The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The Social Assistance Appeal Board was recently reclassified in December, I think, from a Level 1 Board to a Level 2 Board at a time when everyone else in the Province was undergoing freezes and cutbacks. At the time of the reclassification two of the sitting members of that Board Mr. Stoyles and Mr. Noseworthy were people who had actually worked on the Minister's 1989 election campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Stoyles was also a Liberal candidate in 1982, I think. This reclassification made retroactive pay from April up until December at a time when everyone else was receiving wage roll backs and freezes and cutbacks. This resulted in a substantial pay hike for members of that Board. Would the Minister tell the House the total cost of the retroactive pay for the Social Services Appeal Board? And also tell us his budegeted amount for the Board for 1991 and the actual expenditure?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me tell the hon. Member that the Social Services Appeal Board is an independent body separate from the Department of Social Services set up to hear appeals from people who are not satisfied with decisions made by social workers or any person they are asking for financial remuneration from in the Department. So therefore I do not get involved directly with the Social Assistance Appeal Board. I cannot tell the hon. Member how much money was spent last year by all of the members on the Appeal Board, but I will certainly get that information and bring it over to the hon. House of Assembly tomorrow.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since it was obvious in August that this Province was experiencing fiscal problems, how could the Minister justify going to Treasury Board with a recommendation for reclassification knowing the Province's financial situation? Was the Minister acting on requests from Board members whom he had promised a pay hike? And will he also confirm that in the presence of some Board members he actually called Treasury Board requesting that they be reclassified?

MR. EFFORD: What?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot of assumptions and accusations there which are not even close to being correct; not even close to being correct. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Social Services or any other Minister or any other person, whenever a request is made, that you put the request through, through the normal channels. There are people in the Department of Social Services responsible for the social assistance appeal board. I do not at any time, and no Minister in any Department, makes those decisions. The decisions are made, Mr. Speaker, by the officials of Treasury Board, those are the people who make the decisions. I make requests from time to time.

For example, right now, I am requesting an increase in St. John's Home Care Services, I requested that decision to be made, I do not make any of the decisions.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Minister, not officials.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister explain then, why two of the three members and there was another member - four members actually, but only three actually sit on the board. Can he indicate to us why two of the people actually worked on his 1989 campaign, and did not the Minister attempt to rationalize such a decision by having one of the members say that his address was Mount Pearl as opposed to the district in which the Minister lives, even though he worked on his campaign, the address of the gentleman from Mount Pearl was the one which the Minister wanted to keep out of the news because he, even though he was from outside the district, worked on the Minister's campaign?

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

MR. EFFORD: If I understand the question correctly, did I tell the member to put his address as Mount Pearl?

AN HON. MEMBER: The two or three working on the campaign.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. The individual, who is sitting by the way in the gallery, lives in Mount Pearl. I have no problems with that, his parents live in my district; he was a polling captain on the day of the election and he did a very good job for me, he is a very competent individual. The other individual lives in the district, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say 99 per cent of the people of the district of Port de Grave worked on my campaign according to the margin of victory I got.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. In October of 1989, The Sunday Express carried a story of improper ministerial conduct by that Minister of Social Service over there, and the Minister denied the charges. A subsequent inquiry by Justice Mahoney uncovered evidence which substantiated the charges made in the Sunday Express story; we again have a story in that same newspaper which raises serious, serious questions of improper behaviour by that same Minister, the Minister of Social Services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact, that the Minister in just two short years has been caught with his fingers in the cookie jar on two separate occasions, he again denies these allegations and in view of the Minister's past record, let me ask the Premier: does the Premier still believe that the Minister's behaviour is proper behaviour?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if there is any basis for the allegations that are made I will most certainly do an assessment of it, and if anything needs to be done I will see that it is done. If I have learned nothing in the three or four years I have been in the House, on this occasion I have learned to act very cautiously when allegations are made from the hon. Members opposite before I rush at any rash decisions.

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

MR. DOYLE: Following the Mahoney Report the Premier said of the Minister's behaviour, 'Such actions do not perform to a standard of behaviour for Ministers that is acceptable to this Administration.' Now, what does the Premier think? What does the Premier think of the Minister's behaviour in securing a 700 per cent increase in per diem payments for political buddies he appointed to a departmental appeal board? What does he think of a 700 per cent increase? Is that proper or acceptable behaviour for a Minister of the Crown, and does that conform to the Premier's code of standards for the Ministers over there on that side of the House?

MR. SIMMS: $30,000.00 retroactive.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If it were true and accurate that the Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is true.

PREMIER WELLS: If he wants answers from the hon. Members I am prepared to yield and let them give it, but if he wants it from me then I am quite prepared to give that, too.

If it were true that the hon. Minister secured a retroactive 700 per cent increase then I would have something that would greatly concern me and I would see that it were dealt with immediately. I do not accept, merely because it was reported in a paper called the Sunday Express, or repeated by the hon. Member today, that it is necessarily true. Mr. Speaker, I will take a look at the allegations and if there is any merit whatsoever in the allegations I will deal with it.

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

MR. DOYLE: I say to the Premier that there was a 700 per cent increase and I think he will find out when he checks it out. Now, will the Premier now apply the standard of accountability that he set following the Mahoney Report, and I quote again, 'He,' meaning the Minister of Social Services, 'and all other Ministers are fairly warned that such action is totally unacceptable and in future will result in an immediate resignation.' Now, Mr. Premier, have you yet asked for the resignation of the Minister of Social Services? Have you talked to him about his improper conduct and the improper behaviour he continues to get on with?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have undertaken to the House that I will review the allegations. But before I review the allegations I will not jump to the conclusion that everything is right, as the hon. Member is doing, jumping to the conclusion that everything that he says is correct. I do not know that it is correct, and from my experience dealing with the hon. Members I have reason to be cautious, and I intend to address it properly and examine it. If there is any basis to the allegation, I will deal with it. If I do not propose to take any action, I will report back to the House exactly what I found, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier, because I am sure the people of the Province must be wondering by now, what influence does the Minister of Social Services have upon this Premier that he gets away with a light tap on the wrist for the most atrocious ministerial behaviour that any Minister ever got involved in? What influence does he have upon the Premier, and what is it going to take for the Premier to give this Minister the flick that he deserves? Why is the Premier so slow in acting? Would he give the same consideration to the other Ministers of the Crown if they were doing what the Minister of Social Service is doing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is unbelievable that Members of the House would stoop that low, Mr. Speaker, but I guess they do.

Mr. Speaker, neither that Minister nor any other Minister sitting has any influence that causes me to make it a tap on the wrist if something more severe is appropriate. But, Mr. Speaker, I will take the allegations under consideration. If there is any merit in the allegations I will deal with them and I will report to the House what I do in dealing with them and exactly what I have found. But I will not accede to the pressures that come from the hon. Members opposite to jump to an irrational and quite probably totally unfounded conclusion merely to satisfy their political desires.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First off, let me say that truer words were never spoken: that no Minister and nobody has any influence on the Premier of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: how can the Premier justify those huge retroactive increases in payments to political appointees, political friends of the Government, people who were appointed by his Government to the Social Assistance Appeal Board while at the same time last fall - let us remember now, Mr. Speaker, when those retroactive increases were granted, they were granted last fall - so how can the Premier appoint them while at the same time last fall this Government was taking social assistance payments away from single mothers in this Province. Where is the fairness and balance in that, I ask the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any such increases taking place. But I have undertaken to the House that I will make a determination, I will find out what it is. It may well be that the President of Treasury Board has knowledge, and if he does I would invite him to give that knowledge to the House now. But I have no knowledge of any such increases ever having taken place.

So to suggest that I approve of such increases - or 700 per cent increases - is utter tripe. It is totally without foundation. However, that seems to be what the Opposition wishes to deal in. Now, if the President of Treasury Board has knowledge of it I am quite prepared to yield the floor to him. If they want the answers to it, I am sure he can give them.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the last time allegations were made against this particular Minister which appeared in the Sunday paper, the Premier was in this House on Monday dismissing the Minister temporarily and setting up a public enquiry. Now I ask the Premier, in view of the fact that the second round of allegations have now been made against this Minister, and in view of the fact they were made on a Sunday, why is he not in this House today dismissing the Minister and setting up a public enquiry? Why did he sit on it for the last twenty-four hours and do nothing, then come in and pretend to the House that he knows nothing about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question very simply. Because I have no confidence that there is any validity to the allegations they are making. Now if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is genuine and sincere, if he is not faking this position that he is taking, he will listen to the President of Treasury Board who tells me he can explain the thing. I know nothing of it, I know no basis for taking any action whatsoever.

Now the President of Treasury Board can give the answer if the Leader of the Opposition is genuinely interested in truth rather than political grandstanding.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, any faking and fraud being done in this House is being done by the leader of the Government! And that is not unusual!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not unusual, Mr. Speaker, for this Premier to dance and dilly and be righteous, and then come into this House or go before the microphones and put on another display of something else. Now let me ask the Premier this. Individuals who are citizens of this Province have said publicly that they received retroactive payments for sitting on the Social Services Appeals Board, they have said publicly that they received cheques in the amount of $13,000 so far. Those cheques have obviously been cut and issued by this Government. Now how much more evidence does the Premier want to give that Minister the flick and begin an enquiry into this matter right away?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, over a year ago, after almost a year in office, we did a complete review of all the boards that were in existence in the Province and what we found was that there was no consistency in terms of pay. Representatives on some boards were purely volunteer, and that situation still exists, but amongst the boards that were being paid the amounts varied from $350.00 a day at the low end - I am talking about Chairmen now - to $750.00 a day and much more at the higher end. There was no consistency in pay level for boards, it seemed to depend upon the whim of whatever Minister set the boards up. Now that was the situation that existed up until a year ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please!

I wanted to address this matter of second Ministers answering questions. I will not do it now, I will wait until Question Period is over. But I would ask the hon. the President of Treasury Board to please clue up his answer quickly, and I ask hon. Members to stop interrupting.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did the review and decided we would have three levels of boards, and for the Chairmen of the Boards these were the levels, excluding the purely volunteer ones: Level 1 boards, maximum pay for the Chairman would be $200 a day; Level 2 boards $350; and Level 3 boards went up to $500, I believe. Now Level 1 boards are boards which did not require any particular expertise and did not make serious decisions. Level 2 boards were boards that required some degree of expertise and made decisions in terms of the operation of Government. Level 3 boards were the boards that interpreted law, interpreted statutes and made very important decisions. We put all the boards, Mr. Speaker, in one of these three categories, most of them, by the way, in Level 1. In doing so, we reduced tremendously the pay to these boards that Members opposite had been giving them.

I have to say this, Mr. Speaker, to explain what happened in terms of this particular review. After the process was done and in place, there were some appeals of Treasury Board's placement. There were two that I know of. One was Hydro Board, I believe, and the other was the Social Service Appeal Board. Treasury Board examined the reasons for the appeal, and the case was made in this particular instance that the board was making the type of decisions that we envisioned for Level 2 appointments rather than Level 1, so the Chairman, instead of getting a maximum of $200 a day, was then eligible to get a maximum of $350 a day. There is no 700 per cent increase. That is exactly what happened, and it happened to two boards out of the hundreds we have.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary that I want to direct to the President of Treasury Board. Let me ask the President of Treasury Board this. During the process of review of those boards could the Minister tell this House whether or not it was the original intention of Treasury Board to place the Social Assistance Appeal Board as category 3 Board or was that done -

AN HON. MEMBER: Category 2.

MR. RIDEOUT: - category 2 Board, excuse me, or was that done after repeated representation from the Minister of Social Services that Treasury Board do so?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that Appeal Board as with most Boards was put at Level 1 - not Level 2, Level 1. The representation was made by the Minister, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: It comes under his Department. It could not be made by the Minister of Development or the Premier or anybody else, the Minister of Forestry. It could not be made by the him. It does not come under his Department. The appeal was made by the Minister responsible and the appeal was on the basis that there was a mistake made and this should have been a Level 2 Board. The Treasury Board Ministers agreed with that position and it became a Level 2 Board, still getting paid a lot less than Members opposite were paying their Boards when they were in office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now the President of Treasury Board has admitted, despite the public statements from the Minister of Social Services, that the Minister of Social Service did indeed make representation to Treasury Board on this matter. Let me ask the President of Treasury Board this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He said you did. Somebody is lying over there.

MR. RIDEOUT: In view of the fact that a full four months before retroactive pay was paid out by the Government to those particular persons involved on the Social Assistance Appeal Board, in view of the fact that four months before that the Premier of this Province was going before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and telling us and telling the people what a tremendous financial crisis the Province was facing, how can the President of Treasury Board and the Government justify making those huge retroactive payments a full four months after the Government was telling everybody in the Province, `Tighten your belt. We are in fiscal difficulty. We are on the verge of bankruptcy, and everybody has to tighten their belt'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can grandstand all he wants, and he can shout as loud as he wants, it does not make what he says true.

Now, Mr. Speaker, of the hundreds of boards there were appeals from two, and we may get appeals from more at some point in time. I would like to point out to Members opposite that by doing what we did and rationalizing the payments to boards in this Province we saved this Province millions of dollars that would have been spent had Members opposite been still in power. They would have spent millions of dollars more on those boards. We saved this Government money.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. At the same time as the Premier is looking into the thousands of dollars paid retroactively to political cronies of the Minister of Social Services, will the Premier check on the Government grants to transition Houses for battered women and children? When the Premier finds that the Government has slashed funding for transition houses, will he supplement grants to transition houses and, in particular, give Libra House in Happy Valley Goose Bay enough money so they can reinstate three workers they have had to lay off and continue to employ a child care worker?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government did not slash funding for Transition Houses. In fact, it was increased buy $250,000 - it was increased this year by $250,000. Like the Minister of Justice who frequently points it out, I am kind of amused by the Member's sudden discovery of these causes, having spent all the years she did in Cabinet. Now, suddenly, nothing enough can be done for these causes. It makes one question the sincerity, Mr. Speaker. We did not decrease it. It was, in fact, increased by $250,000. Is that enough? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough. We should be putting more money in it. That is what I told the women's lobby this morning. I agree we should be putting more money, but we have to run all aspects of Government in this Province within the limits of the financial ability not of Government, but of the financial ability of the people of the Province who fund and pay for everything Government does. That is why we cut the expenditure on Boards, the fat fees the people opposite paid out to their political friends when they appointed them. We cut them, Mr. Speaker, and we saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by the action we took; we saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we will demonstrate it to this House, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No you did not. He did not know anything about it he said a minute ago.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier that the women who lobbied him and his caucus this morning know about my record. They also know that the Government has cut funding for Transition Houses, forcing Libra House in Happy Valley - Goose Bay to lay off three staff. Now will the Premier supplement funding for Libra House in Happy Valley - Goose Bay and provide proper and adequate levels of funding for Iris Kirby House in St. John's, the new Transition House about to open in Gander as well as the Transition House in Corner Brook? And will he provide funding to meet the needs for battered women and children on the Burin Peninsula and in Labrador West?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I met with the women's lobby group this morning and there was a general presentation on the issue. I also had some discussions with individual members after, one of whom asked specifically about Libra House and I undertook to review the matter and I would get back to them and advise. And I will do that. But I do not have the answer this afternoon, so I cannot give it to the House this afternoon.

Another lady who was very understanding and made a very reasoned presentation made an argument in support of the construction of such a facility in Marystown or on the Burin Peninsula, at least to service the Burin Peninsula. I had some discussion in a moderate degree of detail of what might be available, she had advised me, and again I undertook that it will be reviewed and we will be advising them of what the Government will be able to or will not be able to do this year or next year, or what steps we will take. And we will do that. So the Member is grandstanding now. You cannot hasten that decision any. It will happen in the ordinary course, and we will respond to it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier about child care. Two years ago, when the Premier was grandstanding campaigning in Humber East, he wrote a letter to the Corner Brook Citizens Action Child Care Committee. He outlined what he called his short-term goals as well as his long-term goals. Under the heading short-term goals for child care he promised to put in place a legal framework, a regulatory framework for infant care, for the licenced care of children under two years of age, as well as a regulatory framework for family child care, eminently practical in rural parts of the Province, and he promised to fund a pilot project on family child care.

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

The hon. Member is on a supplementary, and I have been waiting for the supplementary.

MS. VERGE: It is actually a new question, Mr. Speaker. My question is what happened to the Premier's promised short-term action? Where are the regulatory framework for infant child care and for family child care, and where is the promised pilot project in family child care?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was asked that same question this morning by the women's lobby group, and I said to them it has been done. Cabinet has already -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member wants to answer her own question she can, but if she wants my answer I will give her my answer and she can comment on it after if she wishes.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) this morning, okay?

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I was giving. If she would just be quiet, and if the Member will be quiet, you will get it.

MR. SIMMS: I am not in your caucus. You do not tell me (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was asked that question by the women's lobby group this morning and my advice to them was the Cabinet has already done that. Action has already been taken on it and the regulations are prepared and done. I thought they were implemented, but I could not be absolutely certain so I undertook to find out. Now I have not had time since to do that, but I have just had a word with the Minister and he told me what it is. The work has all been done and the legislation is now at the Legislative Counsel's Office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The legislation is now being drafted. Now if the hon. Member thinks that information is wrong, then I will gladly check it again. But to the best of my information I know it has gone through Cabinet, I know Cabinet has dealt with the issue and approved of the preparation of regulations dealing with providing for infant care, and I believe also extending the hours - after hours. At the moment it is limited to 7:00. That has been dealt with by Cabinet and the legislation has been drafted.

MS. VERGE: What about family care and -

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the President of Treasury Board and relates to Government boards that we were discussing earlier. Can the President of Treasury Board tell the House how many boards were reviewed, how many were increased from one level to the next, and were they all given retroactive payments in 1990, or just the Social Services Appeal Board?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member seems to have some misunderstanding as to what has gone on here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, he is not right on. I do not have the exact number of boards but I will obtain it for the hon. Member. They were all done some time ago, about a year ago it seems to my recollection, they were all re-done. My recollection also is that not one of them received a higher level than they previously had. Most of them were lowered. Okay? But I do not think either one was put up. Most of them were lowered. There are tremendous savings.

Now, there have been a number of appeals. There were two appeals that we agreed with. One was, I believe, Hydro board, the other was the board that you are referring to. There were a number of other appeals, maybe eight or ten other appeals that we turned down. So, there have been some appeals. But the situation is not as the hon. Member seems to think it is.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for agreeing to provide the detailed information. Can he also advise as to whether or not, in addition to this particular increase that was undertaken in the Social Services Appeal Board, that the Government also expanded the rules to provide for a per diem for travel to and from hearings, and also a further per diem for the preparation for a board? So that in fact, where originally one day's per diem was paid for a hearing, there can now be as many as four days of per diem for a single hearing.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. My recollection is that the same basic rules applied before as after this reshuffling was done a year ago. But again, just to make sure - this happened a year ago - I will check into it and I will inform the hon. Member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary. Am I correct in assuming that the answer that the Minister has given is that there were no retroactive payments made to board members other than the Minister of Social Services Appeal Board? Is that what the Minister is saying before this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: No. Obviously there are several hundred boards put in place by Members opposite, and I cannot recall all the details on all of them. My understanding is, I did not realize until now - or the last few days - that there was any retroactive pay given to anybody, to be honest with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: As President of Treasury Board, I did not realize that. All I know is that there were reclassifications done in two cases that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - that - hon. Members know - they are trying to put on a show now, that is all they are trying to do. They know the process, they know the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: There have been no -

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

I just want to inform all hon. Members that Question Period has expired.

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present to the House the Workers' Compensation Commission's Annual Report. I would like to say thank you to the Board for their attempts to face reality in their financial statement and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to answering any questions that may come about as a result of the financial statement, particularly as it relates to the accumulated deficit and the unfunded liability. I might also add that there will be a press briefing on the Workers' Compensation Annual Report in the next couple of days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice, that I will on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce the following resolution: Be it resolved that this House opposes the closure of Memorial University of Newfoundland Extension Service, and that it urges the Government to provide sufficient funding to the university, to enable it to restore the Extension Service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, last week, I think the Member for Harbour Main asked the question, and I was absent from the House on Her Majesty's business, and it related to expenses directly related to promotion and advertising for the Economic Recovery Commission, I believe that was asked in the House last Thursday or Friday -

AN HON. MEMBER: Friday.

MR. FUREY: From October 1989, Mr. Speaker, to March 31, 1991, as a result of over 300 meetings with community groups around the Province, Government agencies and the private sector, the ERC was asked to initiate a series of communications initiatives regarding economic directions, ideas and successes for the Province, consequently the Recovery Commission put into place a communications plan to help create an entrepreneurial environment as a process for building a strong foundation for economic development. Because of the ERC's small staff, they awarded a communications contract through the public tendering process to Prime Public Relations for certain specific communications initiatives. I think part one of the question was, whether or not it had gone to public tender, so it had gone to public tender.

Over these two fiscal years, it is roughly on average $50,000 a year, broken down as follows: The Annual Report cost $26,210, this amount represents costs incurred for production and printing of the ERC's first Annual Report as required by legislation. Future annual reports will see a cost reduction as major design and layout work are captured in the first cost. This work was performed by Prime Public Relations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I will table this. Professional services, $17,426: this amount represents costs to date for assistance, advice and development of communications programmes and community relations activities with regards to specific economic initiatives. An example of that, Mr. Speaker, was to Stelco, news conferences and announcements of which we are all very proud for Buchans, in Central Newfoundland, and that work was performed by Prime Public Communications as well.

Advertisements $2,697: Of this total amount, $1,753, was incurred in 1989-1990 fiscal year for advertising to enable the ERC to become operational; examples of this are advertisements for positions, tender calls for office space, furniture purchases et cetera. The remaining $944 was incurred in this past fiscal year. No future costs are anticipated in this area and there was no involvement by Prime Public Relations for this matter.

The next one is $40,543: this is a 'Buy Newfoundland Radio Campaign' that some members have been asking about. This is a joint business development project between the ERC and local radio stations, Mr. Speaker. The creative work is paid for by the ERC, with on air time donated by VOCM, OZ Radio and Q Radio, to their everlasting credit, and the purpose is to promote our Province as a good place to do business.

This campaign is geared toward the promotion of successful businesses, not targeted toward ERC, ENL supported businesses and there is no involvement by an outside communications firm. We are very proud of 'Buy Newfoundland', Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, $15,000 went to the Newfoundland Manufacturers Association; assistance was provided to help profile local manufacturers participating in the upcoming exhibition and conference called 'Helping Manufacturers Grow'.

Mr. Speaker, it has taken manufacturers from all over the Province and allowed them to participate in this particular exercise and it costs $15,000, and we are very proud of that, and, finally, there is a news letter called 'Connections' which is sent around to all businesses. It cost, I think, $8600 last year, and the amount represents costs incurred to date for the production and distribution of the first edition of 'Connections' which is a newsletter to inform the public about ERC initiatives and activities, and to make sure the public is fully aware of the broad spectrum of programming that they can offer. Each future newsletter is expected to cost in the vicinity of $5000, a sharp reduction from the $8600 which are first time costs for design and layout. On balance, Mr. Speaker, it is roughly $100,000 over a two year fiscal period with declining costs over the next year, and we are very proud of this.

I will table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Money well spent.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would permit a short question? The advertising cost he has given us today covers the ERC, but does it also cover ENL?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I got off a plane at 9:30 this morning, I am good but I am not that good. I have gotten the Economic Recovery Commission answers for all of you and I fully intend to table tomorrow the answers for the Enterprise Newfoundland. It is a larger corporation, it has a larger budget, the questions are more detailed and more complex, and I fully intend to table those tomorrow.

MR. DOYLE: Okay, good.

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

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

I have a petition signed by a number of people who are concerned about the health care system in our Province. The prayer of the Petition is as follows: as a voter, a taxpayer, and a supporter of the right to a quality health care system I strongly oppose the suggested cutbacks to the health care budget which will force health care facilities to reduce services to the citizens of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I join with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour in calling on the Provincial Government to consider quality health care as the right of all citizens and as such to be exempt from fiscal restraints that will see a reduction in the services.

Mr. Speaker, during the past number of months, in particular since this Budget came down, there have been crys of foul throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador all the way from Nain down to Cape Race, and it is concerning cutbacks to health care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been brought to my attention on a couple of occasions the conversation of Members in the Speaker's Gallery. I have brought that up in our private session and I ask hon. Members to please abide by the rule that there is suppose to be no conversing with anybody in the Speaker's Galleries. That applies to everybody, Members as well, particularly with leaning over the rail. We said it would be alright if occasionally somebody were to slip into a seat with somebody, but that should not be done on a regular basis. If a visitor came in we would accept that kind of thing, but otherwise we should not have conversing in the Speaker's Gallery.

The hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, and I will not take that time out.

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

I just want to support this petition, Mr. Speaker. During the past number of days I had the opportunity on several occasions during the daytime to visit the Health Science Centre and have had the opportunity myself to know of the agony that is going through the many workers that are working in the facility because of the cutbacks by this Government at the present time. They know that the patients they are serving are not getting the care they deserve. Eleven o'clock last night on one particular wing of that hospital there were three nurses to look after twenty-four or twenty-five patients, and no way could these patients get the proper care, because the nurses who were there were just overworked because of the number of patients and the lack of staff. Wherever you speak to them - whether it is a nurse or some other worker in the hospital - they are concerned, they are talking about what this Government has done to their profession.

And I believe it was a very bad, very poor, ill-conceived idea of this Government, to cut back. One of the most important things in our short lifespan, naturally, is to try to live as long as we can. That is one ingredient we all cherish. But for some reason this Government has embarked on a plan to cut the lives of people in this Province short. That is what they are doing with this plan.

Not too long ago, only last week, a constituent of mine after spending four days in the hospital in Lake Melville was sent home to the district and asked to come back again later for an x-ray, because the machine was not working properly. Now surely to goodness that patient should have been taken to a facility where x-rays were available. Instead, the patient was sent back to the coast of Labrador again. But these all tie together with health care cuts. I have to say to the Minister of Health, please show more compassion. And if the Premier wants to have his own way in cutting the deficit, I would ask the Minister of Health why he does not stand up and be counted, stand up on behalf of all those people who need proper health care in this Province. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly like a few words on this petition so ably presented by my colleague for Torngat Mountains. What the hon. Member did was express the views and the aspirations of a great number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The thing I see about the hospital closures, is that they are drastic in the city itself, in the urban area, but what this has done to rural Newfoundland I do not think can be determined at the present moment until the realization or the actual thing happens, when people will go to those hospitals and not be able to get the care they need. I say again I am sure the Government had a shortfall as far as the monetary side of it was concerned, but we have to be very careful, especially in cuts to our health care system.

We are not living in southern Ontario. We are living in a different province altogether than Ontario or any other province for that matter. A great number of our people have to travel by different means to get to the hospitals as close as they are, and in many cases that is a problem. And when you cut out the hospitals which are there in those areas, you create a much larger problem. Someone mentioned to me the other day, well, what happened years ago with the hospitals? We did not have the hospitals, we did not have the facilities we have today. Well, if any of the gentlemen or ladies in this House would come with me to a couple of small towns, small communities and go visit the cemeteries, they will know what happened to them. They are dead. Look at the ages. In their thirties, in their forties - dead. Surely to goodness we cannot revert to that age.

I mean, it is disgraceful to see that money being taken from the hospitals in rural areas of Newfoundland when today we heard here in the House - and I think it has been agreed upon by the Minister of Social Services - about people whose per diem rates have escalated from $200 a day to $350. And in the same instance, I cannot understand for the life of me how the Member for Placentia, who is a good friend of mine, and the Member for Bell Island can sit down and listen to that with the degrading taking place on Bell Island as far as the hospital situation is concerned, also in Placentia, and I think in seven other areas in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, it just amazes me to see where the Government priorities are. And I, like my hon. colleague for Torngat Mountains, wonder aloud what is going to happen down the road. We need those hospitals. It seems like the rural ares and the people are getting hit harder by this Budget than anyone else. Mr. Speaker, I can go back and look at instances myself when I brought people to the hospital, because I did live in an outport. I mean, the people who go to hospitals for emergency treatment need that emergency treatment. Now people have said to me as well that the medicare system is being abused. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, being normal human beings living in a democratic society, there are abuses. But what I am saying is that the people who are admitted to hospital, there are no abuses there and those hospital beds have to be available for the sick.

Mr. Speaker, in St. John's it is a bit different; if you do not get in one hospital you will possibly get into the other. But in those outlining areas like Placentia and Bell Island - when I look at my hon. friend and colleague over there saying that for a number of times during the year Bell Island is almost isolated. You say, well, you can get out of there by helicopter. I have seen storms when even helicopters could not get from Bell Island and vice-versa, and I have seen when boats could not get there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no changes.

MR. PARSONS: There are changes. And there are changes in Placentia, when up around Placentia Bay people are going to have to spend four or five hours getting to a hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the public galleries today the Mayor of Glenburnie, His Worship Norm Martin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition on behalf of forty-eight residents of Grand Bank, Fortune and surrounding communities, pertaining to cutbacks in the health care system of the Province. It is notable, Mr. Speaker, that all these signatures on this piece of paper are of employees of Blue Crest Interfaith Senior Citizen's Home in Grand Bank.

Now the prayer of the petition is `to the Hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of Grand Bank, Fortune and surrounding communities is that we are concerned about the Government's downgrading of our health care system so that it is now impossible to maintain our health care standards with job cutbacks and the total devastation of our collective bargaining process, wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commit to retaining our present health care system and restoring contracts that have been signed in good faith by public employees. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.'

As I said, Mr. Speaker, these are forty-eight employees of the health care system of the Province working at the Blue Crest Interfaith Home in Grand Bank. They went on to espouse their disgust as health care workers with the recent actions of the Provincial Government. They say they are totally disgusted with Government's treatment toward them, the public employees, with the job cuts and, as well, with the rollback Bill 16 that is taking away benefits that were already negotiated and signed in good faith. As well and most importantly, they are disgusted with the downgrading of the health care system, particularly in the institute where they work, where they are taking care of the elderly, the senior citizens of our Province.

These workers are saying, Mr. Speaker, it will be nearly impossible to maintain the health care standards with the cutbacks Government has imposed in its March 7 Budget. As workers they feel obligated to provide the best health care possible, particularly to the senior citizens of our Province, but they say with Government cutbacks they are not able to do that, and it seems that the present Liberal Government, the Provincial Government of the Province seems to have other plans for health care and the care of seniors in our Province. They go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that they are taxpayers and voters and that they are not taking this action of the Government lightly.

I want to go on record as presenting the petition on behalf of those residents, those workers in the health care system and constituents in the District of Grand Bank, and to go on record as supporting their petition, Mr. Speaker, and I present it accordingly to the Legislature.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker I would like to support the petition presented by my colleague for Grand Bank on behalf of the people who are going to be getting the axe from this Government in terms of employment, and in terms of not providing adequate health care service to the people of the Grand Bank - Fortune area in particular, to which the petition relates, but it will certainly have an effect on the whole Burin Peninsula.

We have seen this Government over the past two years savagely attack the Burin Peninsula, particularly in the area of health care. When one looks at what they have done in St. Lawrence, they have closed down a hospital that had been there for a number of years, which was provided to the area by the Americans. And we have also seen them close the hospital in Grand Bank. So there is going to be a number of employees affected by the decision by Government to close down the health care system in that area. And it will also have its effect as it relates to the layoff and bumping system over in my area, where the new hospital that was built by the Conservative Government now is.

It was only on Saturday I met with some people in Burin who said, thank God we got the hospital before that crowd got in. And I have to agree that we are lucky, fortunate, to have a new hospital on the Burin Peninsula. Because with the way these people have attacked the health care system, particularly in the area of the Burin Peninsula and throughout the Province - I mean, look at the devastating area Placentia has become over the last two years.

I was looking in the paper on the weekend and I saw the list of what has happened. And I can only sympathize with my colleague for Placentia who, I know, does not support that type of action by Government. When one looks at the callous attitude and actions of this Government towards rural Newfoundland, one can only feel for the people who are sending in these petitions.

I support the petition presented by my colleague for Grand Bank, and that petition was geared as much towards the President of Treasury Board as toward the Minister of Health. Because he is the fellow who had the big axe, who decided to do all the slashing. I mean, if there is anyone in this system who has really taken on and attacked rural Newfoundland, it has to be the Ministers of Health and Education and the President of Treasury Board, with their leader. They have left nothing in rural Newfoundland. And the people of the Grand Bank - Fortune area have received the brunt of their action, as well as the people of Placentia and the people of other places.

And there is not a lot going to change by presenting these petitions. I understand that. But there is one way things can change in the health care cutbacks: I firmly and honestly believe that Government will change its mind only if one thing happens, and that is if the Members for Placentia, LaPoile, Bonavista South, Bellevue, and all the other Members who are losing their hospitals, stand up in this Legislature - not even in the Legislature if they have not got to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: There are seven separate conversations going on over there.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. Oh yes. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that if the conversations going on over there were going on over here, I am sure we would hear about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, let me say that the only way things are going to change in this Province as it relates to health care and cutbacks is if the Members in that caucus stand up to the Premier and to the Ministers. Now if they do not want to do it here in public, they should do it in their caucus rooms; they should tell the Premier that they will no longer sit as a Member of his caucus if he continues to attack their constituents. And up until such time as they muster up the courage to stand up for the people who elected them, then the people who elected them, like the people who elected us, will receive nothing but thumbs down from this Government, particularly if they are from rural Newfoundland.

So I urge my colleagues opposite, all of you whose constituencies are being affected in a very negative way in terms of health care and other ways, to stand up to this Premier. Because until you realize that he is a curse on the economic and social fabric of rural Newfoundland, then nothing will change and your constituents will suffer. So I urge you, on behalf of all Newfoundlanders, to stand up to this dictatorial attitude which is taking place, which is overtaking this Province, which we have not seen in the last twenty years. The sooner that happens the better, and Newfoundland will continue to operate.

But until such time as that happens there will nothing but a continuation of closedowns, firings, layoffs, welfare, of everything that is bad, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I urge my colleagues opposite to stand up as we are doing and condemn the Premier for his actions.

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, third reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Restraint of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province", Bill No. 16.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to begin the debate on third reading of this infamous legislation. It is my privilege to begin the debate on third reading just to repeat for the benefit of my friend the President of Treasury Board, who somehow on Friday thought he might try to influence Members on this side of the House by suggesting somehow third reading, Mr. Speaker, is just routine. You know, in the hope that we would sit back, roll over, play dead, right?- and agree with him, yes, this is just routine.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the President of Treasury Board we are not quite finished debating this bill yet and we intend to debate the bill until such time that every Member on this side has said everything they want to say. That is the bottom line and that should be provided for in any Legislature, of course, as the President of Treasury Board should know. Every reasonable opportunity should be provided to Members to speak to any piece of legislation. And we intend to use that opportunity.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say this though in defence of the Government House Leader that traditionally, by practice, third reading is, in fact, relatively routine. But there have been examples, as Your Honour knows, when there has been legislation introduced in this Legislature such as Bill 16 which is seen by certain sectors of society, including Members of the Opposition from time to time, as being bad or evil legislation, then the Opposition traditionally has hung it up on third reading or continued the debate on third reading. I remember an example of my own when I was in the Chair when the well known Liberal of the day in the Opposition, Mr. Neary, debated third reading on the flag debate at the time which was considered by him and by others at the time to be pretty terrible legislation, but it would not hold a candle to this particular piece of legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to review just briefly what has transpired on Bill 16 in terms of the debate. We saw on second reading the introduction of the legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is really difficult to hear, the noise level is very high.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been bothering me I must say for the last twenty minutes, that I have not been able to hear very much, and I would ask hon. Members, particularly hon. Members to my left, there has been a lot of noise, a lot of meetings, and Speakers in the past have encouraged people if they want meetings to have them outside. I say to hon. Members it does make it difficult and is a bit of a discourtesy to the House as well.

The hon. the Member.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying or attempting to say, better put, I was trying to review the debate on Bill 16 thus far in what transpired. On second reading we had the Government House Leader introducing Bill 16, and taking about twenty minutes, I suppose, to introduce the Bill. Subsequent to that, I believe there may have been one other Government Member, perhaps two, at the outside, who spoke in the second reading debate, i.e., debating the principle of the Bill; two, possibly three Government Members, not very many in defence of a significant piece of legislation like Bill 16.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: If I could, Your Honour, indicate, I do not want to take from the hon. Member's time and perhaps we could subtract what I am going to say from the hon. Member's time. Your Honour, I think at this point in time we really should have a ruling, and this is why I am raising the point of order, as Your Honour knows, and as the Member opposite has alluded to, it is unusual to carry on prolonged debate on third reading. The reason it is unusual, I would like to suggest and I would like to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, page 195, Paragraph 640 where the purpose of the stages of bills are outlined. The purpose of the first reading is purely formal. The second reading indicates, Your Honour, that the stage of second reading is primarily concerned with the principle of the measure. At this stage debate is not strictly limited to the contents of the bill, as other methods of obtaining its proposed objective may be considered, so there is a lot of leeway given during second reading. Then in the Committee stage the details of the measures are the primary objects of consideration with alterations in its provisions being proposed, and indicating what amendments must do. Then it says third reading: the purpose of third reading is to review the bill in its final form after the shaping it has received in earlier stages. Now, Mr. Speaker, it does not say a great deal about the acceptability, or otherwise, of prolonged debate. It simply indicates that in second reading the principle has been okayed, so this House has okayed the principle of the Bill, and in committee the details are taken care of, so this House has now taken of the details of the Bill and passed the details, so we have already passed the principle, as well as the details, and then a third reading is simply to review its final form after the shaping it has received in earlier stages. It does not indicate that third reading is to shape the Bill because the Bill has already been shaped, Your Honour, and is now in its final form and so on.

With regards to the types of amendments, it is correct, as Members opposite will point out, that the same type of amendments that are permissible in second reading stage are permissible in third reading stage, with the restriction, I would like to point out to Your Honour, that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the Bill, whereas in second reading the amendments can deal with matters not contained in the Bill. There are a number of other comments about third reading I would like to point out to Your Honour. I just quoted paragraph 731 on page 214. Paragraph 733: again, Your Honour, I am going over this to point out that the debate is extremely limited, and what you can do in third reading is extremely limited. 'There are limitations on the type of amendments that can be moved on third reading. They must be relevant to the bill. They should not seek to give mandatory instruction to a committee. They should not contradict the principle of the bill, which has already been approved on second reading'. So you cannot do anything to contradict the principle of the bill that has already been approved by this House in second reading.

In Paragraph 734, 'An amendment may not be moved expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution, or seeking further information in relation to a bill by committee, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges. The third reading stage is not directly connected with any provisions of the bill.' The point I want to make there is the very last point, that third reading stage is not directly connected with any provisions of the bill. The indication being, at that point Your Honour, that the details of the bill have already been handled in the committee stage and cannot then be handled again at third reading stage.

Your Honour, I think at this point we should have a ruling as to the relevance. The Members opposite are going back over who on this side have spoken, and this kind of thing, which has nothing to do with third reading debate on a bill.

The final thing I would like to point our Your Honour is on Page 136 with regards to relevance and repetition. 'Relevance is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be given the benefit of the doubt.' Now, Your Honour, what I would like to point out to you there is the specific reference to borderline cases. The reason why that is there, obviously, is that during second reading in committee the borders are much broader and almost any benefit of the doubt is given to the hon. Members who are speaking in terms of the second reading in committee stage simply because the borders are so broad, but the borders, Your Honour, I would submit to you are very, very narrow according to my submission so far in third reading, although the Speaker has frequently admonished Members who have strayed in debate. And, they go on in Section 2 of Paragraph 459: 'the rule against repetition is difficult to enforce as the various stages of the bills progress give ample opportunity, even encouragement for repetition', and that is true. This indicates that this particular section refers mainly to the second reading stage and the committee stage where repetition is indeed encouraged because of the nature of the discussion. So I simply want to make the point to Your Honour that the third reading stage is not a filibuster stage of a bill, which hon. Members opposite have indicated they intend to do. This is not a filibuster stage, it is a stage that is strictly limited to the shape of the bill. It should not have to do with the principal of the bill which has already been decided upon by the House. It should not have to do with the details of the bill which again have already been decided upon by the House, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader would like a few remarks.

MR. SIMMS: I know how anxious Your Honour is to rule the Government House Leader out of order and not to be so silly taking up so much time reading this whole book, Beauchesne, but I think I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not say a few brief words in response to that lengthy dissertation on parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Speaker, first of all -

AN HON. MEMBER: He had a bad weekend.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I do not know if the Minister has taken up smoking yet or not. It does not appear as if he has because he is just as crooked now as he was two weeks ago when he went off them.

Mr. Speaker, it also appears that the Government is going to attempt - he talks about a filibuster - well, the only filibuster is coming from that side by the Government House Leader. I stood in my place for five minutes, five minutes I have been speaking in debate, not in a filibuster, in debate on third reading. Well, the Government House Leader says it is improper. I suggest to him that is up to the Speaker to determine. I was talking away making all kinds of sense. I saw people in the gallery nodding at everything I was saying. The galleries are full, by the droves they are up there saying, 'You are right. You are right.' His Honour did not think that I was debating out of order or anything. His Honour sat there and listened intently and, no doubt, was enjoying everything I was saying. So I doubt very much if His Honour is going to use the same tactics as the Government House Leader and try to muzzle people from speaking in this House.

Now we have been thwarted, Mr. Speaker, from all sides. We have been thwarted by the Government House Leader by every attempt they possibly can use to cut us off. They have used closure already twice in this debate, never done before, by the way, in this Legislature. On second reading and on Committee stage of one bill they have forced closure, and you can see it oozing out of his mouth over there now. He is dying to call closure again. But, Mr. Speaker, today he is going to try a different approach. He is now going to try to get Mr. Speaker to force closure on it so he will not have to give notice. And that is all he is trying to do. His whole point of order, Mr. Speaker, is irrelevant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

I am ready to make a ruling, but I will allow the hon. Member for St. John's East to make a brief submission.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say that it strikes me that having gotten to his feet and given a very lengthy lecture by reading out parts of Beauchesne that the hon. Member is not raising a point of order at all, he is merely asking the Speaker to make some lecture to the House by way of a preliminary ruling. I do not think there is anything in particular that the hon. Opposition House Leader said that gives rise to a point of order. What the Government House Leader seems to be doing is asking for a ruling before the debate even starts, and I do not think that is an appropriate way of doing things. We did have the Government House Leader last week rise on individual occasions as people were speaking raising points of order, all of which were ruled not to be points of order in the Committee, and then using that as an excuse later on. But now he wants a preliminary ruling from the Speaker, and I do not think that is - I have not been here very long, Mr. Speaker, but it strikes me that is not an appropriate use of the point of order at all. If there is a valid point of order it ought to be raised as such when the debate is going on.

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to clear up one point. I was not asking Your Honour for a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: That is quite clear.

MR. BAKER: The Member had been speaking for five minutes and my point of order was that he was out of order because he was not speaking properly to third reading, and we do not have to let people go on for twenty-five minutes or five hours before we do that.

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

My understanding of the intervention was that the Government House Leader, because he said he did not want it taken out of the time of the Opposition House Leader, wanted to say a few things about third reading in the event that some hon. Members might not understand what the third reading stage was. That is what my understanding was.

As a matter of fact, I had intended myself to make a few remarks but then I said I would not. The hon. the Opposition House Leader was moving along quite alright I thought and I did not bother to make an intervention. But I would want to say I was rather surprised, because if nobody had said anything it would have been the first time ever that nothing was said about third reading in this House. I have spent the weekend reading up on third readings and reading all the debates. I will not of course because it is not the Chair's position, but I can quote back to them their positions on third reading at certain times. Anyway, it is an unusual type of debate; it is confined, and it is a restricted form of debate. It is a bit different. It is a challenge to hon. Members and I am sure they are going to accept the challenge of debating within these narrow confines, of which most of them would know the rules.

I will quote a rule I remember the Government House Leader of the time used to quote when he got up on a point of order to remind an hon. Member that he was not speaking within - it was the hon. Mr. Marshall, and he used to say that the hon. Member was not speaking within the four corners of the bill.

So I would advise hon. Members to try and speak within the four corners of the bill and, as I have said, it is a real challenge.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that you have sustained my argument in that point of order debate and clearly recognized that debate is permissible, we all recognize that the debate is confined to Bill 16. Essentially, you cannot talk about roads and you cannot talk about water and sewer. It is not wide-ranging, and we understand that. We learned well from listening to people like Steve Neary, as I mentioned before, when he used to do it on third reading. And I acknowledge the Government House Leader's intervention and thank him very much for reminding all of us that the debate on third reading is to be confined to Bill 16. And that is why I keep saying Bill 16 is bad legislation.

What I was saying in an attempt to debate Bill 16 in third reading is, leading up to third reading, I certainly think it is permissable to briefly recap what has transpired. What transpired in the debate at second reading stage and Committee stage was that the Government used every opportunity it could to muzzle the Opposition and to cut off and shorten debate. That is the point I was trying to make. Because on second reading itself, Ministers and Members opposite did not participate in the debate. Everybody on this side spoke to the bill. We moved a couple of amendments, a six month hoist and a reasoned amendment to which we debated on this side, nobody on that side. Then they brought in closure. Then we moved to the Committee stage, and the same thing happened all over again.

Here we are now at the third stage of the bill and I would not be at all surprised, since we have said publicly we intend to debate Bill 16 until every Member on this side of the House at least - I cannot speak for Members opposite. They have not been speaking at all, so I do not expect them to participate. But we intend to continue debating third reading until every Member on this side has had an opportunity to speak to it, if he or she so wishes. If they do not wish to speak to it in third reading, well that is fine; they may think they have said everything they wish to say. There are others of us over here who do not think we have quite finished everything we want to say on this bill.

Now, really, third reading is a last gasp I suppose, a last-ditch effort, a last opportunity for Members of the Opposition in particular to try to knock some sense into the head of the Government, try to beat some sense into the head of the Government House Leader in the hope that at the last minute, the last dying seconds he might, he just might, reflect on the things which have been said in the debate and he just might hold off from proclaiming this legislation in the hope that he would have a chance to perhaps reconsider some of the points that are in it, have a discussion with the union leaders of the Province in particular, call them in and have a heart-to-heart discussion with them, an in-depth discussion - not just a little meeting like they had before the Budget, but an in-depth discussion to see whether or not there might be some alternatives, to see if there might be a last chance for getting away from this serious and drastic legislation, if there is another way to do it maybe.

And that is the only reason we asked throughout for a six month hoist for example, or for the bill not to be read at this point in time. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour is aware and as the Government House Leader is aware, despite the little lecture we got a few moments ago about third reading of Bill 16, of course he is also aware, no doubt, that amendments can be moved on third reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. And those amendments are even more wide-ranging.

MR. BAKER: No, (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh no, they are not. No they are not.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible)? We shall see.

MR. SIMMS: But we shall see.

MR. RIDEOUT: We know something about Beauchesne, too, you know. You are not the only one here who has heard the name before.

MR. SIMMS: Now the hon. the Government House Leader quotes Beauchesne, but I can tell him that there are certain amendments which can be made on third reading; they are much more wide-ranging in terms of debate than the debate on the bill itself. I can assure him of that, and I have checked with sources far more eminent in the parliamentary procedural area than the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: You checked with (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I did. That is precisely whom I am talking about. And Elizabeth has checked with Ottawa and London; no doubt she has checked all over the world.

MR. RIDEOUT: Probably Australia.

MR. SIMMS: Probably. Even Australia she has probably called. For sure she has called British Columbia, because we have some people out there whom we know, mutual acquaintances. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a last-ditch effort on behalf of the Opposition and any attempt and all attempts by the Government House Leader and Minister's opposite to stand up and interrupt us on points of order and all of that sort of thing is not going to accomplish one thing. So why does the Government House Leader not sit back, relax, listen to the debate and do whatever it is he has to do.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) why do you not get started?

MR. SIMMS: I will get started. But I will tell the Minister the real reason is because I intend to move an amendment which will get me an additional thirty minutes anyway, so sit back, relax. He should take his time, go outside and have a Cert; go outside and shove in a stick of Dentene or something to calm his nerves, to soothe his nerves. Because I will be debating for the next half hour to forty-five minutes and if he does not like it - I know he gets bored with my lectures back and forth, but I want to approach the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to talk about some of the things in this bill.

Oh by the way, before going on, we talk about alternatives from time to time. The Minister opposite, the President of Treasury Board has often said we have not put forth any alternatives for cutbacks. Just one which crossed my mind today, and I would not be at all surprised if the Premier turned to the President of Treasury Board and said right at the moment today when I flicked it across the House, Wins, we are going to do that. That was when the Minister of Development tabled the answer to the question about the expenses related to advertising for the Economic Recovery Commission. And one of the items in there was $26,000 for an Annual Report. The Minister made the point of saying, `As required by legislation.' I shouted across so the Premier could hear me and I said, `Well change the legislation. It is your legislation.' And the Premier turned to the President of Treasury Board and he said, `Wins, we are going to change that legislation, because that is $26,000 that is an absolute waste of money'. And I think we all agree with that - we all agree with that.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is a salary unit.

MR. SIMMS: That is a salary unit. Mr. Speaker, having said that let me say to also to the Minister, and we are not without some responsibility as a former administration, most of the Departments have legislation requiring an annual report. I remember the Minister of Finance one day tabled a report - the Minister of Finance might remember - and I asked him the cost of it. And it was not a large cost - I think it was something like $5,000 or $6,000. If the Minister of Social Services tabled an annual report, I suspect that would cost $5,000 or $6,000; it is not a big amount of money - yes?

MR. EFFORD: It will not be done (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. Well, I am saying to the Minister - he missed my earlier comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change your act.

MR. SIMMS: What we need to do, as a recommendation on an alternative to saving a few dollars, is eliminate the requirement under legislation that calls for annual reports to be printed, because it is a waste of time. And the Economic Recovery Commission report here I say to the Minister of Social Services, tabled in the answer today by the Minister of Development, shows $26,000 spent for the first annual report of the Economic Recovery Commission. Now if you want to find a place where there is a waste of money, my God, you would not have to look much further - $26,000! And that is not one they can blame on the Tories, that is their own legislation setting up the Economic Recovery Commission. I hope the Minister of Finance is paying attention to that and that he indeed recommend strongly that that legislation be changed so as to not require an annual report; there is an alternative. There is a savings of $26,000. That is a nurse's unit. That is one more nurse provided in a hospital somewhere I suppose, one more younger teacher, a newer teacher in the system; maybe an instructor at a community college. There are all kinds of possibilities, Mr. Speaker.

Getting to the bill -

MR. RIDEOUT: A staff member for the transition house in Goose Bay.

MR. SIMMS: A staff member for the transition house in Goose Bay. There are all kinds of alternatives. And I think it just re-enforces the point that there were other choices. Members opposite kept saying we had no choice. But there were other choices.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have diverted slightly there, I am trying to stick within the rules, Bill 16. I want to get to the bill itself, Clause 2. First of all the big question is, what is the principle of Bill 16? I have not heard anybody clearly articulate what the principle is. The purpose of the bill is set out in the long title. Presumably the principle is contained in the long title, and the title is `An Act Respecting The Restraint of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province'. Therefore, my good friend from Bonavista South who is a lawyer and very, very knowledgeable in these parliamentary matters, would be aware and perhaps could tell us when he speaks in the debate on third reading, which I know he is going to do - I am sure he is going to get up - is the principle of this bill then the principle of restraint of compensation? I submit it is. Restraint of compensation is the principle of this bill. Could the Member for Bonavista South nod or something just to give me some reason to be excited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. He says, yes.

MR. GOVER: No, I did not say that.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I thought that was yes.

MR. RIDEOUT: He might point his finger at you. That is all he knows how to do.

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, in terms of the debate on Bill 16, if that is the principle of the bill, restraint of compensation, then we have no wish or desire on this side to talk against the principle of the bill. We know it has been approved by the Legislature and we respect the rules. We do not intend to talk against the restraint of compensation, but we do intend to address some of the sections in the bill and talk about those sections and what we think is wrong with them. Not what is wrong with the principle of the bill, restraint of compensation, but what we think is wrong with section 2 (a), for example, of the bill.

Section 2 (a) says, and I will read it to Your Honour. I know His Honour has read it a dozen times and probably knows it off by heart, better than I do, but I just want to refresh his memory so he knows exactly what it says. In this Act section 2 says, and it deals with definition, `2(a) "collective agreement" means an agreement in writing entered into between the public sector employer and a bargaining agent containing provisions respecting pay scales and working conditions for public sector employees and includes an arbitration award and an adjudication judgment'.

What that section does, Mr. Speaker, for those who are not aware over on the other side, is give Cabinet, the Executive Council the power forever to determine that an adjudication award or an arbitration award compensates for the restraint period sometime down the road. Cabinet has the right under this section to sit around the Cabinet table and look at an arbitration awarded in two years time and say, oh, that was done to compensate for the restraint back in 1991-92. Therefore, the Cabinet has the right under this bill to roll that back two or three years from now. And that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree, is a very dangerous situation. But that is what it does. And that is one of the reasons why we continue to debate the bill, because we do not think any Cabinet should have the right to have that authority. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe I am misinterpreting it. And maybe the Minister, the Government House Leader when he speaks in the debate on third reading, and I am sure he will, can tell me, Does this bill give the Cabinet the power to determine forever down the road, say in two or three year's time, that some arbitration or adjudication given to some group two or three years from now was really done to compensate for the restraint measures of 1991-92 and therefore the Cabinet can roll it back in two or three year's time? I would hope the Government House Leader will answer that question for us during this debate. How much time do I have, Elizabeth?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon? Three minutes, forty-six seconds? Oh, so the time that was used in the point of order did not come out, did it? I do not want him pulling any tricks, that is all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It was supposed to - did not take it out, she says.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Did not count it, as per your comments. Okay. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to rush to my amendment yet, I have another couple of minutes. The Government House Leader heard what I was saying there on that Section 2(a), the Cabinet, having the right to roll back an arbitration award say three years from now if they, the Cabinet, decides that that arbitration was given in compensation for the restraint of 1991-1992. This legislation gives the Cabinet the right to do that, is that correct? I am asking him to respond at some time during the debate, because up to now he really has not.

Then I want to move to Clause 2(b), under Definition. Again, Clause 2(b) I will read for Your Honour's edification, just to refresh his memory, because Your Honour is reading Beauchesne and all kinds of things all the time and sometimes it helps to have a helpful voice out there in the Legislature refreshing his memory.

Clause 2(b) says, `"pay scales' means pay scales and other monetary benefits paid or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of a public sector employer to or for the benefit of a public sector employee, and includes the monetary benefits contained in the Labrador Benefits Agreement between the Crown and various parties signed on May 7 1990."

Now there are two things there. The first is, of course, that they are saying in the bill that all monetary benefits negotiated for that fiscal year, 1991-1992, are eliminated by Bill 16, in addition to the wage rollback. And the irony of that is that during the speech by the Minister of Finance on March 7, I guess it was, over a month ago, that was not mentioned. The Minister referred to a wage freeze. That was not the word he used. Actually, he used deferral, I believe - was it? I think it was deferral. But they did not mention the fact that all the other monetary benefits are going to be eliminated as well for 1991-1992. And there are public employees, I would say, out in the Province today who are not even aware of that yet.

But it also specifically talks about the elimination, for all intents and purposes, of the Labrador Benefits Agreement which took two years to complete and included a study by independent people outside - I cannot remember if it was Gar Pynn or somebody from the University who headed up that study, Labrador Benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I think it was Gar Pynn.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I think it was too. So it eliminates all that, as well. Now what do we have under the Labrador Benefits programme? Well, this is an agreement which affects the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, and the Police Brotherhood of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. All those unions are affected dramatically because they have members in Labrador, and the Labrador Benefits package is wiped out for all intents and purposes.

But what is included in it? By the way, I do not know if Your Honour has had a chance to see this. We should table it for Members to see, because there is some considerable amount of information in this. What it provides for is people who live in Labrador to get special additional benefits; cost of living, isolation allowances, I think, is one thing they referred to. It also provides an increase in travel allowance to offset the cost for public employees in Labrador who travel outside Labrador. And they were given a sizable increase. But what has happened under Bill 16 is that that has now been eliminated, gutted. And what has happened to the travel costs from Labrador? They have not gone down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Your Honour. What has happened to the travel costs in Labrador? They have not gone down. If anything travel costs from Labrador have increased dramatically. But what has happened under Bill 16? That has all been gutted. So the increase in the travel allowance - I am not sure what the percentage was, it was sizable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three hundred and fifty dollars.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: It goes to $350.

MR. SIMMS: From what, $250?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and fifty, and then there is supposed to be an additional (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. So a sizable increase was provided for public servants who live in Labrador, that is going to be now scrapped. And in addition to that, of course, the Labrador cost of living allowance, I think there was a sizable increase in that and that is going to be scrapped, after two years of study. That is what makes it so difficult. Then there were all kinds of other things provided for. People are not aware of this. This is the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true (inaudible)!

MR. SIMMS: It is not true? What is not true? Is the Government House Leader telling me then that what his officials told me in the Department of Treasury Board, the President of Treasury Board's own staff told me - in fact I had a list there -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is in the bill!

MR. SIMMS: I have a list of what is affected, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Labrador Benefits package is in the bill.

MR. SIMMS: The Labrador Benefits package, 2 (b). Clause 2 (b). Let me go back, if the President of Treasury Board says I am wrong. I will not read it all because I will bore him, but I will read the last part which says: "...and includes the monetary benefits contained in the Labrador Benefits Agreement between the Crown and various parties signed May 7 1990." Right? He agrees with that.

Now, I have here a copy of the Labrador Benefits Agreement between Her Majesty the Queen and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, nurses, teachers - signed May 7 1990. Here is the Agreement which we put in place, of course.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh indeed we did. Now, Mr. Speaker, to somehow suggest that they did this, they initiated this - it was started two years before it was signed, boy. It was initiated two years before it was signed, in 1988. We initiated it. I initiated it as President of Treasury Board! I was the Minister who initiated it, the same President of Treasury Board who initiated pay equity for this Province and brought in the pay equity policy. It was this Member.

So the Minister says what I was saying is wrong. I said there was an increase in the Labrador allowance and that is going to be eliminated. He said that is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) was wrong.

MR. SIMMS: That is wrong. So they are going to get their Labrador increase provided for in the package, is that correct?

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I get trapped or caught I would like to move an amendment to Bill 16 as follows, seconded by the Member for Menihek, that the bill - meaning Bill 16, obviously - be not now read but be read a third time this day six months hence, and I so move. I do not know if Your Honour wants - I am sure he is well aware of it by now.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would like to have a copy of the bill.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Oh my notes are on the bottom, Your Honour, I cannot -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question, question.

MR. RIDEOUT: Just take your time now. We have to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will just consult with the Table Officers briefly on the (inaudible) -

MR. SIMMS: Take a recess if you like.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: In making a decision on this, I went back to a decision made in a similar debate in third reading in May 1980. The Speaker at the time, Speaker Simms, was responding to a motion made by one Mr. Neary. What happened was that there were several points of order, and the speaker had just brought Mr. Neary to order, forthwith Mr. Neary said, 'Mr. Speaker, in order to give myself a little wider latitude, Sir, I would like to move that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be read this day six months hence,' precisely the same motion made by the Opposition House Leader today. Then a long debate ensued over whether or not it was a debatable motion or a non-debatable motion, and the Speaker of the day ruled that it was a dilatory motion, which meant that it was non-debatable.

I will read the ruling. I will not take it all, I will just read the ruling. The Speaker of the day said, 'There are two types of ways I would submit to move the motion,' and he goes on to talk about whether it is dilatory or not dilatory. Anyway, he goes on to say how it should have been. He says, 'And as I heard the way in which the motion was moved, and, of course, there is no reason why a motion of that nature cannot be moved, but the question is as to whether or not it becomes debatable. If the hon. gentleman had moved: I move that all the words after 'that' be deleted and there be substituted 'therefore', as was done in another motion, then it would be in order.'

So what we see here in our case is it does not meet the true requirements of an amendment which says that it must be deleting words, adding words or a combination of both. And since the hon. House Leader said he moved an amendment, he meant for it to be an amendment. If he just said 'I move', well then it could be a motion the same as it was determined that Mr. Neary's motion in 1980 was dilatory. There was a vote taken on that, of course, and it was defeated, but he did not move that it was an amendment and a lot of time was taken over that. So since the hon. Member moved that it was an amendment, this cannot be taken as an amendment because it does not meet the requirements of being deleted, words added or a combination of both.

Now hon. Members know it does not stop them from doing this, it is just a matter of doing it in the right method. But as it is now presented, I have to rule that the amendment is out of order, in accordance with the precedent that I quoted.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, of course, when I moved that amendment I knew full well what the ruling would be by Your Honour in this particular instance. Basically you are ruling that it is non-debatable. You are only ruling that it is non-debatable. You are not ruling it is out or order. You are saying it is non-debatable. Is that what you said?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am making the ruling that it is out of order only on the basis of what I thought the hon. Member moved. I thought he said: I am going to move an amendment. I am only saying "I thought" because of course I do not have the - I did not go to Hansard. I was listening and I thought he said something to the effect to the hon. Members: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make an amendment. And then he said: the amendment is that. Which as I said, does not meet the requirements of the amendment now.

If he had said: I am going to move the following, in which case then it would be a dilatory motion. So I have to leave it somewhat to him. But my understanding was he said he was going to move an amendment, in which case it is out of order because it does not meet the requirements of an amendment which would say: deleting words, adding words, or a combination of both. Or, if he calls it a motion, well then we just call it a dilatory motion, and it is non-debatable, and vote on it, and I am sure that does not achieve what hon. Members want to achieve either.

MR. SIMMS: Let's see if we can get this clearer, now. Because I am somewhat surprised that the Chair would not be aware of what it was we were trying to move. But in any event, it is not properly worded, is simply what he is saying.

MR. SPEAKER: For an amendment.

MR. SIMMS: So it is ruled out of order now, I cannot move another one. That simply means that the next speaker will move it, so it does not really matter, it is all irrelevant. I just want to make sure the proper wording - you are saying that if I had not said I am going to move an amendment, but if I had said I am going to move the following - ?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I am sorry.

MR. SIMMS: No?

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member had said: I am going to move an amendment, and the amendment will be to remove all words after "that." Right? And then carry on. He has got to say "delete all words." Maybe the Table could tell us which place, which citation we are talking - for amendments. And all the hon. Member has to do is to - and I could have gotten the amendment for him. Because the amendment is made - Page 314.

MR. SIMMS: Same as the one we moved in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, exactly. Well, what we have got to say is to meet the requirements to say whatever it is to say that all words deleted after, and then - I am sure the Table will help the hon. Member in designing the motion. But what it misses as I said, an amendment has three components to it. One, it has to delete words; two, it has to add words; three, combination of both. And it does not have any of those combinations.

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is no big problem, we will just reword the amendment and our next speaker or the speaker after will move it, there is no big rush. The only problem is I am not sure how much time I have left, if any, now. Perhaps the Clerk can tell me if I have any time left?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't. I sure as heck do not want to upset the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is saying, by leave.

MR. SIMMS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last words.

MR. SIMMS: Well I do not have any last words, I was just getting into the meat of my –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: There are going to be a dozen other speakers behind me, so they can clue up. There is no big problem, Mr. Speaker, so I will let others say what it is that I was saying. But for the last half hour I have been pointing out to the House Bill 16: I have been sticking to the bill, I have been talking about some of the things that are in the bill. Your Honour's predecessor in the Chair ruled that the debate was in order. So I have been touching on some of the things that are in the bill and talking about the Labrador benefits agreement. I have asked the Minister to answer some questions when he speaks in the debate on third reading and perhaps I will just leave it at that for the time being and we will hear what others have to say in due course.

But there is one thing, in particular, that I wanted to address and it happened just before I moved my amendment or what was meant to be my amendment, and we were talking about the Labrador benefits agreement and I was asking the Government House Leader some questions related to it and he was indicating across the House to me that I was wrong in what I was saying. So I want to get it clear, because I do not want to be saying things that are wrong and if he can correct me that is fine. But I am surprised in three weeks debate that he would not have corrected that because it has been said before. I was saying that the monetary benefits that were included in the Labrador benefits agreement which was signed between the Crown and various parties on May 7, 1990, provided for an improvement in the isolation allowance, in the travel allowance, in the dependence allowance and that was all going to be eliminated and gutted - those increases. And the President of Treasury Board shouted across at me and said, no, you are wrong.

Now I want to repeat once more for the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: You are wrong.

MR. SIMMS: Well let me repeat for the President of Treasury Board, I indicated to him that I got the information from his own staff, so if I am wrong then his own staff provided me with incorrect information and I am sure that he would not want that to sit, he will have to either get up some time in the debate and clarify this matter, because his own employees gave me the information, and here is the information they gave me, I say to the President of Treasury Board. The Labrador benefits package included - here is the information that his own staff gave me, I am sure he will want to get up and correct any misunderstandings that exist. He does not want to attack -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I am reading what they gave me, I say to the Government House Leader. Eighteen per cent for isolation allowance, in this fiscal year 1991-92, 18 per cent isolation allowance; 27 per cent increase in travel allowance, that was in the Labrador benefits package; 9 per cent for dependents. All of those increases are going to be eliminated. Now is that right or is that wrong?

MR. BAKER: It is wrong.

MR. SIMMS: It is wrong. Well I say to the Government House Leader this is a list of information that I got from his own employees, his own staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I did. He is saying that is wrong? It is not wrong, I got it from his own staff. I am not reading it right - Labrador benefits agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it for him.

MR. SIMMS: Labrador benefits agreement. And the effective date is 91/4, which is April 1, 1991.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Section 2 (b).

MR. SIMMS: Eighteen per cent for isolation allowance; 27 per cent increase in travel allowance and 9 per cent for dependents. That is what it says on the sheet of paper that his own employees gave me, his own staff.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Look, section 2 (b) of the act which includes Labrador -

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes. He is not disagreeing with that. He is disagreeing with the amounts. I think that is what he is saying to me. What I am reading out is the amounts that will be eliminated and it is wrong. Is that what he is saying?

MR. BAKER: I am not saying that.

MR. SIMMS: He is not saying that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am not confused, I mean I have it here. I will table it as a matter of fact or I will send it up to the press and let them ask the Minister about it afterwards, how will that be? And see if the Minister tells the press what he is telling the House now that it is not right to say that the 18 per cent for isolation allowance included in the Labrador benefits package is now going to be given to them. The Minister is now saying that the 18 per cent isolation allowance will now be granted to Labrador employees and not eliminated as his employees or staff in Treasury Board told me quite some time ago, and the 27 per cent in travel allowance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, right here look, 18 per cent for isolation allowance; 27 per increase in travel allowance and 9 per cent for dependents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon? What do you mean? It says in the bill that it includes section 2 (b) the monetary benefits contained in the Labrador benefits agreement between the Crown and various parties signed May 7, 1990. Here is the agreement, signed May 7th, 1990 which provides for increases in the isolation allowance, increases in the travel allowance and increases in the dependence. Now if the Minister has the correct answer to the question, well let him provide it instead of playing little games over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. The Minister can speak in the debate the same as anybody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, good. Sit down now - oh, you are trying to leave? Okay, that is fine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are you ready, Bob?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister is going to stand now.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, you are going to stand?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, well, I have no choice. My time is up. You just told me to sit down.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing now is speaking to a bill in third reading. As I pointed out a short while ago, this limits debate considerably and puts restrictions on what Members can discuss; it does not allow wide-ranging debate. The bill has already received approval in principle in the House, it has already received detailed examination clause by clause and has been passed by the House, therefore, any debate is simply on the general structure of the bill as amended in the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some questions asked which I believe are not relevant to debate in third reading; I believe the kind of discussion that has been going on for the last half hour is not within the spirit of the purpose of third reading, however, I feel I should answer the questions that were asked. My disagreement with hon. Members Opposite is that they tend to take a fact and twist it and convolute it and turn it around, turn it inside out, upside down, and because they started with a fact, they assume that whatever they do with that fact makes it true.

They discuss this bill and they talk about us totally eliminating pay equity for instance. That is not true. It is not true, but they say it. Because pay equity is mentioned in the bill, because we are changing one clause of an agreement, they think that gives them the moral right to get up and say that we have eliminated it all.

MR. SIMMS: You have for the last two years.

MR. BAKER: That is what I mean, Mr. Speaker, by taking a fact and twisting it and changing it and then using it in such a way that they assume it to be correct, and assume that there is a ring of truth in it. Mr. Speaker, obviously there is not. My argument with Members opposite is simply that they talk about the elimination of increases. I would rather talk about it and it would be more accurate to talk about, Mr. Speaker, the postponement of increases. Because in all these agreements there is a choice built in: the choice is that the unions involved can choose to either eliminate a year, in most cases the middle year of the contract, but the year in question to eliminate that, or the other choice is to simply postpone the increases that were due in that year and put them one year later. So the bill is not about the elimination of any negotiated increase, because the choice is there.

The elimination can be done if the unions choose, or they can be postponed; the numbers can simply be postponed, which is not an elimination but simply a one year postponement, a one year deferral. So, Mr. Speaker, that is why I say to the Opposition House Leader that he is not correct when he talks about the elimination of anything: Labrador benefits, pay equity, wage increases or anything. He is not correct when he talks about the elimination of anything.

And my problem is with the use of the word `eliminated' because this bill if it had done an elimination, I would be only too happy to admit that there was an elimination. I always tell things as they are. So, Mr. Speaker, to answer his question there has been no elimination of anything. There has been a possible elimination or a possible deferral, and perhaps the unions will choose a deferral, in which case nothing is eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, now that I am on my feet, to once again reiterate that the bill as it now stands and has been approved by the House in principle and in substance is a bill that had to be brought into this House. It had to be brought in because of a shortage of funds, a decrease in revenue caused by a recession, a decrease in the amount we would normally have expected to get from equalization and from transfer payments. So, Mr. Speaker, to make up for this shortage of money we have eliminated jobs in the public service, we have cut in many ways in terms of program expenditure, and we came up short. We are going to borrow money on current account, and a fair amount of money on capital as well. We still came up short, so we had to bring in this bill which will remove the necessity of us borrowing another $75 million. That is what this bill means, $75 million. There has been a lot of debate on this principle ever since the House opened. We have had a month of debate now on this because on whatever pretext, whether it be a money bill or something else, on whatever pretext Members opposite have been debating this, a lot of debate.

So, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, according to Standing Order 50, to give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion, that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to Motion No. 3 shall be the first business of the House and when next called by the House there shall not be further protest. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No. (Inaudible) just a normal process.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I want to ask the Government House Leader, or the Speaker, if Your Honour would tell us exactly what that motion was, because I did not quite hear what he was saying. I asked him if it was the notice of closure or if he was moving -

MR. BAKER: Notice of closure.

MR. SIMMS: So it is just a notice of closure. I thought you were moving the six month hoist.

MR. BAKER: To be called whenever, sometime within the next month.

MR. SIMMS: I thought it might have been a previous question or something.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very surprised that the Government House Leader moved closure so early in the debate. I believe I am the third person to speak on third reading of this bill. I expected he would get up and move the six month hoist that we moved and the Speaker made a ruling on. Still, the six month hoist can be again moved by some other of our Members when they wish to move it.

The President of Treasury Board just got up and had a few words about the fact that he does not understand why the Opposition are suggesting that benefits are being eliminated. Mr. Speaker, anyone who would have been ruled eligible for pay equity over the last two years and has been fired by this Government this year will have their pay equity eliminated; if it is not going to be retroactive for the last two or three years, those people will have pay equity eliminated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if they get it a couple of years from now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) this year.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, it is gone. The 2,000 people who were fired this year - at least 2,000 - if any of them qualified to get benefits, because of the problem with pay equity in the future, because the retroactive part of the pay equity plan has been removed, they will have their pay equity eliminated. And not only do they have their pay equity eliminated, they also have their jobs eliminated. They have been eliminated themselves, and they will work hard, I am sure, to eliminate the Government House Leader the next time the elections come around.

Mr. Speaker, the question was asked, is the Labrador benefits Agreement being eliminated. Now if there is anyone in Labrador who was fired because of this Budget, I would imagine his Labrador benefits are going to be eliminated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is not quite inside the four corners of the Act so I cannot talk about unions today I am told, I would be ruled irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that any of the people who presently work for the Provincial Government in Labrador and are fired are going to have their Labrador Benefits Agreement eliminated, something they worked very hard to get over the past years. I am surprised that the Member for Naskaupi, who is the Labrador representative in Cabinet, would allow this to happen, Mr. Speaker. I find it very hard to understand how he can justify eliminating the Labrador pay benefits for people who work so hard in his district.

Mr. Speaker, when we were debating the principle of this Bill, and I know the principle has been passed by Members of this House of Assembly, there were a lot of questions asked which were never answered. I still do not understand or have not been given a proper explanation as to why in the schedule to this Act the Chicken Marketing Board is mentioned. Does that freeze the price of chicken for the rest of this year? I do not know. Does it freeze any chicken this year? Mr. Speaker, does it freeze the wages of the people working with the Chicken Marketing Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does it? I know it did not freeze the wages of the Chairperson of the Social Services Appeals Board. That will never be frozen as long as the Minister of Social Services' buddies serve on that Board. But they are not mentioned. That board, Mr. Speaker, and that is a strange thing, is one of the boards not mentioned in this schedule. I wonder if it was intentionally left out of this schedule by the President of Treasury Board who did a favour for his buddy, the Minister of Social Services. I understand that. I did it lots of times while I was there. I would do a favour for my colleague.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did one for him, yes. I opened up Sprung.

MR. EFFORD: No, (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, certainly, that is no problem. When the Member was on this side of the House, I treated every Member the same. Every Member in this House was treated -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, the farmer was not noted to be a great Tory, but I think -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I would say. But I think I swung him to our side of it at the time. But the Minister had a lot more time to work on him than I did.

Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand why all of these boards are mentioned in the back of this Act, yet the Social Services Appeals Board is not mentioned. Now they did get a 700 per cent increase over the last year, so I do not imagine they will be looking for another increase. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board is mentioned in this schedule. I have not received an answer to that. They do not receive one, single, solitary penny from the Newfoundland Government - not a cent. The Egg board is set up under a national system and if there are subsidies to move eggs in or out of the Province that is done through the National Egg Marketing Board system. There is not one cent of provincial money going to the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board. Now, some of the egg producers may from time to time qualify for grants or loans from the Farm Loan Board but that has nothing to do with freezing salaries, so I do not understand why the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board would be mentioned in this bill. Now, I know they put it in there but they did not give it any thought. The reason behind me asking these questions is, if there was a reasonable answer certainly the Minister would have given it to me, but all throughout the different stages of debate on this bill the reason for me asking these questions is to hopefully find out what the reasonable answer is. Mr. Speaker, I know now in third reading we cannot go on much further with this except the six month hoist, maybe, and a reasoned amendment. We could try the two of them and then the President of Treasury Board would call closure. The point of my discussing these two or three boards, in particular, is to show that Government had given this bill absolutely no thought when they wrote it up. They were obviously in a panic. It was probably a last minute decision and they send around to different departments looking for names of boards. Maybe the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture just filled out ten or twelve boards, figured that is what he had to do and sent them in, and they were not suppose to be there at all. Now that could be quite possible. That quite possibly could be what happened. The Chicken Marketing Board may have been mentioned because of subsidies that the Government does give to the Chicken Marketing Board. No, we do not give the Chicken Marketing Board any subsidies, that is right. I do not know why because the chicken producers in this Province receive subsidies. Newfoundland Farm Products receives subsidies but the Newfoundland Chicken Marketing Board does not receive any subsidies, I do not believe they receive any subsidies from the Provincial Department of Agriculture. I do not know if they receive an administration grant. Maybe that is what is on the Minister's mind. Do they receive a grant for administration like the Chicken Marketing Board, and like the Loggers Association? The Lumber Producers Association receive - and are they on this list? Now, that is a good question because they received a reduction in their grant this year, as far as I understand. The Newfoundland Lumber Producers Association are not on this list. Now, that seems kind of strange to me because the Newfoundland Lumber Producers Association would be a similar type operation as the Newfoundland Chicken Marketing Board. They market the lumber but they do not control the prices as much. They are a marketing board. They certainly regulate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, very much so, and they do the scaling. They do some marketing just because of the fact that they stamp the wood Newfoundland Produced and the sawmill's number. Mr. Speaker, they did receive a reduction in their grant this year, the administration grant, I believe, and they also got some good news from the Minister that they would not get a price hike in stumpage fees, I believe, as was the plan at one time to gradually increase them. Now, what will happen is that they will be decreased, or they will not be increased for a couple of years and then the lumber producers will get a large increase in three or four years time which will be worse than trying to increase it gradually. You have no choice but to do it because the trade embargoes with the Americans, that is one of the first things they mentioned when they did their study on the lumber industry in Newfoundland, well the lumber industry in Canada. Newfoundland's subsidies, or low stumpage rates were quoted as one of the possible tangles, so you have to put them up. So, next year if you leave it again, then the third year you are going to have to give them a good whack.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: I agree, but you should be honest with those producers and tell them if they do not get it this year, and they do not get it next year, they are going to get a large increase. They have to, and that is why I would say a phased in smaller increase would have been better. But what is even more surprising is that board, that Lumber Producers Association, who I know got money from the Government, I know they get money from the Government, is not listed in this pile in the schedule.

This again shows me that there was very little thought gone into why this bill is being brought into the House. We have another one here the Newfoundland Hog Marketing Board. Now as far as I know the Newfoundland Hog Marketing Board does not receive any money from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Board itself does not receive a cent. The Board has an executive person who runs the office and they have a secretary. Now does that mean that the executive director of the Hog Marketing Board's salary is frozen this year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. Because I do not know why they are in there. I cannot figure out why they are in here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The question has never been asked. I talked about the Lumber Producer Association for a while, but you did not listen to me, and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was so interested in it he would not get up on a point of order to try to rule me irrelevant. But, Mr. Speaker, the Lumber Producers Association which does get money from the Government, who receive a grant for administration are not listed back here. Now I know they do get money. I know the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board does not get money, so I do not know why they are in here. If they are in here does it mean that the staff person at the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board, and they do have one person on staff, and I think a couple of the boards share a secretary, but they do have one person on staff. So is the Government freezing that person's salary? The Government does not contribute anything to that person's salary. That is what I do not understand. That person is paid for by the producers in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, not a jingle to the Egg Marketing Board. You do not even subsidize problems that the Egg Marketing Board have to transport eggs out of here when we have an oversupply because that is done by Canadian producers right across the country. So I know for sure we do not supply money to the Egg Marketing Board. Nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

Well I can see Hydro as a direct link of Government. Hydro is taking money out of, I suppose, out of the general populace.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro is a Crown corporation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is a Crown corporation. The Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board is not a Crown corporation. It has no ties except that it is created by an act which comes in here. I know that is why that is here. I am not saying why it is not in here. But why would the Government decide to freeze the wage of an employee of the Egg Marketing Board? And really it is up to the egg producers in this Province whether that person's wages should be frozen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: You are going to make the egg producers in this Province save the money. And the egg producers in this Province, Mr. Speaker, might want to roll back the wages. They might not want to do what is in here at all. They might not have any interest in this bill. I am sure they do not have an interest of what is in this bill because they have already given an increase this year. They have done it. They have ignored the legislation. It is not passed yet. But they are not going to take it back next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Medicine, I have a bad throat.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I still have not received an explanation as to why - now we are through with the Hog Marketing Board. Even Newfoundland Hydro, I question it, but, Mr. Speaker, if you do Newfoundland Hydro, and you do the Chicken Marketing Board and you do the Hog Marketing Board you should do Newfoundland Light and Power. That is a private corporation the same as - and I would imagine Newfoundland Light and Power - is that set up under an act in this Legislature, I wonder? Is there a Light and Power Act from this legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say that the Newfoundland Light and Power, I am not sure now, but it is probably formed under some kind of an act for this. I know it is under the Corporations Act, that is obvious because it is a company, but I know that Newfoundland Light and Power has certain exclusive rights to headwaters of certain areas up along the southern shore. I wonder is the Newfoundland Light and Power established under an act in this legislature, and if so, why aren't they included in this? I would say they are certainly regulated by the Government the same as the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board is a regulator or regulated by the Agricultural Products Marketing Board, but one of the reasons Newfoundland Light and Power is not in here is because their former Chairman of the Board happens to be the Premier. They are certainly not going to come under any -

Newfoundland Medicare Association is a legitimate one, no doubt. I wonder is the Newfoundland Board of Trade established by an act of this - here we go, look at this, we have an act in subject to the Newfoundland Board of Trade. Now, there is an act in this legislature concerning the Newfoundland Board of Trade. Why isn't the Newfoundland Board of Trade included in this schedule? Why do we not freeze Bruce Tilley's wages. I am sure he will appreciate it if we freeze Bruce Tilley's wages. He would be pleased with you.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I still say that the Government prepared this act in haste. They gave very little thought to what they were doing in preparing this act. They put things in the act that are not necessary. The Minister suggests that the Newfoundland Benefits Act is not going to be eliminated or the Labrador Benefits Agreement will not be eliminated, but certainly it is being eliminated for people who are fired. He suggests that the Pay Equity Agreements are not going to be eliminated, but, Mr. Speaker, by taking out the retroactivity of the pay equity over the past two years, certainly any person who would have benefitted by pay equity over the past two years and have been fired by this Government in the 2,000 to 3,000 people who have been fired will lose out on any benefits they would have in pay equity.

Mr. Speaker, I still have not received a satisfactory answer as to why the Crop Insurance Agency - why would the Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency be in here? There seem to be an awful lot of agricultural type boards in this act, even more so than any other sector of our society. I would say that somebody asked for a list - land surveyors, why wouldn't land surveyors be on this list? Land surveyors are in existence by an act of this Legislature. The land surveyors and the lawyers of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are established by an act of this legislature. I do not know why they are not included in here. The engineers, I would imagine, have an act in this legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Law Foundation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Law Foundation, so I am told. We have the Architects Association formed and all these professional groups who are formed by acts of this legislature. It says in this act, Mr. Speaker, that all boards, commissions and agencies - I cannot find it there right now - who are formulated by an act of this Legislature. Now I know it is a far flung theory to wonder if these people are affected. We know they are not affected because I know there are not many land surveyors in this place, but there is certainly a lawyer in a spot that is not going to affect, not in a position that would not allow their lawyers to be in here. It is probably wrong anyway. The lawyers should not be in this; the land surveyors should not be in this; no more should the Milk Marketing Board be in this; no more should the Egg Marketing Board be in this. I cannot understand the rationale of why they would be there. If you are going to freeze the price of eggs, which you cannot do because the Newfoundland Government does not have the power to freeze the price of eggs because the price of eggs is set on a national marketing scheme.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have five minutes to go. I have to (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, I hope when one of the Ministers gets up - and I am sure the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is going to get up just to explain to the farmers of this Province: is the price of milk frozen for the next year in this Province? Is the price of milk frozen by this act? Is the price frozen? Will the price of eggs be frozen because of this Act? Consumers will love you if you say yes; producers will not like you. Only if to put it in the deep freeze. So the price of milk is not frozen. That is good to hear. I am glad to hear that, because the on-farm producers and the manufacturers both need another increase in the price of milk. So the Minister will be dealing with that again. And I am glad to see that Bud Hulan looked at the last increases, all the last increases and said that the Milk Marketing Board has worked honestly in providing the increases, they were all justified, very much so, and I am sure the next increase will be just as justified. Mr. Speaker, I am sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Scott is gone, yes. He will not be doing anything with it. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture will be on his feet in a minute to explain why the Agricultural Board seems to be affected by this Act more than any other of the Boards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: The Lumbermen's Association, is it?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants you to bring in (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is true, as the Government House Leader has said, that normally debate on third reading on a piece of legislation in not only this Legislature but any Legislature which operates under the British Parliamentary tradition, is an extraordinary event. It is not true that it cannot be done or that it should not be done or that it must not be done. Our parliamentary rules allow, Mr. Speaker, for a bill to go through three stages in the parliamentary process: it has to go through first reading, it has to go through second reading which is the major debate on the principle of the bill, then it has to go through Committee of the Whole and then it has to go through third reading.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to Your Honour and to Members of the House that there is a reason for that. If that was not the case, it would mean that governments could run roughshod over the elected parliament, governments could bring in a piece of legislation one day, I suppose, conceivably, and have it passed into law before that day was over, or certainly it could have it passed into law the next day.

So our parliamentary traditions make it a little bit more difficult for governments to pass and enact legislation, and so it should. And one of the prime reasons why a government should have some difficulty - and by difficulty I mean parliamentary difficulty - in effecting and passing legislation into law is epitomized in Bill 16, the bill we are now debating on third reading today. There is no better example as to why governments should have to jump over or get through or get around a number of parliamentary roadblocks before a piece of legislation is finalized by the elected parliament. There is no better example of why that should be so than Bill 16.

Because the Government would have liked nothing better I am sure than to have had this bill approved quickly. Now at the end of the process the Government will have its way. None of us are acting under any illusions. But luckily the parliamentary process and rules provide for opportunities not only for parliamentary delay, delay in the parliamentary sense, but for, hopefully, reflection. Hopefully that is what the three stages of parliamentary debate are all about. Because governments are not entrusted with all the wisdom of mankind. Governments from time to time make mistakes, do things wrong. Even former Speakers from time to time made bad decisions.

Nevertheless, the fact that we have to go through a process of three readings and three individual, distinct series of debates provides an opportunity for a government - if it is listening to the people it represents and to constructive criticism from the elected parliament - to change its mind, to moderate its position, to tone down its position, to change, in any of the processes under the various procedures. There was an opportunity in second reading for the Government to modify and reflect on the dogmatic, hard-nosed, hobnailed-boot approach they have taken on this piece of legislation. There was an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in Committee of the Whole for Government to modify, tone down, change some of the more draconian effects of this piece of legislation. And again there is an opportunity today and tomorrow and the day after if Government allows this third reading debate to continue, for the Government to modify its position, to tone down it dogmatism, to show some kind of flexibility, to try to meet and to try to accommodate legitimate concerns raised by Members of this Legislature and people on whom this legislation will most negatively impact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, yes it is true that this is an unusual debate, but this is an unusual piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is for sure.

MR. RIDEOUT: Bill 16 is the type of legislation seen not only in this Parliament, but it is the type of legislation rarely seen in any Parliament. There are not too many Members in this Parliament who can recall similar legislation in other Parliaments, for example, within our own country. I am sure there is no Member here, because there are none here longer than I have been as far as I know - I do not know if the Minister of Fisheries has been in this Parliament longer. He has been in and out, but I do not know if he has been here longer. But I cannot recall a similar piece of legislation in my time here, which retroactively takes away negotiated or arbitrated settlements - I cannot recall. And I cannot recall many instances, and I have been a follower of political activity across Canada for some twenty-five or longer years now, but I cannot recall, with one possible exception, when this type of legislation was bought before any other Parliament in Canada. I know the Parti Québeçois Government in Quebec after the 1975 election, after they had given dramatically liberal increases to the public sector, found themselves not been able to handle those negotiated settlements fiscally and they rolled back wage settlements that were given to their employees. I do not know if it was done through legislation. Maybe the Cabinet in Quebec had the authority to do it, I do not know. But that is the only instance I am aware of where a Parliament has dealt with a bill to take back what was freely given in a volunteer collective bargaining process, operating under the basis of laws already approved by the duly elected Parliament of the Province or the country.

This is a precedent. This is a precedent like no other, I say to this House, and all the more reason for this particular bill to be withdrawn, all the more reason for Government to have the intestinal fortitude to say, we will consider. Now, I do not know if Government will do it or not, Mr. Speaker, but we are pleading with them so to do.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Government House Leader has given notice of closure on Bill 16. Of course it is within the Government House Leader's prerogative to do that, as it is in his prerogative to call it when he sees fit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it happened when Your Honour was out of the Chair. However, acting on the assumption, Mr. Speaker, that there is still some semblance of democratic belief left in the Government, acting under the assumption that the Government House Leader is quite prepared to allow debate on third reading of this bill to continue for another several days, acting under the assumption that the Government House Leader is not a dictator, that the Government House Leader will not use the hobnail boot approach to hammer the Opposition into the ground and use parliamentary rules that he is permitted to use and close off debate totally, and recognizing, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps this is the first time, as far as I know in the history of this Parliament, that any piece of legislation has had closure forced on it in all three stages. This bill has had closure forced on it in second reading, closure forced on it again in Committee of the Whole, and we now have notice of closure on third reading. But acting under the assumption that there is still an ounce of humanity left in the Government House Leader, acting under the assumption that he and the Government would like to find a way out of this box they have boxed themselves into, I want to move the following amendment to Bill 16, seconded by my colleague for Humber East. The amendment is this, Mr. Speaker: I move, seconded by the Member for Humber East, that the motion for third reading of Bill 16, and that is the motion that is before the House now, be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'that', and that is, of course, that this bill be now read a third time. That all the words after 'that' be deleted and substituted with the following, 'Bill 16, An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence'. I pass this along to Your Honour for Your Honour's usual consideration with wisdom, and then wait Your Honour's guidance.

MR. SPEAKER: For the benefit of hon. Members, the motion before the House now, is, that this bill be now read a third time and in amending the motion, it now becomes that this bill be not now read a third time, but sometime hence and I take that motion to be in order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, very much, Your Honour. There can only be one hope now, Mr. Speaker, the only hope can be now, is that the Government House Leader will move off his dictatorial stand and allow debate on this bill to continue. We now can debate the motion and we can now articulate and elaborate on all the reasons why this bill should not be considered for six months and there are thousands of reasons; there are thousands of reasons in human terms why this bill should not be considered for another six months. I have a dozen or more colleagues over here, Mr. Speaker, who want to participate in telling this House, I have a dozen or more colleagues over here who want to participate in trying to convince the Government House Leader to move off the dictatorial, intransigent position that the Government has adopted.

I am sure that our friend for St. John's East, would like to participate in telling the Government why this bill should be put on the shelf for six months and then, having done that and voted on that, there are a dozen or so of my colleagues who want to continue to speak on third reading of this bill, so our plea to the Government House Leader this evening -

MR. SIMMS: Wake up.

MR. RIDEOUT: - is to reconsider, reconsider - this bill is the most unprecedented piece of labour legislation affecting more people than any other piece of labour legislation ever brought into this House by any Government, be it Tory or Liberal, in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador since Confederation, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SIMMS: Take this bill and shove it. Johnny Paycheck.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just did not want to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just enjoying the little back and forth here; we have a minute left.

I move that this House, at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, and that the House do now adjourn.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader, our friend the Government House Leader could tell us what is on the agenda for tomorrow. Does he intend to continue with this debate, and I wonder, could he give us a tiny bid of advance, since the warning is there of possible closure, what would be the business after that?

I think he mentioned one time before the tax bills on gasoline and tobacco, is that still his plan as the next item -

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated at a previous time that there were a couple of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes. The loan guarantee and the other guarantee, there are two loan guarantee bills, I believe, one related to municipalities and the other loan guarantee. So I believe I indicated previously I would be calling those but my intention, my very strong desire, at this present time - although I am not saying things cannot change between now and tomorrow - but if my inclination were as it were right now I would call the same order again tomorrow.

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