The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to comment on the recent decision of a provincial court judge on the matter of the Shops Closing Act.

We have reviewed the decision in conjunction with the Department of Justice and we will be appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of the Province on several grounds. As a matter of fact I think the appeal actually was registered and launched today.

The Shops Closing Act is legislation that is in force in the Province. Accordingly, I would remind shop owners of this when they consider the implications of the recent court decision. As hon. members are aware, the legislation has been the subject of recent review and discussion. The act raises several policy questions that are currently under consideration in light of the regulatory review process that government is conducting.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to advise hon. members that the recent court decision on the Shops Closing Act is being appealed and that from government's perspective the Shops Closing Act is currently in full force in the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations seems to be embarking on a make work program for lawyers. He's having the Human Rights Commission use public funds to go to court to rectify deficiencies in the Human Rights Code and now he's appealing the Shops Closing Act when all that has to be done in each case is for corrections to legislation which can be done simply at no additional public cost by the Legislature in the case of the Human Rights Code and by the Cabinet in the case of the Shops Closing Act.

The Shops Closing Act was struck down last week by a provincial court judge -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to inform the House of recent actions by government to prevent a liquidation of the fluorspar mining assets at St. Lawrence and regain provincial ownership of the mineral rights, the milling facilities and the other fixed assets formerly owned by St. Lawrence Fluorspar Ltd.

Fluorspar mining operations at St. Lawrence shut down in November, 1991 during depressed market conditions resulting from the aggressive marketing of Chinese Fluorspar considerably below world market prices. Because of the weak financial status of the company, St. Lawrence Fluorspar was declared bankrupt at that time and the firm of Ernst Young was appointed the receiver.

The receiver's effort to sell the mining operation was unsuccessful chiefly due to the continued depressed markets for fluorspar as a result of the recession and the continued availability of cheap Chinese product. Therefore in January of this year the receiver proposed to liquidate the remaining mining assets at St. Lawrence.

Today, I am pleased to announce that this will not happen. These mining assets have been sold to the Greater Lamaline Area Development Association for the sum of one dollar. In essence they have been passed over to the association by the receiver and the banks for $1.00. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has kindly provided a grant of $35,000 to the association to enable it to provide security and maintenance at the mine site.

I have cancelled all the mineral rights previously held by the company and my department will now renew its efforts to find a new owner for the St. Lawrence Fluorspar deposits.

Fluorspar prices are expected to increase in 1995 and 1996 and I hope that we are able to find a reputable mining company to recognize the longer term opportunity for mineral development in this area, and to develop the high quality reserves that are remaining at St. Lawrence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Back for now, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but to a very serious matter and an important statement, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

This is a situation that has been very close to me for a number of years. After becoming elected first in 1982 in a process to reactivate the St. Lawrence Fluorspar mines, and through the Burin Peninsula Development Fund we were able to that when we attracted Minworth into St. Lawrence, build a new mill, did mine work, and employed 120 people at peak, so it was a success story for a few years, until, as the minister so rightly outlined there were problems that developed with the depressed fluorspar market conditions, due mainly to the dumping of cheap fluorspar into the states by the Chinese.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts of the minister. I know the people of St. Lawrence wanted this situation resolved the way the minister has resolved it. They support it. The Greater Lamaline Area Development Association has done tremendous work in communities from Point May to St. Lawrence, so I commend the minister. I consider it to be positive action, but I just hope that market conditions improve enough where, before too much longer we will see some mining activity again in St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Premier led a round of cheers from the government benches for the bill presented in the Parliament of Canada by Mr. Tobin to deal with foreign overfishing.

Now that we have had an opportunity to review the legislation we are quite concerned there is really no teeth in it and from reading the legislation, if you read it, it simply empowers the federal Cabinet to make regulations, so the suggestion that the House Leader made yesterday that before we cheer and give standing ovations surely we should wait to read the regulations, but what we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that in his statement to the press outside, Mr. Tobin said: the only regulations being prepared now, were those to deal with stateless vessels and vessels flying flags of convenience.

In other words, the regulations that they are now talking about in this legislation will only deal with the ten or twelve of the seventy-five or eighty draggers that are out there on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, so I want to ask the Premier: Is the Premier satisfied with that, and was he telling us yesterday afternoon that this bill represents a firm enough commitment to deal effectively with foreign overfishing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't have the statement that I read in the House, but I think I made it very clear that this is an empowering piece of legislation that enables the federal government to take whatever action it deems at any time to be necessary to deal with foreign overfishing. It has the right to prescribe what vessels can or cannot catch fish, where they can or cannot catch it and it can apply to any vessel; it is not confined to the flags of convenience vessels.

I am aware, as I told the news media outside the House, Mr. Speaker - I don't know whether I said it inside the House but I certainly told the news media outside - I am aware that the federal government intended to start its application with the flags of convenience vessels. Where it goes from there will depend on what's necessary to deal with the problem. I have every confidence that the federal government, having the power that Parliament will give them assuming this bill is passed, and when you bear in mind that it is a bill tabled by the Government of Canada, it has the support of the Reform Party, it has the support of the Bloc Québécois - and the Progressive Conservatives, in that circumstance at least, don't count.

So in that situation, Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that the bill will be passed. That being so, then the federal government has it within its power, because it has the power under this bill to pass regulations to regulate the fishery in such manner that it sees fit, and the bill specifically gives the right to use force if that is necessary. It authorizes the use of force.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied with this legislation, but this legislation is not, alone, enough to solve the problem. The Federal Government must, of course, act to enact the regulations that the legislation empowers it to do.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

We agree with the flags of convenience vessels. That is not what we are talking about, but you wouldn't know here yesterday but it was all over. You wouldn't know but it was all over yesterday, with the standing ovation and the cheering. That was the impression.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all didn't stand.

MR. SIMMS: They didn't all stand, either. Mr. Speaker, now we know why they didn't all stand yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the position of this government, the Provincial Government in the past, has always been that Canadian conservation and management standards must be applied to the entire foreign fleets, which we agree with, by the way, but this legislation, however, as the Premier knows, proposes only to enforce NAFO conservation rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: It does so - NAFO conservation rules.

Now, we all know what NAFO is like, because we have all ridiculed them, on both sides of the House over the years, for not having very meaningful conservation rules at all, so the question is: Has the government here changed its position, and is it now content to accept the enforcement of NAFO rules? Is that what he was saying here yesterday, in accepting Mr. Tobin's statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member's interpretation of the legislation is not correct. The legislation, in section 3 provides for the amendment of section 6 of the existing statute that sets out the regulating authority of the Government of Canada. It authorizes the Government of Canada to prescribe as a straddling stock for the purposes of section 5.(2) -and 5.(2) is the means of enforcement - any stock of fish that occurs, both within Canadian fisheries waters and an area beyond and adjacent to Canadian fisheries waters, for prescribing any class of foreign fishing vessels for the purposes of 5.(2), for prescribing for the purposes of section 5.(2), any measure for the conservation and management of any straddling stock to be complied with by persons aboard a foreign fishing vessel of a prescribed class in order to ensure that the foreign fishing vessel does not engage in any activity that undermines the effectiveness of conservation and management measures for any straddling stock that are taken under the NAFO agreement... - so that only identifies the stock. Then they go on to say, in Part II of that: ...any other measure for the conservation and management of any straddling stock to be complied with by persons aboard.

So they can establish any measure they want. They can prescribe any measure that is necessary. They are not confined to enforcing NAFO regulations.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, there are many who differ with his interpretation of the legislation as well, by the way. It is not my interpretation; it is what others have said.

During his cheer leading exercise here yesterday in the House of Assembly the Premier said, and I quote: "Overfishing by foreign vessels, most notably vessels from... Spain and Portugal - is thought to have exceeded 100,000 tonnes in 1993, and all indications are that foreign efforts and catches have" really "remained high thus far in 1994." In fact, I'm told that the level of fishing by these NAFO countries is actually higher this year than it was last year, and higher than it was previous to that.

But, as I said, these same offending countries are themselves members of NAFO. The regulations being drafted now that Mr. Tobin told us about yesterday won't even touch those NAFO members. They won't even be affected by it. In view of that, how can the Premier stand in his place and say as he did yesterday "that the Federal Government has fully understood and responded to our concerns" when clearly this isn't so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, anybody who expects that the Federal Government is going to be able to go out and immediately take control of ninety vessels is not being realistic. Nobody has ever suggested that they would do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ninety days! Ninety days!

PREMIER WELLS: Nobody has ever suggested that they would do that. I don't know what Mr. Tobin said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Well, ask Mr. Tobin about his ninety days, I can't answer for that. Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the Federal Government is moving and will move to exercise the power granted under this act to first deal with the stateless vessels and then deal with any other vessels that are fishing the prohibited stocks and affecting the conservation and preservation of those fish stocks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if they don't - I can't guarantee that they will; but any Prime Minister who has to political courage to bring that legislation before Parliament, I am satisfied will have the political courage to act under it. I have no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier as well. During the Leaders' debate on Province-wide TV on March 24, the Premier stated and I quote: No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate public support for, and by adequate I mean essentially majority support in the Province. And if the majority of the people in this Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro, I will not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro. Because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.

My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: Premier, were you telling the truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was telling the truth then, I'm telling the truth now and I always intend to tell the truth. Now, maybe the hon. members opposite have difficulty identifying it. I meant what I said. I believe that it's not right for a government to seek to pressure the use of the Legislature to achieve unacceptable objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that the government of which the hon. member was a member, virtually destroyed the financial integrity of this Province and we have been struggling for four years to cope with the economic and financial disaster that they've created. Now, Mr. Speaker, we had to take some difficult and extreme measures to do that. They created such a god-awful mess that it is a real challenge, particularly, in these difficult economic times, to resolve this problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to take measures, like the privatization of Hydro, that may well be contrary to the mood that was generated largely by the fabricated and totally unfounded comments and allegations of members opposite - like the suggestion that somehow we should learn from the terrible circumstances that occurred in Nova Scotia. The privatization of Nova Scotia Power has been nothing but a positive for Nova Scotia. It has enabled them to save millions of dollars in interest costs, it has enabled them to relieve their financial burden, it has been done without any increase in rates, it has been done without any loss of jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to take -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I can tell you with certainty, I accept the word of Mr. Comeau for that. I accept it without doubt.

MR. SIMMS: He said there were 400 jobs -

PREMIER WELLS: No, he said 400 people took voluntary retirement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - but not one person was laid-off or lost his job because of it, not one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Here's the Nova Scotia Power annual report; in ten months, without layoffs - not one; 400 people retired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Four hundred people retired because they wanted to retire. Now, Mr. Speaker, this government intends to salvage this Province from the unacceptable mess that the government created and we will do whatever is necessary in the public interest to achieve that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, nothing has changed in this Province since March 24. You knew the financial position of this Province on March 24 when you made that pledge to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Standard and Poor's knew he was going to privatize Hydro when they downgraded, too.

MR. TOBIN: Let me read another quotation, Mr. Speaker, from the transcript of the television debate when the Premier said, `The government will make sure that before we proceed with a vote in the House of Assembly, we have the support of the people of the Province to proceed. Otherwise, we will not proceed.' Premier, were you telling the truth when you made that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I'm satisfied that the government has an adequate level of support to justify its proceeding. As to the hon. member's suggestion that nothing has changed since March 24, I ask him if he considers Standard and Poor's downgrading our credit rating from A minus to BBB, nothing?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) last week.

PREMIER WELLS: The people of this Province don't consider it nothing. The people of this Province consider it important to our future, and so, Mr. Speaker, does the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Premier that you knew what the bond agency would do. Standard and Poor's had already told you a year before. They told you then the outlook was negative. A negative outlook always signals a downgrading, so there was no surprise. You knew it when you made the pledge to the people of this Province on March 24. I say, when you made that pledge, you were not simply saying that government would not proceed, you were saying government did not have the right to proceed. You said it a third time during the debate, during the last thirty seconds of debate, so that it would be the last thing the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he could come to the question, please.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I really feel bad that I am irritating the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I really want to apologize to that gentleman for irritating him.

Mr. Speaker, the last thing the Premier of this Province said that night, so it would last in the minds of the people of this Province, was: `I have said here tonight very clearly, and I have said, not here - I said it on CBC radio yesterday, and I have said it in other places - no government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policy that it cannot sustain public support for, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition -'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: `- we have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.'

The Premier said that, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask you, Mr. Premier: Were you telling the truth when you made that statement as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: When he asks the question better, in accordance with parliamentary rules, I will answer him.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are not recognized.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the President of Treasury Board.

The budget this year has announced $1.2 million to be spent on enforcement of regulations in the illegal importation of tobacco and alcohol products. Can the minister tell me how much of this $1.2 million has been spent in Western Labrador to counter the cross-border shopping?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the money during this year will be spent to combat illegal activity throughout the Province. I don't know how much of the money has been spent to enforce the tobacco regulations in Western Labrador, but I will certainly attempt to find out.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister could also let us know how much provincial tax - tobacco tax revenue, has slipped since your federal cousins announced their new tobacco tax regime on February 8?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I could get the exact numbers for the hon. gentleman, but since February, the numbers we have to date indicate that our revenues, in fact, have not slipped and are perhaps a little bit above what we had projected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, will the minister finally admit that the refusal to lower taxes and his commitment to harassing cross-border shoppers in Western Labrador and in other parts of the Province isn't working, is unfair, and should be discontinued immediately?

MR. EFFORD: What!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, one of the sources of revenue that we have is the tobacco tax. It amounts to about $70 million a year. We must enforce those rules and regulations for the sake of the people who are obeying the law. We must enforce those regulations for the sake of the people who need to be dealt with in our hospitals. We must enforce those regulations for the sake of the people who need to be deal with through our Social Services Department and through the other departments of government. We owe it to the people of the Province to ensure that the support for these services is spread fairly and equitably throughout the Province and that all people, that all residents, all taxpayers of the Province should pay their fair share of taxes to support those services.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. Madam Minister, over two weeks ago I asked you a question regarding the PCB storage at the Baie Verte mine site and the Rambler mine site. Two weeks previous to that, you had been sent a letter from the Baie Verte Economic Development Association regarding that issue, and you were not aware of what was going on at those sites. Seeing that you have had time to check now, could you tell me how many PCBs are stored at both sites?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I actually have an answer to his question that I intended to table yesterday, but with all the points of order and so on that were raised, I didn't get a chance to do it. I will be only too happy to do that on this occasion. I think it answers all the questions of the hon. critic of mine, the Member for St. John's East Extern. If it doesn't, I will be glad to address any further questions he might have.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The social assistance caseload has gone from 19,600 in 1989 to an estimated 35,000 this year, an 80 per cent increase in just five years. The cost of increase: from $104 million to an estimated $204 million for this year. For the past five years, the department has underestimated expenditure on social assistance by an average of 10 per cent each year. If you have the same here this year, Mr. Minister, your expenditures will reach $225 million. Given the changes in U.I. and the fisheries compensation package, why is the minister so confident that social assistance costs will increase at a lower rate this year than they have over an average of the past five years?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is really hypothetical. When the government is doing up the estimates for a particular year, all of the factors in the global economy are recognized and taken into account, and as far as these factors can be determined, we have no reason to believe that the figures for social assistance are going to be what the hon. member suggests.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, those are your figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by $16 million last year.

MR. FITZGERALD: Missed it by approximately $16 million last year. Mr. Minister, for the first time ever, social assistance costs this year will equal or exceed the total amount government will spend in all five resource departments: Environment and Lands, Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Technology, Mines and Energy, Tourism and Culture - more cost than those five departments combined. Surely, there is meaningful work that needs to be done in these resource sectors. Isn't it better to spend at least some of the money to create useful jobs and improve the value of our resources and contribute to the economy of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the employment enhancement initiatives of the Department of Social Services are quite substantial. Though we've not used the same kinds of programs that we have in the past that were U.I.-generated, in the last couple of years we have had programs that are geared towards training and more gainful employment, and along those lines the government is very proud of its achievement. I think, last year, we created somewhere in the area of just about 5,000 jobs. This year it is going to be in the same area. That doesn't count job creation that will done in other departments. The hon. member could address other departments, but that is just for the Department of Social Services which, in essence, is not a job creation department at all, doing this, Mr. Speaker, out of care, sympathy and empathy for the caseload that we have and wanting to make these people self-sufficient. That is the initiative by this government: 5,000 jobs this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, the number of able-bodied people on social assistance has gone from 4,000 in 1989 to an estimated 11,000 this year, that's an increase of nearly 200 per cent. Nearly 200 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and it will likely be higher; yet in 1989, $19 million was spent on employment opportunities, this year you plan on spending $15 million. Isn't it better to spend some of the money to create jobs for people who can work and want to work rather than to keep them home on welfare, I ask the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if the hon. member's theory was correct, I suppose the government could get into spending millions and millions of dollars so that we have no people unemployed. The hon. member knows that that is not accurate, he knows that but, Mr. Speaker, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness this department is very proud, the government is very proud of the job creation initiatives that we have taken this year, we are going to create 5,000 jobs and we are also going to have training for in excess of 2,000 people.

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

MR. WOODFORD: My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In last year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, there was a $70,000 cut to Sports Newfoundland and Labrador; this year, there is another $10,000 cut to the same Sports Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this year's cut combined with last year's will result in no permanent staff and the lay off of the general manager there now, and for an organization that is controlling or answerable to forty sports organizations around the Province, Mr. Speaker, would the minister now tell the House if he would reconsider his actions and seriously look at the possibility of reinstating some funding so that they could have a full-time manager and have at least one permanent, full-time staff at Sports Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, Sports Newfoundland and Labrador was one of a group, I believe of thirty-five organizations around the Province that were basically cut 10 per cent across the board. My budget this year, my recreation budget this year was basically cut overall by 10 per cent; the travel commitment that we made to some adults in Labrador was cut as well. We had no choice but to cut 10 per cent in that particular department and we felt that by cutting the organizations such as Sports Newfoundland, but then you have to think about all the other groups and organizations as well whom these people represent, they were also cut 10 per cent.

It was a question of money, it is as simple as that and I couldn't find the extra money to maintain at least the programs at the levels they were last year; and, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have said on numerous occasions in this House, that when I have to sit around the Cabinet table looking for sports and recreation money and the hon. Minister of Social Services, and the hon. Minister of Education, and the hon. Minister of Health are there looking, with their hands out, for money from the same pot as I am looking from, I have to take fourth place to those three gentlemen; so that is basically answered.

The answer: no sir, I cannot re-institute that money for Sports Newfoundland; I will try to do everything I possibly can; I have a meeting scheduled in the next week or so with them, I will try to accommodate them where I possibly can, but in regards to reinstating the money for them, I can't do it this year.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was in 1992 the minister set up an advisory committee, I think it was called a review advisory committee, to look into fitness sports and recreation in his department. That committee report I think was submitted to the minister in February of this year, '94. The review advisory committee was called Reaching For Diversity. Would the minister care to table a copy of that particular report and furthermore, would he probably tell the House, if he could, when he would be implementing some of the recommendations of that report?

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is absolutely correct. It was my predecessor who appointed a review committee; the report was presented to me some five weeks ago. I have met with a number of other groups of sports organizations around the Province. I have given the report to every group and asked all the groups to look at the committee report and make some further recommendations as the report relates to them individually. I am hoping that I can have their comments back to me in the next couple of weeks. In fact one group are meeting with me, I think, on Monday.

When I get those reports back I will hopefully be making a statement in the House. I will certainly provide the committee report to the hon. member if that is what he desires. I have no problem with giving the first report to him.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: In view of the fact of what has happened in the last few years pertaining to the fiscal, I suppose, cuts to Sports Newfoundland and Labrador, would the minister now care to tell the House what plans he has, and what future role his government has for sports in the Province as a whole?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sport and recreation in Newfoundland is almost to the point now where it is an ongoing type thing within my department, and certainly within Cabinet. We discussed it on a number of occasions and recently made a decision to continue with the 1996 Summer Games in CBS. That has already been announced so that is a commitment we made there.

We have also said, and I said publicly, that after the games in 1996 in CBS, we will have to take a serious look at future Winter and Summer Games. We have made the commitment for the Labrador Games next winter of something in the vicinity of $400,000, and that has been announced.

I do not think it is right for the hon. member to leave the impression that we are neglecting, or forgetting about sports and recreation, because we are not. We are continuing on the best we can with the dollars that are provided to us, and I can assure you personally that I have taken a personal interest. Of course, as minister I have to, but I do take a personal interest.

If the hon. member could have been in Clarenville with me this winter, with a number of other members here, and seen what came out of the Clarenville Winter Games, the comradeship, and those kids that were out there, we feel, and I think I can say this on behalf of all my colleagues, that we will do everything we possibly can within our financial ability to keep amateur sports and fitness alive in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the report of the Government Services Committee. The committee have considered and approved, without amendment, the estimates of expenditure for the following departments and agencies of government: Finance, the Public Service Commission, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

On motion, report received.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table the answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday past. I apologize. We had the information on Friday; it was here on my desk. I appreciate the fact that you reminded me yesterday.

The questions basically related to the chair and vice-chairs of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and a breakdown of the monies they receive for the duties rendered, services rendered. Were they receiving any other departmental funding from any other department of government? And there was a particular question about Mr. Seabright, as chair, and his position with Newfoundland Capital.

The numbers I will table with respect to the amounts that were billed by the chairperson and the four vice-chairs, and also the information is that the above noted individuals are not receiving funding from the department other than through the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

As far as Mr. Seabright is concerned, to my knowledge he is no longer Vice-President of Newfoundland Capital. In any event, all of these individuals were paid on the basis of billings for service, and this was the money to which they were entitled on that basis.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to present a petition from residents of the Corner Brook area, constituents of the Premier, Your Honour, and my own constituents, people who are numbered among the 80 per cent of the population opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

These petitioners are praying, and calling upon the House of Assembly to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is trying to deny public opposition to the privatization of Hydro, yet independent polls have shown that about 80 per cent of citizens of the Province are against privatizing Hydro. People are against the privatization of Hydro for very good, clear and logical reasons.

Number one, privatization is going to drive the price of electricity through the roof, and most of the extra costs will go out of the Province to non-resident shareholders.

Memorial economics professor Wade Locke has estimated that Hydro privatization would cost the economy of this Province about $70 million every year, each year, every year forevermore. Worse than that, divestiture by government of Hydro will leave the government without either the expertise or the financial strength needed to develop the Lower Churchill.

Now the Premier is doing all of this to test his pet legal theory which is set out in the Electrical Power Control Act, a bill that was forced to a vote on second reading here late last night. That involves setting up the Public Utilities Board to reallocate Upper Churchill power, to take power away from that which has to go to Hydro Quebec under the existing contract. That will trigger a new court case which will be long, drawn out and expensive. Meanwhile, CF(L)Co will be going broke; there will be no chance of negotiating with Hydro Quebec. Of course, we won't have in-house capability to do that anyway, so this is going to be a lose, lose, lose proposition. We will lose Hydro's assets on the Island, and pay forevermore higher electricity rates. The economy, thereby, will be weakened. We will lose what we have now in the Upper Churchill.

Our position in the Upper Churchill is very vulnerable and we'll lose an opportunity in the next decade, maybe we'll lose it forever, to have a beneficial development of the Lower Churchill for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people of the Province are against Hydro privatization. Volunteer groups of citizens have been springing up all across the Province to mobilize opposition to Hydro privatization. There's a group in the Corner Brook - Bay of Islands area called, Save Our Hydro and those people have gone door to door in the Premier's own riding and they are getting more than a 90 per cent response rate. More then 90 per cent of the people they've approached in the Bay of Island's District have signed the petition opposing Hydro privatization.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier had any intention of honouring the promise he made the people of this Province, on the provincewide live TV debate, March 24, he would acknowledge that the majority of the people were against him then, they're still against him and they'll always be against privatising Hydro. The only honourable course for the Premier to take is to withdraw the legislation, both Bill's 1 and 2, and respect the wishes of his constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise in support of the petition presented by my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many names were on the petition but that doesn't matter. In any case you can have as few as three names on a petition in order to present it in the House on behalf of your constituents or otherwise and I don't have it in my area, don't have to get a petition signed or anything else. All I have to do is go around the area, walk through the airport, walk through a store, go in a restaurant, anywhere and not only in my area, my area encompasses down around the Premier's district, the Speaker's district and so on. You're all over the place and you can hear the comments, Mr. Speaker, and the comments are all - pretty well 98 per cent of what I'm hearing are against the privatization of Hydro, for whatever reason.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned it before - one of the things that I could not understand is why government would now sell Newfoundland Hydro - to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. I can see it with regards to raising money to help with the deficit if the return - if the sale - if you could get a good dollar for the asset you got but some of the figures that I've heard bandied about - I know they're all hypothetical but still if you can get a good dollar for your asset - an asset then you might have to have another look at it. Mr. Speaker, the government today has the right, and every right, to charge Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro anything above 1 per cent. They are charging them 1 per cent now to float their bonds. One per cent and picking up $9 or $10 million a year to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is stopping this administration from charging them 2, 3 or 4 per cent and still bring in $25, $30, $40, $50 million a year and at the same time hold on to your asset because the government has admitted in the statement they sent around the Province that rates are going to go up. So if they charge 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent in the guarantees naturally the rates are going to go up but nothing's changed because in the privatization bill the Premier and the administration opposite has stated in all the advertising that's gone around the Province that rates will go up. So why not, if rates are going to go up, hold on to your asset and keep that asset that belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and still have an income? You can control the income. The irony in it, Mr. Speaker, is this, one of the reasons that it will be sold is to collect $300, $400 or $500 million which will be good for about one year when you won't have to borrow, that's about it. In the economic times we have today I say the government is going to get one year out of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro without having to go into the markets again.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing about this is that they will guarantee, they are still going to guarantee, the debt. Although this is going to be sold, although the people of the Province are going to give up Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro now, which they own, and which they can collect $10 million, $12 million or $20 million on a year, they are still going to guarantee the debt. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to buy 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the shares and guarantee the debt for a bunch of investors in Upper Canada and outside of Canada. That is what we are going to do. We are going to pick up the tab. On the books we will guarantee the debt for whatever shareholders, and this is a private concern.

Not only is it a business, it is a monopoly, but yet the people of this Province are going to pick up and sign on the bottom line for every investor who takes out a share. The people who are going to buy shares in the new Hydro after Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized, they won't have any problem going to the store and picking up whatever they want for the weekend. They won't have any problem taking a trip to Florida every year. They will be able to do it very easily, and they will be able to do it on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because we will sign on the bottom line for the investors in Upper Canada and outside this country.

That is what we are going to do. The asset will be gone. The income will be gone and then they will be collecting the guaranteed income from their shares. They will come back to the PUB, another bunch of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that will guarantee a rate of 13.74 per cent return. How many businesses in this Province today can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a new petition?

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy today to stand and present a petition on behalf of people from my District of St. Mary's - The Capes and some from the District of Ferryland, which is adjacent to my own District. Thirteen names on the petition that have once again joined the chorus of people across this Island who have been speaking out against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The polls show that the people are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The letters to the editor, the calls to the open line, telegrams, and the calls to MHAs in this House of Assembly show that the people of this Province are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The Premier in his own way intends to keep on with his attempt to privatize Newfoundland Hydro and the question is why.

The purpose of the legislation Mr. Premier, from what I can gather, is to try to gain back control of some of the rights that were lost in the famous Upper Churchill deal of the late 1960s. That this Premier now who we have today, along with the Government House Leader, were part of the team that put together the plans that sold us out in the 1960s. We stand here today prepared to sell out, to continue, or I should say, to finish off the plan that started back in the 1960s and to continue on with it today to make sure that Newfoundland Hydro belongs to somebody else except the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is not in the best interest of the people of this Province, and many people know that and many people are speaking out on the plans that the government has to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. I can understand where the Premier is coming from in the case that he is trying to right the wrongs that were done in the past. More power to him. If he had thought that there was a chance or a possible chance that that may be done I would be 100 per cent in favour of what his plans are. Some of the best lawyers and the best advice that the Premier has got is that this cannot be done in the court of law, that our chance of winning back the power that was given away is nil. The Premier was hoping to go down in history as the person who salvaged the deal of the 1960s, when he will go down in history as the person who was part of the deal of the 1960s and was part of the deal of the 1990s that will give away and sell off what we have.

The changes to education in this Province, and the changes to ATV regulations, and all those other regulations that come before this House on a continuous basis, are regulations that can be changed, that can be brought back to this House once again if the people of this Province don't agree with them. If Newfoundland Hydro is privatized, Mr. Speaker, it is a done deal. It is finished. There is no way we can ever retain once again what we own today if Hydro privatization is continued. I say that is a shame, Mr. Speaker, and Hydro privatization should be stopped.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: I know I have only a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, to contribute to this debate and time doesn't permit me to say a lot. But I want to say, we have been hearing stories these past few days about the Premier and all the reasons why he has to privatize Hydro, why it was costing so much, why the bond rating agencies were in here, and what was taking place, and that government had to make moves because -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Financially strapped.

MR. TOBIN: - because we have been financially strapped, Mr. Speaker. They couldn't give $70,000 today, to recreation, to sports-governing bodies in this Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, do you want to know what they gave to Gordon Seabright in the last year? They gave Gordon Seabright $98,207.50 in the last year. What about Jeff Brace, the city councillor? How about $83,580.25? Then they talk about why they have to privatize Hydro. Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder they have to privatize Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Is it any wonder they have to privatize Hydro when they throw around that kind of money? It was $98,000 for Mr. Seabright - for what? a part-time job; and Jeff Brace, appointed months ago. As a matter of fact, I believe he is the city councillor who supported the privatization - $83,580.25! No wonder he supported it. What is going on? You should hang your heads in shame. You should resign. You should walk out en masse, rather than be controlled by this Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount is getting anxious as it is now 3:00 p.m. and it is Private Members' Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 10.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I can't think of a better tone on which to introduce the private members' resolution that our party has proposed and which I will now place before the House.

The text of the private members' motion is as follows:

WHEREAS the government announced in the Budget Speech its fiscal plan to further reduce the compensation of public sector employees by an additional $50 million; and

WHEREAS the President of Treasury Board and the government have poisoned the collective bargaining process through the use of ultimatums; and

WHEREAS honour and trust have disappeared from the collective bargaining process for public employees in this Province; and

WHEREAS the government of the Province have displayed a confrontational, dictatorial and mean-minded attitude towards collective bargaining in recent months; and

WHEREAS the current threats to disruptions in public services are causing severe anxieties for many citizens; and

WHEREAS the threat of public sector strikes is having a profound and negative effect on the Newfoundland economy;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House deplore the confrontational approach of the government in its negotiations with the public sector unions and that this House direct the President of Treasury Board to immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations with all public sector unions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the current situation in this Province between government on the one hand, and its public sector unions on the other, goes back several years.

In 1989, when the Liberal Government was elected under the premiership of the current Premier, public sector unions at that time had many of their contracts in place. The government negotiated several contracts but then very quickly into their mandate, they introduced bills which had the effect of changing those contracts, and so the milieu in which we find ourselves today started back some years ago.

When this government introduced Bills 16 and 17, it indicated a dramatic change in the government's attitude towards collective bargaining, and that, in turn, evoked a dramatic change in the response of the members in the public sector unions. Employees who used to view their collective agreements with some sense of security, some sense of knowing what the future would hold, suddenly became fully aware that their collective agreement did not give them the kind of protection and the kind of security that they had thought they would enjoy; because, Mr. Speaker, this government at that time signed its agreements in disappearing ink.

In some cases, agreements were signed and not months later, not a quarter of a year later - in some cases, weeks later, the government said: We cannot live up to the contracts that we have entered into with our public sector unions. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a very deep-seated and profound belief that this government gets what it wants. They have no regard, Mr. Speaker, for signed, collective agreements; there is this atmosphere that the government does what it wants to do. They have shown a willingness to introduce legislation that would impose its will on its employees and that has resulted in a profound lack of trust. We have lost all of the dignity that goes with the collective bargaining process, therefore, many people today who are members of public sector unions do not believe in the process, itself. There has been some falling away, you might say, in belief that a collective agreement gives the kind of protection that should come from a duly negotiated contract between an employer and an employee, because the government has said over the years, that it `may' live up to its signed contracts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the government will say that contracts with outside agencies, contracts it has with business people, contracts it has with Hydro Quebec, cannot be changed, and we understand that; but when we have a contract signed with our own people, our own employees, then that becomes a `maybe'. Maybe we will live up to it, maybe we won't - therefore, there is no faith. Faith has been lost in the collective bargaining processes in this Province, thus, Mr. Speaker, the government today must face the consequences of the poisoning that has occurred in the collective bargaining process between its employees and the government itself.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this government will say to its employees, we will get what we want when we want it, and if you don't agree, we will legislate; we will use an ultimatum, we will legislate.

Mr. Speaker, we only have to go back to the recent past to find evidence of legislation, but we can go back, in the Premier's case, to 1967 when he was Minister of Labour in the Smallwood Government, and when the hospital workers in Grand Falls dared to go on strike. As Minister of Labour, the Premier of this Province had no hesitation in introducing legislation to force the strike to stop, and not only that, to decertify that particular bargaining unit. That is the kind of attitude which we have as an historical background to the present situation in this Province today. We have the same person, we have the same attitude, and we have some of the same players in the government of today.

Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1993, the Premier - the Minister of Labour in 1967 - called an election, and he called that election on the backs of the public employees. He said at that time that he was not able to continue to govern, and he said that he was willing to take on the public sector unions, and very specifically he said: I will take on the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association.

While he targeted all public sector employees, he specifically pointed his finger at the teachers, and the teachers, in their turn, responded. This government today sets out to settle its score with teachers. This government sets out to isolate teachers, and it is, in the government's opinion, payback time. There is, in this Province today, a well-thought-out strategy, a planned strategy, to isolate members of the teaching profession to make sure that they are targeted, and as much as members may deny it, there is evidence even in the negotiating process to support that statement. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that honour and trust and dignity and respect have been lost in the processes of collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, on Valentine's Day, February 14, the President of Treasury Board, as his Valentine gift to his workers, showing his deeply felt love and respect, presented NAPE and CUPE with the government's proposals, their opening proposals, for their contract for the next number of months or years. On Wednesday, April 23, the President of Treasury Board presented the government's opening proposals to the NLTA.

All of these employees have had three years of roll-backs, years of cancelled contracts, zero increases. They have given concessions. They have helped balance the budget, and they feel they have done their share. Therefore, it was with some shock that the members of CUPE, members of NAPE, the nurses' union, the police association, the NLTA, and all other employees paid through the public purse - it was with some sense of shock that they observed and read the proposals put forward by the government.

Then, on Budget day, March 17, the government announced its plans to strip $50 million from the compensation paid to public employees. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to admit, since that time, that has been modified to $44 million. Six million dollars has been taken from other people paid out of the public treasury: The University, the colleges, and including the House of Assembly and its staff. So there has been $6 million. There is still $44 million needed.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after that, the Department of Education ordered superintendents to issue layoff notices to all teachers who were covered under the 2 per cent savings clause or protected under the three-year protection letter.

The effect was an order. In essence, what the Minister of Education said was: I am assigning seven thousand two hundred-and-so-many people to the teaching profession. That had the effect for the superintendents to say: You must lay off people who are protected. And the President of Treasury Board, in no uncertain terms - clear language - wrote the President of the NTA and said: This government has no intention of signing a collective agreement in which the 2 per cent savings clause is included or the three-year protection letter.

Mr. Speaker, that was a clear message to the Association. That meant that program co-ordinators would be laid off - two program co-ordinators for every school board, that is, fifty-four program co-ordinators would be laid off. It meant that 363 teachers who are protected either under the three-year protection letter or the 2 per cent savings clause, would have to be laid off, or these positions would have to be declared redundant.

So, you see, Mr. Speaker, when the President of Treasury Board issues these kinds of ultimatums, there can be no question that the tone for collective bargaining is seriously compromised. You can't expect people to come in and say: Let's bargain, let's negotiate a collective agreement, but first of all I want you to know that I am saying, government is going to cancel these provisions that you have had for some time.

In addition to that, in the proposals put forward, proposal number one was that Treasury Board would cut severance to all public employees and, in this particular case, since I'm talking about teachers in particular this time, this meant that severance for people who were going to leave the teaching profession, that it was identified by the President of Treasury Board that this was their number one item, that this was their priority, and the government gave the effective date as April 1 1994.

Now, Mr. Speaker, understand, my point is that if these are going to be changed items, they have to be bargained. You can't come in and say unilaterally this is what is going to happen. And, Mr. Speaker, panic and anxiety set into the teaching profession. There were letters requesting clarification. I tabled those letters in the House, letters dated March 3rd, 4th, 7th, 24th and 25th.

Mr. Speaker, teachers responded the only way they could. They responded by resigning. Nearly 300 senior teachers in this Province took the only course of action they could take. Mr. Speaker, the stories of anxieties, the stories of feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, the tears that were shed and the students who were inconvenienced is a blight on the record of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you today, identify the teacher who is still in school today - two months and more then that - two-and-a-half months after she had taken her severance and resigned. She is still in school this afternoon and still there now in fact. She goes in every single day because she said I don't want to be paid but I told these students I'd be their teacher for this year and I will be. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that's going on in this Province today. Teachers who are working in classrooms day after day and not being paid because they lived up to their commitment to their students. I only wish that the government would live up to its commitment to teachers.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately these teachers unwittingly fell into the government's trap. It is indeed unfortunate that when those 300 people left they presented to the government its solution. These people have left and unfortunately that is a sad, sad, commentary. Mr. Speaker, this government is known for its confrontational take it or leave it dictatorial approach to collective bargaining. I don't blame them for being firm. I do criticize them for ultimatums and I do criticize them for saying it's our way or no way. Mr. Speaker, then we have the charade that's gone on in the past several weeks, something I'm sure that I will get a chance to talk about in the second set of comments I will make later in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, teachers have been intimidated, superintendents have been intimated, graduating students have been compromised, the Minister of Education and President of Treasury Board, they must accept -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - absolute responsibility for the situation and a poor state of collective bargaining in this Province today. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for Waterford - Kenmount for giving me the opportunity to respond to an issue that is very serious. An issue in the Province today that's very serious. I had read the resolution and intend to deal with it but I should make a couple of comments about some things the hon. member said before I get into the text of what I want to say.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution refers to the collective bargaining process for public employees, the public sector employees, the public services of the Province and so on. I thought that this was going to be a reasoned debate about what's happened in the public sector of this Province. The hon. gentleman, I believe, refers almost totally to teachers and the teacher situation, so I guess we know, Mr. Speaker, where his impetus is coming from. I don't want to spend much time dealing with the puffery and the misstatements that we've just heard. An example of one of them, Mr. Speaker, is a direct quote and he indicates we've ordered a layoff of all teachers protected by the 2 per cent clause and the three year protection rule, Mr. Speaker, obviously false. The rest of his speech was sprinkled with statements that were of the same kind.

It would take my full twenty minutes to deal with these, and I don't intend to respond. I intend to respond to the resolution, which unfortunately does contain much that is inflammatory and is probably designed to disrupt the process rather than to have a reasoned debate about the process. That is really unfortunate.

When we formed the government in 1989 we inherited a situation that had it continued, I suppose, would have created some tremendous difficulties that we can't even envision today. During the first year revenues were increasing, during the first year that we formed the government. Revenues were increasing but the debt of the Province was extremely high. But because revenues were increasing and we were in the process of immediately getting down to collective bargaining with our public employees, and we could see that if this trend continues - the increasing in revenue - that there was some flexibility, we started the collective bargaining process. I might point out that that very first year, because of the increase in revenues, we found that we were a bit better off than we expected, and we took $22 million that came in, that was over and above what we had projected, what was projected in the Budget, and we put to start to help solve the problem in one of the pension plans, the teachers' pension plan. That was a time of increasing revenues.

Then during that year, the latter end of that year and the beginning of the second year, we started to experience some other things. First of all there was the general downturn in the world economy and the Canadian economy that tended to hit us harder here at the beginning and was more obvious to us. The second was a change in federal transfer payments which over the next three years amounted to us receiving about $600 million less than we would have had the situation remained as it was just before we took over. A loss of about $600 million. This is something that the federal government did, and I'm at this point in time not criticizing them for it, but that happened, and this was a loss in projected revenues.

At the same time there were some other problems. It became obvious to us very quickly that the ever-increasing growth of the 1980s was coming to a stop and would no longer continue. As a matter of fact, the growth would not simply slow down but in actual fact it came to a halt. We recognized that we were in serious trouble financially. Under normal conditions, if after a boom period there was a downturn, under normal conditions we could say: Let's go to the markets and borrow to get us over the hump. We found ourselves in the position where we couldn't do that because our debt was already so high that we couldn't have big increases in our borrowing. We borrowed too much during that period of time. In spite of it all, in spite of our attempts, we still borrowed too much, but we couldn't go to the markets to get us over that time.

We called our public sector union leadership together and explained the situation, explained in great detail what was happening. We carried on some discussions and I suspect that the response received at that time indicated that they didn't really think we were serious about what was going to happen over the next couple of years. We were forced to take some serious actions. We had just negotiated some contracts and were in the process of negotiating other contracts.

With some of our bargaining units, particularly NAPE, CUPE and the nurses, we had already signed agreements. In the case of the teachers we were still in the process and had not signed an agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, we brought in legislation because we simply could not handle the extra hundreds of millions of dollars over the next three years that we knew were coming, we simply could not handle it because, Mr. Speaker, it would have meant massive reductions in service. We went ahead and did a lot of lay offs in the public service, I believe the final total came to about 1,700; 1,700 people lost their jobs and that's not nice. That's not nice.

Contracts were broken and that's not nice. We would have preferred to do it by agreement because of the very serious financial condition of the Province, we could not, and we couldn't go through a year or two's process to get the agreement because time is of the essence, so we did some things that were not nice but, Mr. Speaker, were they not done, instead of 1,700 layoffs, there would have been 10,000 layoffs and we could not provide the service to the people in this Province.

We raised taxes, we have raised taxes an awful lot, personal income tax during that two-year period. We have raised taxes, we have had a lot of extra money from the people of this Province; we have cut back on spending tremendously, and we have stopped providing some of the services that ordinarily would have been provided; we have cut services and unfortunately people lost their jobs. The recession continued and what we have predicted came about. As a matter of fact, it became much worse than anybody, anywhere in North America or the world for that matter had projected. It was very serious and at every step of the way, as we would get new projections from the federal government and some of our own projections and these projections would change, we always said: we must share that with the leadership of the public sector unions, this information, and again, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that there was a lot of skepticism, but, Mr. Speaker, we told the truth every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, in that period of time there have been wage freezes. In that period of time there have been concessions primarily last year through the pension option in the public service, and even though our object was to not lay off anymore people and to not use layoffs as a method of retaining our fiscal balance, and not to affect the normal take-home pay of employees, we used an option that didn't have an immediate effect on the take-home pay but it had a very serious effect, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. The pension option was sound financially in terms of the pension plan, but it had a tremendous effect on the public servants of this Province, because it increased the length of time they would have to work in order to achieve a comparable level of pension, and, Mr. Speaker, that was a sacrifice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well I will repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that every step of the way, every time the projections changed and came in, we sat down with the leadership of the public sector unions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some may say that that was a wasted effort. We have been publicly accused of doing everything on our own, of a dictatorial attitude, confrontational and so on and yet we always sat down with the leadership of the public sector unions and opened the books to them to indicate exactly what we needed. There are also those, Mr. Speaker, who might say that we got no co-operation from the public sector unions. Mr. Speaker, that also is not true, because if you think back over the three years, and I think perhaps as a response to the fact that we have been open and provided the figures whenever our projections changed - provided to them and so on - I think that the public sector unions perhaps could have gotten together and closed this Province down. They always have that threat. They could have done that, I suppose, but they chose not to. For whatever reason, they chose not to, and the last three years have happened without major disruption.

Last year, with every one of our public sector unions, agreements were signed. Understandings were signed, if you want to call them that. In some cases it extended agreements; in other cases it didn't. Understandings were signed last year with all of our public sector unions, so there has been a degree of understanding.

Now, let's get to this year. I would like to simply outline what has happened. Again, when we had a fairly good handle on where we would be going this year, which happened to be last November, some time - I believe it was the first week in November, actually, that I had a meeting with the leaders of all the public sector unions, and I laid out for them what our projections were - it indicated that perhaps the deterioration was perhaps slowing down. In the previous year - and you will remember, that was the year that there was what was called a mini-Budget brought in in the fall - the problem we were facing in the fall was about $300 million. Last year, looking ahead to this year, the problem we were facing was perhaps $120 million, and that was in spite of the fact that we did some temporary measures last year. So the problem was less of a problem, and we laid this out.

In our budget we took care of some of that $125 million - as a matter of fact, about $25 million - through extra borrowing, which we did not like to do, but we had to do the extra borrowing. We cut back significantly on a number of areas of expenditure in government that did not have significant or large numbers of layoffs associated with them. We cut back on service, in other words, to the people. We raised some revenues, not directly through the tax system but through the licensing system primarily - raised some revenues - and we targeted $50 million to come from the total public sector compensation, which was less than the year before, which was a hopeful sign.

That $50 million worked out to be, as the member explained, perhaps more like $44 million. It worked out, I suppose, in terms of the general compensation package, to be 2.5 per cent. That is what it boils down to be, and we started negotiations because the year was coming to an end. I will just briefly outline, without making any comments on it, what has happened in that process.

I will deal with NAPE/CUPE first. We started negotiations with NAPE/CUPE. They were negotiating together, and they have a rather complex structure, and the nitty-gritty of negotiations occur in a large room with a large number of people. We tried that process and did not make a great deal of headway. NAPE/CUPE chose to go through the conciliation process and got their strike vote. Since then we have been carrying on discussions at a different level, but they have been discussions aimed at reaching a solution that was acceptable to both sides, and these discussions are ongoing.

In that process, our opening position as a government was tabled, NAPE/CUPE's opening position was tabled, and right now what is left bears no resemblance to these opening positions, except in a few minor ways. There has been give and take, and we will continue that process. Now that is not to say that is not going to end up in trouble. These discussions could fall apart. I am not saying that we are close to an agreement. Don't mistake what I am saying. We are not, but we are still talking and there is some give and take on both sides.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary recently indicated they wanted to break off negotiations. These have been ongoing for some time and there has again been a lot of give and take on both sides, but there are still a couple of issues outstanding that they feel must be dealt with, and they have broken off negotiations. We are still ready to discuss. They have the option, Mr. Speaker, because there is no such thing as a strike option for them; they didn't go for a strike vote because that is not possible, they have binding arbitration as a possibility. We will see where that goes.

With the nurses, Mr. Speaker, we went through a process similar to NAPE and CUPE. They recently got their strike vote and we are now starting negotiations, sometime within the next week. There has already been one talk and negotiations start sometime during the week.

With the teachers, Mr. Speaker, there has been no willingness to get to the collective bargaining stage, as they refer to it, and I am not going to comment on the reasons for that. There have been meetings between myself, some of my officials, the President of the NLTA and some of their officials, but at some point in time I said, We have to get negotiations started, so I prepared an opening position and they prepared an opening position, which were exchanged, but there hasn't been five minutes of collective bargaining on these opening positions.

We went through the conciliation process, Mr. Speaker. The Conciliation Board unanimously said: start negotiations, but that was rejected by a 91 per cent vote. The direction that the executive has is to not start these types of negotiations. Yet, there have been talks and there will be at least one further meeting. A strike vote has been held and quite some time ago, I believe it was during the Easter break, the executive announced the date for the strike vote and the date for the strike.

There will be at least one more meeting - let's hope there will be more meetings. Mr. Speaker, this is an indication that government is trying to work this out. We have a difficult financial situation to solve that everybody should be aware of. There is, with some of the unions, some understanding that it is a serious problem that must be solved, and let's hope that understanding spreads through the other bargaining units as well.

It is not an approach of a government that is dictatorial. It is an approach of a government that started four years ago in an attempt to develop the true social contract where employers and employees sit down, look at the numbers, verify the numbers, bring in all kinds of experts to verify the numbers, and once you agree on the numbers then to mutually reach a solution. That is the action of a government interested in that type of process, that gives the employees access to the decision-making.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. BAKER: I would indicate, that obviously, because of the inflammatory nature of this resolution, of the total, absolute, misstatements that are in here, we can't support it.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board concluded his remarks by suggesting that they wanted to enter a true social contract. Now, after what we have seen this minister and this government do over the past two or three months, to conclude his twenty-minute speech here and suggest that he wants a true social contract - you have to have one heck of an imagination to swallow that.

MR. FLIGHT: Why?

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture asks, why?

Mr. Speaker, if you were an employee of this government, whether you were a teacher, a nurse, a wildlife officer, a policeman, or a social worker and you were the lowest paid in your scale, in the country, and you heard this coming from a minister, about entering a true social contract - coming from the highest paid Cabinet minister in the country, would you call that fairness and balance? when this Province has a history of having the highest paid Premier, the lowest paid nurses, the lowest paid teachers -

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. A. SNOW: - the lowest paid wildlife officers, the lowest paid social workers. That's what is occurring in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and then they say: We want to enter a true social contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: I hit a raw nerve, I know, on some of the front benches there, because there is a lot of guilt on the front benches. The hon. the Member for Exploits sits there and says: My god, don't say that about teachers: sure, look, I cried for them when I was on the steps. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, he didn't plead for them in the Cabinet room - there lies the problem. He has to stand up for them when it is necessary, that's what he has to do, and that's part of the problem out there now.

Here is another one. The Minister of Environment and Lands who got to the Cabinet room on the backs of the teachers of this Province. What did she do? from the classroom to the Cabinet room, and then she forgot them - that's what she did - and that's the problem. The only thing they remembered when they got in there was how to improve their own style of life with an $8,000 car allowance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: They - Mr. Speaker, I would -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, could I have order? I am speaking to the ministers over there and it hurts, but it also hurts those people out on the streets. I know wildlife officers in my district who are making less take-home-pay now than they were in 1989. Now, do you tell me that is success? What were the Cabinet ministers being paid in 1989?

How can anybody, in all honesty, stand up and say: We are entering into a true social contract? That's why people are angry, because they don't trust this government. The only people who got rewarded by electing this Liberal Government were the people who have huge salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you mad (inaudible)?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I'm mad. I'm angry, I'm disappointed, I'm disgusted with what is going on in this Province. I'm just like the 90 per cent. I'm just like the people who responded to this Environics poll, that's what I am. I am a member; I am a citizen of this Province. I'm disappointed; I'm disgusted with this government. I'm disgusted with the leadership of this government.

Mr. Speaker, my history in collective bargaining - I haven't been a leader in unions. I was a member of a steelworkers, and I'm proud to say, a member of 5795. And I know what it's like to be on strike, I've been there. I also know what it's like to be living in a community when the single industry is shut down because of a strike. I know the trauma that occurs in the families and the homes. I know the financial burdens that people go through to get respect. That is what we are talking about, because that is what a lot of strikes are over, attempting to regain respect, because of what the employer does. Quite often that is what causes a lot of strikes.

I also know, as a small businessman, an operator of a family business for some twenty years, of the burden that this work stoppage or strikes - what happens in the community, itself. I know what happens - I've been there, I've seen it, I've witnessed it. So nobody over there has to give me any lectures on what life is like down in the trenches or on the bricks, I know, I've been there. I've received cheques and had to sign them on the back. I've also gone through the history of work stoppages and recessions and had to sign the cheques on the front with a responsibility to my employees, and paying my creditors and the banks. So I've seen both sides of it. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) as an employer? As an employer you (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Exactly, that's what I mean by signing the front of the cheques.

MR. TOBIN: You didn't starve them either.

MR. A. SNOW: I've seen both sides of it and I've learned, Mr. Speaker, that you have to treat people with respect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it angers me and, as I said, it angers and disgusts a lot of people in this Province, what is occurring and what has occurred over the last year. In reality, since 1989, since you people have been elected, the collective bargaining process has taken a kicking. I would use another expression ahead of the `kicking', Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure it would be unparliamentary and I might be asked, as some of my colleagues were recently, to be kicked out of the House. But, Mr. Speaker, the collective bargaining process has taken a kicking. This government has attempted to solve the problem uni-dimensionally, one way, looking at it one side only, looking at the side of expenses, Mr. Speaker, and you can't do that.

MR. EFFORD: Can't do what?

MR. A. SNOW: You recognize you can't solve a problem, Mr. Speaker, by looking at it and saying all we have to do is cut costs.

MR. EFFORD: How much do you pay your employees (inaudible) five dollars an hour?

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker - the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation would probably contribute a lot more to this debate if he were to go back to Ottawa, sit down and negotiate with Doug Young and get some more money into the funding of the Trans-Labrador Highway, put some of the provincial dollars into it, accelerate the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway and develop the economy of Labrador instead of just trying to take things out. Don't think one way. Don't think because you didn't participate in building the road across Labrador that you're saving money. That was federal money, you know it and I know it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's what got this Province in trouble since 1989. We saved $4 million - we won't participate in building a road in Labrador, it's not necessary. I can remember when the argument against the road in Labrador was: Why would we build a road when there are no service stations there? Nobody will drive on it without the service stations. We can't build highways where people don't go driving because they can't drive, I mean, that would be silly.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House if I've missed something. I was out to a meeting with some constituents in Conception Bay South. Is this on the motion put by the Member for Mount Pearl or is it on building roads in Labrador? I thought this was Private Members' Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should apologize for interrupting.

MR. EFFORD: No but seriously, there has to be relevance to the motion put by the Member for Mount Pearl or if we're going building roads then I'll get the equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a point. We're just debating a private member's resolution. So I ask the hon. member to -

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order and everybody is very well aware. All the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to do is disrupt the debate that we are continuing here in the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, the idea of mentioning the Trans-Labrador Highway - and I'll try to keep the minister down in his seat and out of the argument. If he wants to participate in the debate he should get up and participate in the fashion that he is supposed to.

What I'm saying is that this government looks at the expense side and never, ever looked at increasing the gross domestic product of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: That's not true.

MR. A. SNOW: That's what's necessary, that's what they have to do. Never mind giving Doug House millions of dollars to study this, study that, do another study, give a study to go out and see if there should be hot towels or towels and hot water and b-and-bs, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, we know where you haven't been, I say to the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and that is out meeting people in this Province. You haven't been out there. You've been busy on the golf course and the cocktail circuit but you haven't been meeting the real people of this Province. Now, it hurts. The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to withdraw the remark.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, certainly, if I used unparliamentary language, because I still have difficulty in finding the right language to address the issue when you think someone is telling something other than the truth. But I understand the language I used is unparliamentary and I do withdraw that remark because it is unparliamentary.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, this government, since they have been elected, have been behaving like a receiver administering a small enterprise, if you will, when it is into financial problems. That's what they have been doing. They have been managing decline - that's all they have been doing, managing decline. That is what a receiver - and they don't even manage it well. What do they do? All you have to do is look around you. Look at the forced sales in the newspapers, look at the bankruptcies. They are managing the decline of an economy. They have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to create more economic activity in this Province, absolutely nothing of any merit.

They are only now, after five years in office, finally turning to look up to New Brunswick saying: My god, what has Frank McKenna been doing when we've been sitting down here shutting down the shop? There is an imaginative, creative Premier in New Brunswick and a government that was willing to do things - do them differently, but do them, not just manage decline. They have attracted investment. What is this government going to do? They are going to attract investment alright. They are going to attract investment in this Province. Do you know what they are going to do? They are going to sell off one of the best assets this Province has, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

My seat mate here referred to it recently in a speech, and I thought it was very apropos; he referred to it as equivalent to a farmer selling his cow and still expecting to get the same amount of milk for his quota in future years. Now, not even a receiver would that that, not even a receiver would do it! A farmer won't do it. Now, that's what this government is attempting to do, and that's what they are doing. You will solve next year's problem with selling off an asset. You are going to sell off an asset next year, solve the problem, maybe for two years, of borrowing. That is not going to solve the long-term economic problem of this Province - you know it, I know it and the people of the Province know it. It is quite evident from a poll done by Environics that the people of this Province know, because they are dissatisfied with what this government is doing.

You know, that is what a lot of people in this Province are saying is the reason why you've set the mood in this Province for a general strike, or some people are going to be out, public employees, are going to be out on the bricks - because you are attempting -

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope, you wish.

MR. A. SNOW: No. But the people - I hope they don't. I don't want to see them on the bricks; I know what it is like. But they know they are low in the polls. They know that government satisfaction, done by Environics in March 1994, shows the Federal Government has the satisfaction of 57 per cent of the people, Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan, 54 per cent of the people. It goes all the way down until we get to government satisfaction approval rating by people of this Province. Do you know what the rating for this Province is? twenty-five percent.

A lot of people out there are saying one of the reasons why this group and the Cabinet are going about setting a strike is because they got elected last year, called an election, and said: We are going to kick the stuffing, or whatever you want to call it, out of public employees, especially the teachers. The Premier stood there and asked: Who do you want to run this Province - a duly elected government or your NTA?

He conned the people and you people participated in it. Now you feel that: if we can beat up on the public employees, we can beat up on the nurses and the teachers, maybe we will go up in the polls. That is what people are saying. Now, I hate to think that you people would do that. Some of you, I know, would do it.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who like being public, who like being popular, our Premier included. He does not like to be 22 per cent approval rating, especially a year after an election, after he got elected, would threaten to kick the stuffings out of public employees and the teachers of this Province. A lot of people are saying he thinks if he does it again he will move up in the polls.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this should never occur in a democracy, but it is happening. To take advantage of public employees like this is unfair. It threatens the collective bargaining process. It does absolutely nothing for the economy of this Province. Those 1700 employees that the President of Treasury Board was so proud of laying off, they used to buy cars, and they use to buy groceries. They spent money in this Province but now they are gone to Alberta somewhere, or out in British Columbia. That is where they are, or they are down here trying to eke a living on welfare. And what do you do? You give yourselves a raise, buy another car, take a $70,000 trip to the Orient. That is what you do.

MR. EFFORD: I think that's wrong.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, it is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the former Minister of Social Services is coming up with a social conscience. I am glad I reached at least one person.

This government has gone around the collective bargaining process, attempted to inflame, to incite, and it has been tremendously unfair. I know what teachers in my district are going through, Mr. Speaker. In particular they lag behind, so to speak, the process of negotiations that have occurred in our area because they belong to a special bargaining unit.

I have been proud to say for the number of years I have lived in Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave for two minutes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: It must have hurt.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are difficult times, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak on the resolution put forward by the Member for Waterford - Kenmount. These are not very pleasant times to be in government, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wants to be in a position where you do not have funds to provide the services you would like to provide. Nobody likes to be in the position of having to do wage freezes and concessionary bargaining to try to keep the place alive. Nobody over on this side of the House is excited about having to do that.

If somebody thinks there is glee within the government of this Province about having to deal with that then the Opposition should get it right, because they are not right. The government has taken on some serious problems and are facing some of the most serious problems head on that have ever been faced in the history of the Province. I do not mind if they get up and be responsible when they are speaking, which some of them are, but some of them are not.

When they were the government of the day, I will remind them for just a few minutes before I discuss what we are trying to do here, to get ourselves back on our feet again in this Province so we can pay a good wage to everybody who deserves it and hire the number of public servants we need. But when they were the government of the day I went back and did a little bit of homework, Mr. Speaker, and about seven or eight of the members opposite used to be Cabinet ministers of the former Peckford government, and it is strange some of the statements that were made in times of recession. Strange things happen, I have to say, very strange.

Financially, government must act in a way very similar to individuals: If income drops, expenses must be cut. Over the past several years my administration has taken many initiatives to reduce government expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. AYLWARD: This was the hon. Brian Peckford, talking like this, talking about how you have to face reality. This was when transfer payments were up high from the federal government, not like we have had to take, almost an 8 per cent or 9 per cent cut since 1989 when we formed the government, so these were statements made.

I was reading through it. At the time, forestry had major layoffs; the fishery was having a very difficult time, but it wasn't wiped out, almost, like it is in this Province now, but they were having a difficult time at the time. There were still fish in the sea. The question I would have is, what would they be doing now, with what we have to face, with hardly any codfish left in the Province, plants all shut down, and communities wondering whether or not they can survive.

They were in a three-year wage freeze at the time, layoffs, cutting back, restricting everything, and they were doing this at the time, and there was no wondering about dealing with the pension funds; there was no wondering about the future of the... That was when they were there, in a situation which wasn't as bad. Yet, we are being told: Well, folks, you can't do this. You shouldn't do that. You're cruel, and you're this and you're that.

Well, you know, the government is just trying to deal with the reality again, but the only thing is that the reality is pretty stark when it comes to the finances right now of this Province, but it is not just this Province. We are not out at the end of Canada being the only ones in this position. There are all the other jurisdictions across Canada having the same problems. They are struggling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) P.E.I.

MR. AYLWARD: P.E.I. didn't face reality a few years ago - 7.5 per cent rollback, and they haven't figured out how to do it. I don't know what that is. Is that good collective bargaining? I don't know; I don't think so, but they didn't bother to look three years ago and look at where things were going. Somebody has to look at where we're heading down the road, at all of the debt that we have to pay off. The demographics are that we don't have that many... Down the road we're going to have more older people; we're going to have fewer younger people, so we have to look at the demographics of where we're heading.

We can either decide, well, let's ignore all of that; let's don't even bother with that, and let's keep borrowing until somebody else has to worry about it. The time has come folks. The time is here now. So what we are trying to do, what the Minister of Treasury Board is trying to do, and what the government is trying to do, is do it, manage it slowly; manage it so that we don't affect people so directly, and sometimes it's hard to do. Sometimes it hurts, and sometimes people who are out there and have to take the hit, I know how tough it is; we all know how tough it is. We all have people we know, or relatives or whatever, who work in the public service, and it is not easy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: It is not easy. Nobody is saying that - our public service, we have more people doing more things now, less people to do the jobs that are there, and there is more of a demand for the services. There is more pressure on some of our departments than there has ever been, and our society is going through some major, major changes, but we can't shirk from trying to deal with the reality, and we have to do a better job of communicating our message - no doubt about it - we are working on that, but at the end of the day we are trying to be realistic and we are trying to find a plan that we can work through with the least amount of harm and the least amount of pain so that people can try to live, get through and keep going, and build for the future.

It is no good to just have a couple of members of the Opposition screaming at the government and giving partisan resolutions like this one today about the integrity of the government and that we want to put everybody out on strike. It is foolish. It is absolute foolishness. They know it and most of them over there don't believe it anyway. The fact of the matter is, we're trying to deal with a situation which is pretty big. It's very difficult to deal with and if you're going to do it, you've got to lay out a plan and that's what we're trying to do. As you go through those waters, they're a bit rough but you know we're trying to calm them down as we go. So you know as we work through it we're going to solve the problem for the long term. A lot of people, down the road, are going to thank the government and the members here for thinking about planning for the future. The kids who are going to school now are going to thank us down the road for being concerned about the debt, about the pension plans, about trying to find a way to face the reality and this is not new to this Province right now.

The credit rating agencies; maybe we should throw up our hands and say, what the heck? Who cares if the Dominion Bond Rating Service says: hey, you have a BBB now instead of an A minus? It will only cost you another $25 or $30 million next year. Who cares? I mean what the heck? I suppose we can ignore all that. Even with the managed restraint that we have put in place and trying to get through this, we are still being hovered over by the credit rating agencies but it's not just this Province.

Ontario; a $9 billion deficit in their budget this year. They're going to probably get downgraded, I expect, in the next week or so, they might. They're being looked at again now and they're on credit alert. Now Ontario was the richest province in Canada three or four years ago. They had surpluses coming out every year, out of their budget, surpluses. The richest province, the engine of economic growth in Canada and now they're into a $9 billion deficit. They're on credit watch and they've had what you call Rae days where you go to work, you take some days off and you don't get paid. So many Rae day's they call them, Bob Rae days they call them, plus a whole range of other things.

So we're not just a little - our Province is just not down here and we're not just ignoring the rest of the world and everything else. The bond rating agencies who have been nice to us, who have been helping us get the money that we need, are now saying folks: sorry, the credit card is up and you got to start paying the balances. You got to start paying them off in time. So what I would like to hear more from the other side is some responsible suggestions about how to do that. Some of them got up and made good suggestions and some of them have some positive impact on what can happen but to just go out and say in a partisan way: well, who cares? The government don't care and the government is this and the government is that. Well folks you know, that's plainly not the truth.

The simple fact of the matter is, we are taking great pains here to try to get through this process and to put ourselves back on an even keel in this Province. One of these days, believe it or not, people are going to thank this government. They're going to thank the members of this government for thinking about the future and trying to make it better. It's not popular to be into wage restraint, it's not popular to be wondering about layoffs and everything else. It's not popular when you have to spend less money and wonder if your hospital can survive on this much less money, can the administrator tighten it up again this year or can the school board tighten it up again this year?

I didn't get elected for that. I have to tell you, when I got elected I said: well I'm going to get elected to try to do things, make things happen, work with the government and try to make the economy go and so on and so forth. We're trying but we also can't go around and not face the reality of the debt load, most of which we inherited in 1989, 72 per cent of it and we inherited the debt. We don't just have a recession. We got a massive kind of worldwide economy now that's going through an upheaval and what we're trying to do is keep it on a stable level here in this Province.

If you look across Canada - Alberta; a 20 per cent cut right across the board in education for the next three or four years in their whole budget. Kindergarten; they have to pay for it up in Alberta this year, they have to pay for it. I suppose if we want to we could ignore it all and we could go and see if we can find a junk bond market to give us another $200 million but if we're going to keep doing that, if we're going to keep doing that, Government House Leader, then I don't want to be around. Because I have two kids coming up here and their income taxes now are going to be - I already know what they are going to be in about ten, fifteen or twenty years when they get there. I already know what they are going to be. They will still be paying off what we already have done.

If we want to keep ploughing it on I suppose we could keep doing that. All we are trying to do here is manage it right. Fiscal responsibility, and try to get the economy going, even though our hands are half tied half the time. We are trying. The thing is, everybody in this House of Assembly, and the members of this House, and the government especially, appreciates the public service. I do. I know how hard they work. I work with them every day. And the people who are out in the field in the teaching professions and in the other professions. In the health care profession. There is a lot of stress on people because the economy is not going well.

What we want to do, we've got to try to do a partnership and we have to try to build a partnership. We made some mistakes, we will make more mistakes. There is no doubt about that. Maybe some times it will be rough waters. What I say is, maybe what we should do, we should try to collectively at least think about where we are heading in the future and where we are right now. I think that is important for where we are going. There is no major agenda over here to go and beat up on certain unions or anything else. What we are trying to do is just get an understanding of what we are into.

The books are open. The accounts of this government are open. The debt is on the books. If you want to talk to the credit rating agencies they will talk, they will tell you where we are to. It is `get outable,' as a matter of fact, it is `get outable,' but we have to manage our way out of it. Like I said, nobody over here has got all the answers. We are working on trying to find some solutions. Part of the solution unfortunately at times is restraint programs on wages. It is no different than it was ten years ago when members opposite were in the government, when they were at the same darn thing, unfortunately. They were. It was unfortunate that they had to have wage restraint, it was unfortunate that they had to increase taxes, it was unfortunate that they had to have lay offs like they did. It was unfortunate that those things occurred.

We can't ignore reality and we have to try to get through it, but I say that we have to do a better job. I think if that is the message that the member opposite today wants to say, well, let's concentrate on trying to resolve the collective bargaining, I'm all for that. So is the government over here, as a matter of fact. Let's try to understand that this is not like an agenda of negativity, of just beating up on whoever. This is trying to figure out a way with the least amount of pain and so on to get through the process so that our economy will be least affected and we can move on.

That is what it is all about. It is not about an agenda, it is not about any of that. This is about trying to get the Province on the right road to get it moving and we are working towards that. We are all trying our best. I only say that it is tough - when bargaining is on it is always tough. It doesn't matter if it is in good times or if it is bad. When it is good times we still have clashes over how much the employer can give and how much the employee wants to have. There is always going to be that potential clash.

I say today that we are in a situation where it is even tougher because we are into recessions and we are into debt problems that are so major that we have to take unusual measures. I would like to see things not so unusual. I look forward to seeing a resolution to our collective bargaining issues. I hope, as one member - and I speak for everybody on this side - that we get through the rougher waters and that we get a partnership on the go for the future, which we need to get into. We have to accept some of the facts that are on the table. That is what I ask people to think about. That the credit rating agencies are hovering, watching us. That we are not trying to go out and take people out of the jobs, et cetera. We are trying to find ways to deal with the situation.

The government is not always going to be right. We are not ever always going to be right. We are trying our best. I say, thank God that this government is facing the problems. That is all I'm saying. We are facing the problem head on. We are trying to do the best we can. I hope that down the road in the next short period of time we will resolve some of the issues that are on the table, but that also in the long-term people will recognize this is what we are trying to do and that we should all participate in the process of trying to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I certainly want to take an opportunity to speak in this debate -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: With whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not allowed to speak.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my unqualified support to the resolution presented by my colleague from Waterford - Kenmount this afternoon, a resolution that basically states: Whereas the government announced in the Budget Speech its fiscal plan to further reduce the compensation of public sector employees by an additional $50 million; and whereas the President of Treasury Board and the government have poisoned the collective bargaining process through the use of ultimatums; and whereas honour and trust have disappeared from the collective bargaining process for public employees in this Province; and whereas the government of the Province has displayed a confrontational, dictatorial and mean-minded attitude towards collective bargaining in recent months; and whereas the current threats to disruptions in public services are causing severe anxiety for many citizens; and whereas the threat of public sector strikes is having a profound and negative effect on the economy of Newfoundland; therefore be it resolved that this House deplore the confrontational approaches of the government in its negotiations with public sector unions and that this House direct the President of Treasury Board to immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations with all public sector unions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a fair request for this House, on behalf of the people of the Province whom we were elected to represent by the way, asked the President of Treasury Board to immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations with all public sector unions. That sounds very realistic to me, Mr. Speaker. The President of Treasury Board has a responsibility to do more than he is doing in this Province to ensure not only that the public servants of this Province are dealt with fairly in collective bargaining, but to ensure that there is an accepted morale level within the public service in this Province and, Mr. Speaker, that has not been happening.

We have seen the other day where the Minister of Education for example, tried to undermine the President of Treasury Board by causing letters to be circulated in this Province -

MR. ROBERTS: You don't believe that, do you?

MR. TOBIN: I do believe that, I say to the Government House Leader, I most certainly do believe it and you know something else? There is very little that I wouldn't believe that this government is prepared to do in order to isolate the teachers in this Province, I say to the Government House Leader. There is very little that they wouldn't do. If I have ever seen in my dozen or so years around this House, a concerted attempt by this government to isolate one group in particular in this Province, namely the teachers, Mr. Speaker, we have seen it happening over the past little while and in particular by the actions of the Minister of Education.

MR. ROBERTS: Claptrap.

MR. TOBIN: Well I don't care if you like it or not, and all I would say to you is that it is tough if you don't like it. If you don't like it do something decent for a change. Deal with the public servants, start negotiations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes you are. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what you are doing. Yes, that's why the teachers today announced an 89 per cent strike vote; that's why the nurses of this Province announced over a 90 per cent strike vote. That's why NAPE and CUPE are announcing major strike votes in this Province - because you are dealing with them in a fair and reasonable way? Yes, Mr. Speaker, but let me say to the minister that that would be totally out of character for you in any case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you who you have been dealing thoroughly with in this Province; I can tell you who the government have been dealing fairly with in this Province, Gordon Seabright; Gordon Seabright, Mr. Speaker, a part-time job. What did you pay him for his part-time job? Ninety-eight thousand, two hundred and seven dollars and fifty cents; that's who the government has been dealing fairly with in this Province. Who else have they been dealing fairly with, what about Jeffrey Brace?

Jeffrey Brace the vice-chairperson of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, or whatever it is called. How much did you pay Mr. Brace? How about $83,580? Name, Mr. Speaker, the nurse in this Province who is receiving that kind of a money for a full-time job, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, name a public servant in NAPE and CUPE, or a teacher in this Province who is receiving that kind of money. For a part-time job, Mr. Speaker, $83,580 or a $98,000 job. That is who you are treating fairly in this Province.

Does it not hurt I say to the minister? You are a former teacher. Name one of your colleagues I say to the minister, name one person in the teaching profession today who is making $98,000 for a full-time job, not a part-time job. That is who you and the rest of your colleagues have been sitting around the Cabinet table with, and treating fairly, Mr. Speaker. That is who you have been treating fairly in this Province. Jeffrey Brace, $83,000. You should hang you heads in shame, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: To the point of order for a second, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member in mentioning people who are providing very valuable service to the Province in terms of Workers' Compensation appeals -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much does she make? Come on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The hon. member was a member of the Cabinet in this Province that put in place the per diem rates that have been in existence for almost fifteen years for those boards and tribunals. These people have been appointed and the system was set up by the members opposite. The only thing this government has done with those rates, Mr. Speaker, since we have been in office, is reduce them because there has been a fiscal problem in the Province.

Members opposite appointed similar types of people who had to have legal background and experience in order to sit in adjudicative capacities to do those kind of jobs which are very important to the people who have problems in worker's compensation appeals because that system operates instead of the courts. If the hon. member opposite, or the Member for Humber East, who is a lawyer herself, would like to suggest that any lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador who are working for rates, the only thing this government has done, Mr. Speaker, is to reduce the rates because there are fiscal problems in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The point raised by the hon. minister is really not a point of order. The hon. minister is taking exception, I guess. Perhaps it would be a point of clarification rather than a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I know both of these gentlemen personally, and I respect both of these gentlemen. I am not here to say anything negative or to cast any aspersions on either one of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker. It is the system that this minister in particular has set up.

He talked about the per diem. The per diem is only one issue in this. It is the number of hearings that is referred to the individuals to hear, is where the money is coming from, I say to the minister. Do you know something else? I say one other thing to the minister. I was part of this government when we negotiated with the teachers of this Province, and I believe the increase they got was 5 and 6 per cent over two years. I am not sure, but I think that is what it was. When you were President of the NTA what did you do? You put 8000 teachers in this Province on strike. That is what you did, and you have done nothing except gut the teachers since you came in and became a minister. That is what this Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: The hon. member knows that one of the rules of the House is that we are suppose to make statements in this House that we know to be true because anybody else is not allowed to suggest that we are saying anything but the truth.

For the record, I think the hon. member was not in the Cabinet at that time, because it was later, at the very end of the Peckford administration, that he entered the Cabinet. Other members opposite were in the Cabinet when I was President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association, which was the Newfoundland Teachers Association at that time, the raise and the increase, Mr. Speaker, that was negotiated while I was President was 0, 0, a two year freeze, and I might add that it was done despite severe objections from a large portion of the membership of the Newfoundland Teachers Association - just to correct -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is using up your time.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is he ever trying to use up my time. Is the hon. minister ever trying to use up my time. I can tell the hon. minister that the issue was substitute pay. That's what the minister did when he cried out on the steps of the Confederation Building and said he would be forced out. That is what the issue was, I say to the Minister of Labour; and, Sir, since you have come in here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take the opportunity, in raising a point of order, that earlier in the Legislature I apologized because I used unparliamentary language by suggesting that one of the members opposite was lying.

I don't want to use that language again. I know it is unparliamentary and won't, but again the hon. member opposite should know that I did appear on the steps of the Confederation Building twice, once leading a demonstration with the teachers when they were locked out in 1983 - and note the phrase `locked out in 1983' by members opposite who were in the government at the time, and secondly, in 1986 when I was President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I addressed a rally when members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to get to his -

MR. GRIMES: - of the public service were being escorted away in paddy wagons -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and the NTA was not involved in that action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Three times, Mr. Speaker, he stood with no point of order, and it's time for Your Honour not to tolerate that any more. This is the minister - he can say what he likes in this House - that since he became part of government has seen Bill 16 and 17 brought in, when they signed collective agreements one day and tore them up the next day. This is the minister who has seen teachers bringing home less money in this Province today than they did when he became a minister, I say to the minister. You, Sir, have been part of that Cabinet that has attacked the teachers and attacked other public servants in this Province.

Why, if he could lead a strike back when he was President of the NTA, did he come in here and gut the contracts of teachers ever since, I would ask the minister - his holier than thou attitude.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's abuse.

MR. TOBIN: It's abuse, Mr. Speaker. This is abuse of the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order only from the point of view that there is a written transcript of the proceedings of this House that becomes a public document. Again, the members of the House know the rules. We are committed to tell facts in this House, because we are not allowed to suggest that anyone would say otherwise.

When this particular person was President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association, there was no strike by teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a cat cornered once, and it is a vicious animal. I have seen a minister cornered today, and I have seen that vicious attempt to try and undermine the system of this House and what it is all about. Four times he has been ruled out of order by the Speaker and he still persists. I would suspect it is because you are a little bit embarrassed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. TOBIN: Is that in order, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was a member, I say to members opposite, of the public service in this Province, too. I served in this Province as a public servant for ten years. When I practised social work I served in this Province, and I was a member of NAPE, and I, too, was on strike. I, too, was on strike and walked the picket lines, and I know what it is all about. I know what it's like when you're not satisfied.

I know how the President of Treasury Board felt when he stood in the Gander Hotel, back in 1983, and said: Brian Peckford and the government is not going to dictate my value as an educator in this Province.

Nor should he dictate the value of other educators in this Province today, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

The nurses in this Province, all the public sector employees, the social workers, who I know fairly well - and I can say right now that their classification, number one, is not high enough for a group of professionals when you compare them to other groups. I spoke with some of them today who are concerned that they may have to go on strike, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, because of their position, dealing with people. They find themselves in a position where they need the work and the professionalism of social workers and the aid of the Department of Social Services.

I spoke with nurses over the past little while, who, as well, are very concerned over what it will mean if they have to walk out and go on strike in this Province. And I spoke with teachers - I guess I know that situation very well, I happen to be married to a teacher who has taught school for nineteen years. Mr. Speaker, neither she nor many of her colleagues in their school, and I would suspect, in any school in this Province, want to go hit the picket lines, but they may have no other alternative unless this government is prepared to enter into reasonable discussions.

This government, Mr. Speaker, doesn't have to give away the shop; Neither the teachers, by the way, nor the nurses, nor NAPE nor CUPE employees - I don't think there is any teacher in this Province, I don't believe there is any nurse in this Province, I don't believe there is any member of NAPE and CUPE in this Province who is asking for the same salary that Mr. Seabright gets for a part-time job. I don't think they are asking for the same salary that Mr. Brace gets - $83,000 - for a part-time job; I don't think they are asking for that.

MR. GRIMES: They are not related. What does that have to do with it?

MR. TOBIN: They are not related?

MR. GRIMES: They are totally unrelated issues.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I would say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - who seems, Mr. Speaker, to be very fidgety this afternoon; very `fidgety', I think, is the word to describe him, a little testy - that the government salary all comes out of the same vote, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, I only rise on the point of order because of the fact that there is a written record and we are not allowed to challenge by suggesting that he is saying anything other than the truth. The hon. member should know, if he doesn't - he was a member of the Cabinet that established the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Mr. Speaker, every copper that pays people at the tribunal comes from Workers' Compensation. Not one single penny of it is from tax revenue in the Province, none of it is salary voted within the government, its employers' premiums -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

(Inaudible) point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that in my twelve, almost thirteen years in the House, I have never seen anyone, I have never seen it in that period of time that someone rose five times on a point of order during a twenty-minute participation.

MR. MURPHY: What does that tell you?

MR. TOBIN: What does that say? That says, the conduct of the minister should not be tolerated in this Legislature, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, where is it coming from? Don't be so - where is it coming from! I say to the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Selective (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He is trying to get into Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Where are you trying to get in?

MR. SULLIVAN: You are quiet when the Premier is here.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St. John's South, if I were sitting over there, I, too, would be a little embarrassed about the way things are going in this Province. I would be embarrassed when they are forcing people on to the picket line and paying $98,000 to someone for a part-time job. I would be embarrassed, too, I say to the member opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, no. Well, I never knew before that the Member for St. John's South and his colleagues should be the ones who pay for workers' compensation in this Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: His pension is taxpayers' money, too.

MR. TOBIN: I won't get into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sprung.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't, but I say to the member opposite, I am not proud of the Sprung fiasco, but you stand up and tell me whether or not you are proud of the way your public servants in this Province are being treated. Mr. Speaker, I ask members opposite, Are you proud of the fact that your Premier sat in the Smallwood Cabinet when you gave away Churchill Falls? Are you proud of that, I ask him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, who gave it away for us to have to buy it back? Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of minutes left and I ask the minister, the President of Treasury Board, if he would go along with what the resolution states, and that is to immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations for all public sector unions in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in the couple of minutes before the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount concludes the debate, I would like just to make a couple of comments with respect to the motion.

The President of Treasury Board, on behalf of government, clearly spelled out the position and the efforts that government has made in terms of trying, through the collective bargaining process, to resolve some very difficult issues that involve the public service of the Province, including nurses and teachers and all the rest. Most of the people certainly understand and their representatives in their organizations and their unions understand the degree of difficulty. We have some problem now in trying to come to the negotiated settlement. Everybody is exercising their rights under the process to reject conciliation board reports, conduct strike votes and so on, all legislated and mandated for in the legislation that applies to the different groups. So everybody is exercising, at this point in time, their legal options that are available to them to try to bring pressure to bear, to get a satisfactory resolution to some very difficult and trying issues.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I have been disappointed in, and the only reason I was raising the matter of the interjections is because while I understand completely the motivation and the very serious intent of the hon. member who moved the motion, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount - because I think that he would like nothing better than to see a resolution to these issues. Then again, with the language that's in the motion - it's obvious from the language that's in the resolution that he knows there is no way in the world the government can ever support this. If it was a motion asking everybody to go back to some kind of meaningful constructive negotiations, everybody in this Legislature would stand and support it. But all the language has done, Mr. Speaker, not to ascribe motives - it wasn't done to accomplish anything other than to have a political debate today where the hon. the Member for Menihek and the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West make meaningful interjections to inflame issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, these are very trying times in our Province. Every member of the civil service is well aware of how difficult the times are. Every member of the government, every member of the business community is aware that we have to face some hard, economic and fiscal choices but, Mr. Speaker, there must be fairness in the approach and there must be respect. Dignity in the collective bargaining process has been lost and, Mr. Speaker, responsibility for that loss has to rest with the government and in particular, the President of Treasury Board.

The government, through its processes of issuing ultimatums on the 2 per cent savings clause, of causing school boards and superintendents to issue layoff notices to 365 teachers before the 2 per cent savings clause has been taken out of the collective agreement, these are the issues that are giving rise to the consternation, to the concern, to the feeling that this government will get what it wants and it will legislate, it will ignore the collective agreement, it will do anything it can to achieve its purposes.

This government believes in a one-sided approach. They believe that their view of the world is the only correct view. They believe it's the only fair view. What employees are asking in the civil service today - whether they be nurses, whether they be police officers in the RNC, prison wardens, whether they be teachers or whether they work in this building, in other buildings or services operated by the government - what they are asking is: Would you respect us for what we do? Mr. Speaker, it is too bad. It has almost reached the point where people have to apologize for having a job. Now, Mr. Speaker, we should not have people feeling guilty because they have a job. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you today that some people in this Province, when they look at what's happening in their collective agreements, it is not giving them the kind of protection that they thought it would have. It is not giving them the feeling of security. They know that this government may very well, at some time, decide it wants more, and when it wants more it simply will do whatever has to be done to get it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the charade that was put forward a few days ago called the contingency plan for graduating students. In its pure, simple, straightforward presentation to handle any emergency, it has some merit, but when we have a government that decides they are going to ignore the collective agreement, break the collective agreement by unilaterally deciding to lay off teachers who were protected under the three-year protection letter, when they decide they are going to cause all those people protected under the 2 per cent savings clause to be laid off without a negotiated agreement, and then they say to the teachers: Now, we want you to live according to the letter of the law -

Mr. Speaker, they can't have it two ways. If it is wrong for the teachers of this Province, as the government has said, to refuse to give up their academic records of students to date, it is equally wrong for the government to say that they will, by ultimatum, issue letters to the President of the NLTA, saying that under no circumstances will they sign another collective agreement in which the 2 per cent savings clause appears.

Mr. Speaker, we know there are compelling arguments to introduce a comprehensive, detailed small schools policy in this Province. We are not discussing that. We are discussing the way in which the government decided on its own that their approach would be `our way or no way'. Superintendents have been intimidated by this government, and the intimidation has been direct and forceful. Superintendents have been told that they should organize their school for next year as if there were no protection under the three-year protection letter and no 2 per cent savings clause. Now, Mr. Speaker, that has led to difficulties.

Returning to the contingency plan for graduating students, the very same thing applied. The Department of Education wrote the school boards, the superintendents, and said: Would you make this happen. Would you make sure all the marks are delivered by Monday, May 9?

Mr. Speaker, the superintendents passed the information to their principals, and they, in turn, passed it to their teachers. I can only tell you of my conversation with many teachers of the past four or five days, teachers who spent their Monday in their principal's office crying, teachers with twenty years of experience who said, `I have never, ever had to do this kind of thing before in my life,' and teachers who said to their principals, `I wish there were some way that I didn't have to do this today.'

Mr. Speaker, we had the teachers of this Province torn between their obligations to their students and their obligations to their employer, and their obligation to their own conscience, to themselves. What happened is a sad commentary, because on the 6:00 p.m. news on Monday, we had the President of Treasury Board on CBC television, Here and Now program say that the contingency plan for graduating students, the presentation of the marks, was indeed a way in which they were hoping - a strategy in collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look on that with some kind of contempt. We have to say it for what it is. It is not playing fair with the students of this Province, it is not playing fair with the parents of this Province, and it is not playing fair with the teachers of this Province.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we had the other incident on Monday afternoon. At about noon on Monday, the President of Treasury Board wrote a letter to the President of the NLTA in which he said that his understanding of a meeting held on Thursday evening last included some comments that the NLTA was prepared to negotiate or prepared to give some substantial easing of their position on the 2 per cent savings clause, on the three-year protection letter, and on a way in which the unfunded liability of the pension plan could be addressed. That was intended to be a confidential letter between the President of Treasury Board and the President of the NLTA.

Unfortunately, and I have to believe, without intent to offend, because if I believed anything else, that it would be mean and cruel on the part of the government - but that letter, within hours, was faxed to every superintendent's office in this Province. In fact, by 2:00 p.m. I had it here, I had copies of it. Mr. Speaker, that, unfortunately, was interpreted by the teachers of this Province as an attempt by the government to directly interfere with a strike vote that was held yesterday, May 10.

Mr. Speaker, if that was the case, then shame on the government for doing it - shame on the government, because this is a situation too serious for playing games. We shouldn't be out there doing that kind of thing. I have to believe - although some of my colleagues would say that I am naive to believe - that was not a planned strategy on the part of government.

Monday, May 9, `Black Monday' in the teaching profession, a day of great sadness - yesterday, the 89 per cent vote reflects what teachers think of the approaches this government is making to collective bargaining. As one teacher quoted in today's edition of The Evening Telegram "The government has tried to exploit any indecision, division or weakness on the part of the NLTA membership. This vote of 89 per cent shows the very high level of support teachers have for their association."

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is tremendous anxiety in our population today, anxiety on behalf of teachers, anxiety for their families. Teachers have mortgages to be paid. They have to live and pay their bills.

There is anxiety in the nursing profession, health care workers, members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and all throughout the civil service. One only has to walk through the corridors of this building on a daily basis to learn what the level of anxiety really is. There is anxiety on the part of those public service employees who care for the elderly, the people who have families who are in hospitals, in group homes, in senior citizens complexes. There is a high level of anxiety throughout the entire population and therefore they look to government to ascertain and to find out if the government really, really cares for them.

That is why I say to the President of Treasury Board it is time for him to reflect on his approaches, time for him to look for some consensus building strategies, time for him to discard his bully type tactics, and it is time for him to stop bargaining with ultimatums, stop the intimidation that has been going on for months, try to find some positive ways, and try to work diligently to achieve his fiscal policies without destroying the lives of public sector employees, and without further crucifying the collective bargaining process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know, and the government has said that it needs to recover $44 million from those who are paid from the public purse. Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister today, do not try to isolate one group of employees. Teachers feel that you intend to try to isolate them. Whether they are right or wrong that is their perception, and sometimes perception and reality are not too far apart.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the President of Treasury Board, try to be fair, try to be reasonable. What the President of Treasury Board has said to the Teachers Association is that he would like to recover $22 million of the $44 million from the Teachers Association, or thereabouts, $22 million to $25 million. That would represent 50 per cent of the amount to be recovered. However, teachers of this Province make up about 25 per cent of the total civil service, so therefore the percentage amount would be more like $12 million or $15 million that would come from the Teachers Association and the members of that profession. However, these are matters that I'm sure will be dealt with in some complete detail during the process of collective bargaining.

The teachers I've talked to in the last weeks, they do not want a strike. Teachers do not want a disruption in their schooling and in their profession, but I can tell the government today, if they are intent on pushing teachers to the brink then the 89 per cent vote yesterday says if you want to go that way then teachers will not back down. That is the message government has to receive from its 89 per cent. Teachers will not be intimidated. They will not be divided. They have given their executive a strong message. Nurses have done the same thing. The president of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association has got the same kind of mandate from his membership. CUPE and NAPE have the same mandate from their membership as well. Ninety per cent and plus. The mandate is there.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to say to the President of Treasury Board that I know him to be a reasonable person. He is facing difficult challenges; however, we say to him today: Change your strategy a little bit, because it was the Province that opened up this round of bargaining in bad faith with the teachers by making unilateral decisions on the 2 per cent savings clause.

It was the government which placed severance as the number one item in the opening package for all public sector employees, including teachers, and they know what has happened. They know about the retirements from the nursing profession. They know about the retirements from the teaching profession, members of the RNC who have retired; they really have no choice. It was the government that listed April 1 as the effective date for the discontinuance of severance pay for teachers eligible to retire. It was the government that listed the amount of money that it wanted to recover from the total compensation package. It was the government that began the bargaining process with its list of ultimatums. It was the government which takes responsibility, and must take responsibility, for the cumulative effects of Bill 16 and Bill 17, and for setting that kind of action as a background for this round of collective bargaining, and thereby lies the seeds of the distrust, of the dramatic change in the attitude of public sector employees, and therein lies the seeds of what government sowed in Bills 16 and 17, that they are reaping now, because they laid the foundation for stripping of collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is a government that refused to clarify their positions on severance, in spite of repeated requests, so I say to the minister: Stop the confrontational attitude; stop the take it or leave it approach; stop the one-sided bargaining -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HODDER: - let's get down to doing some real collective bargaining in a positive atmosphere.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in the favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may take a moment. I assume we've agreed to stop the clock unless members really want to be back here at 7:00 tonight in which case we'll be debating the motion by my friend for St. John's East.

The House will meet at the regular time tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. and if we ever get to Orders of the Day, and I predict we will, we'll ask the House to go into committee to deal with the Electrical Power Control Act. Now that we've given it second reading we should see what happens in committee. If it's passed tomorrow then that will be fine. If it isn't, well we'll have to deal with it and see where we'll go. The House will adjourn - I'm sorry?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is true. To be in Carolina on a diner.

The House will adjourn at the usual time tomorrow. At least we shall ask the House to adjourn at the usual time tomorrow, bearing in mind that we have the Late Show, perhaps we'll get another anaesthetic from the gentleman from Waterford - Kenmount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: The House will not meet Friday, we shall meet on Monday. Members should anticipate, I think, next week, given the fact we now have all three of the estimates committees back for the concurrence debates and given the very large load of legislation that's before us, we will probably sit a little later on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday next week. We may not be going home at 5:00 p.m. each night and I say that so members can arrange their domestic accommodation accordingly. My understanding is we will not be meeting on Monday, May 23, which is the Queen's birthday `because if we don't get a holiday we'll all run away'. Anybody old enough to remember that? That's a statutory holiday across the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That's what I just said. The hon. gentleman is nearly as old as I am. The 24th of May is the Queen's birthday, if we don't get a holiday we'll all run away.

Anyway Mr. Speaker, with those few comments I -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Being in the House with my friend from Burin - Placentia West is always a holiday, it's a bundle of laughs.

I move the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, at 2:00 p.m.