May 1, 1992                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                 Vol. XLI  No. 28


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Statements.

MR. SPEAKER: We revert to Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take two or three minutes. I haven't a prepared statement but I wanted to take this first opportunity just to fill the House in very briefly on what occurred. I won't take long, because I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to be here for Question Period and he has to leave at about 9:45 to catch a flight, so I won't be very long.

I should tell hon. members that when the trip was originally scheduled, it was scheduled in response to requests by the Canadian clubs at the Canadian Forces' bases in Lahr, Geilenkirchen and Baden-Baden to speak to them on a variety of matters in Canada, but particularly, the constitutional issues. So they provided the transportation, and you will be happy to know that it saved the Government of the Province at least transportation costs and much of the costs for most of the first part of the trip.

I would draw hon. members' attention to one thing. I found there a very high level of awareness in thousands of Canadians in Europe about this question. They are good ambassadors for us, making the issue known and dealing with the issue in Germany. Now, it may help, of course, that a fair number of them are Newfoundlanders. You run into a great number of Newfoundlanders over there. But I wanted to say to you that they were excellent in that regard.

To deal more specifically with the fisheries issues, we met in Hamburg with representatives of nongovernmental organizations, one, in particular, and I have copies of the release they issued the day we had the meeting. The World Wildlife Fund issued its own release, calling on the European community to respond immediately to address these issues and expressing their support for Canada's position on the issue. There were other representatives at the meeting, and a NAFO scientists who expressed his full support for Canada's position on it, and told us in very clear terms that he was supportive of our position.

We held a news conference and there was a good representation there from news media, significant environmental news media in Europe, including a Greenpeace publication. We then held a meeting with industry representatives. In particular, I can express great encouragement from the comments of one, Dr. Cook, who is the President of the German Trawler Association. He undertook to bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the European community, Commissioner Marin, when he meets with the Commissioner later this month, to cause them to abide by NAFO's rules and quotas.

That was the position we took with all of them throughout, that what we were asking of the European community was simply to abide by the rules and quotas established by the international organization to which they belong. As long as we maintain that position we develop the good strong level of support in a variety of places. But there is one area that needs to be addressed, and that came up in my discussions with Dr. Kittel, who is the minister responsible for food, agriculture and forestry, and, as such, has responsibility for fisheries in Bonn, and with one of his assistants, Mr. Kleeshulte, who has responsibility for German representation on fisheries matters in the European community.

They point out one area of inconsistency in Canada's position, in that we have pressured NAFO to put in place a moratorium outside the 200-mile limit on Northern cod, with none inside. They say there is clearly no scientific justification for that; so that, they claim, is the basis on which the European community sets its unilateral quota. There is a fair amount of logic in their position. It does not mean that there should be substantial access to Northern cod. There should not be. About 3 per cent to 5 per cent of Northern cod are really fairly attributable to the area outside the 200-mile limit, and that is an area in respect of which Canada might carry on some discussions with them, but it would also improve Canada's bargaining position to deal with that issue.

Those meetings went quite well. There was then a further meeting with Dr. Von Geldern, the Chairman of the Federal Parliamentary Committee on the Environment. We obtained a commitment of support from him, as well.

The European community has a very convenient way of saying, 'Well, it is not us; it is the member states.' And the member states have a very convenient way of saying, 'Well, it is not us; it is the European Commission.' So they keep sending you further around the circle. I told them that we had done this for five years. The Canadian Government had made tremendous diplomatic efforts over the last five years, and it has only resulted in substantial increase in the level of foreign overfishing, so that now our purpose was to cause the maximum level of embarrassment possible for European community nations, to bring pressure to bear on them to cause a change. I was quite frank with them and told them that was the objective, and that was the objective we would continue.

In Brussels, we met with the Commission officials, and a variety of them. The official we met with on the environment was quite good and understanding, although he could not make any direct commitment. Then we met with the Deputy Director General for Fisheries, Mr. Alamieda Serra. That is where we ran into an absolute blank wall. If ever I encountered a person who was very antagonistic and very difficult, he would have to be the individual. Having spent nearly an hour with him, I can have some understanding for the level of difficulty Mr. Crosbie and other federal ministers who have attempted to deal with him have had over recent years.

I spoke at the Royal Institute of International Affairs and had a good response there from representatives who had particular interest and from news media around Europe who were there; and, as well, the European Commission had sent their top scientists there to deal with the issues. He raised their position and I think we dealt effectively with it, so, all in all, that speech went quite well.

I then met with Belgian government officials, as well, to seek their support on an environmental basis. One of the last meetings I had was with the European Commission Deputy Director General for External Affairs, and I was quite encouraged by the discussions with him. His objective is to try to resolve this as an issue between Canada and the European community. He was quite interested in substantial detail of Canada's position, which I gave him, and I feel that that meeting with him was quite a valuable one.

To sum up, I can only say, don't expect solutions next week, but things are starting to move. I arranged a meeting with Mr. Crosbie. I intended to arrange a meeting in Ottawa on the way back but he was coming back on the plane, so I met with him briefly on the plane last night and reported to him fully on the discussions so that he would be fully aware. He told me that already he has received a request from the European Commission to speed up the meetings and cause them to be held some weeks earlier than they were originally scheduled, so it appears that it is having some impact.

My own assessment of it is that, with the efforts of UNCED in New York and these efforts in Europe, and the efforts Mr. Crosbie has made in Cuba and Panama, all in all, we are bringing some pressure to bear on the European community and they are starting to feel the effects of it, so that the objective, now, should be to keep the pressure on all fronts until we get a satisfactory resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to report at a future time in more detail, but I don't want to take extra time today.

I do want to take one more minute just to express my gratitude to all of the embassy officials in Bonn, in Brussels and in Hamburg for their excellent co-operation and for all that they did to accommodate me and to facilitate presentation of this issue. Every one of them without exception performed in an excellent way and I want to publicly acknowledge that.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for accommodating me this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for giving us a bit of an update on his excursion and his trip. As he knows, and as I hope the people of the Province know, we are supportive of any endeavour that will bring about a resolve to this most difficult problem we all face. The only thing we have ever suggested, I guess, and I am not sure if it has been really acted upon, is that we are prepared on this side to offer our assistance in any way that we can, and I make that offer again to the Premier sincerely. If there is any way that I, as Leader of our party and Leader of the Opposition, might be able to help and participate in making sure that the effort is seen as an non-partisan joint effort of this Legislature then I am quite prepared to do it, and most willing to do it. In fact I made the same offer to the Prime Minister when I met with him a month or so ago and he immediately accepted that offer and invited me to participate with the Canadian delegation at the conference in Rio de Janeiro next month. I will be doing that and I trust that the Premier as well will be there, and others. Within the Premier's comments I think there was an indication from him that the effort is being made by everybody. I was pleased to hear him make that kind of a comment because I think that is the kind of approach that will work. It is certainly the kind of approach that the public, who are pretty cynical as it is about politicians, would like to see and like to hear about. I hear that as I travel around this Province, and I think that is the way the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see the thing done. You do your thing, the federal government does their thing, we do our thing, but the effort is to attack the problem and to try to bring pressure to bear on the European community in whichever way we can, in whichever manner we can.

I thank him for giving us an update. We may have questions to ask as time goes on but we will see how successful, I guess, his efforts, Mr. Crosbie's efforts, and anybody else's efforts will be towards the latter part of this year, I guess. That will be the key point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could address these remarks to the Premier for a few moments. I would like to thank the Premier for updating the House and to congratulate him on his efforts in bringing the issue of all foreign overfishing to the source of the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to make sure that the Chair makes the proper acknowledgement and ruling here. Could I assume that the hon. Member for St. John's East has the agreement of the House?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The efforts of the Premier in going to the source of the problem are to be commended and I appreciate him taking the time to explain some of the results of this to the House. As the Leader of the Opposition has said and as I have said on previous occasions both opposition parties support any efforts by the government to deal with this problem in a serious way, as he is making his efforts, and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated the same on his visit to Ottawa speaking to the Prime Minister. I would like to inform the members of the House that this weekend I will be travelling to Ottawa to a federal council meeting of the New Democratic Party where I will be pressing a resolution which will when adopted, and I am very confident that it will be, will also seek to increase the pressure on the Government of Canada to take the most serious action, to start taking control over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and to enforce the type of custodial management that is required to ensure that our own fishery, and indeed this fishery for all the world is protected. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a statement today regarding the household hazardous waste day in the Province this Sunday, May 3. Residence of the -

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't wish to interrupt the member, but I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition beforehand when I asked his consent. I know he has to leave, and I know that he wants to participate in Question Period before he has to leave. So if the minister doesn't mind, and the House doesn't mind I would like to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition by having Question Period first if that is what he wishes. We can revert to Ministerial Statements after.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there consensus on the Premier's request.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some energy related questions I would like to ask this morning. The first one I would like to put to the Minister of Environment concerning the Abitibi Greenwood Hydro Project for the Exploits River. Now just by way of a little bit of background, on April 13 of last year, 1991, the former Minister of Environment told us that the full environmental assessment was to begin last April and it would take eighteen months to complete that assessment. Then in September, of course, we found out that the project, in fact, had been put on hold until this Spring, since under her regulations, section five I believe it is, the minister's approval to undergo a full assessment expires in August of 1993, sixteen months away or thereabout. But since we were told it will take eighteen months to complete it, and since this is the Spring, even though you would not know it by the weather, I want to ask the minister if she can tell the House: is this project now about ready to start, as far as she knows, like any day now? When does she in fact anticipate the start of construction? I presume she has been having ongoing meetings with Abitibi officials to be kept up to date.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will undertake to go back and find out just exactly where the project is at this moment. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned about development in this Province and will not unduly hold up this particular assessment. However, we must, as well, proceed in a responsible manner. If at any time there is a holdup it is always done with the agreement of the proponent.

So I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I have full confidence in my staff in progressing with this matter. However, I will today, after Question Period, call over and make sure just what the status of that is and report back.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is not much point in pursuing that item, the minister is not aware of what is happening with it.

Let me ask a supplementary question on an energy related matter to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Energy. A little over a month ago the Minister of Mines and Energy told this House that the Hibernia partners were conducting a vigorous campaign all around the world to find new partners or a partner to replace Gulf. May I ask the Premier if the government has any encouraging news to report to the people of the Province, anything positive? Secondly, can I ask the Premier if he or the Minister of Mines and Energy in the last couple of months, since the original announcement was made of the delay, have had any meetings with the partners to be kept up to date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a fairly elaborate procedure in place, in fact. Peter Kennedy, who is the Deputy Minister responsible for monitoring the Hibernia events, the implementation of the Hibernia agreements and so on, has been involved and kept up to date constantly on behalf of the government and reports to me and to the minister on a regular basis. He is kept up to date in the discussions that are taking place with officials of the oil company partners and with officials of the federal government.

In addition to that, I have had a number of meetings and conversations - the majority, I think, have been telephone conversations - with the heads of the various oil companies and, of course, there have been discussions with Mr. Epp, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a matter of fact, I spoke with Mr. Epp yesterday about the matter. The provincial officials, company officials and federal government officials will be meeting in the next little while for a full and complete assessment of where matters now stand. Dr. Gibbons is in touch with - I know he spoke with Mr. Epp last week. He probably spoke with him again yesterday. I spoke with him yesterday. I know we will be in touch with him again in the next few weeks.

Because of the nature of this thing it is obvious that the government has detailed information that it is just not possible to disclose in a public way by a debate in the House. I am not trying to avoid reporting fully to the Province, Mr. Speaker. The nature of it requires that we be circumspect in any statements that we make at this particular time. But yes, there are constant discussions and meetings going on.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a further supplementary on that particular matter. I understand the need to avoid making detailed matters public at a sensitive time. But can he at least tell the people of the Province what kind of a time frame are we looking at? Give us some idea of what kind of a time frame we are looking at where he hopes that this matter will be addressed or finalized or resolved one way or the other. Are we looking at the end of summer, the end of June, the early fall or...? What are we looking at? Or what does he (Inaudible)...?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is difficult again to put a precise time on it, because I do not want to suggest that we are going to have an answer in three weeks or six weeks. Then, if the time does not come, or the matter is not resolved by that time, then all sorts of perhaps wrong conclusions are arrived at as a result. There is no specific and absolute time frame, but obviously the parties must come to a conclusion fairly soon. They cannot just leave this thing to go on forever. There are large sums of money involved for both the oil companies involved and the governments, so that the matter has to be resolved as quickly as is possible.

The only thing that I can say to you is that so long as everything appears to be going in a direction towards an acceptable solution nobody is going to cut off the action or say: it has to be done by a certain time. There are no absolutes in time frame, but all parties are aware of the importance of having it resolved very quickly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I want to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Energy who now has arrived in the House. It is related to a further energy matter and that is the Lower Churchill development. I want to ask the minister, he will recall that in this House on April 2 he told the Member for Menihek that the Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec negotiators had been meeting for the past two and a half years and had held nearly thirty meetings. I think he said thirty meetings, in fact, to be precise. Which was one a month.

The last meeting he said at that time was on March 3, and that Quebec had been since that time considering new proposals from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to ask the minister: has the Province of Quebec responded in any way to these proposals to this point in time? Secondly, I want to ask the minister: how many meetings has he had at his level with his provincial counterpart in the Province of Quebec, the Minister of Energy from Quebec, to discuss this very important economic initiative?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the meetings have primarily been between the two corporations, the Hydro Quebec negotiating team and the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro negotiating team, and not at the political level. The corporations are negotiating a commercial agreement. The Leader of the Opposition is right that I said that there had been thirty meetings to date, including all meetings, including a couple of the earlier ones that I did participate in when we initiated the discussions a couple of years ago.

The most recent meeting was March 3 and there has not been a full negotiating session since that time. We are waiting now, our team is waiting now, for the Hydro Quebec team to complete its assessment and inform our team that it is ready for the next meeting.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Is the minister saying that this is strictly a corporate negotiation and that there will be no political approvals required from the government of Quebec or from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Surely he isn't saying that, but that is what he has suggested. So therefore I ask again: when has this minister met with his political counterpart to discuss this matter of such importance? Why hasn't he?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the meetings that I had at the political level were at the early stage in the initiation of these discussions. After that the negotiating team started to meet. I am not saying there would not be some need to get approval at an appropriate time, but right now what is being negotiated is a commercial agreement on the power that is surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

My question also is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. A week or so ago the minister spoke to a business group in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, particularly concerning the Lower Churchill. I think it is well known that the Innu Nation in Labrador has concerns about the development of the Lower Churchill. Could the minister advise if he has met with representatives of the Innu Nation with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in Happy Valley - Goose Bay last week on energy issues in general. I covered numerous subjects in the energy sector. One of the subjects was the potential Lower Churchill development. So that clarifies that particular event last Friday.

On the other issue: No, I have not personally met with the Innu Nation and I would not be personally involved with land claims negotiations.

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

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

With a development such as the Lower Churchill and, Mr. Speaker, with the issue that the Innu Nation has expressed concerning this development, surely goodness wouldn't the minister do the proper thing of asking representatives of the Innu Nation to sit down with his department and discuss this in more detail? Because I think we have to make sure that this issue is looked after and taken care of before development starts.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if we should reach a letter of intent this year or at some other time, there will still be about a three-year time frame required to assess all other issues relating to the Lower Churchill development. I believe there is lots of time within that time frame for any issue related to native claims to be addressed if there is one.

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

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

Surely goodness the minister doesn't want to play a double standard here. On one hand we have the government talking about the land claims issue with the Innu people and, at the same time, talking with the Quebec counterpart with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I would ask him to get to his supplementary.

MR. WARREN: So, Mr. Speaker, could the minister not see fit to immediately talk with the Innu Nation concerning the development of the Lower Churchill because, as I said earlier, if the land claims issue is going to be dealt with, you better deal with it upfront instead of behind the scenes.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the land claims issue will be dealt with in the appropriate way by the appropriate agencies, not by me as the energy minister.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health but he is not around, so maybe it could be just as appropriately directed to the Minister of Social Services. Everyone is very much aware of the problems being experienced at this point in time by the provincial AIDS Committee. It has been in the news quite frequently over the last couple of days. They have had some problems down there with theft and what have you. The committee, as the minister is aware, provides a very valuable service in public education programs. I believe they travel around to schools within the Province, as well.

Would the government consider providing some interim financing in the way of a grant to the provincial AIDS Committee to help them through the crisis which they are presently experiencing?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is very much a health question and would be more appropriately addressed to the Health Minister. I will take it under advisement, advise him of the question and we will report back with an answer.

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

MR. DOYLE: Maybe the Premier or the President of Treasury Board could answer that question. Maybe the Premier is not fully aware of the problems because he has been away over the last couple of days, but it is a very straightforward, simple question to answer. They are having some problems right now, very, very serious problems.

So, would the government provide some interim financing in the way of a grant to the provincial AIDS Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I only know what I have been briefly advised, that there has apparently been some embezzlement problems in the committee and they have a shortage of funds. I understand there is a substantial public response, and the government welcomes that.

The government is not going to stand on the floor of the House and negotiate with the Opposition what it is going to give or not going to give. The Opposition seems inordinately anxious to spend the tax payers money, but they never say who is going to raise the taxes to provide the monies. The Minister of Health will no doubt watch the matter and see that it takes its course, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health will discharge his responsibility fully when the time comes.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, is the government or the President of Treasury Board aware that the organization at this point in time cannot meet its payroll next week? In spite of that the staff down at the Provincial AIDS Committee are going to continue working which is an indication -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs might think this is a big joke, but I can assure him this is no big joke. This particular committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to proceed with his question.

MR. DOYLE: - provides a very valuable service to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - especially to the schools in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - in informing people of the problems associated with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask hon. members again, when the Chair intervenes hon. members should please not continue speaking, unless they have not heard the intervention. The Chair, of course, has no idea if the member hears it or not. I would like for hon. members to keep that in mind. I ask the hon. member to please proceed with the question. I don't know whether he has completed it, but proceed with the question.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I was about to ask: is the government aware that the Provincial AIDS Committee organization cannot meet its payroll next week? In spite of that the staff, I am told, are going to continue to work, which is a very firm indication, I believe, of their commitment to their work. Now if the staff are going to work free of charge, surely the government should be in a position at this point in time to make some kind of a commitment to this committee in the way of interim financing, in the way of a grant to help them over this problem that they are experiencing. Now is the government willing to make that commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will just say again I have no doubt the Minister of Health is very much aware of the excellent contribution that is made by the AIDS Committee, and the valuable work that they do. The Minister of Health will do what is right to see that the situation is properly managed. The government is not going to just be responding to this kind of grand-standing in the House and say: Oh yes, we will put up whatever money is necessary to do whatever the Opposition wants the government to do. That is irresponsible. The Minister of Health will look after the situation in what is a responsible way both to the taxpayers and those who need the assistance of the AIDS Committee.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence I will ask the Premier. On March 9, 1992 the Minister of Fisheries made a statement regarding fishermen who have loans with the Fisheries Loan Board and the government guaranteed loans with chartered banks. From conversations with Fisheries Loan Board officials and fishermen I have been told that not all fishermen will qualify for this interest relief through the chartered banks. Is this the case? Why don't all fishermen qualify?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: My recollection, I have to say it is a little vague, of what the minister announced was that he announced help where help was needed. He did not announce that we were going to send out all kinds of dollars to everybody who has a loan and who has not caught an acceptable level of fish. My recollection is that he announced a level of help to the extent that it was needed and justified. So it may well be that some fishermen would qualify for it and others would not.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How does the Premier square this answer he just gave with one given on December 15, 1989 when I was questioning him on a similar program that was introduced in 1988 when the Premier said: Let me indicate that it did not seem there was some discrepancy. It was an example of the former government's misadministration of a program where they provided help for one group and excluded others in what I think is a quite unfair way. We have undertaken, I know, to review this matter. And he goes on to say: It was quite unfair in 1989 and if this program was unfair then we are going to rectify it. How does the Premier square that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is very easy, Mr. Speaker. It was obviously a different situation and help was provided to the extent that help was needed. The government does not have the millions of dollars to lash out to everybody whether they need it or not, to somebody who has made a very substantial income from fishing, and there are fishermen who have and who do not need that kind of assistance. So the government is going to provide the help on a fair basis to the extent that the help is needed and justified on an equitable standard for everybody without distinguishing between groups, as I said in December 1989. We do not differentiate between groups. We provide help on a fair and rational basis for everybody.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this answer by the Premier is not satisfactory because the Premier in 1989 said that it was unfair and unbalanced. This program is exactly the same program. Those with the Government Guaranteed Loan Program do not qualify, some do, some do not, all qualify under the Fisheries Loan Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and he is now giving a speech.

MR. WINSOR: How does this different treatment for fishermen constitute the fairness and balance that the Premier talks about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have every confidence that what the minister announced this year provides fair and balanced treatment for everybody who needs the help the same as the earlier program did, but I will get that specific question back in December. What day was it?

MR. WINSOR: December 15, 1989.

PREMIER WELLS: December 15, 1989. I will get that out of Hansard, find out what the specific situation was then, and I will advise the House as to whether or not there are any differences whatsoever, and if there are I will let the House know.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Development who I believe is responsible for Enterprise Newfoundland as well as his departmental duties. Last year we had, what I call generic press statements from Enterprise Newfoundland or from the minister about jobs created and loans given, and such things as that. It seemed to be fairly successful but we have never seen a list of individual loans to individual companies. Can the minister tell this House if he is willing to provide to this House and to the public a list of the individual loans that were given out to different companies, the list of the names of the companies they are given to, and also which of these companies have availed of the loans? There are sometimes loan offers made but the companies just cannot afford to take them up because of different circumstances. Will the minister agree to provide to this House a list of those names?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and a timely one. I do not know if my friend opposite has been talking to the CBC Corporation or what but they had requested that a couple of months ago. Certainly, we are compiling a full list. It is a good question. When we first started structuring Enterprise Newfoundland it was difficult, as we were going through the transition from NLDC to ENL, to determine whether it would be right and proper to give out information concerning companies but now, as you know, we have put a waiver in place and companies that come to us seeking interim financing equity or loans sign that waiver and give us permission therefore to say that the government is supplying X amount of money by way of equity, or X amount of money by way of a small low interest loan, or any of the various programs that we have in place.

I have instructed the corporation to develop that full list of each company and how it has been helped. The hon. member will know that Enterprise Newfoundland is not in the business of giving out grants, unlike their counterpart ACOA that gives away money, either 50 per cent, 75 per cent, or in some cases through interest buy-downs. We are in the business of lending money. We believe that people who come to us should take a risk and we are prepared to participate in that risk. In essence the list is being compiled and as soon as it is developed and fully completed and compiled I will be willing to share that with the House. Of course I have to give it to my CBC friends as well.

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

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

I know there are a couple of lists in the department now. I know that from staff. There are a couple of lists. Is it possible that these lists can be tabled rather quickly? How long will we have to wait for the computers to get back in shape, which I believe the excuse was? Somebody in the department told CBC that was why they could not get a list. I don't know what could happen to the computers that they have been down for so long but, Mr. Speaker, can the minister give us an indication as to when we can expect a list and can we get some of the preliminary lists that are available presently?

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

MR. FUREY: I see that my friend has been talking to CBC, as well. What we have said to CBC is that we are not prepared to give partial lists, or bits of lists, or part A of a list and B next week. I told them we are going to compile a comprehensive and full list. Some of the problems are, is it right to include in a list the company that had an approval but, through no fault of their own, they could not take up that money, so, should that be removed from the list? These are the kinds of questions we are dealing with.

And truly, there was a computer failure, too, in some of our regional offices. It was difficult to compile a list because of - I don't know what it is - power outages or whatever but there were computer problems. So I have instructed the five regions to bring in the companies' names that have been helped and that have taken up loans or equity positions through Enterprise Newfoundland. I promise you, it will be a full, comprehensive, clear list and I will table it as quickly as possible.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Doesn't the minister consider it rather ironic that Enterprise Newfoundland, who are dealing with businesses - businesses depend solely on efficiency, that is how they are going to survive in this Province - that the government agency which deals with them is not efficient enough to be able to tell people who have loans from them and how much these loans are?

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

MR. FUREY: No, Mr. Speaker. What I consider ironic, is that the Opposition fail to realize and give credit to the government for structuring a superb corporation which helps small and medium-sized businesses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that the hon. member will not stand in his place and say: You have helped 405 businesses last year - good job, government. What I find ironic is that the hon. member knows we have helped create 1,500 new jobs through this corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Finally, Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that the hon. member knows in his heart of hearts, that the corporation, through its various lending programs, protected and maintained another 3,000 jobs right across this Province. Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that the Opposition cannot see a good thing and have the heart to stand and say: Well done, government, you are on the right track; keep it up and let us all work together to create more jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to say that if I believed it, but, what is actually happening, and the minister might want to confirm this, is that Enterprise Newfoundland and the Economic Recovery Commission are costing some $20 million or $26 million to do the exact, same job and not nearly as efficiently as the old Rural Development Board and the Newfoundland Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the old Rural Development Board created more jobs and helped more small companies than Enterprise Newfoundland did, at one-tenth of the cost.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism. I am not sure there was a question.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't sure there was a question there, but I can only tell the hon. member, that, you know, you have to compare apples and apples, and the way this government has performed is we have put a capital budget in place for Enterprise Newfoundland of $24 million. We have created 1,500 new jobs across the Province and maintained and protected 3,100 others.

Now, let us compare -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Be nice, now. Mr. Speaker, we have to compare apples and apples. Now, what did the previous government do with $24 million? They created 200 jobs for two months, growing cucumbers, case closed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East. There is time for a short question.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: The unemployment rate is 25 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, all thinking Newfoundlanders will have been shocked to learn this week, on the eve of a province-wide literacy conference being held in St. John's and Provincial Libraries Week, of the announcement that provincial libraries will be shut down for a period of two weeks this summer because of a lack of funds to be able to operate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is simply this, and it would be either to the Minister of Education or to the Premier to answer this question: Is his government satisfied to see that happen and to see whatever progress that we are trying to make in terms of building our educational network of literacy amongst the population and the availability of this kind of resource - is the government going to let this happen or is the government going to do something about it and prevent it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I heard the interview on the news this morning and the discussion about it. I heard the minister responsible explain it in some significant detail. There is no trouble to keep everything open, everything operating fully if we have lots of revenue, if we are prepared to pay the taxes, if members are prepared to give up their salaries or if they are prepared to designate the hospitals that are to be closed, or to decide what roads are not going to be operated or maintained and what roads are going to be closed.

The government established its Budget and the Libraries Board decided that this was the best way to live within the limitations. Now these financial limitations, as the hon. member well knows, are brought on by three primary factors, first, the substantial reduction by the federal government. And when I say 'reduction', I mean in absolute dollars. They transferred less last year than they did two years ago in the total transfers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: It is, it is in the books, just take a look at it. It is there in the Budget, look at it, it is there to be seen. In actual dollars it was less last year than the year before. In actual dollars it was less in this past year than it was two years ago. So we have to try to live within our means. Now, we can close down hospitals, we can close down schools, or we can say to everybody: Everybody has to restrain their expenditures.

Now the Libraries Board - it is regrettable, but they decided to do it this particular way. The government could say to them: No, we don't want you to do it that way, we want you to lay off ten people, or twenty people, or close two libraries permanently instead of closing them all for two weeks. However, we trust the judgement of the Libraries Board. We assume they know best how to operate. They know what their financial limits are. But the government can't scuttle its Budget every time the Opposition tries to make some hay out of a decision that people make in the management of their funds. We have to act responsibly.

Now, I know the role of the Opposition is to try to make life as difficult as they can for the government, but they also have to be honest with the people of this Province and recognise that the funds are simply not there to do everything to the extent that we would like to do them. We trust the judgement of the Libraries Board; we think they are better equipped to make that decision than we are.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item of business, on behalf of hon. members, I welcome to the galleries, thirty students from Mount Pearl Junior High, St. John's West district, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Gordon Hicks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the understanding was that we would do Question Period and then revert to Ministerial Statements. Was that the understanding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a Ministerial Statement that I gave this morning at a press conference that I would like to do, but I was going to ask leave first to say a few words about a great volunteer in my district who is retiring today after fifty years of work, if I can have leave of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much.

One of my constituents who has been a volunteer in the St. John's area all his life and has made a great contribution, particularly to softball in the higher levels area, is retiring today from the City of St. John's, where he has worked for the last fifty years. This gentleman is a member of the Softball Hall of Fame in Newfoundland. His name is Fred Jackson, Sr. A lot of us are probably more familiar with the name of his son, Fred Jackson, Jr. recently, who is also very involved and following in his father's footsteps. Certainly, I want to pay my respect to Mr. Jackson and wish him all the best today, upon his retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Member for St. John's North in offering our congratulations -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's West.

MR. R. AYLWARD: West, I am sorry - in offering our congratulations to Mr. Jackson. I was a beneficiary of some of his work, because I played in some of the minor softball around the St. John's area. I was never very good at it. I never excelled, and I don't ever expect to make the Hall of Fame, but I do, as a person, appreciate the work that Mr. Jackson did for a lot of young people in this area, particularly in the higher levels area.

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, this morning, I shared a press conference at 8:30 with the hon. John Crosbie, at which we announced the conclusion of the deal for Hope Brook Mine by Royal Oak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: I am very pleased that the agreement between Royal Oak Mines and British Petroleum Resources to purchase the Hope Brook Mine has now been successfully completed.

I wish to offer my personal congratulations and best wishes to Ms. Peggy Witte, President of Royal Oak Mines, as well as her management team who have successfully put this agreement together. I want to recognize also the role of the United Steelworkers of America and its members who have been very co-operative with Royal Oak in working towards the common goal of mine reactivation and reemployment of the workforce.

This mine, in full operation, will employ about 240 people directly, and we estimate, approximately 150 indirectly, through jobs created in the service sector. As of this morning, Ms. Witte informed us that forty-four people are working at the site right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The others will be recalled gradually, and the mine should be back in full operation by July.

The Province will provide some assistance to Royal Oak in this project. We will reimburse Royal Oak with an annual operating grant of $200,000 per year to help cover the cost of operating the first class medical facility at the site. This facility is necessary because of the remoteness of the site, and is an additional cost which is not borne by any other mining operation in the Province which would have access to public hospitals.

In addition, the Province will provide some partial relief from retail sales tax during the early years of operation. However, Royal Oak will pay all other taxes of general application, including the payroll tax, fuel tax and income taxes.

The total assistance being provided to Royal Oak by the Province will be recovered in general tax revenues from the project in the early months of operation. Over the projected seven year mine life, the Province will receive approximately $25 million in direct and indirect taxes, and the additional spending by employees, and the purchase of goods and services will also undoubtedly contribute significantly to our economy.

Today's announcement is good news for the mining industry, for the mine workers and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that this reactivation of Hope Brook Mine marks the beginning of a turnaround in the mining industry which has suffered considerably in recent years, but which is still one of our leading resource industries and has the potential to contribute to significant economic growth in this Province for many, many years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am, indeed, pleased that this news has finally been forthcoming. The unions involved in this particular mine have been in contact with me on a number of occasions and I have raised some of their concerns in Question Period in the House of Assembly and addressed them to the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. It is good to see that the federal government, the provincial government, the unions and now a new company have come together in a co-operative manner with the necessary finances, etc., to reopen and to salvage this formerly excellent P.C. project.

It is also good, I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, in a parochial manner, I suppose, for my own district of Green Bay, which is the centre of the mineral exploration and servicing industry for the Province of Newfoundland. There are a number of companies there who will, no doubt, benefit from the reopening of this mine.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I still see a problem with regard to the mineral industry in this Province in that we don't have a good mineral exploration incentive program on the go. The previous program operated by the federal government having been eliminated, I think there is an onus on the Province to pursue this matter with the federal government and, if necessary, pursue a cost-shared stimulation program so that we can open new mines in addition to salvaging old P.C. mines through increased mineral exploration activity in the Province.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the announcement and my congratulations to all concerned.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Minister of Environment and Lands, the Chair would like to make a correction in a welcome that I just made. I was reading my notes and on them it said, `Students from the Junior High in Mount Pearl in the District of St. John's West.' The Chair didn't think it was correct, but since it was on the notes I didn't know what had happened. But I want the students to know that they are not in the District of St. John's West, that they are in the District of Mount Pearl.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I am about to offer my colleagues here in the House who reside in St. John's a really good way to do their house cleaning or their spring cleaning this weekend, an opportunity to bring all their hazardous waste to the Avalon Mall. I will read my announcement so they will just be clear on what is going to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce the first-ever Household Hazardous Waste Day in the Province this Sunday, May 3. Residents of the St. John's metro area will be able to drop off their household hazardous waste at the Avalon Mall parking lot beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday.

The aim of the Household Hazardous Waste Project is two-fold. First and foremost, the program will educate the public on the hazards of common household chemicals.

The public will be notified of the specific hazards of improper disposal, storage and use of common household chemicals. Further details will be available on how to properly handle, store and dispose of household chemicals.

Secondly, this project will provide the general public an opportunity to drop off all unwanted household hazardous waste at the Avalon Mall parking lot.

Volunteers will unload waste from cars and bring it to areas where trained technicians will sort and pack substances. Testing will occur and waste will then either be reused, recycled, incinerated or buried in secure landfill.

The Janeway Poison Control Center and other interested groups will be present during the Household Hazardous Waste Day to provide information to the public.

Household Hazardous Waste Day will be supervised by a hazardous waste disposal contractor who will guide individuals to specific drop-off areas depending on the waste material to be discarded.

The Household Hazardous Waste Day is a joint effort of the Household Hazardous Waste Day Committee and is sponsored by Environment Canada's Environmental Partners Fund, the provincial Department of Environment and Lands, Q-93 and KIXX Country, the City of St. John's, Newfoundland Telephone, Action: Environment, and North American Resource Recovery Limited. Mr. Speaker, what an example of co-operative efforts in dealing with the environmental issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I commend this Committee for their dedication and hard work in developing this project. I encourage all households in the area to participate in the Household Hazardous Waste Day this Sunday so that everyone can do their part in ensuring its success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I too want to congratulate the sponsors of this project, as minuscule as it is in trying to protect our environment. It is certainly a start and we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was never Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker, and had I been Minister of Environment I think I could come up with some more ingenious idea of trying to clean up our environment than this. But again, it is important to do this. I do not want to take away from any effort at all to try to clean up the environment of our Province and keep our Province looking clean. It has to be done.

I am concerned, I guess, about what is going to happen to this material. In the statement it says it will be re-used, recycled, incinerated. I do not think we have a proper incinerator in this Province to incinerate hazardous materials. So I don't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, these are hazardous materials, as far as I understand. So I would imagine these materials will be shipped out of the Province to be incinerated, as far as I know, or it will be buried in a secure landfill site. Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, again we do not have a secure landfill site for hazardous materials in this Province. These would be two initiatives that the minister could have taken on to help out the people who are sponsoring this type of activity. The department of government could be trying to establish some type of an incinerator that could handle hazardous waste for Newfoundland. Not hazardous waste for the rest of North America.

I find it rather interesting to note that one of the sponsors is North American Resource Recovery Limited. I am glad to see that they are interested in doing something to help clean up the environment of Newfoundland. I am a bit more concerned about their initiatives in other areas, but I am glad to see that they are - I do not understand why they are involved in this. If it is part of their PR project for their initiative in Long Harbour, I'm not sure. But I am glad they are involved and I hope they contribute to cleaning up some of the waste that we have.

One of my members mentioned to me that Sunday seems not to be an appropriate day for this. I said I would mention that in passing. I have no problem what day we do these things as long as we do the cleanups that are necessary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - to try to keep our Province clean. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the report on the salaries and benefits of provincial court judges pursuant to Section 28 of The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

Notices of Motion

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two notices of motion today. One, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem of the Province." This little fellow will be coming forward to be honoured shortly. The puffin.

The second is, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act, 1973."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the reply to question number 15 appearing on the order paper yesterday, the question was: (i) the number of trips taken by the hon. the minister for the period September 17, 1991 to October 15, 1991, inclusive (including dates, destinations and the duration of each trip); and, (ii) the total of all expenses claimed as a charge against the taxpayer by the hon. the minister and persons accompanying him on all trips referred to in (i) above, including airfare, and all that kind of thing. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that I took no trips during that period, therefore there was no associated expenses charged to the taxpayers of this Province.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again rise today with another petition from the citizens of Little Bay Islands. This particular petition contains the signatures of twenty-eight citizens of that particular island. The prayer of the petition is as follows: We the undersigned residents of Little Bay Islands hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to instruct the hon. Minister of Fisheries not to approve the transfer either temporarily or permanently of the crab processing licence of S.T. Jones and Sons Ltd. to any other area of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this particular matter both in Question Period and with a couple of other petitions over the last few days, and I did receive an inkling of positive news from the hon. the Minister of Fisheries yesterday insofar as he indicated the proper and due process would be followed if and when the new owners of the Little Bay Islands crab plant were to put an application before him for a transfer.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the time, due process can also be used in due course after a temporary transfer is used to effect a permanent transfer. This is one of the main concerns of the people of Little Bay Islands, that once a licence comes off an isolated island separated from the mainland by a 45 minute ferry steam, that getting it back on the island from the mainland that licence is going to be difficult if not impossible.

One other thing that I do believe is part of due process, if you use the term loosely, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister agree to a request that my office has forwarded to his office for a meeting with a delegation from Little Bay Islands on this particular matter. I had my secretary check this morning before I came in the House. I still have not had a positive reply from the minister's office as to whether or not he is prepared to meet with the delegation from Little Bay Island to discuss their concerns, which I think if it is not part of the due process legally of a licence transfer process, then it is certainly part of the due process in terms of courtesy and good governance.

So I do hope that the minister, when he returns to this hon. House, will indicate to me and to the citizens of Little Bay Islands that he will agree to their request for a meeting with him. They prefer to meet with him on their island. Failing that, they are willing to send a delegation to St. John's to meet with him here.

Transfer of processing licences is not a routine matter and is one that requires careful consideration and a ministerial signature at the bottom of the page. In this particular case, given the nature of the administration we are in right now, I would say it would require the approval of the hon. the Premier as well.

So again I reiterate what I have said over the past number of days. The people of Little Bay Islands have mandated me to bring this forward to the public, to the media, to the hon. House of Assembly to bring forward their concerns. I am doing my duty in that regard, and I call upon the Provincial Government to do its duty to meet with the concerned citizens committee, the council, et cetera and to be very cautious and look very long and hard at any request for a temporary transfer, and make sure that if one is effected that the word temporary is indeed the operative word.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the petition. I table it and ask that it be referred to the appropriate department.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6. Can the Government House Leader inform the Chair whether or not this is the first reading?

MR. BAKER: First reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shop Closing Act," carried. (Bill No. 22)

On motion, Bill No. 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 7.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Registered Nurses Act, " carried. (Bill No. 19)

On motion, Bill No. 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10, the continuation of the adjourned debate on Bill No. 17.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased indeed to have a few words to say on Bill 17, or maybe I should call it, Mr. Speaker, the continuation of Bill 16, part two of Bill 16 because that is what it is. If this government is around after the next Budget I guess we will see Bill 18 coming, so we will have Bill No. 16, we have Bill No. 17, and if the government is around for another Budget undoubtedly we will see part three of the continuing saga to kill the union movement in this Province, and we will see Bill No. 18, undoubtedly. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very controversial piece of legislation which we have been debating over the last number of weeks. I can assure the Government House Leader that this debate is going to continue for quite some time yet. He is not going to be able to slip this legislation through as easily as he thinks he can. Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very controversial piece of legislation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Stephenville on a point of order.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I do not mean to interrupt the hon. member as I am going to enjoy his speech. Yesterday I adjourned the debate on this bill. The procedure is normally to see if the member is going to continue or not. I am just not sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the procedure is that the hon. member must stand in his place when the debate is called. The normal procedure is that when a member adjourns the debate obviously the member would carry on in the time that is left, but the hon. member must be here - obviously he cannot speak if he is not here - and secondly he must stand. I can only allow the hon. member if the Member for Harbour Main will consent because I have already recognized the Member for Harbour Main.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no difficulty in doing that. As a matter of fact I think the Member for St. John's East was going to speak as well, if the Member for Stephenville wants to continue on I have no difficulty with that. I can speak afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this with the consent of all hon. members?

The hon. the Member for Stephenville may continue the adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my apologies to the House. I was here but I just misunderstood the procedure even though I am not a rookie member like some hon. members. I have been here long enough and I should know but we do mess up these things once in a while. I do appreciate the other side, the Opposition, and especially the Member for Harbour Main for whom I have great respect. I always have and always will, and I appreciate his indulgence on this matter in allowing me just to finish up really what I was saying yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, what I was saying yesterday. I will certainly be around when the Member for Harbour Main speaks so I can indulge and listen to his comments, since he is very articulate when he speaks. I am sure he will put forward the views, as he should, of the opposition.

As I was saying yesterday, nobody is happy or nobody is jumping up and down when it comes to wage restraint. No government - no government in Canada, no government in the provinces, is excited about having to restrain wages or to put limits on spending, but you have to also face a reality. It does not matter what political stripe you are. At this point in time in this country you have to look at reality and make some decisions. It is important that you look at reality, because the decisions that we are making now, some of them are very tough. They are very tough decisions. They are not easy to make.

When a person gets in politics they do not get into politics to restrain spending or to restrain wages. Normally you are trying to get in to improve everybody's lot, but when you get in you also have to deal with the reality and to govern in a responsible manner. That is what the government of this Province is trying to do. There will be mistakes made, like every other government has done, but in the main most things that are done will be to the benefit of the people. What we are trying to do is face a reality, and face it up front, and deal with the problems that have been ongoing for years instead of kind of letting them go by the wayside and letting somebody else worry about them. There is a lot to be said for dealing with the problem.

The government may not be liked this week or next week because it had to deal with the specific problem, but in the long-term the people who are coming behind us, and even today, will appreciate what has been done in some of these areas, because in politics you are there for a certain length of time. You could always say: well I am just going to take care of my own time period and not worry about the future, but we have to have a bigger responsibility than that. It is time, and this government has done that.

This government has taken on a responsibility for the future; not for getting reelected again. It is trying to deal with some of the problems. We could all get in here and say: well we are only a year away from an election. We could go avoiding some tough choices. We could say: well why not go get another $100 million if we can find it, and make everybody happy for a few more months? Then what are we going to have? We get elected again and what do we have? What are we going to have? As the Minister of Treasury Board says: We are going to have a bankrupt Province. That is what we will have if we let it go a certain way, and it was recognized by the previous government on all kinds of occasions.

As a matter of fact, the whole 1980's - you talk about supposedly the good times in the 1980's. They were not that good. You go back and read some of the press releases and some of the budgets, and we appealed more to Ottawa in the 1980's than we have been doing in the 1990's for extra money. So it is not that all of a sudden the Liberal government gets in power and after a year we have this big problem. What we have is a created problem over fifteen - fifteen to twenty. So we have to decide as a government, are you going to be - well let's not worry about the next twelve months. Let's just go to the bankers and say: Look folks, give us some more money and we will worry about this thing again in another two years. Then we will try to fix it. If you try to fix a problem - imagine, take one year out of four and try to fix it one year out of four and not worry about the other three, I do not think it will be fixed. I think we have a major problem on our hands, and I think unfortunately that has been part of the problem over the years.

The nature of politics, and nobody is to be blamed for it as such, but the nature of politics is that sometimes it is too short-term. People do not worry about the long-term, and it is time. I think people out there are saying to politicians, not only here but all over Canada, worry about the long-term too, folks. Don't go buying our votes with our money. This is what has happened over all these years. We would love to go out and announce that we are going to do this, this, this, and this, and build this, this, this and this, but what are we going to do it with - borrow it on the backs again of the future generations who are coming behind us?

I had a look at all of the pension funds. We had a look at them when we came into government, and what have we been doing? Trying to fix them since we got in. We can go on too and not worry about it, I suppose. We can go ahead and give big increases in the wages, but I mean, where will we get the money from, you know, I mean it is just a sense of realism in the 1990s and I am happy to be part of a government that is trying to deal with it -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be ashamed.

MR. K. AYLWARD: At least, Mr. Speaker, I do not speak out of both sides, at least I am shooting it straight. The preachiness of the NDP, like we are going to do this and we are going to get up and (inaudible) on these social issues when there are other governments in Canada, now that they have been elected, now they have them in power and it will only be once though, it will only be once - in Ontario they are calling them the New Demolition Party. It will only be once, Mr. Speaker, because I was reading a speech from Bob Rae the other day and I said: what happened to him? I said: Aylward, what happened to him, because he is talking realism now and of course his budget yesterday tells you about realism and now, Roy Romanow and other premiers, the hon. Premier of Saskatchewan has to deal with realism; he is going to have to impose probably user fees in the medicare system, I mean, can you believe it? It is beyond me, but see, they are looking at user fees in Saskatchewan, the home of medicare, where they created it. So, Roy Romanow, who is an NDP, socialist left wing over there, not like the hon. Mr. Aylward on that side and the Mr. Aylward on this side, who are somewhere on the right and the left and the centre there, these people are on the left and they are saying: we are going to spend, spend, spend and we are going to get in there and we are going to take care of all your problems, but all of a sudden (inaudible) that is obvious in Ontario, but you see what is happening.

I mean, let us be realistic. I have a political philosophy but I am not going to have one that is deceptive to the people. Like I am not going to go out there and say yes, we are going to spend $100 million in the next twelve months and we go and get the money and in the next three years time, we go bankrupt. I mean you cannot do it anymore, you just cannot do it anymore.

The days of having this wonderful political philosophy where you can take care of everything and spend money on everything is over, it is just not realistic -

AN HON. MEMBER: We cannot afford principles.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Cannot afford principles, he says, cannot afford principles. Well, you know, I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for St. John's East. I cannot wait to hear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, I can wait that long but I will wait to hear his speech because I am looking forward to the constructive suggestions that his party -

AN HON. MEMBER: The alternatives.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - the alternatives, the creative suggestions that they are going to make. They can read the Budget, they know how much money the Province owes and so on and how much Workers' Compensation owes, how much the pension funds owe and how much money we now have on the operating current account deficit that we have. So you cannot hide all that. So I am sure that when the hon. member, who represents the NDP in the House of Assembly, the one member, when he finishes, I will be able to go through my notes and then go to the Budget and see how all of his suggestions fit into the Budget and then I will be able to (inaudible) I bet you. I am looking forward to it because I think what he should do, because he certainly knows what is going on, I mean he obviously knows what is going on -

AN HON. MEMBER: You would think he would have a few clues.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - well, I think what he should do is bring in his own budget, like his own hypothetical budget; I think that is what he should do because I would like to see it. I really would like to see what they would do differently from what we would do, you know, because Bob Rae, in Ontario is doing nothing different -

AN HON. MEMBER: He went in the hole.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - obviously, didn't he. He is not doing anything different and we will see what Saskatchewan is going to do. B.C. is not doing anything different I guarantee you, so it must be that the NDP in Newfoundland must be different from every NDP outside in the other provinces. It must be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Except that they all oppose Hibernia.

MR. K. AYLWARD: They all oppose Hibernia, well, we won't get into that, but I am looking forward to his suggestions because we are all here as members of the House of Assembly and we all can have a constructive say in what happens, but we should all, at least try to be credible in what we say. I mean if you are going to suggest, like, well do not raise that tax or do not take out that service or do not change this service, then, just give an alternative so in that way, people can then judge and balance the decision. To me it is just a fair way to look at it and it is a constructive way to look at it. The rhetoric of getting up and saying: you shouldn't do this and you shouldn't that, and what about this and what about that, when you haven't got an alternative, just doesn't fly any more, folks, it is just not flying. People out there are more - they were always intelligent. It is just that they used to believe the politicians all the time.

At least now they can believe this government. At least what we are trying to do - and maybe that's not good sometimes. Because some of the news is not so good. Sometimes it is not. But at least they know what is fact and what is going on and what the problems are. At least they know that the government is being forthright in saying: here is what we have, folks, and here is what we are trying to do. So they at least are not getting a - or not being deceived or not worried about: well all the government wants to do is get re-elected. The government has some tough problems. The government is trying to deal with some tough problems.

Other governments and other politicians might decide: we are going to avoid this problem now, we are going to wait, because we want to get re-elected. But while waiting, the Province and its finances go, as the hon. Member for St. John's South says, out the Narrows. That is where the finances go. So we have to keep them in order so that we can fulfil our social consciences. Because the Member for Gander, who is the President of Treasury Board, as far as I am concerned is one of the biggest social conscience politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. Always has been, as a matter of fact. He is in a tough position.

AN HON. MEMBER: A former New Democrat.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Former, well, he had some interest in it. He swayed a little bit at one time. He got a little left of centre, he just went off the road a bit, but anyway he came back. He, for example, has a social conscience, and he wants to fulfil it. In order to fulfil your social conscience you have to be able to get up in the morning, go to the Confederation Building, and open the door and not have it locked, to have the locks on it, because she's gone bankrupt. Alright?

So here is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get it on an even keel so that we can all fulfil our social consciences, so that we can all as members deal with the many problems that are out there. There are many problems in this Province, but there are also some good things happening out there. I was really happy to see The Globe and Mail article in the last couple of days. There were some tough decisions made there, but they were made for the right reasons. Now it is being seen across Canada as maybe the way to go. At least, there is an example of how to go about it, to go and consult your people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better than user fees.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Better than user fees, yes. So there are some good things happening, even in these tough times. The Opposition has every right, and it should criticise, and no problem with that. I just ask, and I look forward to, seeing the alternative solutions that will be coming across in their speeches. Because we as members here will listen and we will take down notes. I am sure that these suggestions will be looked upon very reasonably, as long as they are reasonable suggestions.

So in order to get up and to give the government a hard time, no problem with that, but I would like to hear some alternative solutions myself. As I said, Mr. Speaker, so far, in conclusion, I have not heard them. I guarantee you one thing. Ontario, they are trying to get out of there as fast as they can. Now that is a great province. Floyd Laughren is the minister for the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, and you know what he said yesterday? He said: this budget is for business and we hope it makes them happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh yes, that is what he said. We hope it makes them happy, he said. I was reading it and I said, I can't believe my eyes. I said, I know Bob Rae is switching a bit, but I mean gee, I just could not believe it.

Anyway, I look forward to it because like I said the NDP in Newfoundland are different from the NDP in Ontario, Saskatchewan and BC and everywhere else. At least they will know the problems we have in this Province, as they should. Again I say, we as the government are just trying to deal with the problems. We are going to make a few mistakes. Maybe our decisions are not going to be right all the time, but we are trying our best to do one thing. That is, face reality, and also to make it a better place for down the road. I think we are doing a pretty good job of it, and I commend the government for trying. Some people are not going to understand. I understand that. I mean, nobody likes it; as I said, there are some measures that we have to take, and the government doesn't like to have to take them, but you know, sometimes it has to be done. When they were the other government they had to take them, I'm sure, like the Member for Kilbride, he did not want to have to take them either. Maybe he enjoyed them, I don't know, but I don't think so, because the Member for Kilbride has a social conscience. He's an Aylward. He should have one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I do thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the indulgence of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for St. John's East, the Chair wants to make crystal clear for the record and for Hansard in the future that we know what is going on here. Members will recall that the hon. Member for Stephenville asked leave of the House to speak because he had adjourned the debate. The Chair had recognized the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, who graciously conceded that the hon. the Member for Stephenville could carry on. Quite appropriately, the next person to be recognized would be the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, but he is not here. Of course, under the circumstances, he has not forfeited his right to speak because he conceded and there was agreement of the House. The Chair wants to make that crystal clear for the future and for the present.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has not forfeited his right to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he has not forfeited his right to speak.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The debate that we are entering into is one about a piece of legislation that carries out through Bill 17 a diabolical act on the part of this government. Mr. Speaker, we have heard speeches which would suggest that this is a finance Act, a financial measure, a budgetary measure. Mr. Speaker, this is not a budgetary measure. It is not presented by the Minister of Finance as a budgetary measure, it is presented by the President of Treasury Board in his role as negotiator with the Public Service Unions, and his role as a person in whom they are asked to place their faith, that they can sit down and negotiate and make agreements in good faith, Mr. Speaker, as is required by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, by the Labour Relations Act for the other sectors of the economy. The foundations of our labour law, Mr. Speaker, and labour peace have to be based firmly on that notion of good faith bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a piece of legislation that for the second year in a row of this government destroys collective bargaining, destroys agreements that this government has signed, and in the case of Bill 17, even takes away what was being hailed last year as a great saving measure under Bill 16 the right to extend their collective agreement. That is being taken away, too.

Mr. Speaker, this government has compounded its disastrous approach to labour relations in this Province by striking at the very foundations of good labour relations, by destroying any sense of integrity that one might expect from a government representing a people that when they act, when they sign agreements, those agreements can be accepted.

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental to collective bargaining that when one party sits down and says, Here is what we will do, here is what we will not do, they extract concessions from the other side. For example, in order to obtain wage increases, the Public Sector unions will be giving up other benefits at the bargaining table, giving up things that they would like to see as part of their employment contracts which are not carved in stone forever. They are only for a one, two, or three-year period and, as the case may be, all part of the process of collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, when public sector bargaining units, whether they be the NAPE union, the CUPE union, the nurses' union, the unions at the university representing municipalities across this Province, all these unions, sit down on behalf of their members - and let's be frank about this, sometimes members opposite and other Conservative members of this House, from time to time, talk about unions as if they were something separate and distinct from the people that they are. The unions are merely the democratic organizations of workers who have been asked and who have been given legislative sanction after going through the processes under the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, who have the legal right as democratic organizations to democratically represent their members in collective bargaining. So they go in with a set of proposals - sometimes they are called demands - that are put on the table and in the give and take of compromise of collective bargaining, certain things are taken off the table by one party or the other. If they reach an agreement they sign a collective agreement which is stated by the labour Relations Act and by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act to be final and binding on all parties, a final and binding and legally enforceable agreement.

In the case of the public sector last year, under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, in the event of not being able to reach an agreement and having gone through a strike, this government, Mr. Speaker, invoked certain sections of that Act which required compulsory arbitration. Through the compulsory arbitration, the public sector unions, the public sector workers, were required to withdraw from the arena of economic sanctions of withdrawal of labour and instead, to engage, be part of, and be party to, along with the government, a form of legislative binding arbitration which was there as part of the process. That resulted, Mr. Speaker, in an award which was also, by that legislation, binding on the workers of this Province, binding on the unions of this Province, and binding on the Government of this Province. That is the system of collective bargaining that has developed in this Province over the last twenty years in the public sector and has been in the private sector for forty years, ever since the first labour legislation was introduced by another Liberal Government.

Mr. Speaker, what we have now is a total lack of respect by this government for the collective bargaining system. Last week, or the week before Easter, I guess it was, when the Newfoundland Teachers' Association appeared in the lobby of the House of Assembly, in the lobby of the Confederation Building, to meet with and not shake hands with the Minister of Education, they also met with the Minister of Labour, who was one of their former leaders, Mr. Speaker. He was given a sign, one of the placards they had, which said, 'Collective bargaining is in jeopardy.' That is what the sign said. And, do you know what the minister said? Afterwards in a conversation, the minister said, 'No, they got it wrong, collective bargaining is not in jeopardy, collective bargaining is dead,' and I say to the Speaker and to this House that the Minister of Labour has got it right, that collective bargaining in the public sector is dead.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister of Labour said that?

MR. HARRIS: That is what the Minister of Labour said, Mr. Speaker.

We can see why we have in this Province right now, in the private sector, people being encouraged to go out and organize against the very notion of collective bargaining, to try to foment resistance to the whole collective bargaining process, to suggest that fish plants cannot open in Trepassey unless the union is done away with, the agreements are done away with, and all that sort of stuff. That has been encouraged by this government, Mr. Speaker. They are starting a holy war against collective bargaining, against collective democratic rights of workers, against the gains that have been made by workers in democratic organizations, getting together forming unions, going to employers and saying, 'We want to have a say in our working lives. We want to have a say in negotiating collective agreements.' That, Mr. Speaker, is being threatened by this government.

Anybody who reads Bill 17 - and I don't know if the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has actually read it - cannot say what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said. Anyone who reads Bill 17 cannot say that collective bargaining is being attacked by this government.

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from the government is, 'We can't afford the agreements we have made.'

AN HON. MEMBER: They knew that.

MR. HARRIS: They knew that. They knew the financial circumstances of this Province when they made and signed those agreements. As little as a week before last year's Budget was brought in, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board was in a signing ceremony, signing an agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: With whom?

MR. HARRIS: With CUPE.

- that he knew, the following week he was going to be tearing up. He knew that the next week his government was going to be tearing up that agreement.

Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations going on now with Hydro Quebec, with the Government of Quebec. It's no wonder there is no agreement, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine anybody making an agreement with this government? The next week or the next six months they will come up and tear it up and throw it away.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of speeches here. Particularly, the Member for Stephenville was talking about the Government of Ontario and how realistic they are. I agree with him. They are very realistic. Not only are they realistic about the financial circumstances of their Province and the causes of it, they understand that. They know what the causes are, and they know who is suffering as a result of the economic realities that their government and their people are faced with, and they are taking measures to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, in a very innovative way, in a very thoughtful and principled way, and in a way that puts the priorities where they belong, that is, on the needs of the people of that Province, the needs for a proper level of social services and social assistance which required them last year to raise the level of social assistance to recipients, because of the terrible circumstances people were faced with in that province because of the cost of living and the miserable level at which the previous Liberal government there had kept social assistance recipients in that province leaving them in abject poverty, Mr. Speaker, and not providing adequately for their needs. That was required, Mr. Speaker, to be done. It was required to increase by some 20 to 30 per cent the level of social assistance budgeting in that province, and to increase the level of compensation to individuals for their economic circumstances beyond their control which is what social assistance is all about.

Mr. Speaker, that was done in the face of widespread criticism across this country coming from whom? Coming from whom, Mr. Speaker? The Government of Canada, Brian Mulroney, the great Tory leader of Canada whose policy had impoverished the Government of Ontario and the governments of the rest of the country. The Member for Stephenville talked about people getting out of Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people who are most anxious to get out of Ontario are the companies moving south of the border to the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. HARRIS: Because of free trade, Mr. Speaker. They are moving south of the border to take advantage of the free trade agreement -over 180,000 jobs, I think the latest figures are up to 250,000 jobs lost in Ontario since the free trade deal has been brought in. That has brought -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South does not seem to understand the free trade agreement. His national leader, Mr. John Turner, engaged in what he called the fight of his life to try to stop this deal. Now he thinks it is a great deal, now he thinks it is wonderful.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) never said that.

MR. HARRIS: So now, Mr. Speaker, when the effects of that are coming home to roost in the industrial heartland of Canada - we would like to share in all that wealth, too. But the reality is that the industrial heartland of Canada is in Central Canada, supported by previous policies of the federal government. But when the reality is that the free trade agreement encourages companies to take their manufacturing plant south of the border, down to Georgia where they don't have any minimum wages, down to Georgia and the southern United States where they have very little protection, lots of anti-union legislation like our government here is now trying to impose on people; keep the workers down, put them in their place, make them work, and not have the benefits of collective bargaining. That is the kind of encouragement that the Government of Canada has been giving to the economies of this country.

In the face of that, the Government of Ontario had very little choice in choosing its financial decision-making because of the principles they had. They have very tough times. They have a worse situation than the Government of this Province has in terms of fiscal management, because of the size of the problem they have. They did not say: We can't afford our principles, we can't afford to stand by contracts we have signed with our own people. They did not say that legally binding agreements are going to be torn up and thrown out the door. They didn't say that. They honoured those agreements. This government could have, too. The government keeps saying: 'We had no choice.' Well, Mr. Speaker, they did have a choice. The government had a choice of honouring the agreements they had signed or tearing them up, and they chose to tear them up.

The Member for Stephenville has praised the Ontario budget. I acknowledge that, that the Ontario budget - and we are not here to debate the Ontario budget, of course. But since hon. members opposite like to bring up Ontario as an example of good government and criticise it because they are afraid that the same kind of good government might come to Newfoundland. They don't mention the fact that in the Province of Ontario the Ontario Government sat down since they have been in office and negotiated collective agreements with its workers, what is referred to as an innovative collective agreement, offering a 1 per cent wage increase, but sticking to the principles of collective bargaining and sitting down and negotiating with your workers.

Now,that is what this government ought to do, if it had any principles. We are sick and tired of hearing the Premier of this Province, everywhere he goes, every time he speaks, everything is a matter of principle. Whether he has jam or marmalade on his toast in the morning is a matter of principle. When it comes to real principles, though, when it comes to something real, like making an agreement one day and tearing it up the next, we don't see those principles.

What type of principle allows that? What kind of a man of principle; what kind of government of principles is it that can make an agreement one day, shake hands, get their picture taken for the paper, have an agreement signed, and then turn around and rip up that agreement? What kind of principle is that? I echo the words of the Minister of Labour on Bill 17 when he said: No, collective bargaining is not in jeopardy. Collective bargaining is dead. That is what the Minister of Labour said.

Now we have all kinds of suggestions. People may wonder well why don't we do this or why don't we do that, and why don't the members lower their wages, or why don't they do all those sorts of things, but this is not a budgetary measure. This is a decision by this government to abandon the principles of collective bargaining. I want to talk about some of the specifics of it.

They want to control collective bargaining. They want to control it in such a way that they are going to be calling all the shots, and they are going to allow a certain amount of bargaining provided you agree with what we agree with, and you do not do this and you do not do that. We will allow what we call collective bargaining here. It will be some sort of tame bargaining, but you will not be allowed to bargain over what you want to bargain about. You can only bargain about the things that we are prepared to let you bargain about, and we are only prepared to let you bargain in the third year of the collective agreement because that year is a year beyond this budget. We can let you make a bargain now. You can sit down now and make a bargain and agree to 3 per cent in the third year of the so-called restraint period. We would be happy if you do because if you sit down and do it we will say, great, we will either remove that altogether or we will not be in office anymore anyway, and you will be stuck with that agreement - the 3 per cent.

I am aware of some unions who are not prepared to make an agreement that covers the third year where you can have a so-called 3 per cent increase permitted by this Act under so-called collective bargaining. We are not prepared to make any agreement that goes beyond March 31, 1993. We are not prepared to go beyond March 31, 1993. Do you know why? Because they say two things. Next year, if this government is around, it is going to be Bill 18 and they will tear up whatever agreements we sign anyway. The other thing they are saying is maybe, and they are hoping this - maybe there will be a new government by then and Bill 17 and Bill 16 and Bill 18 will not be. They will not exist. Many of them are hoping, along with the Member for Stephenville, that it will be an NDP government. Many of them are hoping that it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dream on, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: Many of them are hoping. I too am hoping that, because those who once had hope, such as the Member for Pleasantville, such as the President of Treasury Board, who once ran, and the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island who once ran for the New Democratic Party in this Province, and in other provinces in the case of the President of Treasury Board, who once had hoped that we could have good government. Some people on that side of the House have abandoned that hope, and thrown in their lot with the most conservative administration this Province has had since Confederation.

It is a shame that in pursuit of that they have abandoned the very basic principle of collective bargaining, of free and democratic unionism, of free and democratic negotiation by workers through organizations selected by them and given the right, under proper and appropriate legislation, to negotiate collective bargains and when it comes to private sector, having them enforced because the enforcement of collective agreements, the binding nature of collective agreements, the continued existence of collective agreements, signed, whether it be in the private sector or in the public sector with governments - more importantly with governments - that the principle of collective bargaining has to be maintained.

Now, if the government wanted to maintain its principles and exercise restraint in wages they could have done so. They have a thirty-six month restraint period they are talking about here now. They leaped back a year or so for it. Thirty-six months. During that period of time every single collective agreement in this Province expires. During the thirty-six months of a restraint period that the Province is talking about, there may be one or two collective agreements that are four years. There may be one or two that are even five years. I am aware of one that is five years. I am aware of only one agreement that is five years. Most collective agreements are one year, two years, some are three.

All of these collective agreements - and I do not think there is a single collective agreement with anybody affected by Bill 17 that is longer than three years - will have expired during this restraint period. If the government was serious about maintaining collective bargaining at the same time seeking to implement a wage freeze for a period of one year or two years or whatever was deemed necessary, than they could have done that.

So what I am saying here - I am not going to argue the Budget. The Budget debate will be on next week and the week after. We are talking here about principle. What this government has chosen to do, rather than stand by any principle that supported the notion of collective bargaining, and said: okay, we will have - where we need to have restraint, and let's take their word for it, just for the sake of argument, if they needed to have that restraint to keep the lid on wages for a period - as a major element of government expenditure. Then they could have done that and at the same time protected collective bargaining by honouring the agreements that they had made.

That is the failure of this government, that is the failure of principle, and that is the reason, although they may claim they are riding high in the polls, that is not really the case. Because the word is out that this government is not prepared to stand by its principles, by the principles of collective bargaining. That they are in fact hypocritical when it comes to that. That they talk about principle but when in action they tear up solemn agreements that are binding under law until they change the law, and throw them out the window. The people are on to this government. It has taken a little while because this government has had a bit of a honeymoon with the public. They have been talking about the waste of the previous government and Sprung. They have got more mileage out of Sprung now than Philip Sprung ever got. It is coming to an end. It is not going to last very long. The people are on to this government that does not stand by principles, that pretends to be in favour of the needs of the people but acts contrary to them.

This Bill is reprehensible. It is a compounding of the disaster of Bill 16 of last year. It ought to be soundly defeated. I know it won't be. Because every single person over on that side is going to stand up when the vote is counted, stand up and be counted amongst the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Labour!

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and support this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for St. John's East says that I once had hope in the prospects of effective government from the New Democratic Party. He is right in that regard but I gave up hope. I lost confidence in the New Democratic Party because of the kind of hypocrisy we are seeing amongst people like him, people who are leaders of the NDP, people who are leaders of the labour movement in this Province today.

Do the people of the Province hope to have good leadership from union leaders who find it necessary to earn $170,000 a year, in order to serve the cause of labour? Are those the kind of people who offer us the prospect of good government, to expect to get it from lawyers for whom unionism is a no lose situation? The hon. Member for St. John's East benefits from the labour movement because he collects fees from representing them, because they contribute to his election campaigns. You would think that he came out of a background of a tremendous enthusiasm for unionism, but who are amongst the most exploited workers in this city today, if not the staff working for lawyers in this city -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - how many of them are organized? What kind of wages do they get, what kind of wages does the secretary of the hon. member get? We know the secretarial staff of those legal offices often do as valuable work as the lawyers do, but they get 10 per cent of the pay. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is because of that kind of hypocrisy that I left the New Democratic Party, because of the hypocrisy of the leadership of the party and of the labour leaders, the self-interested labour leaders who dominate that party, of which we see lots of evidence in this Province today.

The hon. member talks about having a concern for the workers, for the poor of the world, but he goes on to assault free trade. He is against free trade; well, he should look at some of the recent reports of the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Just the other day there was a study indicating that if there were no tariffs in the world, no barriers to free trade, the poor of the world would benefit to the extent of something like $400 billion a year, but he wants free trade to protect his friends in the union movement. He wants free trade to protect the kind of people who benefit from marketing boards in this Province which keep the cost of food for ordinary people much higher than it needs to be in order to make a few people wealthy. That is the kind of concern members like that have for the ordinary people of our Province, Mr. Speaker.

Now I speak in favour of this bill today because I find a lot of favour with the bill in the Province. Sure the labour leaders of the Province today are condemning the government for bringing in this legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not find that attitude amongst the ordinary union members. They understand the situation this Province is in, they understand that you can only do so much, they understand that their incomes at least have not been reduced, when they see so many of their friends and relatives losing their jobs, finding their incomes reduced, losing their businesses. They understand the problems we have in this Province today and many of them are willing to pay their share, many of them are willing to do their part and many of them are willing to abide by what the government has proposed and in recent days, Mr. Speaker, we even see members of the opposition endorsing what we have done.

First, when the Budget was brought in, the Leader of the Opposition and the finance spokesman and other people over there, condemned the government for freezing public sector wages, but the latter few speakers from whom we have heard on that side have said: we understand, we understand the plight of the Province; we understand there has to be restraint, so now the tack they are taking is that, the restraint we understand but the legislation, the breaking of the agreements as they call it, we cannot support. In other words, they support the effect of what we are doing but they will not support the only way of accomplishing it, because legislation is the only way of freezing wages in this Province - legislation to overrule existing agreements.

Several members of the Legislature have made the point that there appears to be two systems of bargaining in the Province now; one for public sector employees and one for private sector employees, because private companies are forced to abide by agreements they make with their employees. They are forced to abide by them as long as they continue existing, but what you have to understand is that they do not always abide by them because when companies find they have agreements that are beyond their means to live up to, they go out of business. Sometimes they renegotiate their agreements with their unions, but when they cannot do that they go out of business. They go bankrupt. They cease to exist. Now governments cannot do that. Governments cannot do that, but we cannot exploit other people in the community in order to satisfy certain wage agreements with people who are getting reasonable compensation for what they are doing in the Province now, for the most part, in comparison with what other people in the Province are getting - what other people in the Province are earning.

Governments have to legislate, because governments cannot go out of business. People understand that, and most of the employees of the unions we are talking about understand that. They do not like the fact that their wages are frozen this year. None of us want to have wages frozen. We all want to earn a bit more, but they understand that if we do not do something reasonable now we may jeopardize our whole system in this Province. People have to understand the serious straits this Province is in. We are in a depression, in effect, in this Province.

The Member for St. John's East talks about the Ontario government having a harder fiscal time than the Government of Newfoundland. Well they still have only 10 per cent unemployment in Ontario. We have 25 per cent in this Province. How can you make a comparison like that, except if you want to defend your own party and make your own party look good? Anybody looking at it realistically understands that this Province is in much more serious shape than the Province of Ontario, and it is probably going to get worse in this Province during this year and even next year because there are not many sources of optimism around today, and most of our people understand this. Most people in our district understand this.

The teachers were out demonstrating a couple of weeks ago in the lobby and I went out and spoke to them. I got in an involved conversation with one of them and I said: What would you do if you were sitting in where I am sitting today? What would you do? One thing he suggested was that we should reduce the sales tax. By reducing the sales tax, his position was, we would encourage people to spend more and the government would end up collecting more. If he really believes that, and if we believed it, we would wipe out all taxes because then everybody would spend everything and we would all be better off, except then we would not have very much money to negotiate with the public service unions about. I do not know how they would get paid. I suppose teachers every day would have to collect an admission price from the students coming into their classroom. That is about the only way they would be paid, then. Of course we all understand that position is not a legitimate position. What it is is supply side economics, the kind of thing Reagan imposed in the United States, and the kind of thing that caused the national debt in the United States to go up so tremendously during the Reagan term down in that country.

So when you talk to people who have a problem with what we are doing, and when you ask them about what they would do if they were in similar circumstances, we have trouble coming up with any better solutions than what this present government has done. That is why I am prepared to support what the government is proposing.

I would like for a few moments to go back to what I consider a despicable tirade that we heard from the Member for St. John's East Extern just before this House recessed for the Easter break. He said: the only trouble with the Canadian economy was that the Meech Lake Accord was defeated. If the Meech Lake Accord had been passed there would be nothing wrong economically in Canada. Newfoundland would be well off. We would keep getting more transfer payments from the federal government. Everybody would be happy. The only problem is the Meech Lake Accord was defeated.

He accused us of being traitors for working against the Accord in this Province, of being traitors for voting against the Accord. What we did was honour the views of our electors, Mr. Speaker. Which is far more than the members for the Opposition have done in this House during the Meech Lake Accord. You hear them talk about democracy. When we were involved in the amalgamation process, all we could hear: it was anti-democratic, we were imposing our will on people.

Now they are talking about us being anti-democratic in dealing with the labour negotiations. What was more anti-democratic than the Opposition members of this House of Assembly calling on this government to pass the Meech Lake Accord when three-quarters of their own constituents told them they did not want it done? They came in here and they were proud to say that. I remember in particular, and just recently, the Member for Kilbride said: yes, he did not do the will of his electors, and he was proud of it.

They were all proud of it. Now they make themselves out to be the champions of democracy, the members who do the will of the people. But as the people of this Province know they carry out the will of the people only when it serves their own interest. But that is not what we are doing in this House of Assembly and it is not what we are going to continue doing. They abandoned their electors over the Meech Lake Accord and now they want to abandon them again, in order to play ball with their hero in the House of Assembly.

I go back again to what the Member for St. John's East Extern had to say about the current Prime Minister of the country. The Member for St. John's East Extern said the current Prime Minister - was the greatest Prime Minister who ever was, he said, in this House of Assembly on April 10. The Prime Minister who put Newfoundland on its feet, he said. Prime Minister Mulroney put Newfoundland on its feet. We are on our feet today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. NOEL: The Member for St. John's East Extern, who must surely have his head in the sand. He went on to say: all the poor people out there, they are speaking today with one voice, conservatism. That is what we hear in Canada today, one voice, conservatism. All 11 per cent of the population, one voice, conservatism.

Surely these gentlemen on the other side of the House... you know, I think they are really burned out. A half-hour ago there were no members sitting in the Opposition chairs on the other side of this House. Now we have four there. They are like a burned out Party. They won't come in here and debate things, they won't come in and listen when other people are speaking, they won't make a good case about what they believe in, all they will do - or not all they will do; we have some good members over there. But we have some clowns over there, who will just come in here and make fools of themselves. That is the most substantial thing.

They are saying that this piece of legislation we are debating in this House today is such a reprehensible piece of legislation that none of them can sit around in the House and debate it properly. None of them can sit around and listen to the case that is being made, or support their own people who are supposed to be criticising it, and as we all know, they are not criticising it.

We know that the problem with the Newfoundland economy is a problem caused by the Canadian system of government, primarily. This government is intent on doing something about it. We are intent on changing the Canadian system of government and that is what we have been doing for the three years that we have been in here, and that is what we are going to continue to do. In spite of what we might be hearing from Quebec these days and from some of the other politicians in the country who seem somehow to believe that the country is on the point of granting the Meech Lake Accord this time around, of giving Quebec what it wants.

The country is far from giving Quebec what it wants. There may appear to be some agreement on some provisions of the Meech Lake Accord that we agreed to in the past, but there is no more agreement in the country today than there was in 1990 on the essentials that Quebec wants out of the new Constitution. They are not likely to get them unless they change their position and unless Ontario changes its position, and unless they give the smaller provinces in this country the say that we deserve to have and the say that we have to have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - in how this country is run. At least we have come up with a way of possibly accomplishing that - the Triple E Senate. The people on the other side sometimes laugh at it. When they are pressed they say: oh yes, of course, we support the Triple E Senate. But just don't expect us to do anything to help you get it. They won't campaign with their national Party to help us get it, but they won't come up with any other way that we can do something to improve our say in how this country is run.

We all see the damage, the devastation, that we are facing in this Province today in the fishery. Because it has been mismanaged by the national government of the country. Our best chance of not having it mismanaged would be to have more say in how the national government operates. We believe a way of accomplishing that is through a Triple E Senate. Maybe it won't accomplish it. I think that what a Triple E Senate may be able to accomplish is limited today because we would be doing it at a time when a lot of things are in place in this country. If we had had a Triple E Senate when this country was first set up, as we were supposed to have, as the Fathers of Confederation provided for.... George Browne (?) said that there would be no Canada if there had not been an effective Senate agreed to so that the less populous provinces would be able to counterbalance the power of the more populous provinces in the Government of Canada.

They would not have agreed to establish Canada if an effective Senate was not agreed to. But we all know that it has not been effective over the years.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I thought this was a debate on Bill 17 that had to do with this government's tearing up of contracts that had been signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what that has to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

I have recognised the hon. Member for St. John's East and I ask hon. members to my left to refrain from shouting across the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are rules of relevancy in here. You can only stretch things so far. This is a bill that has to do with collective bargaining in the Province of Newfoundland. Not about the Constitution of Canada and the Meech Lake Accord. So I would ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a wage restraint bill, it has nothing to do with collective bargaining!

MR. HARRIS: Someone should restrain him, Mr. Speaker. Someone needs to restrain the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: I would ask the Speaker if he could direct the Member for Pleasantville to speak to the Bill itself.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of order. There is obviously no point of order. The member has sat through many speeches in this House that are far less relevant to the topic than the one he is now hearing. He decides to stand up now to try to quiet the hon. member who is speaking because he is saying some things that are hitting home, some things very truthful that are hitting home to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: What you are seeing here is an abuse of the rules of the House to try to protect his own skin, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

Bill 17 is a bill which looks at the spending of money, which is a wide ranging debate. The hon. Member for Pleasantville has sort of gone a little bit off topic, and I ask the hon. Member for Pleasantville to stick to the contents of the bill.

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in talking about the Government of Canada I was a bit more relevant than the Member for St. John's East was when he was talking about the Government of Ontario because at least we elect members to the Government of Canada. We elect nobody to the Ontario legislature. So if he saw fit to talk about the Ontario Government, I think I can talk about the National Government of Canada which is responsible for the ills of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: What could be more relevant to a wage restraint bill than talking about how we can improve our economy so that we can pay our employees better wages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: And how are we ever going to improve our economy if we don't change the way Canada operates, if we don't stop the way Canada favours Ontario and Quebec. We see it day after day.

Just a few days ago we heard $1 billion contract for helicopters announced for the Province of Quebec. One billion dollars worth of helicopters. When the world is supposed to be in a new world order, what are we going to want these helicopters for? Something like $10 million per helicopter, I believe it is, and that contract was given without any tendering.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. NOEL: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would be interested in knowing. One billion dollars in an untendered contract to a Quebec company just to make them happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there any benefits for Newfoundland in it?

MR. NOEL: No benefits for Newfoundland in that unless they are going to use the helicopters to go out and get rid of the foreigners who are overfishing our stocks. Maybe if they used them for that it might be a useful use of the money. But you know, Mr. Speaker, that was not bad enough because they can't give Quebec something without given Ontario something.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

MR. NOEL: So then they had to turn around and give Ontario a $650 million contract, I think it was, to produce armoured vehicles for our Armed Forces. This is the federal minister of patronage we are talking about, Mr. Masse. He was the dispenser of patronage when he was the Minister responsible for Museums in this country. He put more museums in Quebec than we have fishing stages in Newfoundland, all at the expense of Canadian tax payers in this Province. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of Canadians are getting pretty sick of Quebec these days, and I think a lot of Quebecers are starting to run scared. They know that in trade with the other provinces of this country they have a surplus in the most recent year of $3.3 billion in trade. They have been told that you can have separation, but you can have the advantages of being Canadian as well. You can keep your Canadian passport, you can keep the Canadian dollar and all that kind of foolishness. Well that is not going to happen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe the economy of this country has been very seriously jeopardized by the intent of the Province of Quebec to get a better deal for itself, and because it has brought this country to such a constitutional crisis that so many of the top civil servants, so many of the top politicians, and now we are even seeing so many of the top business people in this country are being diverted from the essential challenge we face to deal with our economic situation. They are being diverted from that in order to try to accommodate Quebec, to try to accommodate the impossible dream of Quebecers who want to have their cake and eat it also, who want to have maximum cultural and political economy within their own province, but who also want to have the benefits of an economic relationship with the other Canadian provinces. They cannot have it both ways. The Canadian people demonstrated during debate over the Meech Lake Accord that they cannot have it both ways and they are demonstrating today so we may hear talk about the possible resolution of the constitutional situation. We are not going to have a resolution until Ontario and Quebec agree to give the other provinces the kind of say essential in order to balance their influence in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this Government will insist on that, and I will encourage the government to insist on that in this round of negotiations so that the Canadian economy can operate properly. We are in such a mess in this Province today because we are in such a mess in this country. We had a new federal government elected in 1984 and we have seen them double the debt of the country from $200 billion to something like $450 billion by the end of this year. We have seen taxes on the average Canadian family increase by 10 per cent. The average middle class family is paying something like $2000 more in taxes today than it was when the Mulroney government was elected. Forty-four per cent of Canada's national debt is due to tax breaks for wealthy individuals and the profitable corporations because of the way this country is run economically.

The federal government has mismanaged the economy of Canada by not having a proper fiscal policy when we had a bit of an economic boom a few years ago, when the economy of Ontario got overheated. If we had the kind of balanced government we should have in this country the federal government would have stopped spending in Ontario at that time and spent more in the smaller provinces where it was needed. Instead they went on spending in Ontario, overheating the economy in Ontario, and now we see seriously damaging the economy in Ontario. In order to counter their economic mismanagement they adopted a policy of high interest rates. Instead of using fiscal policy to reduce expenditures where the economy was hot, where the economy was overheated, when unemployment in Toronto went down to 3 or 4 per cent, instead of using fiscal policy to take money out of that economy in order to counter inflationary trends, they used interest rate policy to drive interest rates up far higher than necessary and to hurt the parts of the country where the economy was not overheated, to hurt the parts of the country where we are under represented in the Government of Canada, to hurt the smaller and poorer provinces.

That is why we need to change how the Government of Canada is run, change how power is distributed within the Government of Canada, if we are to improve the economy of Newfoundland and if we are to develop the ability to provide the kind of wages we would like to pay the people who work for this Province.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have a few words to say on this particular bill. As I started out about an hour ago to say this is really a bill that is part of a three part series. We saw Bill 16 last year, we have Bill 17 this year, and if the government is around when the next Budget is brought down, I have some doubts that they will be, actually, but if they are around to bring down another Budget undoubtedly we will see Bill 18, so this is part of a three part series, Mr. Speaker.

I enjoyed the speech of the Member for Pleasantville. I consider the Member for Pleasantville to be a very level headed logical fellow at times, but I really fail to see the logic in one of the statements that the Member for Pleasantville made. He said the government was forced to bring in the wage restraint bill so that they could give their employees a better deal and more wages. Now I think that is a piece of convoluted logic. I don't know how that could possibly be. How you can bring in a wage restraint bill, how you can freeze the wages, how you can bargain in bad faith so that you can give your -

AN HON. MEMBER: So you can go contract stripping. That is what it is for.

MR. DOYLE: So that you can give your public sector employees a better deal. Now I have heard a lot of explanations for the wage restraint bill. I have heard some good ones and I have heard some bad ones, but that one leaves me wondering a little bit as to why the government would bring in that bill. Now it is a very controversial piece of legislation. It is a very controversial bill, and it is controversial for a number of reasons. Number one, it freezes wages. Now that is bad enough, but the real controversy surrounding this bill is the fact that it is bad faith bargaining. I mean the honesty and the integrity of the government is at stake here.

Now Bill 16 was one thing to say that the government was slipping into a recession and what have you when they brought in Bill 16, but to continue now with Bill 17 and to freeze wages again really is bad faith bargaining, especially when you knew that you were going to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Generally when two parties go into a negotiating process they start off as equals. They know that they are going to have a hard time. There is not going to be everything given to you. It is a give and take process. But to do what the government did over the last two year period, to enter into these contracts, to put your signature to those contracts and then after you had done that to bring in this bill and freeze wages and break contracts is totally unforgivable, I would say to the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: It is forgiven by and large? Well I would have some doubt about that. We will see maybe when the next election rolls around because I would not doubt that this will be an election issue. This will be an election issue for the government when the next election rolls around.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wait until hospital workers turn on you out in Gander.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, so this is very, very difficult to understand. It is bad faith bargaining, and all of the reasons associated with Bill 16 and Bill 17 is one thing, and freezing wages, but to bargain in bad faith, Mr. Speaker, that is something else.

And make no wonder that every poll, I would say to the President of Treasury Board, every poll that has been done across Canada over the last eighteen month period, political people are held in very low esteem. He would have to agree with that. Political people are held in very low esteem, unfortunately, right across Canada. Whether it is the federal government or the Provincial Government, but politicians generally. Over the last twelve to eighteen month period every poll that has been done shows that the people have a real feeling of apathy out there, a real feeling of abandonment. These are some of the reasons for it.

Politicians who on the one hand go into the campaign making all kinds of fancy promises to the people, and then when they finally get in power do absolutely the opposite. So make no wonder the politicians are held in very, very low esteem in this country.

Mr. Speaker, as one person who got involved in politics back in 1979 I always felt a little bit proud somehow to be involved in the political life of this Province. I felt a little bit proud when I got elected on the coattails of Brian Peckford back in 1979 and again got elected on his coattails a second time around; but the third time and the fourth time that I got elected, I got elected on my own merits. I always felt a little bit proud to be serving the people of the Province, and I always felt that the people out there had a little bit of respect for politicians, but I can see now why the polls right across this country show that politicians are held in very low esteem, as they should be held in very low esteem, because we continually see it everywhere we go - promises being made to the people just for the sake of getting that almighty vote. Then, when the vote is gotten, you forget completely what you said. I am not only referring to this government. I am referring to governments everywhere, right across the country. They seem to forget, when they get in power, when we get there, that we are there to serve the people; that we are there to keep the promises and to fulfil the mandate that we laid out in the election campaign, and we never do it. We never do it. This government is the same.

We heard about the school tax thing. We heard about the health care thing and the number of hospital beds that were going to be kept open, and the school tax was going to be eliminated. They closed up hospital beds all over the place. The school tax is still in place, when you get right down to it. All of these things help to bring the image and the stature of politicians down where it should not be - in the gutter. It is in the gutter right now, and these are some of the reasons for it, because we go out and say to the people one thing, and then we do absolutely the opposite of what we were supposed to do, and Bill 17 is a product of that.

We saw the President of Treasury Board come into the House last year with Bill 16. He had entered into contracts with teachers. He had entered into contracts with all kinds of public sector employees in the Province - entered into contracts. We, as a government last time around, froze wages too. We are not completely without sin. We froze wages as well but, let me say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, there is one thing we did not do that the union movement in this Province will hold us in some respect for, we did not break existing contracts. When we put our signature to a document, the union movement in this Province could say to us: We can be sure that this contract is in force until it ends. That was the thing. They could at least trust us. We were rough to bargain with as well. We were not angels when it came to the union movement in this Province. We had teachers lined up out on the street against us, and we had public sector employees everywhere lined up against us. We were not angels, but let me say to the Minister of Provincial Affairs, we did not break existing collective agreements. We brought in zero, zero.

AN HON. MEMBER: After their agreements expired.

MR. DOYLE: After the agreements had expired, and the public sector unions in this Province had the assurance that once we put our signature to that document it was sacred, and that document would not be broken. That is the sin in Bill 17, and that is the sin in Bill 16 and Bill 18 when it comes. It is not the fact that you are experiencing restraint and that we are into a recession. It is the fact that you broke existing collective agreements. That is where the sin is, and that is what you will be judged on - breaking existing collective agreements.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations cannot have it both ways. He is part of this agreement. He is one of the architects of this bill, and he cannot go to teachers and say: I do not agree with Bill 17, and he cannot say to the teachers that collective bargaining in this Province is dead. He can't make that statement as a Cabinet minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. DOYLE: I will tell the rookie Cabinet Minister why. I spent eight years in Cabinet and let me tell him, if I went out and spoke against my government and spoke against the piece of bill of which I was the architect, I wouldn't be in Cabinet twenty-four hours, I would be out. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, devise a piece of legislation and put in place something to beat the labour movement into the ground, and then go out and say: 'Oh, I am against Bill 17, also.' You can't have it both ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wearing buttons.

MR. DOYLE: You can't go around wearing: 'I am against Bill 17' and be a Cabinet Minister in this Province. You can't do it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out for the hon. member, and apparently, it was also a statement made by the Member for St. John's East, in his remarks. I was absent from the House temporarily for a few seconds and didn't get to hear it, but I understand that both members have characterized some of my statements in the past week in the fashion that they are now doing. I would refer them to Hansard, when I addressed Bill 17 in this House, when I explained fully to everybody in this House as I did to teachers and as I will continue to everybody in the Province, my stand on Bill 17 and what my role will be in defending it throughout the Province and telling everybody why it has to be in existence, and I do not think that it is proper for any member of this House to rise, knowing the difference already, having been here for the debate and having Hansard in front of them, that they can read and to try to misinterpret my statements and my views the way they would like to have them interpreted; they can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. I have stated clearly what I believe and why, and why I am supporting this bill; that should be the record, and they should not be allowed to try to misinterpret or misstate that in any different fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On another point of order?

The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, after you rule, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. There is no point of order, this is just a disagreement between two hon. members.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has characterized representations made by me as being misleading. Mr. Speaker, I was in the House and heard the minister say that his wearing this button, or saying that he disagreed with or did not like Bill 17 - Mr. Speaker, this button says: 'Say no to Bill 17'; that is not what the minister is prepared to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already ruled there is no point of order. The hon. the Opposition Party Whip.

MR. DOYLE: So, Mr. Speaker, it is the honesty of the government that is at stake here, or the lack of it, and there is nobody misinterpreting what the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations did. We all know what he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sleazed around.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, he sleazed around. He is trying to get around his responsibility for Bill 17.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw. Withdraw that word.

MR. DOYLE: If I said anything unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I am only too pleased to withdraw it. But let me tell you, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations can't have it both ways; he is the architect of this bill, along with the President of Treasury Board and he cannot on the one hand say that he is going to bring in such a draconian piece of legislation, and, on the other hand, go around to the public sector employees and teachers of the Province at their public functions wearing that kind of a badge. You can't do it, you can't have it both ways if you are a Cabinet Minister.

Now, I know the rookie Member for Placentia, is only in there a couple of months in Cabinet, and doesn't know too much about what it means to be a Cabinet minister, but there are a few unwritten rules associated with being a Cabinet minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they?

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe, you know, that a Cabinet Minister in this Province could be so narrow and so blind and so -

AN HON. MEMBER: Stunned.

MR. DOYLE: Stunned, yes I guess I should say it, as to not know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - what his responsibilities are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled in the past that we should not use that word in the House of Assembly, and I ask the hon. the Member for (inaudible) and the hon. the Member for Harbour Main to withdraw.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. But it is hard to believe that any member who sits in a Ccabinet in any province could be so -

AN HON. MEMBER: Naive.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you. - could be so naive and ignorant as to not know what his responsibilities are as a Cabinet Minister. So the Minister of Employment can try to get around it all he wants, he can't have it both ways. He will either support Bill 17 and stand on his feet man-fashion and say that he supports what his government is doing - don't go down to the teachers of the Province and to the public functions and say: 'Oh, I'm against Bill 17, too.' Don't go crying -

MR. GRIMES: I never said that.

MR. DOYLE: - to the teachers. Stand on your feet man-fashion and say: 'We did what we did and I am prepared to sink or rise on it.'

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

So it is the integrity and the honesty of the government that is at stake here. It is like the Minister of Health just recently making a statement on MCP and saying: 'If there is anything found to be wrong over at MCP, if there is any neglect to be shown, I will resign,' he said. 'I will resign.' We all know what happened there, Mr. Speaker.

Before my time runs out I am going to introduce an amendment to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: I would like to move the following amendment to Bill 17, seconded by the Member for Green Bay, that the bill not now be read a second time but referred to a Standing Committee of the House, the Government Services Legislation, which shall conduct public hearings on the subject matter of the bill.

It is only right and proper, Mr. Speaker, that this bill not now be read, but go to public hearings in this Province.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just give the Speaker a few minutes to rule on it, now.

MR. DOYLE: I will give the Speaker, a minute or two to rule on that now if he wants. But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that we have Cabinet Ministers in this Province who are prepared to put their signature to this type of draconian legislation, and then go around the Province saying they are against it. That is unbelievable.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is (inaudible) talking about cake and eat it too.

MR. DOYLE: It is hard to believe that the teachers of this Province have such a large representation in this House of Assembly: the Member for Conception Bay South, a former NTA President, and the Member for Exploits, a former NTA President, willing to be part of this kind of legislation. So it is a very controversial piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule. I checked with the Table officers, and the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, what we have developing as a result of Bill 16 and Bill 17, and Bill 18 yet to come if the government is still around. If the government is still around, we will see a Bill 18 come in, similar to Bill 16 and Bill 17. But what we are talking about here is not just freezing wages and breaking existing collective agreements, what we have developing in the union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador now is a crisis in trust. The government has set a very, very dangerous precedent for collective bargaining that is going to have repercussions, not only within the public sector of the Province, it is going to have repercussions in the private sector, as well. It is going to have repercussions in the public sector and in the private sector. It is not only a reflection on this government, the Wells Government, Mr. Speaker, it is a reflection on the Legislature, as well. It is a reflection on the Legislature and every single member of this House of Assembly. When people can no longer put their faith and trust into their own political people to represent them well and when they put their signature to a document to say, 'This is my bond, you can trust what I am doing here' - that is why collective bargaining is dead and that is why the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was right when he said to the teachers last week, 'No, your sign is wrong, collective bargaining is not in jeopardy, collective bargaining is dead.' He was right when he said that, collective bargaining is dead. Mr. Speaker, and you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand sit around the Cabinet table and come up with that type of a piece of legislation and then run around the Province telling people: I am against it. Collective bargaining is not in jeopardy. The Minister of Employment was right. It is not in jeopardy. When he said it was dead he knew what he was talking about. Because it is dead. Collective bargaining is dead in this Province.

That is the sin in this piece of legislation. It is the lack of honesty that this government is portraying and telling the people of the Province. How can a public sector union, how can any union negotiator, any president of a union, walk into Treasury Board and sit down and feel that he is on an equal footing with the people he is negotiating with? They can give him anything he wants and when he turns his back they can come up with this same piece of legislation again. Bill 18 next. Bill 16 is one thing, and Bill 17, and now we will have Bill 18 coming.

So that is what it all about. You can talk all you want about freezing wages, restraint, depression and recession. That is not the issue here. It is honesty, integrity, trust, which this government is very short on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about money? We're short on that too!

MR. DOYLE: That's what it's all about. People realise when we are in a restraint period that there are sometimes very difficult measures that have to be taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Did you advocate that when you made all your election campaign promises?

MR. DOYLE: That is the hallmark -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DOYLE: It is sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that dishonesty and broken promises have become the hallmarks of this government, this present administration. It is not just in dealing with the unions. It is all throughout. It is dealing with the people in the health care sector as well, who were told in the election campaign that they have a chance. No beds to close. What did we see last year? Ten per cent of the beds in the Province closed. Then the government has the audacity to stand up and say: Trust me. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. The government knew when they negotiated these agreements back in 1990 and 1991 that they were facing a severe financial crisis in the Province. They knew that, but still they were dishonest with the people with whom they were negotiating, and it is a violation of trust. That is the terrible thing about it, and that is why people right across this country do not trust political people today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. DOYLE: Because of people like you; that is why! That is why people do not trust politicians, because government's credibility is undermined at every turn. We have seen several examples of it. It is a reflection on the House, and this government should be ashamed - an unwarranted use of their power.

They ignored all the alternatives that could have been brought in to Bill 16 or Bill 17. They ignored every alternative. They did not streamline at all back in 1989. They did not discuss with the unions job sharing. They did not discuss early retirement. They did not discuss attrition. None of these things were discussed with the unions, or unpaid leaves of absences and what have you. A whole range of things could have been talked about. They could have knocked out all the discretionary spending within their own departments. All of these thing could not be done. No, we saw the heavy hand of government brought down, beating the unions into submission, beating them over the head. That is what we saw - total dishonesty.

I wanted to get into a few more things, but it is a couple of seconds before twelve, so I will call it twelve o'clock and adjourn the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: I would like to once again remind hon. members that the estimates committees start Monday night, and the announcement has already been made of the two committee hearings to be held Monday evening.

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

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