April 12, 1991             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                   Vol XLI  No. 28


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to advise the Members of this hon. House that in view of the continued proliferation of vehicle wrecks throughout the Province Government will be shortly introducing specific legislation to deal with this very pervasive and annoying environmental problem - one which, Mr. Speaker, constitutes a blight on the landscape and an offence to the senses of both resident and visitor alike.

Whereas present legislation, namely The Waste Material (Disposal) Act, makes it an offence to abandon such wrecks under the all-encompassing definition of "waste", we intend to amend the Act to make specific reference to "abandoned vehicles". Further, while the present penalty provisions allow fines up to $2000 with no minimum fine, the new amendment will provide for maximum and minimum fines of $5000 and $1000 respectfully upon conviction of abandonment of such wrecks. As a further deterrent to those who would wilfully pollute the environment in this manner, persons so convicted under the Waste (Disposal) Act will have their drivers' licences suspended under The Highway Traffic Act for a period to be specified in the legislation. We intend to have these changes in effect by January 1, 1992.

Mr. Speaker, there is hope that these actions will convey a strong message to those who would contemplate desecrating our countryside with vehicle wrecks. Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I want to thank the Minister for a copy of his statement well in advance of the opening of the House. I have to say unequivocally this morning that I commend the Minister for bringing forward this piece of legislation. As far as I am concerned there is nothing more despicable and downgrading to our beautiful countryside than those old wrecks. The people who do this type of thing should be dealt with in the strictest and severest manner possible because it is degrading. It is something which should have been done a long time ago. There is nothing to be said about it, other than I hope that when these regulations are brought in through legislation, they will be strictly enforced.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: I wonder would the Speaker see whether the House is supposed to unanimously give consent to my responding to a Ministerial Statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have consent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too wish to express my pleasure that the Minister has decided to take some action on a matter of this nature, however I have a fair degree of concern about the approach that the Minister is taking. He seems to be taking a very strong, deterrent and punitive approach, and I am not sure that it is going to be successful. What I would prefer to see is perhaps a fund set up when a new car is bought and in cases where people do not properly dispose of vehicles then that fund is there to provide for the cleaning up. Yes, there should be penalties and they should be higher, but I have heard Members say that it cannot be severe enough. I do not know if being punitive to the nth degree about something like that is the right approach. There should be severe fines, and they should be properly policed, but perhaps a fund that would go along with a licensing practice that would be there to help clean up the wrecks, as a deterrent, that would maybe be more effective in the long run. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions I would just like to remind hon. Members that tomorrow, April 14th, will represent the 51st anniversary of the first 400 draft Royal Artillery volunteers. It will be 51 years tomorrow that the Royal Artillery volunteers sailed overseas for service, so I thought that we should give that its appropriate recognition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier on the Economic Recovery Commission. Can the Premier confirm that the Economic Recovery Commission and its associated company which is Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, have mounted an extensive advertising campaign oriented more I believe, toward touting their few minor successes than to creating new jobs, and further, can the Premier advise the House of the cost of that campaign and what public relations firm has been engaged to carry out this fancy advertising campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can, without checking, give the hon. Member answers to certain aspects of it but I will have to check and find out certain other specifics that he has asked and I am quite prepared to do so. I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that the ERC has not mounted an expensive advertising campaign to tout its few successes. The objective of the ERC's advertising campaign is to promote knowledge of it to people who would be in a position to take advantage of it and work with the ERC to build the economy.

Now that is the objective of any promotion or advertising campaign that has been carried on; I will find out the cost of it and how and who is conducting it and advise the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: I am sure the Premier is familiar with this latest publication by the ERC or this firm called Connections. When the Premier is getting this information for the House, could he please inform the House as well as to whether or not the public tendering process has been followed in awarding this contract and if so, would the Premier table the documents and the list of bidders on the project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will find out exactly how any contract, if a contract was given - I have no knowledge of it but I will find out what is done and advise the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Would the Premier also, Mr. Speaker, confirm that among the duties being performed by this advertising company, include such mundane tasks as sending out invitations to attend events that are hosted by the Economic Recovery Commission and attending press conferences and setting up microphones and what have you, and does he believe that this is an appropriate use of public funds, at this time when the Government is cutting back in so many different areas, does he feel that this is an appropriate use of public funds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm what funds have been expended for what purpose because I have no knowledge of it, but If I find out what was done and when I find out whatever was done, I will comment on the propriety of it at that time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it concerns Bill 16, now before the House. Mr. Speaker, one of the consequences of Bill 16 for those who would have otherwise received pay equity adjustments and maybe either through forced redundancy or through normal retirement will be eligible for a pension, one of the consequences is that pension will be less as a result of the taking away of the pay equity adjustments that otherwise would have been paid. What I would like to ask the Premier is, is that his intention that those women who would otherwise receive pay equity adjustments who are being retired, is it his intention that they be discriminated further for the length of their retirement and if not would he be prepared to accept an amendment to the legislation to prevent that from happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am a little sick and tired of hearing these pious statements from the Members opposite about discrimination against women. The greatest discrimination was in giving an undertaking to pay pay equity retroactively to a select group in the public service and not to all women. That is the greatest discrimination, and we will have no part of it. This is utter nonsense. There is no discrimination against anybody; everybody under this proposal will be treated fairly. If it had been allowed to remain in effect there would be more discrimination.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time I must not give the wrong impression. It was not specifically to avoid the discrimination inherent in giving retroactive pay equity commitment to a select segment of the public service that caused us to do it, it was the financial impact that motivated the action at the time. So I do not want to give the wrong impression. But in the process, Mr. Speaker, we eliminated discrimination that was built in.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the Premier's comments about the fact that it was financial reasons, and I presume the current financial reasons, that were the motivating factor, can he confirm that monies paid in from The Public Service (Pensions) Act in fact come from a separate fund and in fact would not impact on the current financial problems of the Government but is part of the fully funded public service pension fund and would not cause economic or fiscal problems for his Government this year or next year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Member does not realize that in order to get money out of a pension fund you have to first put money in. Now if we are going to add to the obligation of the pension fund to pay higher pensions due to increased pay caused by retroactive pay equity or any other means, the public of this Province must put money into the fund. So that would have to be done, as well. That comment, Mr. Speaker, has no merit.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Since early this week, Tuesday I think, there has been quite some concern within education circles with respect to substitute teacher cutbacks and so on. Recently we heard that there might have been some breakthrough. Can the Minister confirm that an agreement has been reached between all three parties concerned with respect to substitute teachers?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a tentative agreement with the NTA that is going to be voted on sometime in the next couple of weeks - I forget the date right now. In that tentative agreement the substitute teacher situation is fully explained. A committee is going to be set up comprised of equal representation from the boards, from the NTA and from Government to do an examination of the substitute teacher situation and report back to the Minister of Education, the President of Treasury Board, the Federation of School Boards, and the NTA by September 1. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed with regard to the substitute teacher situation. We are going to go through that process and see what happens.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister confirm then that the budgeted amount for substitute teachers is in the range of about $12.4 million and the number of days for substitute teachers is at last year's level, about 80,000 days? The reason we need to know this is because certain school boards have already cancelled approved leave because they think the leaves might be reduced to the earlier 60,000. So will the Minister confirm that it is going to be $12.4 million and about 80,000, 81,000 days?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the use of substitute teacher time and the number of substitute teachers used in the past few years has been escalating at an alarming rate. The number of teachers has been going down because of declining enrollments, and the use of substitutes has been almost expediential. So the Minister of Education is attempting to control the increase in the use of substitute teachers and I cannot answer for his meetings. He had meetings to impress upon people the importance in these times of restraint of controlling the use of substitute teachers, just as all areas of Government are encouraged to control all their expenditures. We are going through very difficult times. It is simply that.

The tentative agreement we have with the N.T.A. is operative. We have a budget which we will live within. That is all I can tell the hon. Member.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Will the Minister of Education confirm that the number of substitute days is at 80,000 or 81,000, as it was last year, and is the budgeted amount $12.2 million, as it was last year? Furthermore, can the Minister indicate if this proposed collective agreement which has now been tentatively reached will apply for the duration of the contract, or can be changed upon the report of the Substitute Teacher Committee?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member knows, substitute teachers are used for sick leave. We have no control over that. There are a few categories of substitute teacher leave that we do have control over, such as special leave and so on, controlled by the Minister of Education. So, in essence, the use of substitute teachers is an open-ended programme. We do not know how many teachers are going to get sick, we do not know how much is going to be needed in the run of a year; we hope as little as possible. With that in mind, we have agreed with the N.T.A. that we would set up this committee to look at the substitute teacher situation. So, Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the hon. gentleman is that the substitute teachers will be provided to the educational system where needed, that our budgeted amounts will be lived within, and because of the open-ended nature of the programme, we cannot at this point in time predict exactly how many days are going to be used. Last year there was an attempt, I believe, to keep substitute teacher numbers down, and I believe the Minister was successful - and not only the Minister, the Minister and the boards and the superintendents and the teachers and so on - in controlling the increase in the number of substitute teacher days. It is something that can be done, it is something that must be done, and I am surprised the hon. Member is upset by all this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, a final supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister last year was able to establish the number of days at 80,000 or 81,000, some 10,000 less than the year previous, why can the Minister not make the same kind of recommendation this year as to the number of days? Last year you established it at 80,000, why can you not tell us what your figure is this year?

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

MR. BAKER: It is part of the negotiating process at this current point in time, which is precisely the reason I am answering the questions. Mr. Speaker, it is an open-ended programme and we are attempting by every means possible to live within our Budget in all areas of our Budget, not only in the area of substitute teachers. And I am very pleased, if this agreement is accepted, that the NTA and the boards will co-operate in this endeavour. It is magnificent to have all three parts of the system co-operating to ensure that that expenditure on substitute teachers is as effective and efficient as possible. It is a marvellous thing we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs I will direct my question to the acting Minister, whoever he or she may be, or to the Premier - whoever cares to answer the question.

We now have the Federation of Municipalities, particularly the President, describing the new Regional Service Boards Act as scary, and he has requested that Government delay bringing into effect that piece of legislation. The defects he has mentioned have been pointed out to the Federation by us during the course of the past few months, and indeed we have brought them all to light and moved certain amendments in this House which were rejected.

Can I ask the Premier then will he now agree with the request from the Federation of Municipalities, which represents all councils throughout this Province, and immediately tell them that he intends to delay proclaiming the bill to give serious consideration to bringing in the appropriate amendments in this session of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I saw the remarks by Mr. Connors who is the President of Mayors and Municipalities, and frankly I was quite surprised by the remarks because his comments are not consistent with what I understand the legislation to be. It appears that the man may have been affected more by - as the hon. Member said, it came as a result of representations by him and others on his side of the House. I suggest it was misrepresentations and not representations, because what I saw coming from the comments I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Burin - Placentia West wants an answer from the Member for Mount Pearl I am prepared to yield and let him give the answer.

MR. WINDSOR: At least he will hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask hon. Members to my right to stop interrupting as the Premier is trying to give the answer. Premier, finish up please.

PREMIER WELLS: Based on the comment by the hon. Member that it was as a result of representations by the Opposition I suggest to him that I am going to have to take a very careful look at the legislation and the comments of Mr. Connors, because it is not at all consistent with my understanding of the legislation. The legislation does not give the Minister excessive power, it provides for election of representatives from the councils to the regional council. That is my understanding of it.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) public hearings and gives you absolute authority. That is what it does.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I specifically point out to the Member for Mount Pearl that this is question period and if he wants to ask supplementaries, we will recognize him.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Premier to be putting words in my mouth, either. I did not say it was as a result of our representation. I did say we made representations to just about all the councils in the Province pointing out the defects. Now the federation are pointing out the same ones to Government.

Mr. Speaker, the major flaw in this piece of legislation is that it is totally arbitrary, because there is no requirement for feasibility studies. That is the major problem in this. And there is no requirement for boards to be set up, only on the request of the local Governments. In addition, any and all municipal powers can be transferred to regional services boards by a stroke of the pen. That is what the President of the Federation has pointed out. So will the Premier acknowledge that the Act was poorly thought out and hastily drafted? And will he now listen to the Federation if not to us, reconsider his position and amend this act so that it will become democratic?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not make such an acknowledgement. I will take a look at the Act, and if there is any merit to the comments made by Mr. Connors, if there is any foundation to it, if I judge that what he said is accurate I may well ask Cabinet to reconsider it. But My recollection of the contents of the Act is that it is as the Minister has represented it in this House and others have represented it, and Mr. Connors comments are not well-founded: the Minister and Government does not have too much power; there is provision for the election of members; and the members to the regional council are to be elected by the councils concerned.

MR. WINDSOR: The Chairman will be appointed.

PREMIER WELLS: There is one out of six or seven. Is that too much power, one seventh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: It is a good thing the hon. Members were defeated in the last election, is all I can say.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Premier has acknowledge that Government will reconsider this piece of legislation. I would like to say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker - as a matter of fact, I volunteer that we can submit to him the amendments we put before the House last year, if he would like to take them into consideration.

My final supplementary to the Premier is would he check with the Chairman of the Government Services Legislative Review Committee, the Member for St. John's South, and ask him what the councils and other people who appeared before the Committee, as well as the minority report that was submitted, suggested and act it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me correct again before somebody reprints the misrepresentation made by the hon. Member. I did not acknowledge that the Government is going to reconsider that legislation. What I said specifically was we will take a look at the legislation and if there is any foundation - as of now I do not believe there is any foundation to this criticism, but if my recollection of it is incorrect, then I would most certainly take a look at it. But my recollection is that there is no merit to that criticism and therefore we have no intention of introducing amendments along the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Lands. The Minister will be aware that the Leader of this Government went on record last weekend and said the country, and presumably the Province, would be better served if Ottawa assumed more responsibility for regulation and protection of the Environment. Does the Minister think the people of the Province can be better served if regulation and protection is administered from 3000 kilometres away rather than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Premier suggested?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to a comment I made and asked for the effect of it, so I will answer the question. To begin with, the representation is again incorrect. I did not say that this Province would be better served if the environment were regulated and managed by the Federal Parliament. What I said, Mr. Speaker, is that due to the nature of environmental concerns, the fact that wind blows from one province to another, water flows from one province to another and so on, there is a Federal concern about environment and there is a Provincial concern about environment. In the present system where the Province has its own environmental legislation and the Federal Parliament has its own environmental legislation, too often you have separate, expensive, and unnecessary duplication of environmental activity and environmental control and management. So I suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we would be better served if we provided for a national control of the national aspects and co-ordinated the provincial one with it so that we could have joint management and control of the environment rather than the system that is now in place.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that is not the way I read it. I have a copy here of what the Premier actually said. He said, `The Federal Government should have greater control over environmental affairs under any new constitution.' My question again is to the Minister of Environment and Lands. Is the Minister either bit concerned that he is presiding over a Department his Leader is trying to snatch out from under his feet and pawn off on Ottawa? Is not the Minister, from the experience he has gained in the last twenty-three months, equipped with any arguments for why it is valuable for the Province to maintain the environmental jurisdiction it presently has? And is he not concerned when the very same person who wanted to sell the shop on the offshore is now planning to sell the shop on the environment?

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

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Premier adequately answered what our approach is in dealing with Ottawa and the environmental assessment process. The rest of the question is so nonsensical it does not deserve an answer.

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I understand that for some time now the Minister has been having discussions with a major company pertaining to a sawmill wood operation in the Lake Melville area. I further understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister in his discussions arrived at probably two outstanding objectives which are curtailing the beginning of this operation. Would the Minister kindly tell the House what two scenarios are stopping the commencement of this major operation in the Lake Melville area?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any two scenarios stopping the development of the project. The last time I was involved, or this Government was involved, the company had come to Government with a proposal with various requests for permits and that kind of thing. Sometime ago that was agreed to and the conditions under which the company would operate in Labrador were made public, and we are waiting for them to start the operation.

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

MR. WARREN: Would the Minister advise this House how much guaranteed money, guaranteed loans or finances will be given this company by the Government and what the terms will be?

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

MR. FLIGHT: The two concessions, if one would call them concessions, Mr. Speaker, that were agreed to by Government to the company, one was we agreed to a deferment or a forgiveness, if you would, of up to $1.5 million in (Inaudible) on capital purchases. That again was made public through the media. And the only other concession was that the Province agreed to provide over the next ten years the access roads' requirement of the company, and that those access roads would only be provided on a needs basis. In other words, as the company developed and harvested the timber we would provide the access roads as we do on the island for the company. To my knowledge those are the only two major - what I would consider in any way major - concessions made.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions now the President of Treasury Board has said - with respect to the wage rollback, Bill 16 - that he called in the unions prior to the Budget to discuss options that would prevent the further elimination of jobs. Can I ask him has he up until now received any further representation from the unions other than the two options that we are familiar with that were discussed, which were a wage freeze or an unpaid leave of absence?

Can he tell us whether in fact there were any other options other than those two very specific ones that we are aware of, that he has mentioned himself - the unpaid leave of absence and the wage freeze being the two options. Were there any others, and has he received any further representations from unions?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, to handle our financial situation we as Government considered numerous options. We considered what we thought was every possible option. So everything that we could possibly think of has been considered. In terms of representations from the unions, there have been none. I do not want the hon. Member to get confused between two circumstances.

The first circumstance was back in October when I met with the unions and indicated the extent of our financial problem. The second circumstance was within two weeks of the Budget, I believe, Mr. Premier, was it?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes.

MR. BAKER: Within two weeks of the Budget where we had a meeting with the unions to indicate -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) we had two meetings.

MR. BAKER: - that we had run out of options, and therefore this is the situation we are faced with now. And we had to at this point in time consider the one year wage freeze. So there were two separate occasions.

There was some representation from the first meetings back in October. CUPE, for instance, had a convention, I believe, in Gander where they called in all their members from around the Province. And they presented a brief to me which I read and which we took into account, and was discussed in the media at the time as a matter of fact. But one of their recommendations was that we postpone and have sort of a Royal Commission, a study. But I should point out to the hon. Member that at this point in time -

AN HON. MEMBER: We could not postpone the debt.

MR. BAKER: - it is too late for options. We have a problem this financial year. We are not trying to deal with something that is three years down the road. We are trying to deal with the problem now, and we cannot postpone decisions any longer. We have made the decisions now in the light of everything we had before us, and we have to proceed during this year with those decisions.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Minister if I appear to be confusing two sets of circumstances. But I do not believe that I am the only one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: None from the last lot. Okay, that is what I want to get at. So, the two meetings two weeks prior to the Budget, when the unions were called in, the Minister is saying there were no options discussed and that what the Government did at those two meetings was simply tell the unions that there would be a wage freeze. Is that what he is saying then? Perhaps he did not hear me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, I will repeat it again. I understand from what the Minister has now said - unless I have misunderstood it again, and I am not deliberately trying to misunderstand it - but he said there were two meetings just prior to the Budget, two weeks or so before the Budget - two meetings. And at those two meetings, he just finished saying, there were no options. The options were from the earlier meetings back in October. So there were no options at the meetings.

So did he then tell the unions at that time that there was going to be a wage freeze then, if there were no options discussed, is that what he is saying?

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

MR. BAKER: I thank the hon. Member for his question because obviously he is confused. Let me go over it again just very briefly. Starting in October, we indicated to the unions that there was a very, very difficult financial situation which would result in Government not being able to provide the services it normally provides and that we could not provide the services at the same level as the previous year, and we explained our financial situation to them, then there were many contacts with the unions in that context of Government having to deal with its budgetary problem, so there were representations from that segment.

Finally, when we reached the point where we knew that through normal procedures, we could not deal with the problem adequately, this was within a couple of weeks of the Budget, then there were two meetings. The first meeting was with the unions separately, the second meeting was with the unions collectively and we explained at that point that we had done all that we thought we could sensibly do, therefore, we are now at the point where we had to consider either, a wage freeze and essentially what is in this bill, or, further massive layoffs, and we just wanted to explain it to them and point out to them that we had not decided at that point in time which option we were choosing, but this is the point we were at, and if they had any input to make, now is the time to do it, because time was short and we indicated we had a very short time before we had to decide, within a week or so we had to decide on what we would do, so, these were the discussions in the second round and there were no presentations resulting from them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item of business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the galleries today sixteen girl guides from Clarke's Beach accompanied by their five leaders, Debbie Andrews, Judy Compton, Joanne Whelan, Dianne Compton, and Corinne Newell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions I want to deal with this morning, one of which was yesterday when I was asked questions about the bus operation and the bus inspection in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. I undertook to enquire as to precisely what happened, what was required, and whether or not there was any failure by the bus operators to comply with the law, or any illegality on the part of Government in taking the action it took. I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to carry out a full investigation and to report fully to the House. I am advised by him this morning that basically he has found out that information, but he has also been made aware this morning that there is other information that may well be relevant to this issue. So I think it probably best that he defer giving the answer until such time as he has completed the assessment of this other information.

The second one is a question in writing by the hon. the Member for Grand Falls who asked me to place upon the table of the House a list of trips taken by the Premier and claimed from Government during the fiscal year April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, showing the destination and date of the trip, the length of the trip, the purpose of the trip, and the names of personal, political, and departmental staff accompanying the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I just noticed `claimed from Government' There may be one or two in there that were not claimed. I listed all the trips and who went with me, even some I may have paid for personally. The executive assistant may have to go in order to maintain the office contact and so on, so that would have been an expense, but my own may have been paid personally or by somebody else. I am tabling a list of all those trips, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) if somebody else paid for them.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if you want that answer I will most certainly provide the answer. It was either by me personally or by the Liberal Party, when I would have travelled for the Liberal Party. There was nobody else paid for it.

The third, Mr. Speaker, was a question asked this morning as to whether I would reconsider legislation. I now have a copy of this Regional Services Board legislation and I am pleased to advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that what I expected is the case: it is an entirely appropriate provision. What is provided is where three or four councils get together. Obviously you cannot leave to the councils to decide how big the board is going to be. One council may want fifteen and another council may want five, so somebody outside of the group has to make the decision and the Government or the Minister is the appropriate person to do it. But while they are formally appointed by the Minister, the members of the regional council are nominated by the councils and the Minister must appoint the persons so nominated. The Minister only does what he should do, which is appoint the independent, objective Chairman, and that is what the Minister has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If one council says we are going to frustrate -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier did not say he was going to take the question as notice, he said he was going to look into it. That was not taking the question as notice, and if the Premier is going to debate that issue in the House of Assembly, I would also like to have the opportunity to debate as well. Because what the Premier is saying is not the concerns which have been expressed by the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the point of order, I was asked the question this morning; I have the legislation, I am now providing the answer that twenty minutes ago they asked me to give and I said I would consider it. Having considered the position, I say the legislation is exactly as I had recollected that it was and that the authority is appropriate. And if councils get together or are put together in a regional authority, then the Minister must have the authority to appoint the Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly a pleasure and a privilege, as well, for me to rise in my place to present a petition on behalf of thirty-four young people from my district who are at present attending the Cabot Institute. I will read from the prayer of that petition.

`As a voter and one of the many citizens who believe that the Cabot Institute is vital to Newfoundland and Labrador, I strongly oppose any move by Government to reduce programmes or cut funding to Cabot Institute. Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need Cabot Institute to ensure the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want quality education and we deserve no less.'

Mr. Speaker, I am one resident of this Province who believes that the Cabot Institute is of great importance to all the Province. What Cabot Institute ensures is that it will improve upon the educational standards of our people and any reduction therein would certainly be a step backwards, a step backwards for many people who do not have the opportunity in many cases - not in all cases, Mr. Speaker. There are people who go to the Cabot Institute because of the technical aspect of it, but there is a great number of people who attend Cabot Institute who do not have the educational requirements to go elsewhere. So if we cut into those programmes, we will again deprive the poorest of our people of a God given right, or what we now consider that right.

For many years, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were deprived of that right because we did not have the institutions, we did not have the capabilities, financially and otherwise, to give them their basic right. As we go about Newfoundland and Labrador we see the results of Cabot Institute - my hon. friend is shaking his head, but he knows as well as I do it is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not need institutes for that.

MR. PARSONS: No, but Cabot Institute played that role. You said we do not need institutes for that. Perhaps not. Perhaps you are right. But the point remains, we have no other body capable at this present time.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I think there were eight or nine programmes cut and those programmes were the basic programmes, the basic programmes which people need to survive.

Technical programs, the programs people need just to find a place in the work force, Mr. Speaker, by taking away the numbers, taking away those programs from Cabot Institute I think they greatly endanger the rights of those people.

Mr. Speaker, there are also close to forty positions gone, where people have lost their jobs at Cabot. With forty positions gone, Mr. Speaker, the grade or the height of education at the facility will certainly be in danger.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again that when I heard the other day that Cabot Institute was reducing its programs and I listened intently to hear what programs there were reductions in and what programs would no longer exist. And it is frightening to me at least, Mr. Speaker, because I know a great number of students attending Cabot: they look forward to it, they depend on it. Cabot was an institution in itself, an institution those people looked to, the same as any university or whatever.

The other thing is there are a lot of people who came out of Cabot on the technical side, could go further afield and attend other universities and they would, perhaps, receive up to 80 per cent, I think, at those other universities for having attended Cabot Institute and receiving their diplomas from there. So even if people were to go to the Mainland, or to other technical colleges, it is advantageous for them to have attended Cabot Institute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in closing I hope the Government takes a hard look at Cabot Institute, and I hope they can find it in their hearts not to touch Cabot Institute, which is important to the poor people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise again to support the petition put forth by my colleague for St. John's East Extern on behalf of the students of Cabot Institute. Mr. Speaker, we have presented a number of petitions in this House on behalf of Cabot and each time we called on Government to ensure that the same quality programming could be offered at Cabot as was offered in the past. Mr. Speaker, our worst fears were realized late last week or early this week, when Cabot announced that it was slashing eight or nine of its programs because of budgetary restraints. This at a time, Mr. Speaker, when, if ever there was a need to educate our people, it is now. If Newfoundland is ever to get out of the economic doldrums or the malaise it is in, it will be through an educated population.

Mr. Speaker, what is even more alarming is the type of cuts Cabot was forced to make because of Government restraint programs. If we have one industry in this Province which has shown some signs that it might have some growth potential, it is the tourism sector.

The restraint program at Cabot forced that particular institution to practically eliminate all the programs that dealt with that particular area - hotel catering, cooking, and that type of thing. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps even more importantly, even the Minister of Development and responsible for Tourism was very upset and shocked that Cabot would eliminate so many programs. Mr. Speaker, Cabot was left in a no win situation. It could not cancel courses that were of two year duration or three year duration, because a number of commitments had to be made to students who were presently enrolled. Instead, Mr. Speaker, because of the restraints it had to cut into a program that was of one year duration.

Perhaps more important for a large number of Newfoundlanders were the programs which did not require high academic standing to get into them - not a course like naval architecture, which requires a 70 per cent average or 75 per cent, or electronics which requires high grades to get in. Some of these students could qualify with lower grades. Now, Mr. Speaker, by the elimination of these programs we have taken away the opportunity for a large number of students in the Province to go on to post-secondary schooling.

We have taken away that opportunity because many of these courses were aimed specifically at that. That is problem one.

Problem two with it is that this marks the beginning of the end of that type of course. Because the Minister of Education said in defence of the restraint and cutback programmes that many private institutions can carry on the same type of programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The Member for Exploits can tell me to sit down. Perhaps he cannot take the heat, so he can get out of the kitchen.

Now what that is signalling to the community is that this Government has a lesser commitment to education than any other administration this Province has ever had. Because we have always believed in this Province that Government must support and enhance educational institutions in this Province. What we see now is privatization, which means that now only those who can afford to attend post-secondary institutions will be able to go.

Mr. Speaker, this a regressive step in education. I support my colleague for St. John's East Extern and ask the Government to reconsider the cutbacks it has made to education, and re-examine the direction it is taking, too, so that it can perhaps put more money into education at all levels - post-secondary, secondary, high school, primary, elementary - so that we can develop the young people of this Province so that they can help get Newfoundland on the fast track out of a recession, instead of heading us into a depression.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government has expressed regret on a number of occasions in this House that we did not have all the money that was needed this year for the University and for the colleges. Cabot had to do what many other agencies in the Province and indeed throughout the country, and governments throughout the country had to do, and that is exercise fiscal restraint. They did eliminate or downsize eight programmes. But there are fifty or sixty programmes at Cabot, many outstanding programmes. And the President indicated in her news release that many of the programmes being downsized or eliminated were offered in the region. In fact in some cases, for example in the area of tourism, they will monitor what is happening this year and if there is a need for additional programmes, they will consider that need and do what is necessary.

I want to say that during the discussion of cuts there were fears that massive programmes would be cut. In fact, the Opposition asked me if we would permit Cabot to cut students halfway through their programme. I am delighted the Board and the President did not have to take that kind of action. But they did look at cuts at all levels. In fact, perhaps at the management level the cuts were more severe than at any other level. They looked at positions that did not impact directly on the classrooms, and I want to pay tribute to the Board of Governors and to the President for that action.

Two other points, very briefly. One is that we will be expanding programmes even this year in post-secondary education in this Province. It is vital to the future growth of this Province. We are going to build in St. John's - and I am amazed that the Opposition has not praised the Government for this - another facility that will offer the latest technologies. We are going to start this year to do that.

And a final point dealt with the accessibility of students to programmes. I must say the students whom I have met - I do not want to table letters I have received but I could. I could table a letter I received from a student leader very recently praising this Government for what it has done to revolutionize and change the student aid programme and make the possibility of post-secondary education more our right than it was in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the students I meet with regularly say that we are moving in that direction, and my hon. friend for St. John's East, I could not agree with him more. I listen to every word he says. I believe in his sincerity in this. He is not playing political games. I agree with him, that we have to do everything possible to make sure that education at the post-secondary level is not the right of the rich or the elite. We have to do much more to make it the right of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian irrespective of where they live, irrespective of the income of their parents, and this is what this Government is committed to do, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act". (Bill No. 21).

On motion, Bill No. 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion, 9, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province". (Bill No. 22).

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical matter, perhaps only House Leaders, Speakers, and Clerks would be interested in it, but I am certainly interested in it as a House Leader. What transpired yesterday evening for future reference: technically the House adjourns at 10:00. It cannot sit beyond 10:00, technically. Last evening, of course, we were still in Committee at 10:00. The Chairman, I do not believe, can adjourn the House per se. I do not know. Can he? Can he just get up from the table? I do not think he can, Your Honour shakes his head right, he cannot. So what happens in that kind of a situation, I mean, you know, it was 10:00. What happened though?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You have not been here long enough to know anyway.

MR. SIMMS: What I am asking, the Member for Exploits is, what happened? Technically 10:00 the House was adjourned so we got up and left, but then eventually we all got up and left -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

This is a rather important issue and I do not want Members to trivialize it. I want to hear the Opposition House Leader so that we can deal with the matter in a serious manner.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

That is precisely why I raise the matter, because it is important to know what we are supposed to do in the future. I honestly do not know. The Speaker did, frankly, what I think I would have done if I had been Speaker. The Speaker, I believe, came in the Chair one minute after ten. Now, how the Speaker can come in the Chair one minute after ten, when the House is supposed to be closed at ten, I do not know; I do not understand it.

MR. RIDEOUT: And no leave on stopping the clock.

MR. SIMMS: And no leave on stopping the clock. So, I think we need to know for the future, what does it mean? Does it mean that the clock is automatically stopped or that the Chairman of Committees must rise the Committee and report, and if that means going beyond ten o'clock, that is what it means? We should have a ruling so we know precisely, I think, in the future, what is supposed to happen.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I really believe we have to somehow straighten out that kind of circumstance. I am not too sure, myself. Obviously, the Chair has the duty to see to the smooth running of the House. At that point in time, what does His Honour do?

What I would suggest, I suppose, is that perhaps the two House Leaders and His Honour get together for a discussion on it and then, His Honour could have some research done; but, obviously, we have to resolve that situation. Everything gets left up in the air. Obviously, it is not proper that everything be left up in the air, there has to be a procedure that we accept is a logical procedure at that point in time. It is very unusual, and I believe we have to solve that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: If I might comment, number one, there is an onus on members to be aware of the time. Now, last night, when I got in the Chair, actually, I got in at 10:00. I was in at 10:00, and the Speaker's parade, actually, was going on, because I was concerned about the time, myself, and the Speaker's parade went down through here at 10:01, so we were not awfully off-time. When the clock strikes ten, well, then, we have a minute or so to clue up things. Obviously, it seems to me that members have to be aware of the time. Because, as the Opposition House Leader says, it is important, and the Committee has to rise. The Committee has to rise and report progress and, I think, in the future, what I would advise the people in the Chair to do, is to be very aware of the time, and when they know it is approaching 10:00 and hon. members might be carried away with themselves, the onus on the Chair ought to be to say-- will we call it 10:00? Then, hon. members will know. Either they will agree to call it 10:00 or not agree to call it 10:00. I think there should be some onus on whoever is in the Chair to look at the time, to say, you know, we are close to the time, and will we call it such-and-such, or whatever.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to discuss it a little bit further. What happens if the Chair, for example, at two minutes to ten, says-- is it agreeable to call it 10:00, and there is no agreement? What happens at 10:00, if the Chairman is still in the Chair? That is the dilemma, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the answer.

MR. SIMMS: Now, maybe the answer is, as the Government House Leader says, maybe to have a chat about it, and maybe, eventually, for the Speaker to reserve a ruling on this point of order and give a ruling on it. Then, you have a precedent, and the ruling can be whatever you say, a one-minute maximum, or something like that. I do not know.

MR. SPEAKER: We have already initiated that, because we were concerned with it, and we have that in order. We will rule on the point of order later.

The motion - the Government House Leader was still on -

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we just went through the first reading of Bills 21 and 22.

Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 8. That: the debate on Bill 16 shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to Bill 16 shall be the first business of the House when next called by the House, and shall not be further postponed.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader is dreaming in technicolour this morning. He could not have had a good night's sleep if he thinks that this motion is carried yet.

Now, let us be absolutely clear, everybody in this House be absolutely clear what is happening here this morning. We are now, for the second time on this most heinous piece of legislation that we have seen in some time in this Province, we are now operating under the gag order, for the second time on this one piece of legislation. We are now operating under the closure rule, the gag order, the hobnailed boot order, the guillotine order, the anti-democratic order, the order that says, my way or no way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what we are doing. The Tory Government of Brian Peckford used closure twice in seventeen years. The great democratic Government of the great democrat himself, Clyde Wells, has used the closure motion twice on this bill, eight or ten times in twenty months. That is the brand new change, that is the real change, that is the new democracy, that is the New Jerusalem, that this crowd brought to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, there are a few things that have to be said to this Government. It is not going to knock any sense in their head. If everyone of us over here stand and speak on this gag order today, we cannot stop this bill from going through Committee stage of the process. We can stand up here and we are allowed under the gag order, under the closure rule, to speak for twenty minutes each, and when we have all spoken for twenty minutes each, then the hobnailed boot will fall on the unionized workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what will happen. We cannot stop it.

It does not matter whether it is five minutes from now, whether it is 12:00 p.m. today, whether it is 5:00 p.m. this evening, because I believe that is as far as we can go under today's rules. So it does not matter. This undemocratic Government will have its way. And what is it doing? It is accusing the Opposition, those of us on this side of the House, of not debating Bill 16, the bill to not only freeze wages in the public service but to roll back wages in the public service, and a bill that discriminates against women who will not receive the retroactive pay equity that they were promised and agreed to back in 1988.

What are we doing? The Government is accusing the Opposition of not debating the bill. Well, what Opposition in their right mind would allow this piece of legislation to go through the legislative process without closure? You would not be fit to be called a Member of this House if you did not fight with everything that the rule book gives you, to keep from clawing back from ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rights that they fought and won for over months and months of negotiation. You would not have a sound bone in your body, you would not have a grain of sense in your head, I say to the Government House Leader. And I say to the Government House Leader, that if they were over here and we were over there as a government doing the same thing, they would be doing exactly what we are doing over here today.

Not an Opposition worth its salt would allow this bill to go through without going through under closure. You would not be fit to be termed a Member of an Opposition. And the Government gets up, like the Government House Leader did last night just before we closed at 10:00 p.m., talking about thirteen or fourteen Opposition Members speaking, and only one or two spoke about the bill. I would talk about the colour of blueberries rather than allow this bill to go through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman: we did not talk about the bill? Every time you look at the schedule of this bill, and you talk about Memorial University with its extension service gone, which has done so much for rural Newfoundland and Labrador; every time you look at the bill and talk about the Fisheries Loan Board with massive cutbacks that does so much for rural Newfoundland and Labrador; when you talk about cutbacks in post-secondary education; when you talk about cutbacks in the medical services; when you talk about whole hospitals closing - this from a Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Right on! Shame on you!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Liberal Government. This kind of legislation would put Ronald Reagan to shame. It would make Margaret Thatcher look like a Liberal, Mr. Chairman. This is the worst piece of labour legislation that this House has seen since 1959.

MR. SIMMS: Right on!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: In 1959 when Joey Smallwood outlawed the IWA, the Labour Movement was outraged in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe it was in 1966 when another Liberal Government outlawed a hospital union in this Province, have a guess, Mr. Chairman, who was the Minister of Labour in 1966 when the hospital union was outlawed in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SIMMS: Wince Baker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gerry Dinn.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was it Wince Baker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Gerry Dinn.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was CKW.

MR. SIMMS: Gerry Dinn.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was it Gerry Dinn?

MR. SIMMS: Chris Decker.

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MR. SIMMS: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: Who was the Minister of Labour in 1966 when a union was outlawed in this Province, a hospital union?

MR. SIMMS: Joey Smallwood.

MR. RIDEOUT: One Clyde K. Wells.

MR. SIMMS: What!

MR. RIDEOUT: One Clyde K. Wells - that is the labour reputation of this man that we have as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, a man, by the way, Mr. Chairman, who got to the Premier's Office in no large measure with the support of labour.

MR. SIMMS: Right on.

MR. RIDEOUT: And this is his gift to them. This is his legacy. This is what he has done for those who helped him to achieve power, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: Shame!

MR. RIDEOUT: He has broken - he has put his name to collective agreement after collective agreement and then he rips it up. That is how much that man's signature is worth.

Now, Mr. Chairman, none of us are surprised. We know that it does not matter what the Premier signs or when he signs it, when he chooses to walk away from a deal, when he chooses to walk away from his signature then, my God, it is right and proper that I do so.

MR. SIMMS: It would be unconscionable not to.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would be unconscionable not to.

It does not matter that it is a collective agreement voluntarily or by binding arbitration arrived at and signatures affixed to it. It does not matter about that. It does not matter that those agreements were arrived at under the collective bargaining laws of this Province, instituted by this House by the duly elected Legislature of the Province. It does not matter that public servants are the only people in the collective bargaining process that have to go on trust. It does not matter that public servants are the only people that have a greater authority to override their collective agreements and that is the authority of this Legislature. None of that matters. It does not matter that we are not going to try to collectively get together and solve the fiscal problems of this Province. None of that matters. What matters and matters only is what the Leader of this Government says must be done. My will be done.

MR. SIMMS: My will be done!

MR. RIDEOUT: My will be done. He sounds like a god onto himself, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde will be done.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Chairman, some time today the most unprecedented hideous piece of labour legislation that this Province has seen in decades will pass through this Legislature. It will pass despite the fact that we as an Opposition delayed it and delayed it and delayed it with every parliamentary trick at our disposal. We will try again to delay it, Mr. Chairman, with every parliamentary trick at our disposal in the next stage. It will be more difficult. We all know that - those of us who have been here any length of time. But we will do our best. We will do it because it is right and proper for an Opposition to oppose as much as it can, to fight as best it can against bad legislation and this, Mr. Chairman, is bad legislation. This is not only bad legislation, this is legislation that dips the long arm and the clawy hand of Government into the pockets of people, not only freezes their wages - the Government likes to call this a Wage Freeze Bill - this is a CLawback Bill, Mr. Chairman. There are mothers and fathers out there today working for the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador who thought they were going to get 5 per cent or 7 per cent increase in their wages, this year because the agreements were negotiated several months ago or last year or two years ago, signed, sealed and delivered by this Government.

There were husbands and wives who went out and bought homes, mortgaged their future, bought new cars, some may have decided to have another child, I mean, Mr. Chairman, what this Government has done is almost inhuman; there have to be other ways; we faced a much more severe recession in 1983-1984 when we were the Government than this Government is facing now - and did we break union agreements, did we bring in a law rolling back and freezing wages of contracts that were already legally in existence? No, we did not, Mr. Chairman, we called the unions in and we told them what they did not like; we told them that when their collective agreement expired, they would face a two-year wage freeze, but, my God, Mr. Chairman, we did not use the long arm of the law to haul it back on them now, after giving it to them in good faith five or six months or eight or ten or twelve months before. That is the difference, that is the difference, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: And that is what this is all about.

MR. RIDEOUT: - and that is what this is all about, and the Government House Leader then has the gall, the face of a robber's horse, to get up and complain about the Opposition trying to delay this bill. I will delay this bill, Mr. Chairman - if the Government did not bring in closure, if the Government did not bring in the gag order, I would beg my colleagues to delay this bill until Christmas eve, because this bill does not deserve to pass, it does not deserve to pass -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: You are going to do too much harm to the collective bargaining process in this Province, there will be no more confidence - Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with the old mad doctor, over there? If he does not like what is being said, let him get out of the House, because this is no morning for joking in this chamber. What is happening in this Chamber today is unprecedented in the history of collective bargaining in this Province, except for a couple of other Liberal occasions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, like I said, at the end of this process this bill is going through; oh sure, we can each take our turn and be here as long as we have somebody to speak, but nothing is going to change. This Government has crossed the Rubicon with labour in this Province, they have crossed it and I say to this Government that they are going to reap what they are sowing here today and what they have sowed in this House over the last week or so.

There cannot be any understanding in the labour movement, in the union movement among the public service for a Government which approaches its fiscal problems in a 'take it or leave it' manner, there cannot be any understanding for that approach; there cannot be any understanding for a Government that tries to solve its fiscal problem through the long arm of the law.

You did not try to reach any agreement with the union leaders representing the public servants of this Province. Listen to the Minister's answers this morning, to my colleague the Opposition House Leader, you did not try to reach any agreement, you just called them in and you told them that this was the extent of the problem and these are the couple of things that we are considering doing to correct it: wage freeze or more firings, but, this is not only a wage freeze, this is only one part, this is only one component of the Government's plan to get itself out of the fiscal straight jacket that it created.

There are also 2,500 people who are going to be fired in the public service in addition to this rollback, in addition to this freeze, and this is what you call creative, innovative, new Government; for God's sake, I mean, an elementary student could have come up with this creative approach to solving the problem; it takes co-operation, understanding, trust, it takes willingness to listen to people with other ideas to find something different.

If this Government were here with an innovative way of approaching this problem, they might have had some co-operation from the Opposition, but they are not, and therefore they have no right to expect co-operation, Mr. Chairman. Now, there is not much to be said about the bill itself that has not been said over the last several days.

I think all we can do in this debate today is take the opportunity to point out again what the Government is doing and the high-handed way they are dealing with their employees. Those people do not work for the Government, those people work for the ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador and they are ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like ourselves. Mr. Chairman, I do not know, I really do not know. I do not know if there is any point in us continuing to debate the closure rule, debate under the rule we are now debating under, I honestly do not know. If I sit down now when my time is up in a couple of minutes, and if we had a vote, or if everyone of us on this side of the House continued to speak for the twenty minutes we are allowed and we have a vote, any difference, like the old fellow said, is all alike. There will be no difference. What difference. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. crowd on the other side have made up their mind and they are using the parliamentary rule book to enforce their will. I have nothing against that. Obviously, as a parliamentarian I have nothing against that, but, Mr. Chairman, there are issues and there are times and there are bills when a Parliament ought to be able to debate as long as it wishes. That is why closure is used on such rare occasions in most Parliaments. Certainly, in the Parliament of Newfoundland it has been used very sparingly up until this Government came into office twenty something months ago. That is why it is used, and if the Opposition on behalf of those who have a special interest in a piece of legislation want to talk on, and talk on, and talk on, well then come back, and come back and keep coming back until they are finished. Keep coming back until they are finished.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in the Minister of Social Services and who or who does not walk in or out the gallery. I know that two very good friends of mine are in the gallery, so if they have to go to another meeting that is fine. I saw the Minister of Social Services up in the gallery last night with a friend, Mr. Chairman. I do not care whether people have to come or go, that has nothing to do with what I am about to say or not to say, or how fast I am going to sit down or not sit down. The Minister is trying to throw me off stride.

The point I was making, Mr. Chairman, is to cut off debate on this Bill is, to use a favourite term of the Premier, unconscionable. It is unconscionable in my view to cut off debate on this Bill. There is no amount of silly argument from the Government House Leader or the Premier about how long you have been on the Bill, the lack of debate on it, and the lack of sense in what you are saying. That is all immaterial, that is all window-dressing, that is all hogwash. The point of the matter is that several thousand of our fellow citizens are being adversely affected by this unprecedented piece of legislation, several thousand of them. The Premier this morning, I believe, in response to a question, talked about the discriminatory way in which we signed the pay equity agreement. All we did, as I recall, when we signed the pay equity agreement, was to make it effective from a certain date.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) for all the public service and put it in a context that was (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: That is right, and there was a date from which it would begin for all women in the public service. The Premier calls that discrimination and even goes so far as to give himself a pat on the back for what he is doing in this piece of legislation. Now, if I recall correctly when that hon. crowd were looking for office they went a step further on this pay equity and promised pay equity legislation. When are we going to see that? Of course it is not much point in seeing it now because if we see it we will see it reflecting the reality of Bill 16. I mean such a warped vision and such a warped approach that the Premier takes from time to time to justify the way he sees the world, and if everybody else does not see the world the way he sees it then there is something wrong with you, you are less than adequate, you are lacking in something. It is either intelligence, the way you talk, or the way you fling your arms around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I thought it was normal that we be given a minute or two notice but I do not see one here anywhere. I have said what I have to say and in conclusion let me say this, this is the second occasion on this Bill that we have debated the Bill to the point where the Government has invoked closure. When the closure vote comes, it does not matter what time it comes, the Bill will then pass, so whether we debate it all day is immaterial or whether those who want to speak, speak, and then the vote is taken is immaterial, the result will be the same.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, this `real change' administration are using their majority in this Legislature to weaken and remove checks and balances against the power of the Cabinet. They did it when they changed the composition of the Public Utilities Board, which is supposed to function at arms-length from the Cabinet in regulating public utilities. They did it in amending that legislation, to put themselves in a position to pick and choose from among the former commissioners, re-appointing a few and getting rid of others, including the consumer advocate, Andy Wells. They did it when they repealed the Ombudsman's Office, giving Newfoundland the distinction of becoming the first jurisdiction in the whole world to disband a Parliamentary Commissioner's office. They did it in dealing with the Auditor General; that is not passed yet, but it is still in the works. They have similarly objectionable legislation in the works governing the Provincial Court.

Here they are, using their majority in this Assembly to destroy the foundation for collective bargaining. They are turning the clock back, Chairperson. They are turning the clock back to 1971, to the dark days of the autocracy of Joey Smallwood, but they are not going to get away with it, Chairperson. They may be able to take advantage of their majority in this Assembly today and, by invoking closure, shut up the Opposition's reasoned objections to this bill but, Chairperson, they will not be able to get away with it very much longer, because there will come a day of reckoning. Actually, there will be more than one day of reckoning.

Perhaps, the first day of reckoning will be the day the Supreme Court Court of Appeal rules that this legislation offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when the Court of Appeal says that the constitutional legal expert, Clyde Wells, made a terrible mistake in imposing legislation on the people of this Province which contravenes the equality rights that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A second day of reckoning will come, Chairperson, and that will be the day of the next provincial election. That will be the opportunity for the women and men of this Province to judge this Administration. That will be the opportunity for the women who are being penalized by this legislation, who are being discriminated against by this legislation, to have their say.

Chairperson, the Premier and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, who is the Treasury Board President, have been denying that this legislation discriminates against women. The Status of Women Minister has not given an explanation, he just says flatly that the legislation does not discriminate against women, and then switches to attacking, personally, those of us who are stating the obvious. The Premier, however, a master of sophistry, tries to argue that this legislation is, somehow good, arguing that the pay equity contract signed in 1988 covered just part of the public service. Well, Chairperson, the Government in 1988 adopted the principle of implementing pay equity, or equal pay for work of equal value for the whole of the public service, for women employed by Government departments and agencies such as hospitals, the university, colleges, school boards and other agencies.

Chairperson, the contracts that were open and that were due to be signed at that time, back in the spring of 1988, incorporated the Government's acceptance of the pay equity principle, and they included contracts for the health care sector, a sector employing mostly women, which has most of the beneficiaries of pay equity, as well as Hydro. The PC administration made a firm commitment to implementing pay equity for the whole public service and to bringing it about through a process of negotiations with the public service unions over a period of five years, but with effect from April 1 1988.

Now the Premier and his Liberal colleagues, when they campaigned for election, endorsed that commitment. They put in their written campaign literature promise after promise that they would implement progressive pay equity legislation. They continued to pay lip service to that during their first year and a half to two years in office. When I asked the President of Treasury Board - the Status of Women Minister - last year when he was going to introduce the promised pay equity legislation he said, in due course. When I asked the Premier at the beginning of this session of the Legislature he said, what promised pay equity legislation? - he had a lapse of memory, I guess.

But since 1988 the government - first the PC administration that had made the commitment, then the Liberal administration that had made the commitment with the public service unions - acknowledged that a great number of women in the public service, working in our hospitals and nursing homes, have been paid less than men for doing work of equal value. The Government has formerly admitted to discriminating against women in the health care sector. That is all documented. Now through this legislation it is wiping out its contractual obligation to give adjustments to close those gaps back to April 1 1988 and in effect, through this legislation, is acquiescing in continuing pay and benefit discrimination against women.

The Government goes on to say that it still is committed to pay equity and at some unspecified time in the future it will get around to providing for pay equity adjustment. Those adjustments will have effect from the date of signing forward but will not apply to the present or the past. Thereby, women in the health care sector will be deprived of more than $25 million worth of pay equity adjustments. Now a great number of women in the public service have retired over the past three years. A great number are being forced out now. Approximately 3,500 public employees are being laid off as a result of the restraint measures in this Budget. The Government has estimated that 900 of them will be in the health care sector. The Association of Hospitals and Nursing Homes says that unless the Government increases grants to institutions by $10 million this year, the institutions will actually have to lay off quite a few more people than the 900 estimated.

Approximately 80 per cent of these health care workers are women. So we are going to see well upwards of 700 women in the hospitals and nursing homes lose their jobs. And those women who are having to leave now will never see the benefit of this Government's so-called commitment to pay equity, because the Government is refusing to honour the contractual obligations to implement it with effect from April 1 1988.

The Government, using its majority in this Legislature, is violating those agreements. It is betraying the women of the Province, it is betraying the public service unions and the public employees who bargained in good faith and signed with the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Health contracts providing for pay equity adjustments back to April 1 1988. The Government is betraying the voters who actually believed what they promised when they were campaigning three years ago, voters who were conscientious enough not to just listen to the speeches or the advertising, but to actually get the Liberal campaign policy manual and to read the Premier's glossy full-colour brochure that went to every household in the Province which contained not one but two promises of pay equity legislation. All those people have been betrayed. But they will not forget, they will remember, and they will vote appropriately in the next election.

The Premier, as I say, a master of verbal trickery, used a similar rationale as he used here this morning in defending the indefensible, in denying the discriminatory aspects of Bill 16 last fall when he tried to defend the Minister of Social Services' change of social assistance policy involving recategorizing maintenance and child support as non-allowable income. Up to that time, family support payments ordered by the court were treated for social assistance purposes the same as income from a job by the social assistance recipient, as allowable income and the social assistance recipients were allowed to keep up to $115 a month of the income without any deduction from regular social assistance. So there was an incentive for family support payments to be paid, and there was a net benefit to the beneficiaries, to the dependent single mothers and children.

Well last October 1, without any warning to the single parent families affected, the Minister of Social Services wiped that out and started subtracting up to $115 a month or up to 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the family income from these poor families. Now instead of apologizing for that and correcting it, the Minister and the Premier defended it in the name of fairness and balance. The Premier said that because some single mothers on social assistance were not getting any family support payments, why should the ones getting the maintenance be able to benefit?

So it seems the Premier's approach to equality is to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. God forbid that some poor single mother get a little bit ahead! God forbid that some woman cleaner in a hospital, retiring after twenty-five years in the work force, get an adjustment acknowledging that all those years she was discriminated against on the basis of sex. Oh no, there are better uses for that money: there is the Economic Recovery Commission, there are the friends of the Government, Fraser Lush VP in Gander; Keith Payne, defeated Liberal candidate in Corner Brook; there is Gary Anstey, the buddy of the Minister of Development. There are all these deserving people who need the money, so do not give it to the single mother, do not give it to the hospital cleaner, no, no, because there are more deserving candidates for this money. After all, the money has to be distributed around the Province, and the Government has to be very selective about whom it gives it to.

I talked before about the Government, this Clyde Wells real change administration, turning back the clock. He is a neo-conservative, and although there are Members of his benches who have a social conscience, they are basically gutless - they are gutless. They are afraid to take an independent stand, they are afraid to voice what they know in their heart of hearts is fair and reasonable and right because they fear they might lose some perks. The ones in Cabinet are afraid they might be turfed out, the ones on the back bench who are slavishly grovelling to try to get appointed to the Cabinet are scared they might blow their chances, members such as those from Pleasantville, St. John's South, Eagle River and Exploits, probably more than most. So they are being very meek and mild. They are toeing the line. They are putting up with all these regressive budget measures. They are turning their backs on their former causes. They are turning their backs on their constituents and their former workmates because their own self-interest comes first; they want to shore up their personal political position as long as Clyde Wells is Premier. So any misgivings they have they are whispering to themselves in the little confabs that go on in the back benches, but they are not standing in their places and telling the people of the Province what they really think. They are gutless, Chairperson, gutless!

MR. MURPHY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: On three occasions now I have risen to speak on this bill, and I do not like the hon. the Member for Humber East standing up and accusing members on this side of being gutless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Even if it is true.

MR. MURPHY: I think that is totally wrong, and the record should show that she is wrong. And referring to women as simple mothers, what silliness!

MR. RIDEOUT: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, to that outburst from the hon. gentleman from St. John's South, obviously you know as well as I do that it is not a point of order. We could not care less and I am sure the hon. the Member for Humber East could not care less whether the Member for St. John's South personally likes how she describes Government Members. The only way there can be a point of order is if the hon. member used a term that was unparliamentary, and she has not used a term that is unparliamentary. Whether the hon. gentleman likes it or lumps it is immaterial, but it is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: No, Chairperson, I am waiting for your ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ruled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I am afraid what happened is that I struck a raw nerve with the Member for St. John's South. He does have pangs of conscience, and I believe the Member for Pleasantville has pangs of conscience, because they know down deep that what the Premier is doing is wrong. But my point is that none of them so far have mustered the courage to challenge the Premier, to say, Premier, I am sorry, but the emperor has no clothes. What you are doing is wrong. What you are doing cannot be tolerated. Now it is one thing to restrain spending in tough times, it is one thing even to freeze public servants' wages, but, I am sorry, it is quite another to tear up contracts that you signed, that we signed, it is quite another to go back on our word. We gave our word, and our word is our bond. Premier, there have to be ethical standards in Government. If we pledge to our employees that we are going to give them benefit and wage increases and pay equity adjustments to compensate for discrimination against women, oh, Premier, we cannot go back on that. Premier, there are choices. Premier, we made a mess of it over the last two years. You know, there were warning signs: there was the report of the Senior Expenditure Review Committee of the last administration; there were the cautions of the Finance critic when the Budget was brought down last year. Premier, this extravagance of yours, the Economic Recovery Commission, your pet project, Premier, that is really going too far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Oh, too bad, Chairperson!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to just have a few words. I do not have much time left now since this Government has brought in closure again, so this will be my last opportunity on this section of the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You have not brought in closure? You were not here this morning. You did that last night actually, so you were not here last night either, I guess. Last night you gave notice, this morning you brought it in. But anyway, I am sure that the Chairman of Committees has everything under control and he is aware of what we are debating here now.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the Government wants to rush this Bill through the House of Assembly. It is a retroactive piece of legislation. If they bring it in next September it has the same consequences as if they had brought it in last week. If they are afraid to debate it I can understand, and I can understand why they would be afraid to debate it because it is certainly the worst piece of legislation that has been brought into this legislature since I have been here, probably the worst since the IWA legislation. I am not familiar with that, but I am told that too was a very bad piece of legislation. I am not familiar with it. But since I have been here, Mr. Chairman, this is the worst without doubt. Even the Bill 59 which we brought in, which was considered to be the worst ever, does not compare to this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, again we have closure, I would say for the first time in our parliamentary history, closure twice on one bill. I have never heard of that before. They are probably going to have to do it three times because if I can keep it going in third reading you are going to have to do it three times, but I am not sure that I can do it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the Government House Leader is looking for. Maybe he wants to get his name mentioned in the Guiness Book of Records for the Government House Leader who brought in closure the most times on one bill and the most times in a session, or the most time in a mandate. That is the only reason I can see why he would want to bring in closure on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, if the bill is passed next month it will have the same effect as if it is passed right now, so I do not understand the reason for closure except that the Members on that side are putting pressure on the Government to get rid of this. The backbenchers who are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this bill are telling the Government to get it over and done with as fast as you can and sweep it under the carpet so that we do not have to be taking this criticism from our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I heard last night on a news report that the Government House Leader said the reason he will be introducing closure on this bill is because the last thirteen speakers on this side have not been referring to the bill and they have not been relevant. Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to get up on a point of order today because the Government House Leader, by making those statements, even though he did not make them in the House, is questioning the many rulings of the Chairman of the Committee that we have been in for the past week.

On several occasions the Minister rose to point out that a Member, as he considered, was being irrelevant, and on every single occasion it was ruled by the Chairperson of the Committee, whoever was sitting in the Chair at the time, that the Member was not being irrelevant. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that a case could be made if there was a transcript of the recording that I heard sometime last night or this morning that the Government House Leader has questioned the ruling of this Chair and has actually insulted the Chairmen of the Committees by suggesting that the Chairmen of the Committees do not know what they are talking about and the Government House Leader can rule this House as much as he wants.

Now, Mr. Chairman, had I been, and I was at one time, Deputy Speaker of this House and heard that report on the radio, and I would imagine both the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees did not hear it because I am sure they would have enough respect for this House to make the point themselves. But, Mr. Chairman, if I had been in the Chair or Deputy Speaker at the time and heard that report, I personally would have asked for the Minister to withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that both Chairpersons and the Speaker did not hear that report, because it was a direct slur on the competence of the Chairpersons of this Legislature and the Government House Leader should apologize to the Chairpersons of this Legislature for the slur he made on them in the news report, either last night or this morning. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would have asked him to do it. I would have gotten up on a point of order, but I expected the Government House Leader, in retrospect, to get up today and apologize. He did not say it in this House, so I am not sure that it is a point of order for me to raise, but, had I been Deputy Speaker or Speaker, I would definitely have raised it, Mr. Chairman, because there is no doubt that the Government House Leader questioned the rulings and insulted both Chairpersons who sat in that Chair over the last couple of days, in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should be ashamed of himself.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He should be ashamed of himself. On every occasion that he rose in this House to try to declare people irrelevant, he was ruled out of order, not the person who was speaking, Mr. Chairman. The Chairpersons of the Committees of this House took up for the people who are trying to speak to this bill, and ruled that they were in order, not out of order, and the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, goes outside of this House, on the public media, saying that the Chairpersons of the Committees in this House do not know what they are talking about, because the last thirteen speakers were completely irrelevant. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would apologize if I had said that, and I am sure the President of Treasury Board will apologize very shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, because it is an insult to members of his own caucus, certainly, an insult to this House, and how this House is being run. I can see Oppositions being upset, sometimes, by certain rulings they might not like but, Mr. Chairman, not continuous rulings when the President of Treasury Board got up at least three times, I believe, during one speech that I made, and suggested I was being irrelevant. The person in the Chair at the time, Mr. Chairman, ruled that the President of Treasury Board was wrong, and for him to go outside this House and question the rulings of the Speaker, is beyond me.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should not be surprised, and I really most say, I was not aware of it - 1966, I do not know what I would have been doing in 1966, probably in the College of Trades and Technology trying to get a surveying diploma; so I was not really interested in the labour legislation that was going through the House of Assembly, because I was up to my ears in mathematics and physics and everything else. So, I was not paying as much political attention as maybe I should have been. And, only today, did I learn, when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition in this House, that our present Premier was Minister of Labour when there was a union outlawed from being formed in the hospitals, decertified in the hospitals. Mr. Chairman, what else can we expect from a Premier who would do that, to sign agreements one day and throw them in the garbage the next day? Mr. Chairman, had I known that some time ago, I would not have been so surprised at the Premier bringing in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, had I known it in 1989, when the Liberals were going around this Province saying what bad negotiators and union people the Tories were, with their platform of `real change' and how they were going to treat everyone fairly and equitably, Mr. Chairman, had I known that in 1966, the present Premier of this Province decertified a union in a hospital in this Province, it would have been worthwhile for the union leaders supporting this party at the time, to be made aware of that. The union leaders, I am sure, did not know that when they supported this Premier for election in 1989. I would imagine, each and every one of those union leaders who supported the Premier and his candidates during the last election, feel very betrayed. They must have felt very betrayed when the President of Treasury Board called them into a meeting and dictated to them that their signed collective agreements which they bargained hard for, are being torn up and thrown in the garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand some members opposite supporting this type of legislation. You take the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: He was always a Tory. He just got upset with the Tories and went with another party, but he is still a Tory. He is a very conservative-type person. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that.

Mr. Speaker, I can see the Minister of Social Services supporting this type of legislation, because the worry on his mind at this time of the year is how much taxes he is going to pay, not the welfare of the public servants and the social services recipients. Mr. Chairman, I can definitely see the Minister of Finance supporting this type of bill because the Minister of Finance is -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but other people who have sat in this Chair, and I think His Honour, have ruled that it is unparliamentary for people to turn their backs to the House. Beauchesne is very clear on that, so I would request hon. Members to turn their chairs and face the House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they can turn their backs if they like, I do not mind, because I know most of them over there are ashamed of their lives to look me straight in the face and say they are supporting this. The Minister of Health, I thought he was a really liberal-minded person until I got to know him a little better from that side of the House. When he was over here I thought he was a Liberal. But, Mr. Chairman, he is more Conservative than I could ever dream of being, since he went to that side of the House.

But the ones I am really surprised at for supporting this bill are the people over there whom I know are really Liberals and liberal thinkers. The one whom I would consider to be a true Liberal over there is the President of Treasury Board. This must be eating away at him because I know it is against his better judgement; the President of Treasury Board is a liberal thinker and his philosophy would be liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He probably used to be. Well, I guess King Clyde has taken complete control. The Member for St. John's South stood in this House of Assembly and said he deplored this legislation, he is not in favour of the legislation, but he just does not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against Clyde and tell him that he is going to vote against the legislation. He is one of the many gutless wonders we see on that side of the House. The Member for Eagle River, who is a true liberal thinker in this Province, he is one who would be as liberal as he -

MS. VERGE: When he talks federal but not provincial.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, he would have a liberal philosophy as extreme as any Liberal I know of, and he must be choking to have to vote for such a piece of legislation.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Eagle River. I mean, he is not a Conservative. You could never even remotely consider him to be a Conservative. He is extremely liberal minded except when Clyde tells him to be. That is the big difference, when Clyde tightens up the screws. He could not get him on Meech Lake, Clyde could not get him on that one, he got away on that one, but since that the whip has been cracked; there has not been a break since; there has not been one move; nobody stood up in this House and showed their true feelings. But I will commend the Member for Eagle River, because he is a true Liberal. He was concerned about Canada and he did try to do everything he could to protect, to save Canada. Now I ask him to do the same thing for the public servants of this Province, of which he would have been one had he not been elected.

If he was still working the Labrador Coast with the Marine Institute today - he was going back and forth there doing his political homework, and they did a good job, he did a good job. But if he had not decided in 1989 to run for election and he was still working the Coast of Labrador today and his wages were being rolled back and his Labrador benefits were being taken away, I wonder how he would feel about voting for this piece of legislation. If he was not in the House, he was still up on the Labrador coast and I was still Minister of Northern Development and I happened to run across him and I said Danny, what do you think about what they are doing to public servants? I think I would get a good earful, Mr. Chairman. I think I would get the true feelings of the Member for Eagle River on what this bill is doing to the public servants of the Province. But what happens to people when they get elected and come into this House of Assembly? Their feelings change maybe? Maybe they understand a bit more? Maybe they understand finances a bit more. Maybe their mouths or tongues are cut off by a dictator. Maybe they are told -

MS. VERGE: They are hoping to get appointed to Cabinet.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say the Member for Eagle River would have a fairly good chance of going to the Cabinet anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say yes. The Minister of Fisheries will be retiring shortly, and there are a couple more over there who are about to go, so the Member for Eagle River would have as good a chance as anyone there. Maybe the Minister of Social Services will be in limbo or purgatory in the next little while, after the Sunday papers come out this week. We might see another stint in purgatory for the Minister of pigeon fleas sitting in the back row there now, Mr. Chairman. He might have to spend another stint outside Cabinet - inside but outside. I do not know how it worked. I do not know whether he went to Cabinet meetings at that time or not. I do know he got full pay; he was still getting paid at a rate of $100,000 a year. So I would say that if he goes this time, if the word comes down from the king himself, you will not be going back a second time. Because he told you last time when the report came down, Johnhy, I will let you away with it once. That is what he said in the report - I will let you away with it once but not twice.

Now I think number two might be coming very shortly, Mr. Chairman. Number two might be just on the horizon. I hope not, because I would not want to see the Minister of Social Services and the Premier having a public fallout. That would not do anything for the politics of this Province, Mr. Chairman. I would rather that this thing just blow aside, leave him in Cabinet, and the next election the people will deal with the whole works anyway.

There is a chance the Minister of Social Services might be going for number two, but Clyde said number one is okay, number two is going to be a big problem. And number two is coming close.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know how the Member for St. John's South can support this legilation. Now, Sir, I had the distinct privilege of serving on the Government Services Legislative Review Committee with the Member for St. John's South, and he does a good job on it. He purports on that Committee to be a fairly sympathetic labour person in this Province, and I think he is sincere about it. He certainly has the experience in the labour field. He has worked at it for a long time. He has admitted he hates this legislation. But I cannot see, knowing his past record as a hockey player and standing up for the little guy, and helping out people on Shea Heights who will be affected by this, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why he will vote for this piece of legislation. I just cannot comprehend it. He will have a harder time getting in Cabinet than the Member for Eagle River, because he does stand up a bit more to the Premier privately. I think the Member for St. John's South privately stands up to the Premier and has words with him. Knowing him, I would say that is correct.

The Member for Eagle River will not do that. He did it publicly once, but he will be more careful privately. But it is hard for any of them to have a conversation with the Premier, because as soon as they come in and say, `Mr. Premier, I wonder could you review this?' there was such a commotion in the office that they are all blown back into the corner and they get a twenty minute diatribe on what a great guy Clyde Wells is. And they cannot open their mouths after that, so they sort of kowtow and go out of the office and say, God! At least, thank God, I got out with my hair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh. oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not while I was around. Do we Have some people in the Gallery? Oh, they are good people, anyway.

Mr. Chairman, we do have a real change with this Government. We do have real change since this Government came in, and the change is that what Clyde says goes period - no questions asked. Do not let the Federation of Municipalities raise some concerns about a piece of legislation which has been passed. That is not good enough, because Clyde looked at the bill today. He took five minutes, looked at the bill and said, `Oh, sure this is exactly what I expected it to be.' Sure it is, Mr. Chairman, because he wrote it. He was the one who wanted to give all the power to the Cabinet and take it away from the municipalities. I do not know why he waited five minutes to say it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. K. AYLWARD: By leave, Mr. Speaker? I have another twenty minutes or so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave of the House?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, we are not prepared to allow the question to be put just yet for a number of reasons, and I will try to outline them for the benefit of my friend, the Minister of Health, who seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding what exactly is going on here. He does not understand why we are delaying -

MR. DECKER: Tell me.

MR. SIMMS: Well, perhaps I will get to it. If he would give us an opportunity, if he would be polite and courteous, I will try to explain how relevant this issue is. I particularly want to try to explain for his benefit an answer to a question that has been asked over there by members, `Why are we delaying the bill?' Why are we delaying through parliamentary procedural wrangling, through amendments, through whatever? Why are we doing that? Why are we not just caving in to the Government and after the bill is introduced, sitting down and shutting up, saying nothing? Just sit down, do not say a word, let the bill go and let it pass, why are we not doing that? Well, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why we are not doing that.

First of all, I want to address two or three items that have appeared throughout the course of this debate in newspaper articles, in interviews, and in quotes of the Government House Leader, which I found very surprising. I want to deal, first of all, with some quotes in Saturday's edition of The Evening Telegram, Saturday, April 6th. There is no by-line to the story, so I am not quite sure who wrote it. But the headline was: "Government announces closure on wage freeze debate." That article says, "Mr. Baker says the Tories have had enough time to express their opinions of Bill 16." Now this is back on Saturday, April 6th., in an Evening Telegram story. I do not know whose by-line it is, but he is quoted: "But, Mr. Baker said, the Tories have had enough time to express their opinions on Bill 16." Now that was last week he said that. That is a week ago. Well, how did he arrive at that conclusion?

Apparently he was confused, because the next paragraph says, "Every member of the Opposition has now had a chance to speak twice to this stage of the bill." Now this is second reading. "Every member of the Opposition now has had a chance to speak twice to this stage of the bill," giving the impression that we had spoken twice to this stage of the bill.

Now Your Honour will remember and will realize that at the introduction of Bill 16, second reading stage, there was one speaker from this side who spoke to the principle of the bill, and that was myself. At the conclusion of my remarks I moved an amendment, the traditional amendment on second reading, for a six-month hoist. Then we debated the six-month hoist reasons for delaying the bill for six months and then, and only then, after we moved a second amendment, moved by the Member for Kilbride, did the Government envoke closure. Mr. Chairman, the reality, of course, is every member on this side did not have the opportunity to speak to the principle of the bill. We used traditionally acceptable parliamentary practices of moving amendments which is our right, which we are entitled to do. We debated the bill properly, we moved proper amendments. They were ruled in order. Yet, the Government brought in closure at that first stage, second reading, before Members of the House had an opportunity to debate second reading, the bill in principle, with two exceptions, the President of Treasury Board who introduced the bill, who spoke for fifteen or twenty minutes, and myself, who spoke for an hour and a half. Then we moved the amendment. So it was inaccurate for him to say that and he should not have misled the people of the Province, and he should not have misled whoever wrote the article - I am not sure who wrote it.

Then he went on to say all pertinent points regarding the bill had been covered. Now, I mean, who does the President of Treasury Board think he is? Who does the Government House Leader think he is? Members are elected to this House to express their own views and their own opinions. And if not everybody had spoken who were entitled to speak - not everybody in this House had spoken - how does he know all the pertinent points had been covered? I mean, Members are elected to express their views on behalf of their constituents. Not everybody had spoken - only two had spoken to the principle of the bill - so how could he say all pertinent points have been made? I mean, that is so silly it is not even funny. Yet again, it is printed, it is covered verbatim, and the public out there say oh, well, it must be right. Mr. Baker said it and he must be right. But he is not right. He is absolutely wrong.

Then the most vicious twisting I have ever heard of is the final comment he made. Quote now, quotation marks "The Opposition" - I want him to hear this - "the Opposition has informed me that every piece of legislation is going to be pushed to closure, and that is fine. If they have made that obstructionist decision, then obviously we have to govern, and the only way to do it is to make sure the votes are taken."

Now I have to say that I would have expected by now that the Government House Leader would have stood on a point of privilege to correct that quotation, because I am absolutely certain that that quote is wrong, that the Government House Leader did not make that quote. I am absolutely positive, knowing the gentleman like I know him, he would not make such a statement. Now he may have meant something else. He may have meant I have been told that this piece of legislation was going to be pushed to closure. If he had said that, absolutely. And not only did I tell him privately as the House Leader, but we said it publicly. I was the first speaker for our side and in my comments at the end of the debate I indicated that we intended to use whatever methods we could to ensure that this legislation was delayed.

But if he is quoted accurately - I am sure he will want to correct that quote. We have never informed him. The House Leader who speaks on behalf of the Opposition officially and the Leader of the Opposition have never informed him that every piece of legislation is going to be pushed to closure. We have never said that. We do not intend that to be the case, so I hope he will take the opportunity to correct that misconception. But again, you see, it is a little bit of a twist, a little bit of misconception to try to build up to the excuse the Government needs to be able to call closure - use all of that to build up to calling closure, like he did last night in the debate. Remember the little tricks they used last night? The Government House Leader stood - I do not know how many times - eight or ten times - four times he says. Let me show him the difference between twisting things and saying them accurately. He says he stood at least four times, and I agree with him. I do not know if it was any more, but at least four times he stood on a point of order to try to get the Chair to call relevance in a debate that was perfectly relevant and perfectly provided for under the parliamentary law, Beauchesne, which is the law we often use. And he knew it, because we quoted it to him time and time again. Not only that, the Chair had ruled on numerous occasions that the debate was wide ranging and acceptable, and had gone this way. There was no reason to change it now. But he stood at least four times, I thought it was much, much more, on the same point of order. Now he could have easily been told to sit down, he could have been told to take his seat by rising on these spurious points of order because that is what they were. He could have, in fact, been named, yes, if he did not listen to the Chair. But one thing is for certain, Mr. Chairman, that this was again another little part of the plot to set up closure, to try to instill in the minds of the public and the press gallery that: here is why we are bringing in closure. In the first instance we told them we were going to force closure on all pieces of legislation, not true, but that is one way of twisting and building up to the use of closure. Then last night, this other little tactic, point of order, point of order, point of order.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the evening, of course, we saw what he was up to. He said, 'now the last number of speakers have not been relevant to the bill.' Mr. Chairman, the only person who was not relevant was the Government House Leader himself. He was ruled out of order on four occasions at least by the Chair that his point of order was not relevant. He was out of order. It was not the debaters who were out of order. They were ruled in order, but again it was all part of the plot, all part of the build up. Then finally at the closing moments of last nights sitting, surprise, surprise! 'Mr. Chairman, I rise to give notice that I will call closure under Standing Order 50. I will cut off debate tomorrow.' So it is all part of a plot, but what comes out of it all, of course, is the Government's arrogance and its insistence on using this type of procedure. Most unheard of in provincial jurisdictions, very rarely used in provincial jurisdictions, and very sad, I think, very sad that the Government resorts to this type of approach.

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition earlier in his comments indicated the approach. We are now under closure. The debate now has been cut off. I hope the press understands. The debate has now been closed. The debate is now cut off. There is a time limit on the debate. So whether the debate ends at 12:30, 1:30, 2:30, the debate will end this afternoon, and the Committee stage of this Bill will pass. Obviously the Government is going to use its majority. I doubt very much if there is anybody over there who will vote against the Government. So that is another reason, I say to the Minister of Health, why we are delaying the Bill, because we find that the Government opposite, the Members opposite, are using tactics that are virtually unheard of in most other provincial jurisdictions.

We have found that the Government was intent on using closure anyway, and in this case, for example, there have been two days debate - two days in the Committee stage, Tuesday and Thursday. Two days debate. Mind you we had an evening sitting on both occasions, but that is not an unusual period of time for debate on a Bill or a piece of legislation, two days in Committee. My God, when they were in Opposition sure there were some bills that went through Committee stage that maybe took two weeks, lots of bills. It is not unusual. But the Government is intent, hell bent and determined on ramming this through the House getting it out of the way as quickly as they possibly can to try to avoid any further dissipation of their popularity, I suppose, is what they are up to. So they are all valid reasons for delaying this legislation, to answer questions like these questions written by an editorial writer for the Evening Telegram, a well respected labour historian, Mr. Kealey, whose headline is, 'Is it the death knell of collective bargaining?' Those are questions that are asked, those are reasons why the Bill is being delayed, because of public comments made by other people about pay equity roll back being discriminatory; because of comments, I say to the Minister of Health, from people who say that what is happening with Bill 16 is a violation of trust; because of comments that people are saying because Bill 16 is a dangerous precedent for future bargaining; because it undermines Government's credibility; because it is a reflection on the House itself; because it is an unwarranted use of power; because they kept the unions in the dark; and because they have bargained dishonestly. Those are the reasons, Mr. Chairman, why we are delaying and fighting this legislation. Those are all the reasons, and I say to the House, with respect, all very legitimate reasons, and any Opposition worth its salt would be doing exactly the same thing. If those Members opposite were on this side of the House they would be doing precisely the same thing, and they are not fooling anybody by trying to give the impression that they would not.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, and as the Leader of the Opposition said, I have to move on because we have some amendments to pass, or we have some amendments, at least, to place and to put for debate, and that would not be able to be done now because of closure unless we move on. We have no choice now but to move off Clause 1 and to move through the clause by clause stage of the Bill, because I have amendments on behalf of the Opposition, I know the Government House Leader has amendments, I know the Member for St. John's East has amendments, and in all fairness now with the gag order on, if we do not move on none of us will be able to move the amendments until right at the very end, and who knows if time will run out or not because we do not know who is going to debate, although we have our suspicions that nobody on that side is going to stand except the Government House Leader. With that in mind, because of the unusual circumstances that exist, and I ask the Government House Leader this at this point more as a point of information rather than to lose my opportunity of speaking, but I want to ask him for some co-operation, I guess, in being able to move these amendments. As he knows we will have to move on to clause by clause stage. He has an amendment on Clause 2, I know. I believe he has one on Clause 9, if I remember correctly, and I have one on Clause 5, Clause 9, and Clause 10. I know the Member for St. John's East has one on Clause 9, I believe it is, so it may mean for the benefit of all, in order to have a bit of discussion on the amendments, we could be a bit flexible under the closure rule and maybe restrict the speakers, but at least give us the opportunity to move the clause when we get to it, explain it a bit, and then maybe sit down to see if the Government House Leader or somebody wants to comment on it, or respond to it, and then move on to the next clause. That would not be technically permissable because you are only allowed twenty minutes and that is it. I do not know if the Chair would consider this as a point of order rather than taking it out of my time and ask the Government House Leader if he would respond to that kind of request for flexibility? Would he agree not to take it out of my time now in answering that question?

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

MR. SIMMS: Can he nod to me? We will deal this as a point of order for the moment. Can he nod to me and tell me that?

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

Before we start, points of order do come out of the time.

MR. BAKER: The Opposition House Leader is taking a big chance, of course, in sitting down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. BAKER: That is right. I know. The Member for St. John's East has given notice, at least informed us that he has an amendment, at least one amendment to make. The Opposition House Leader has indicated he has at least three amendments they want to make, and I have already mentioned earlier in debate that there are two I would like to make. I suppose what we could do is, by agreement, go through the clause by clause simply to get the amendments out of the way and then if there is any debate on the title after that, or whatever, we could have debate on the title, sort of bend the rules in order to get the amendments out of the way.

Are you finished?

MR. SIMMS: Finished on Clause 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to postpone Clause 1?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on the same point of order.

MR. HARRIS: My concern is, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to go through the amendments, hon. Members can only speak once, whether it be according to the closure rules, can either speak on the title or the whole of the Bill, or speak on an amendment, and if what the hon. Government House Leader is saying is he will allow speaking on the amendment as well as speaking on the main motion by unanimous consent, I think that would be acceptable.

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

MR. BAKER: I assume that is what the Opposition House Leader meant. We could go through and deal with the amendments and then go back to the twenty minute thing, and you could speak your twenty minutes or whatever on the title.

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

MR. SIMMS: That is my understanding as well, Mr. Chairman, just so we are all clear. What we are doing is basically deferring Clause 1 until we have gone through all the other clauses, and then anybody who wishes to speak under Clause 1 are still entitled to speak, if they wish to speak, which will give you opportunity for your full twenty minutes, and also to move your amendment when we get to Clause 9.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are on Clause 2 now I take it, and I would like to move -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 2 carry?

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment I would like to propose to Clause 2, Paragraph (C), Subsection (IX) and it simply is that Paragraph 2(C), Subsection (IX) of Bill No. 16 be struck out - now that reads `a health service institution defined by subsection...' and so on, in case members are following - and the following substituted: `(IX) an employer to which the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act (1973) applies.' The only purpose for that, Mr. Chairman, is to clarify that the bill applies to employees to whom this particular Act applies. It is not as specific as what was there, it is a bit broader, but just to clarify that particular situation. Mr. Speaker, I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

Shall the amendment carry?

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am conferring with the Clerks for a second.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had a clear understanding of how we were going to deviate a little from the normal closure rules to accommodate both sides of the House, as we were doing our amendments.

I want to say simply this, Mr. Chairman. We do not like anything in this particular piece of legislation, and I want to make that abundantly clear. But in not being obstructionists on this amendment, we have no difficulty with the amendment. We do not like what it does. We have spent days and days saying that about the whole bill. But the amendment from what I can see legislatively does nothing more than provide a definition that the Government says it must have in order to make this legislation work.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 2, as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 3 and 4, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 5 carry?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: I would like to move the following amendment, that Clause 5 be deleted and the following substituted so that it would then read: `5. (1) No increase shall be applied to the pay scales of public sector employees during the restraint period', which in essence deletes the first part of Clause 1 that now talks about `notwithstanding terms and conditions of employment' and so on, so it would read: `5.(2) The restraint period for any employee whose collective agreement provides for an increase in pay scales on or after March 31, 1991, shall not commence until the expiration of that collective agreement and shall last for a period of one year from that date.'

The intent of the amendment is two things: one is to allow for any special considerations that might be written into collective agreements to still be able to continue, and the second and most obvious amendment, of course, is suggesting that the Government not break collective agreements in terms of the freeze or whatever, not do it by breaking the collective agreement and plucking it out, but rather doing it at the end, at the expiry of a collective agreement, as was done back in the early 1980s, as has been talked about during the debate. We had to word the amendment this way, of course, because we could not very well propose an amendment that was contrary to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill has now been passed by the House and you are not permitted to really move amendments, I guess, contrary to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is wage restraint. So we worded it this way to suggest the Government now, after having heard all the debate from this side and outside, heard all the very pertinent and valid arguments made, sensible arguments, might want to reconsider and might want to impose such a wage freeze as they have decided to impose at the expiry of a collective agreement, so that if agreements run out next year, then that is when it occurs and they get their money savings next year. They would obviously have to juggle their current situation accordingly.

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

MR. BAKER: Very briefly in response, Mr. Chairman, what is being proposed by the Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader is that the wage freeze this time be implemented the same way that it was the last time there was a wage freeze, in essence tacked on to the end of existing contracts.

Mr. Chairman, during the process of consideration, obviously this is one of the options we considered. Unfortunately, we need to save the money now. We have a major problem in this fiscal year, and cannot postpone the freeze, so we have to insist that the freeze be taken by all public servants in this current fiscal year and that we cannot proceed with allowing the collective agreements to run their course and then instituting a freeze period at the end of the collective agreements which, if our financial difficulties were not as great we may have been able to do, but our financial difficulties are such, Mr. Chairman, that in order to do this: I do not have the figures in front of me now, but I believe that in order to do this it would mean another 1,000 or over 1,000 more layoffs and we have decided we have gone as far as we could go in terms of layoffs. So, Mr. Chairman, we have to vote against this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

For the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is defeated.

On motion clause 5 carried.

On motion clauses 6 through 8 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 9 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Clause 9, deals with pay equity. In the way it is written there was some doubt expressed by a number of people who are involved with the pay equity process and I believe it was brought up in the House by the Member for St. John's East. There is some concern that perhaps what we had written here was not the intent that we had in mind. So to straighten things out our intent, Mr. Chairman, is that pay equity, whereas the retroactive provision of pay equity, this bill will delete the retroactive provision, that it will ensure that as soon as the numbers have been put together in terms of groups within the public service that pay equity can be brought into effect immediately. And I believe I indicated to this hon. House that very shortly, as a matter of fact within the next few weeks, I suspect it will be finished, some groups in the public service can then immediately institute the pay equity.

So to make it clear as to our intent, I move that we amend clause 9 of the bill by adding immediately after subclause 2, the following, and subclause 2 says 'Where there is a provision in a pay equity agreement which provides pay equity, agreement shall be implemented retroactively , that provision is void.' Then I want to add to that 2.1 'Notwithstanding the other provisions of this act a pay equity agreement may be negotiated or implemented. The first pay equity wage adjustment date shall be the date on which the pay equity wage adjustment is agreed on. And subsection 2: this section applies whether the pay equity agreement is reached or the pay equity wage adjustment date is agreed upon before or after the date this act comes into force. So it allows not only the groups that are currently negotiating and trying to come to terms with the pay equity and the numbers with regards to pay equity. It not only allows the ones that are currently in negotiation to get pay equity, but if it happens that other groups are settled before that restraint period that they also can get their adjustment.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would so move that amendment and it has been tabled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry?

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there is such a thing, I suppose, as a silver lining in a dark cloud, as far as this piece of legislation goes, this particular amendment fits into that category. It improves Section 9. Now, Section 9 is a very, very, very bad piece of legislation. It takes away the rights, solemnly entered into and agreed upon through the collective bargaining process, by another government, and now by an act of the Legislature, of this Government, the principle enshrined and the rights agreed to in that particular agreement of pay equity, retroactive to a certain date, has been taken away. It is discriminatory. The Government does not have the intestinal fortitude to even test it in the courts before they proceed.

But that is not unusual for the leader of this Government. If he says it is right, it is right, let's proceed, let's stamp on the rights of individuals. Let's be discriminatory against women. What are we worried about pay equity for? For God's sake, there is only those who are involved in the public service who are going to get it, so that is discriminatory against those outside. It so happens that it is Government and public servants who we are talking about.

So Clause 9 is a heinous piece of legislation in its own right. Now it does, by the very fact of the amendment, improve it a little bit, if it is possible to improve on disgust, if it is possible to improve bad legislation, by at least committing yourself firmly to it. But then again, who knows whether or not this Government will make any effort to negotiate pay equity during the next several months? Nobody knows that. This might be only window dressing to try to keep a principle enshrined in legislation that it does not believe in anyway. There is no commitment. The Government is not forced to negotiate any pay equity agreements under this particular clause or under the amendments to it. It could be nothing more than window dressing by a Government that could not care less, but dresses it up a bit so that if it is possible to deflect some of the legitimate criticism that this particular clause has attracted, then that might do their own political ends some good.

But it is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know, I am stuck. If it is possible to improve a bad situation I suppose it improves it. But it is still a disgusting situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry? We have a (Inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you are speaking to this particular amendment? Oh, I am sorry.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to speak to this amendment since it was in part at least a result of my intervention to the Premier and the Government House Leader that it was brought about. And I pointed this out to the Government, that two things struck me about it.

One was that this Government seems to have had such a cavalier attitude about breaking agreements, and putting in legislation that would have the effect of wiping out agreements that the Government had reached, that it had gone so far as to even make it impossible for them to do what they said they were going to do, which was implement agreements that they were about to agree upon, or numbers they were about to put into place. So I did point it out to the Government. And I suppose what I have done, really, is save them from some embarrassment if they discover down the road that the law prevented them from carrying out these agreements that the Premier intended to bring about.

(Inaudible) I did point it out to him because I wanted to ensure that the limited amounts to which the Government was prepared to implement the pay equity agreements that were in place, to the limited extent that they were prepared to implement them, I wanted to ensure that they would not have hamstrung themselves and prevented themselves from implementing them by legislation, which is brutal and obviously ill-considered, because they did not consider all the ramifications of it. But I thought it important to bring this to the attention of the Government, and I congratulate them on taking the steps to improve it and to fix it. But of course it is a minor improvement on a very bad piece of legislation. But at least it will allow it to do a limited amount of pay equity during this year.

On motion, amendment carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rise to propose an amendment to move that the following Clause be added after Clause 9 which is 9.1 which says as follows: Notwithstanding, anything contained in this Act, pay equity adjustments which would, but for this Act have been payable in accordance with the pay equity agreement, will be treated as salary as defined in the Public Service Pensions Act, and for the purpose of that Act shall be deemed to have been paid to the public sector employee in accordance with the pay equity agreement.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, is similar, I suppose to the previous one, to ensure that despite the fact that the Government is removing the pay equity provisions which were negotiated for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990, for those three years, despite the fact that the Government is removing those, the pay equity agreement itself says that the adjustments that were to be made in 1988, 1989 and 1990, were to be considered as salary for the purpose of the Public Service Pensions Act.

The effect of this amendment would be to maintain that provision at least, so that the Government does not have to reach into its pocket and pay out the actual adjustments to the individuals, because they are obviously not going to do that, they have said they are not going to do that, but at least, for the purposes of the Public Service Pensions Act, it could have a very serious impact on certain groups of people. Let me give you an example.

Let us say, for example, a nursing assistant who, under the pay equity agreement would be entitled to an adjustment of $2,100 or $2,200 per year, and that is the range of the figures that I think are going to be revealed in a few days, and if that woman, who, as a result of the closure of, say, the Placentia Hospital, which this Government is going to do, is declared redundant and is entitled to a redundancy pension under the Public Service Pensions Act, that pension is based on the best three years or the last three years of employment.

Now if we take that example and apply - if a person was entitled to maximum compensation under the Public Service Pension Act, three quarters of that, say $1,200 or $1,300 or $1,400 per year to that persons pension, would be payable under the Public Service Pensions Act from the pension fund, not from the consolidated revenue out of the Government's current account budget, and that individual would get, say, an extra $100 or $150 a month for the whole of the pensionable period. This amendment is designed to prevent that from being taken away from a woman who would be subject to that under this agreement. I think, inasmuch as one can provide a friendly amendment to such an unfriendly bill, an unfriendly bill to the workers, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is a friendly amendment, in the nature of an amendment that would avoid a far more serious effect on an individual in the public service than, I think, the Government really intended. Now, I have my doubts that the Premier fully understood what I was saying this morning, because he did not seem to agree. But I think that, upon reflection, the hon. Government House Leader and the Government Members over there would agree that they do not really intend to take away pension benefits from people who would have had improved pensions as a result of the pay equity agreements.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Government House Leader indicate that he has given consideration to the motives behind this amendment, so that the people behind him will vote in support of this amendment, because, I think, as I say, despite the fact that it is a bill which is unfriendly to workers, this is a friendly amendment in that it tries to prevent the Government from going even further than it wishes to go in terms of the effects on workers, not just this year but next year, the year after and the year after that, people who, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment does not pass, may never be able to get any benefit from the pay equity agreement that was signed on their behalf in 1988, because they will no longer be in the public service as a result of either regular retirement or retirement forced on them because of forced redundancy.

So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the Government House Leader respond to this amendment and indicate the Government's views on it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the amendment presented by the Member for St. John's East, to second it, although no seconder is necessarily needed in Committee. But if there were a seconder required in Committee for amendments, I would be proud to second the amendment. Let us put it that way. I certainly support it.

The amendment that we are going to propose in a few moments to this same clause, which will be proposed by my colleague, the Deputy House Leader, the Member for Humber East, will go even a step further than the Government House Leader has gone in amending Clause 9, and even a step further than the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's East. So we are obviously doing this the proper way, in stages, in the hope that we might get the ultimate agreement for our amendment. That would be the ultimate on this pay equity issue. We have gone one stage now and we have supported the Government's amendment to Clause 9. We voted for it, and the Member for St. John's East voted for it, I believe. So we supported the Government's amendment to Clause 9.

Now I think it would be reasonable if the Government would consider this amendment. This amendment does not throw everything out of whack, but I will tell you what it does, it gives the Government the opportunity to show gigantic compassion, gigantic and enormous understanding, and considerable generosity to the public servants of the Province who are going to be most affected by the action of Bill 16, I guess, and that is women, the women public servants in our Province.

MS. VERGE: Especially the ones that are being forced out by (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Right. Not only the women who are losing their jobs but those who are losing, because of this legislation, in terms of pay equity. So, the amendment proposed by the Member for St. John's East is a very reasonable one. I believe it is. Maybe the Government House Leader, of course, when he responds and speaks to the amendment will tell us differently. I will give him the opportunity and I will not make any premature comments, but to my understanding the Member for St. John's East is saying that, even though you intend to pursue your stated intentions and not make pay equity retroactive to April 1, 1988, at least maybe what you could do is provide for pensionable service for those women who will lose because of this legislation and treat the pensionable time as if they had received the retroactive pay for the last two or three years. That is simply put, that is basically what it is, I think. I think that is a reasonable request. I am not aware that there would be an enormous cost factor involved.

MS. VERGE: It would cost in the future.

MR. SIMMS: In the future, yes, but the Minister has stood in his place today on two or three occasions, with the Premier sitting nearby and nodding his head: our problem is in this fiscal year. That is our problem. Well, I do not think, if the Government accepted this amendment and agreed to do this, I do not believe that would affect seriously the fiscal situation this year, this fiscal year. If I am wrong, then fine, and the Minister of Finance or the Government House Leader can tell us, but certainly I think it is a very reasonable amendment and we on this side would certainly want to be associated with it, and we therefore support it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for St. John's East is very quick to try to take all the credit for the previous amendment.

I should stress again that he did mention it to us, and I thank him for it. It was also mentioned to us by the Chairman of the Pay Equity Committee who also happens to be the President of the Federation of Labour. I believe that is where it came from. So the people involved with the pay equity committee also mentioned it to us. There were several other sources that mentioned that possibility to us, so I will thank him, I will say to him that I am glad he did it, but had he overlooked it, it would still have been done. Let's put it that way. But I am thankful for his input just the same.

With regards to his particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, I am, number one, not sure of the financial implications of this particular amendment. I do know that it would require that the Public Service Pension Plan pay out larger amounts of money than have been put in, than have been planned for in the actuarial assessment of the plan. I know it would mean a deterioration of the Public Service Pension Plan unless additional funds were placed in the Public Service Pension Plan by the Government to compensate. So you see the Public Service Pension Plan, Mr. Chairman, is not funny money, it is real money, and it would be easy for us to make decisions to pay all kind of things out of the pension plans because it does not come out of Governments current account. But I would remind Members that is not a very sensible approach to pay out of the Public Service Pension Plan more than has been used in the actuarial assessment of the rates. So the money has not been paid into the plan, therefore it is difficult. You cannot just pay the money out of the Public Service Pension Plan unless you put money in to pay for it. So I am not sure of the costs. I cannot support this amendment on that basis, but on another basis.

Again, the Chairman of the Pay Equity Committee yesterday informed me that he had a letter in the mail to me about this particular issue. I said to him that when I got his letter - this is exactly the same issue here - that I would do an analysis of it and get back to him. I will do that. Maybe the letter is in my office right now. But he told me yesterday that the letter was in the mail, so I will analyze the letter of the Chairman of the Pay Equity Committee who happens to be the President of the Federation of Labour, and I will get back to him. But without an analysis I cannot approve this amendment as it is unless a proper analysis is done. I will got proper consideration, and I will get back to the Chairman with my answer at that point in time. I suppose if any amendments or adjustments are needed we can do it, but until the proper analysis it cannot be done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think we agreed that there would be one speaker from each side for the amendments.

The amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for St. John's East, shall it carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Against?

I declare the amendment defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you Chairperson.

Before I propose another amendment I have to say that the Government House Leader's admission that the Government has not even thought through the ramifications of reneging on the commitment for pay equity implementation from three years ago April 1, 1988 are quite shocking. Why has not the Government planned for pension payments based on the collective agreement that had been signed and in place for three years?

The amendment I would like to propose, Chairperson, is that subclauses 1 and 2 of clause 9 be deleted and the following substituted 'Notwithstanding clause 5 any provision in a pay equity agreement contained in a collective agreement shall remain in full force and effect.' Chairperson, this amendment will have the effect of salvaging the part of Bill 16 which obviously violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and which in a matter of time will be struck down by the courts of the nation.

Chairperson, pay equity means providing equal pay to women and men for work of equal value. Over the past three years through a process of negotiations the Government, both the current Liberal Administration and before, the PC Administrations, admitted to its employees that the Government has been and is now discriminating against many women in the public service by paying them less than men for doing work of equal value.

The instances of discrimination, the categories of discrimination have been documented. In the face of those admissions and documentation this Administration is trying to use its majority in the Legislature, to have the Legislature pass legislation having the effect of entrenching that discrimination, of sanctioning that discrimination, of continuing that discrimination and that kind of legislative act is not only morally wrong nowadays, but since April of 1985 when section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force -

MR. SIMMS: Excuse me! I do not mean to interrupt, would you ask to stop the clock. Do we agree to stop the clock?

MS. VERGE: Yes, Chairperson. Can we agree to stop the clock?

MR. SIMMS: No, we do not have to anyway, of course. We are under closure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are in closure, we do not have to stop the clock.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, I did not mean to interrupt you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless the hon. Member is going to make a suggestion about lunch.

MS. VERGE: As I was saying, since section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equality rights without discrimination came into force in April of 1985 this kind of act of any Legislature in Canada is invalid. So my motion, Chairperson, will have the effect of allowing the signed contracts for pay equity to remain in force, to operate as the signatories intended them to take effect and will save Government and the Legislature from the humiliation of being told by the courts that they have tried to pass an invalid and an unconstitutional law.

Think of the embarrassment for our Premier who has gained a national reputation as an expert in constitutional law, think of the embarrassment for him when he is exposed to the whole nation of having put forward and staunchly defended a discriminatory measure than runs afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, Chairperson, that embarrassment and that humiliation can be prevented if we pull back now, if the Government House Leader and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has a last minute change of heart and agrees that we should allow the signed contracts for pay equity to stand, to take effect, and to provide for pay equity adjustments effective April 1, 1988, and to allow women entitled to those pay equity adjustments who have retired, who will be retiring in the next little while, and perhaps most especially for the women who are being forced out now, to not only get those adjustments but to get the benefit of those adjustments for pension purposes. What could be more sensible and more fair than that, Chairperson, and that is the effect of the amendment that I am now moving. Again, it is to delete sub-clauses 1 and 2 of Clause 9 and to substitute therefore, 'notwithstanding Clause 5, any provision in a pay equity agreement contained in a collective agreement shall remain in full force and effect.'

That is being done in the name of justice, equality, and in an attempt to have the Government uphold the law and honour the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to rise in support of the amendment presented by the hon. Member for Humber East. Pay equity, Mr. Chairperson, is a matter of simple justice. When the Government or any organization is involved in an act which treats women, as a group, differently then men, or men differently than women, merely because of their gender, and in particular when what it involves is a rate of pay that is less than they would otherwise attain, then it is a matter of simple justice that that ought to be corrected.

For many years, Mr. Chairperson, it was not recognized either as being wrong, or it was a difficult matter of proving, sometimes, that there was a different kind of treatment for men than for women. There were many barriers placed in the way of achieving equality and justice in this field. For example, a woman engaged in cleaning was threated differently than a man who might have been called a janitor. Because a man used a mop and a pail and a woman may have been on her hands and knees, they would say this was not equal work, this was different work, and you could not say that there was discrimination. That has changed, Mr. Chairperson, by having a definition of equality and pay equity which involves work of equal value as opposed to the same work for equal work. That inevitably involves some kind of determination as to how you compare one job with another.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, what happened in 1988 was, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed that it was, in fact, treating women and men differently on account of gender, and agreed that it would correct that as of April 1, 1988. As a result of that, they established a procedure to determine to what extent that discrimination existed and agreed to rectify it.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, now that we are at the stage where numbers are being attached to that, this Government has decided that they are not prepared to pay this adjustment to compensate for this discrimination for the period of time back to the beginning of the agreement. Mr. Chairperson, that, in my view, is a grave injustice. I do not think it can be supported morally, I do not think it can be supported legally, but that is a matter for the courts, but it most certainly cannot be supported politically, that is, to support in this House a provision in a bill which would have the affect of taking away the redress of discrimination in the public service of this Province. The Government, Mr. Chairperson, and this House are supposed to set an example of what principles ought to be accepted, not only in the public sector but also in the private sector.

In other provinces, Mr. Chairperson, such as Ontario, pay equity is also being introduced in the private sector. Our Government started that process in 1988, and the currect Government in 1990, as far as the public sector is concerned, has said that basically pay equity is not a matter of principle, pay equity is not a matter of justice, pay equity is a matter of dollars and it is a matter of balancing the bottom line. I do not think it is acceptable, Mr. Chairperson, and that is why I will support this amendment and ask that the Members of the House, who are not required by Cabinet solidarity to support the bill, the Members in the backbenches, also join with me and with the Member for Humber East and others, in supporting this amendment which would have the affect of restoring the pay equity portion of the collective agreement signed by this Government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, very briefly, this debate now is not concerning the rightness or wrongness of the principle of pay equity and it has nothing to do with discrimination, in spite of what Members opposite say. I sometimes wonder, you know, we say we believe what we are doing is the only thing, and we believe what we are doing is right. Members opposite - and especially the Member for Humber East - keeps insisting that she knows exactly what the Court of Appeal is going to do. I wonder what is the need of a Court of Appeal? We have her in the House. What is the point of having a Court of Appeal?

She does not say: I believe that is what they should do, or I believe they will do it. She simply states: this will be rejected, period. She knows exactly. I would caution her that time has a way of passing and if in fact it does appear before that court and the outcome is not what the hon. Member has categorically stated it is going to be or else, then it could be very embarrassing for her. So I would suggest she temper her statements in the future in terms of what she knows any court in the land will do. It should be an opinion rather than an assertion.

The Member for St. John's East has said some very nice things. He is not correct in everything he said. He indicated that in 1988 the government of the day decided that they were paying women and men doing the same work differently, because of gender, and I suppose that is right. After - what?-- fifteen years at that point, they finally decided this was happening. That is true. However, they did not say at that point in time that we will then make amends for this inequity as of April 1 1988. They said: we will do it for one sector of the public service, not for the public service, one sector. They will do it in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now, employees of NLHC, I suppose, might wonder why they were not included. You know, Hydro was included. And they will do it for the hospital sector.

So there were two sectors that were given this retroactivity. We, at this point in time, cannot support this amendment. It would add an extra $24 million to our costs this year, and I would say to the hon. Members, what 900 people do you want us to lay off? Tell us the 900 people you want us to lay off, it will cost us an extra $24 million, and this is one of the things that we had to do in order that we not borrow more then $54 million on the money markets, on current account. Our total borrowing of course is hundreds of millions, $500 million, or whatever.

So, Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this particular amendment for those reasons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry as proposed by the hon. Member for Humber East?

Amendment, defeated

Division

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ready?

MR. RIDEOUT: Ready on this side to go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Simms, Ms Verge, Mr. Doyle, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Warren, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. Power, Mr. N. Windsor, Mr. Harris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the motion, please stand.

The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Grimes, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Education, Mr. Ramsay, Mr.Crane, Mr. Noel, Mr. Penney, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Short, Mr. Oldford.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

CLERK (Miss Duff): Mr. Chairman, Ayes 12, Nays 19.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

On motion, Clause 9 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 10 carry?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman?

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

 

MR. SIMMS: We have one final amendment to move on Clause 10, which is the last clause in the Bill. It now reads, `This Act is deemed to have come into force on March 31, 1991.' I would like to move the following amendment: That Clause 10 be deleted and the following substituted so that it will now read 10 (1), (2) and (3), and add an extra Section 11. 10 (1) would read, `notwithstanding that this Act has not been proclaimed, enforced, the Lieutenant- Governor in Council shall refer to the Court of Appeal the question of the competence of the Legislature of the Province to enact this Act, and any other matter in relation to this Act he thinks fit to refer.'

Subsection 2 would read, `the Court of Appeal shall hear and consider the matters to them referred under Subsection 1 in accordance with Part 1 of the Judicature Act'; and Subsection 3 will read, `this Section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.'

The new Clause 11 would then, of course, have to be worded, `this Act except for Section 10 comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation, such day to be no earlier than the day on which all rights of appeal relating to a reference made under Section 10 have been exhausted or have expired.' Now all of that jargon I am told - we had to get a lawyer to draft that for us, so I cannot explain every -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: No we have research people, lawyers and everything in the Opposition. I might add, by the way, for reference, and I am sure the Clerks at the table will recognize the amendment, because it is precisely the same wording as was in the water rights reversion legislation, the same wording referring the matter to court, except in that case, of course, it was not proposed as an amendment, it was proposed by the Government of the day and actually part of the bill. Members opposite may recall it in any event.

I would assume it is clear and does not need a lengthy explanation. We are simply suggesting that this whole matter as we have asked for in the House time and time again through questions in Question Period, for the whole question of the pay equity issue to be referred to the Court of Appeal, because we believe in our own minds that this may very well be discriminatory, be against the Charter, and, therefore, we think it would be wise of the Government to refer it to see what the court thinks. As a matter of fact, we are saying the rest of the matters in the Bill they can proceed with. We are not trying to delay that. The Government shall have its way in everything else, but we think the pay equity issue in question, in particular, is discriminatory and wrong.

So it is clear, straightforward, and I would expect the Government now has come to its senses and will realize that this is a reasonable amendment, a reasonable suggestion, and is now prepared to quickly give us a voice vote in favour of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to very briefly comment on the amendment. I understand what the amendment does in Clause 10. In Clause 11 it says, `this Act except for Section 10 comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation, such day to be no earlier than the day on which the rights of appeal relating to a reference made under Section 10 have been exhausted or have expired.' Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to do what Section 10 suggests. And even if we did, Members opposite know the effect of Clause 11 would be that if we had to wait until all rights of appeal have been exhausted or have expired, then even if we won in Clause 10 we would then not be able to save that $75 million this year anyway. It would automatically be saying to the workers of this Province, the public servants of this Province, I am sorry, we have to go out and cut another 3000 jobs. Because in order to wait until all references, all rights of appeal, time limits have run out and so on, it would take us far beyond the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, we have decided that we must save the $75 million this way, that the alternative was to layoff another 3,000 workers. We did not want that alternative, hence the makeup of this Bill, and hence the reason why we cannot agree with the amendments to Clause 10 and the new Clause 11 proposed by the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, please say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment, please say nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the Members.

Division

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Simms, Ms Verge, Mr. Doyle, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. N. Windsor, Mr. A Snow, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Warren, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. Power, Mr. Harris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment, please stand.

The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Grimes, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Education, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Crane, Mr. Penney, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Short, Mr. Oldford.

MISS DUFF (Clerk): Mr. Chairman, Ayes 12, Nays 19.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, Clause 10, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, we have now carried Clause 10, and we then agreed to revert back to the short title.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I think (inaudible) Schedule (inaudible).

[Mr. Simms could not be heard - no mike]

MR. BAKER: Okay. All right.

On motion, Schedule carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would like to speak on this legislation now before the House. Having gone through the exercise of having the Government being given an opportunity to renege on some of the more evil provisions of the bill, particularly in respect to pay equity, and finding the Government is unwilling to do that, I still have to state for the record before this House that this bill is being opposed for two principal reasons. The first has to do with the fact that this Government, as previous Governments of this Province have done in the past, is doing something which is turning its back and destroying the effect of signing collective agreements and destroying effective, honourable labour relations in this Province.

What it has done, Mr. Chairman, is sign agreements in good faith, it has set in motion processes which have the effect of creating binding agreements with the hospital service workers, and engaging in compulsory arbitration with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and signed other specific agreements with particular bargaining units, whether it be Lab and X-ray, Air Services, Marine Institute Instructors. All sorts of agreements have been signed by this Government during the last period when they knew the financial difficulties the Province faced were going to lead them to take drastic steps. We know, Mr. Chairman, that as late as March 1, 1991, this Government entered into a collective agreement which six days later they gave notice of their intention to pass legislation to destroy and tear up.

It has been said before, Mr. Chairman, and in my first speech on this bill I said it was a dastardly piece of legislation which will have historians comparing it to the legislation of 1959 brought in by a Liberal Government outlawing a labour union which had been certified by the Labour Relations Board, decertifying the International Wood Workers of America and creating for this Province a reputation across this country as being a Legislature that was willing to take away basic rights when it suited them.

Mr. Chairman, this Government is prepared once again to besmirch the reputation not only of this Legislature but of this Province by taking away not only the rights contained in the various pieces of legislation, The Labour Relations Act, The Public Services Collective Bargaining Act, The Newfoundland Teachers' Collective Bargaining Act, The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, The St. John's Fire Department Act, and other legislation that is affected by this, not only to take away those rights to bargain collectively to reach collective agreements, but also to destroy and turn their backs on agreements that they, themselves, have signed with legally recognized bargaining agents on behalf of workers. That, Mr. Chairman, is a despicable act, and I am very sad to be sitting and standing in this Legislature today and having to be a very close witness to this legislation.

The second reason I oppose this legislation is because it is fundamentally unfair. What this Government has done in order to resolve financial difficulties which are being encountered in this fiscal year is select a particular number of individuals and single them out for special treatment, for a special extra contribution from them to the public purse.

If a person, Mr. Chairman, happens to be a police officer in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and is entitled under his collective agreement which was derived through compulsory arbitration to increases in the 1991 fiscal year, commencing April 1, 1991, the first-classed police constable would have received in accordance with this agreement an additional $2,000 during this fiscal year. What this Government has said is that each and every police officer must, instead of receiving that $2,000 to which he is entitled, contribute that $2,000 to the public purse.

To a nursing assistant, Mr. Chairman, at the Waterford Hospital whose collective agreement was signed on the 14th of November, 1990, who would have received during the same fiscal year an increase of $1,200, this Government is saying we want that $1,200 for the public purse. We do not want you to have it, and we will take it away.

For someone who is an electrician, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - under the hospital support staff agreement signed on November 14, 1990, an electrician who happens to work in a hospital, Mr. Chairman, who under the collective agreement signed by this Government in November of 1990 would have received an increase in the fiscal year 1991 of $2,600, this Government is saying, we want that $2,600 as a contribution to the Provincial economy. We want that from you as an individual.

And I want to be graphic about this, because this is what this Government is doing. If we went out to the Avalon Mall or the Village Mall and we watched people going past one by one and we called them over and said to them, where do you work? Oh, you work in a bank. Oh, you are okay. You carry on, you go ahead. Next person comes along. What do you do for a living? I am a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Okay, we will have $2,000 from you, please, for the Newfoundland Government. Thank you very much. Next person. Where do you work? Oh, I work for a private company. I am an electrician, and I work for a construction company. Okay. You carry on, you go ahead. Next person comes along. I am an electrician. I work at the Grace Hospital. Okay, we will take $2,600 from you for the public purse. And the next person comes along. So you are a nursing assistant. Oh yes. And where do you work? At the Waterford Hospital. Well, we will take $1,200 from you. Thank you very much. And oh, yes, there was a pay equity agreement we signed with you and under that agreement you would have gotten money during 1988 and 1989 and 1990. I think the figures are going to come out around maybe close to $2,000 a year. That is another $5,000 or $6,000 in addition to the $1,200 that we are going to take from you. We want $5,000 from you to put into Government's coffers. Next person comes along. And where do you work? Oh, I work in a private enterprise, in a law firm or an insurance office, or I work somewhere else. Oh, you are okay, you carry on.

So what this Government has done is it has selected out of the public certain people to contribute a little bit extra, and in some cases a lot extra, to the public purse. For a police officer, $2,000; for a nursing assistant, $1,200, and if they are subject to the pay equity agreement, another $5,000 or $6,000 must be contributed by these individuals to this Government this year.

Well, that is just not fair. And the Government can get up all it likes and talk about the financial difficulty the provinces are in, and we can debate about whether or not the Province is in as much financial difficulty as they say, or whether or not we could have borrowed a little bit more money or we could not, or whether it is their fault over there, or the PCs for the last seventeen years. We can debate all that and we can say yes, we need a certain level of borrowing. All of that can be done, but at the end of the day this Government is responsible for being fair to all the people of this Province. And if the Government requires additional revenue or needs to make savings in order to have its Budget brought down, well, then, it ought to be done fairly in that the people of Newfoundland ought to pay equally, to share the burden of this Province's financial difficulty.

What this Government has done is require public sector employees to make an unfair additional contribution to the Budget and to the revenue of this Province. And these are real figures. These are figures obtained by a review of the collective agreements which have been signed. Whether they be negotiated freely in the collective bargaining process and signed by the President of Treasury Board; whether they be derived through a compulsory arbitration process under The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act; or a compulsory arbitration process under The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act invoked by this Government in June of this year, these are real figures that this Government has agreed to pay to workers as a result of these collective bargaining processes but now says, I want to reach into your pocket and take this money out and put it into the public chest.That is not fair, Mr. Chairman, when that is not being done and the burden of that expenditure is not being spread equally across all the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is for two reasons, Mr. Chairman, one, a matter of fundamental principle, has to do with labour relations and the respect one has for workers and for contracts one signs with workers. That is a fundamental principle this Government has so readily given up on, to their disgrace. The second, Mr. Chairman, is the fundamental principle of fairness and equity, which this Government has failed to acknowledge and failed to apply to this legislation. That is the reason it ought to be soundly defeated by all members of this House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

On motion, Clause 1, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Mr. L. Snow): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill No. 16 with amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, amendments ordered read a first and second time.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. VERGE: Never.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Members of the House that it is my intention to call third reading of Bill No. 16 on the next day we sit. The third reading stage is a routine stage. Because the bill has now been passed in principle and passed in detail, it is a routine reading. I would also like to inform hon. members that after that routine proceeding is over I intend to call Bill No. 18, which is The Local Authority Guarantee Act.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for giving us that information. We would like to issue a warm and cordial welcome to anybody in the public who might be interested in attending that - how did he describe it? -

MS. VERGE: Routine.

MR. SIMMS: - routine third reading on Monday. Because I have news for the Minister. It will not be routine. There are many practices and procedures which are acceptable, there are many amendments which are acceptable and, as he knows, we have said publicly that we intend to debate it fully and thoroughly. We will be doing that on Monday, and I do not expect the Minister will get third reading on Monday unless, of course, he is prepared to introduce notice of closure now, today, before we adjourn. That may be the only opportunity he will have.

MR. BAKER: Just to very briefly comment, Mr. Speaker.

I understand exactly what third reading is and I know what is acceptable and customary in third reading. I will still say to members opposite that the House has agreed to the bill in principle, the House has agreed to the shaping of the bill, and it is normally just a very simple process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) third reading.

MR. BAKER: No, not third reading.

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

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