ivage Board - MR. ROUSSEAU: The Minimum Wage Board is the only one.

That will become the Labour Standards Board, Mr. Renouf and the t'Y"o gentlemen who nbw serve • MR. NEARY: Yes, but the Labour Relations Board, that will come under the other act? MR. ROUSSEAU: under the other act. MR. NEARY: The new act, right. MR. ROUSSEAU: And the Labour Standards Tribunal and the =card. So there are only two boards to be absorbed into the - :1.0260

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3660 Page 2 - m.s ~. ROUSSEAU: The board and the tribunal, t~e Labour Standards Board ~vhich \vill come from the }finimum Wage Board. MR. NEARY: And ~vill these be permanent employees? ~~ill the chairman and the two members be permanent employees or will they be paid a salary or paid by the meeting? MR. ROUSSEAU: Paid per diem unless the Labour Standards Tribunal becomes, you know-· ~. NEARY: Unless the work load becomes so heavy that they have to be employed on a permanent basis.

Well, I would like for the minister to enlighten · us, you know, give us some more detail~ on the Labour Tribunal Standards Board. :m.. SPEA..T<ER : HR. RIDEOUT: The hon. member for Baie Verte - l.fuite Bay. Hr. Speaker, I just 'vant to have a fe~v words to say on this particular piece of legislation. I think on the whole it is a good piece of legislation in that it consolidates into one effort a number of major pieces of legislation that are presently on the statute books today, Vacation ~vith Pay Act and things of that nature.

And also, of course, like I said it does that and puts it all together in one package and also there are some ne'"' provisions in this act that I think are worth-while. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, the thing that really amazes me, to speak for a few minutes on the principle of the bill, the thing that really amazes me is the bill. The title of the bill is, "An Act To Provide Uniform ::1inimum Standards Of Conditions Of Employment In The Province." Notice the title, Mr. Speaker - To Provide Uniform Minimum Standards Of Conditions Of Employment In The Province.

Should we not be considering when we are looking at labour legislation in 1977 minimum standards of health as it applies to labour in this Province, as it applies to employment in this Province, as it applies to the job, I suppose, 10261.

Jtme 2, 1977 Tape 3661 EC - 1 l-!R. RIDEOUT: simply put. I do not see anything, Mr. Speaker, in the piece of legislation we are considering today talking about health standards as it relates to employment. And I believe that we have enough information before us, :Hr. Speaker, to be able in 1977 to legislate minimum standards of health in this Province as it relates to employment. And I am very disappointed in that respect in that the Bill does not go into that particular aspect of employment whatosever. We, Mr.

Speaker, in this Province today have enough information before us, enough facts before us that we know beyond any doubt that certain areas, . certain types of employment in this Province or in any province across the country, ar_e hazardous to health. Now when are we going to introduce and legislate by law strict standards of health conditions in the work place1 We have not done it. It is not ·in this particular Bill. Hhen are we going to legislate by law strict standards of threshold limit values ~.rith regard to dust exposure.,for example,in our mining operations? ~.J'e do not have to wait, Hr.

Speaker, for any more studies to tell us that these things are absolutely harmful to health. He do not have to wait for that at all. That has been before the unions for years, it has been before governments for years, and yet we have not incorporated that into this particular ?ieee of legislation. ~·7hile I say again that the legislation is good in many respects, it certainly, Hr.

Speaker, falls short of what we would expect labour legislation to contain in 1977 - uniform minimum standards of conditions of employment - and there is no mention whatsoever of health conditions, of environmental conditions in the \vork place. Mr. Speaker, it is only half a job at what is one of the most important issues facing the ~.;orking men in this Province today. ~That about legislating threshold limit values for Advocate ~~nes operation in Baie Verte?

They are doing it voluntarily, they are trying to control it voluntarily, But if they do not want to do that and if there is no pressure from the union,there is no legislative pressure from this House, there is no legislative pressure from this government, th:!n ho~.;r long can ~•e expect those operations to be good citizens and to do voltmtarily what they should 1.0262

June 2, 1977 Tape 3661 EC - 2 ~. RIDEOti'T: be forced to do by legislation? And in that respect I am very d~sappointed~ and especially coming from the minister whose name stands on this Bill, a minister who knows as well as I do what is facing his people in Labrador City and ~-labush and in other parts of the Province.

I am very disappointed that when we are talking about uniform minimum standards of employment that there is no consideration whatsoever - and I think this is the proper place to put it- there is no consideration whatsoever given to uniform standards of health in the work place, the environmental conditions that the workers in this Province have to face in practically all our mining operations. There is no consideration "t.rhatsoever given to it.

I am disappointed in that and I would hope the minister would take a few minutes when he speaks to close·the debate to explain his action,or lack of action,in this particular case. Why is there not something in here legislating threshold limit values~ We do not have to wait any longer. We know what the facts are. We know that the Americans are talking about 2.5 fibres per cubic centimeter in the States of asbestos content in the ambient air. ';-7e do not have that legislated in this Province. \.Jhy do we not have it legislated?

I do not know ~vhat the tolerance level recotranended for Labrador's operations is, but ~·7hatever it is why is it not legislated? How long do ~.re expect the companies to be good citizens and try to keep their contamination down to the accepted tolerance level voluntarily? We cannot expect that to go on forever, }fr. Speaker. And I would suggest that if we did not have the pressures of the unions - and I think the government is abrogating its authority. They are depending on the union to keep pressure on those companies to do the monitoring and so on,to keep the dust levels down which it should not be.

There should be strict standards of operation~ · strict standards of environmental control in those operations. And that is as much, I would submit to this.House, Mr. Speaker, that is as much part of the uniform standards of condition of employment in this Province as are minimum w~ges or :1.02ti3

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3662 Page 1 - rns · 'M'R. 'RIDEOUT: vacation pay or anything else. It is part of the work life, it is part of the work world, and ~Y'e have chosen to neglect it and neglect it again in a brand new bill consolidating all the things related to uniform conditions of employment in this Province. So I am very disappointed in that respect. Nm.r I want to mention a couple of other points, Mr. Speaker. One is what I consider to be unfair labour practices in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.· .~d I am sorry to say, Mr.

Speaker, that that unfair labour practice is carried out by a depa~tment of the government, and I am referring to the Department of Transportation and Communications. The Department of Transportation and Communications,! have been told -and many people have told me that they have experienced it - hire apprentices fresh out of the trade schools, out of the vocational schools, and they will put them to work - let us take heavy duty mechanics as an example - they t.rill put them to ~vork as heavy duty mechanics in their highway depots, and they will keep them on, Mr.

Speaker, for four years, and every year those apprentices will come into St. John's to the Tech. College for their apprenticeship training. And the day before they get their journeyman's, they are let go. Now, Hr. Speaker, that must be unfair labour practice. The day before they get their journeyman's certificate and, therefore, are entitled to be full-fledged mechanics, become members of the union and they get their seniority and have their job tenure, ~hey are let go. Why? Mr.

Speaker, is there any wonder we can look around this Province and find highway equipment broken dmrn, because, you kno,.r, what is happpening~ They do not hold on to those people long enough. As soon as they become skilled they let them go and they bring in a fresh crop again. Now I am not against 102',. "4 ··-' 0

June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3662 Page 2 - 'I:l.S Hr. Rideout. the training of apprentices. But,my Heavens,what other company - I do not know· of any company in the Province or anywhere in Canada ~.rho does that type of a thing, signs up five or six apprentices so that they can go through the four year training period and just before the Department of Labour issues their journeyman's, they let them go. No-.:.r I would submit, Mr.

Speaker, to this House that this is certainly unfair labour practice, unfair labour practice practiced by the government, the people ~·lho should be -I suppose r..;e could make an argument - the people ~-rho should be sho>:.;ing the example. The bright light of labour in the Province, fair l~bour conditions should be the govern.~ent, and they are not doing it.

And I think it is time for the ninister ':vho is responsible for labour in this Province to get after his colleagues, the ~Unister of Transportation and Co~~unications, and find out r.vhat is going on in that minister's department especially as it relates to the training of apprentices. I have had young people ':vho finished up their journeymen's here this year vTOrking at the highways depot in Baie Verte. Just before they got their journeyman's certificate - That is it, you are laid off nmv and w·e will hire on some more apprentices who will will be coming out of school nmv in another fe~-1 weeks.

I think that is wrong, ~-!r. Speaker. It is morally wrong. I think it is constitutionally wrong. It is certainly unfair labour practice, and I do not expect the present Minister of Manpower and Labour to tolerate that type of situation. If they are let go for reason for incompetence or something of that nature well that is fine, and there is a union procedure~grievance procedure to take care of it. But to be let go for no other reason and that they qualifed themselves to whatever the qualifications called for is wrong. It is morally wrong.

And not only that, but like I just said a few ffi:nutes ago, you end up with a fresh crop of apprentices coming in now out of the trade school in another week or so, and they got to learn the trade all over again. They have got to learn the :1.0265

__.__ June 2, 1977 Tape no. 3662 Page 3 - ms Hr. Rideout. machinery. They have got to learn the situation. And P.igh~·:ra.y~ will not have a grader to put on the Fleur de Lys road or the Seal Cove road because the motor will be gone, and they got to tinker around to learn how to ~ebuild it. Now I do not think that that is fair to the people. I do not think it is fair to those people who have spent their four years working with them. Now, . Mr.

Speaker, there are a couple of provisions in the act itself that I would want to mention, and one is this Labour Tribunal that has been referring to by a couple of other members. I think the concept of a Labour Tribunal is a good one, but like many other members in the House I do not know how it will work, and I would hope that the minister could go into more detail in explaining how it is supposed to operate, how it is supposed to function rather than just the bear legalities or legal jargon that is outlined in the act. I would hope that the minister would do that before he closes the debate. So, Mr.

Speaker, these are the points that I would like the minister to refer to when he gets a chance. MR.. SPEAKER: ~IR. PECKFORD: The hon. minister. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get into this debate • I just want to clarify one thing that the han. gentleman from Baie Verte - \{hite Bay said about health and safety and so on and hmv right :t02o6

June 2, 1977 Tape 3663 PK - 1 ~ ·~r. Peddord: now in the Province Ye do net have legislation establishing standards.

Hhilst that is a valid point that he makes, that it is not ~ · rr:i.tten into statute, it should. be recognizeci., and undo-..:btedly the ~on. ne~ber does recognize as do other · informed people in the industry in the Province, that -.re insist upon the ACGIH standards, that is,the American Conference of Govern~ent and Industrial Eygienist, \vhose standards we use and the coopanies in the Province are abiding by, if you \lill, or are adopting or accepting those standards as being the standards that should be used in the various industries in Baie Verte, in IOC in Habush and labrador City~for exanple.

And as a oatter of fact, for the record, in nany cases the radiation levels that He use are higher, the standards are higher than are being used in the Vnited States. This is an established fact that I just checked out a few minutes