June 19, 2012                     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 50


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of Bellevue; the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune; the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; and the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

Before we entertain members' statements, I am prepared today to make a ruling with respect to the Point of Privilege raised by the Government House Leader on June 14. This ruling is a little lengthy, but I would ask you to bear with me and, out of necessity, there is some detail that is provided in here. The Government House Leader proposed the following resolution:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Honourable House declares that the behaviour of the Leader of the Third Party constitutes a breach of privilege, that this House expresses its condemnation of this Member, and that this House direct the Member to apologize in this House to the Minister whose reputation she maligned, and that the Member be ordered to apologize."

The Member to whom this is directed is the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi and this issue arose from statements made by her outside the House when explaining to the media her reasoning for using the unparliamentary term of "racism" with respect to comments made by the Member for Placentia – St. Mary's.

COMMENTS OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER:

The first point that I would wish to address is the implication by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi that her comments were made with respect to another Member outside the House Chamber and hence were not subject to privilege and the discipline of the House.

There is a general presumption that words spoken against another Member outside the House are not subject to a ruling by the Speaker. The House of Commons Speaker Scheer, on February 9, 2012, (page 5094) quoting O'Brien and Bosc p. 614 stated:

"The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another."

I caution Members that this dictum is not absolute, as some Members may believe it is. While the Speaker would not generally insert himself into a dispute between two Members which occurred outside the House, there are exceptional occasions when it is appropriate for the Speaker to intervene. If the dignity of the House – or its Members collectively – were to be impugned, there are precedents for the Speaker's intervention on a serious breach of privilege. I refer Members to O'Brien and Bosc, p. 85, footnotes #124 and #126, as examples of prime facie cases of privilege, despite the offence having occurred outside of the House.

Maingot, (Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd edition) states at page 256,

"misbehaviour within the precincts of the House is misbehaviour in the presence of the House when it occurs on a day when ….the House is sitting, will be sitting or has sat. …it is not the precincts that are sacred but the function of these precincts".

Therefore, a violation of privilege, including contempt, can be found against a Member or other persons even if the comments were made outside of the House. At all times, the context of the statements or actions must be analyzed to determine if the breach has occurred.

Therefore, the fact that comments were made outside of the Chamber is not, by itself, a defence against a charge of breach of privilege or contempt. A slur on all Members by a word or deed is a reflection upon the House. One cannot bring the House into disrepute, regardless of where the statement is made. To do so is a contempt upon the House.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE:

The standard definition of Parliamentary Privilege as stated by Sir Erskine May is quoted at page 60 of O'Brien and Bosc:

"Parliamentary Privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by [the] House collectively…and by Members of [the] House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions…."

These rights, whether those of the House or those of individual Members, can be enumerated and do not change. Those of the House include such things as the right to control its own proceedings and precincts and the power to discipline for breaches. Note that Parliamentary privileges apply to the House and to Members with respect to their parliamentary functions. They do not apply to a Minister with respect to Ministerial duties carried out in his or her Executive capacity.

Members of the House however, have individual and collective rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil actions, freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. There is a more complete listing at pages 60-62 of O'Brien and Bosc. Any violation of these privileges that impairs the execution of parliamentary functions is a breach of privilege.

However, as the Government House Leader noted in his submission, "the bar for parliamentary privilege is necessarily high". The use of improper or unparliamentary words does not necessarily meet the test of violating one of these parliamentary privileges.

I therefore find that there has been no breach of the enumerated Privileges, either of this House or of the Member for Placentia – St. Mary's.

CONTEMPT:

The Government House Leader further argued that, if a prime facie case of breach of privilege was not established, the matter be viewed as one of contempt.

Contempt of Parliament is any action which may obstruct or impede the House in its functions or Members or Officers of the House in the discharge of their (Parliamentary) duties or which is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House. Disobedience of legitimate commands of or libels upon the House, its Members or its Officers is a contempt. The House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. (O'Brien and Bosc, page 83) Contempts are not enumerated in the same way as Privileges. As was stated by Speaker Sauve in 1980, and I quote:

"when new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred." That is to be found in the Debates, October 29, 1980, as cited in O'Brien and Bosc on page 83.

The resolution proposed by the Government House Leader suggests that a contempt occurred because one Member maligned another Member. As I noted earlier, it would take an exceptional case for the Speaker to intervene in such a dispute outside of the Chamber between two Members.

However, this does not mean that a larger contempt has not occurred. I have carefully reviewed the media transcripts of the statements made by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, and I have listened to the audio recordings of both the "scrum" taking place outside the Chamber, and the CBC telephone interview.

These remarks by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi addressed what she termed "systemic racism", as opposed to the actual statements made in the House respecting one Member. However, there were comments made which are most regrettable. The Member said, and I quote:

"…what was happening for me around this House of Assembly was hearing comments that were smacking of…an aspect of racism…"

She also says, and I quote:

"...systemic racism…is part of where prejudices come from. It is part of where lack of knowledge comes from and…when I look at what happened last night, I think it's coming out of systemic racism, yes I do." End of quote.

In my view, these comments go beyond insulting an individual Member, such as the Member for Placentia – St. Mary's, and instead are an affront to the dignity of the House itself. The language was so intemperate and distasteful – and the charge of racism is so serious and injurious to this House and all its Members – that I feel it cannot go unchallenged. That charge goes beyond what we might term as "ordinary political insults" and casts a shadow over all Members.

However, I am obligated to bear in mind that, as what is stated in O'Brien and Bosc (pages 85-87), there is a reluctance to invoke the House's authority to reprimand for impugning the Assembly's or a Member's dignity or authority. In some cases, actions and words may be worthy of chastisement and may well be ill-advised, intemperate and irresponsible, but not reach the stage of being a contempt of the House. The Speaker is also very aware of Maingot's caution, and I quote: "the Member is entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt", found in Maingot, 2nd edition, page 227.

While I recognize the limitations in finding the Member guilty of contempt, I do however suggest that the Member may want to do the honourable thing and to apologize to the House for the comments which were an affront to its dignity and the integrity of all its Members.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Members' Statements.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Rose Auchinleck of Torbay for receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal; a wonderful lady who has a great community spirit. She is a friend to anyone who needs a helping hand. The last time I met Rose was when she was driving a friend to the cancer clinic. She is always there to help anyone get to a social event.

Rose's husband was a member of the Armed Forces and he travelled overseas. She spent time with him assisting families and was involved in peacekeeping. In 2000, Rose returned to Torbay and has become a very active member of the community.

Rose is eager to help at anything; if there is a need, Rose will be there. Groups she is involved with include: the Holy Trinity Parish Hall, the Catholic Women's League, the Holy Name Society, the Torbay Women's Institute, the Torbay 50 Plus Club, she volunteers at the seniors' home in Torbay, and is a member of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association.

Rose is an outstanding person and at the age of seventy-seven has no intention of slowing down. It is people like Rose Auchinleck who make Newfoundland and Labrador such a special place to live. I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Rose on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Grade 6 class of Woodland Elementary in the great District of Bellevue.

Graduating from their elementary school at Dildo, from Grade 6, means they will be moving into a regional high school in September. They will be attending intermediate classes at Crescent Collegiate High School in Blaketown. These young men and women say they are very excited and cannot wait for September classes to start.

Mr. Speaker, this is a transition when they were the oldest people in Woodland Elementary and this September they will be the youngest in Crescent Collegiate. With any change in life you will face challenges. This Grade 6 class has prepared themselves for the future ahead as high school students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Grade 6 class on successfully graduating from Woodland Elementary and wish them all the best in their education at Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Devin Benoit for his receipt of the Premier's Athletic Award for powerlifting. We are very proud that Devin's hard work has been recognized and appreciate our government's support of this top young athlete.

In April of 2010, at only fifteen, he decided to take up powerlifting and attended his first competition in June of 2010 where he set five provincial records in his weight class. He then qualified for the Canadian National Powerlifting Championship in PEI, all while maintaining an honours average in school and serving as the drum leader of the traditional Mi'kmaq Paqtismji'j Drummers.

In this test of pure brute strength, Devin has a powerlifting record of squat 247.5 kilograms, bench press 145, and dead lift 222.5 kilograms. We have no doubt that he will achieve his highest potential at the elite level of this sport. Dedication and perseverance will serve this young man well in all his future pursuits and will certainly help to grow this great sport in this Province.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Devin and wish him the best of luck in the provincial championships which will take place in St. John's on July 7 at the College of the North Atlantic.

Voila.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with tremendous pride that I rise in this hon. House today to wish Happy Birthday to a very special person, Mr. Herb Pike, born in 1923 in Bishop's Falls, grew up in Buchans and now residing in Springdale, celebrated his eighty-ninth birthday on June 5.

He joined the Royal Air Force at the age of seventeen and was stationed in West Africa and England where he met his late wife, Doris. Mr. Pike was a Warrant Officer First Class during World War II. Following the war, he became the chief chemist with the American Smelting and Refining Company in Buchans until 1983, at which time he relocated to Springdale to manage the laboratory for Atlantic Analytical until his retirement.

He has been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion for sixty-five years serving many offices repeatedly. He received the Meritorious Service Award for his loyalty and service. Over the years, he has been a member of the school board, Lions Club, Boy Scouts, and the Boys and Girls Club.

Mr. Pike remains active today by gardening, fishing, filling snow shoes, and accepting many speaking engagements from surrounding schools.

I ask all members to join me in wishing Mr. Herb Pike a very happy eighty-ninth birthday and many more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to honour the incredible work of RIAC, the Refugee Immigrant Advisory Council, and to celebrate Refugee Week.

Newfoundland and Labrador has become home to many refugees from across the globe, people who have fled wars, famine, torture, discrimination, and oppression. Some came as individuals, separated from their families due to repressive regimes, others as families, but for all, the move was difficult. RIAC was there to help by providing programs, support groups, and one-on-one matching to enable and empower people of diverse origins to make Newfoundland and Labrador their home and become productive members of our community.

RIAC's vision is to create a community that is inclusive and free of prejudice, that celebrates the diversity of its population, and that supports the rights of all people to enjoy freedom from persecution, danger, and oppression.

RIAC has organized a week of activities for Refugee Week including art exhibits and storytelling. Thursday evening, four young refugees from Iraq, Kenya, Kosovo, and Bhutan share their stories. Check out their Web site.

Thank you to the folks at RIAC for the incredible, vital work that they do, and to the refugees who have made Newfoundland and Labrador their home, making our community all the richer for it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Relay for Life organizing committee and its participants in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The annual Relay for Life was held this past weekend over a twelve-hour period from 7:00 o'clock Friday evening until 7:00 o'clock Saturday morning. I was proud to take part in the opening ceremonies and bring greetings on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it was an emotional event, as a number of cancer survivors clad in yellow tee-shirts kicked off the event with a victory lap around the track in celebration of their winning the battle against cancer.

The hundreds of luminaries placed around the track glowed throughout the night as a memorial to those who lost their battle with cancer.

The generosity of the people of Lake Melville is well known, and this was evidenced once again, Mr. Speaker, by the tremendous financial success of the event. Seventeen teams from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Sheshatshiu, and North West River raised a total of $60,000.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the organizers, the volunteers, the sponsors, and the seventeen teams who made this year's Relay for Life another phenomenal success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to announce that there will be new municipal infrastructure projects started in the Province in the coming weeks as a result of an investment by our government of $130 million in Budget 2012: People and Prosperity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, our Municipal Capital Works programs provide for the development of cost-shared projects in a wide range of municipal infrastructure. Since 2008, our government has invested over $500 million in Municipal Capital Works projects, which has resulted in improved municipal infrastructure across the Province. These projects have provided municipalities the opportunity to secure, develop, and improve infrastructure for their residents and support the long-term sustainability of growth and development of communities throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as of April 1, we had over 500 municipal infrastructure projects ongoing in various municipalities throughout the Province, and we anticipate a further 200 new projects to start this year. So, in essence, Mr. Speaker, we will have over 700 projects ongoing in the Province managed by Municipal Affairs and the municipalities, which is over double the number of the municipalities in our Province.

Some examples of significant Municipal Capital Works projects completed over the past couple of years include: the Lifestyle Centre in Bay Bulls, the second ice surface at the Glacier in Mount Pearl, commissioning of a water treatment project in Belleoram, and commissioning of a potable water dispensing unit in Leading Tickles and other communities. Work also continues on significant water and wastewater treatment projects in Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Bishop's Falls, and the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to our continued investment in infrastructure projects throughout the Province, our government is pleased to also maintain the cost-share ratios established in 2008, which were designed to benefit municipalities. For communities with populations below 3,000, the provincial government will continue to invest 90 per cent of the cost of new infrastructure, with the municipality providing 10 per cent; 80 per cent of the cost will continue to be covered for populations between 3,000 and 7,000; and 70 per cent of the cost will continue to be covered for municipalities with populations over 7,000. In addition, when calculating our investment, we include the provincial portion of the HST and pay our applicable share of that cost.

Mr. Speaker, projects are funded in every district in the Province, from the City of St. John's to the Northeast Coast of Labrador. Projects focus on water and wastewater treatment as a priority, with other projects supporting other infrastructure, such as local roads and municipal buildings. Further information on specific projects will be announced in the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there will be all kinds of positive comments from my hon. colleagues across the House in regards to this (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for half of the ministerial statement, because that is all I received, half of it – but I am being positive, you gave me half of it. Minister, thank you very much for the part of the statement, and I am sure there was a misunderstanding there that I did not get it all.

I say to the minister that if we create strong towns, we will have a strong Province. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that even in the District of Bay of Islands, some of the infrastructure that was done over the years is very beneficial to a lot of towns, and it helps a lot of communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: This has been ongoing for a number of years, the 200 boil orders across the Province. We need to find some way to reduce that and do what we can to help people to have safe drinking water throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge the government – all members of the government – to try to strive as quick as they can to get a fiscal arrangement with all the municipalities in the Province so that a lot of municipalities that do have the infrastructure can maintain it and have the ability – have the finances to maintain it, Minister. Also, Mr. Speaker, I must say the 90-10 ratio, it is very good for a lot of municipalities that could not afford it. It is a great way to help smaller towns to ensure that they can invest also in their own towns.

Sometimes there is a little less money than others because of a financial crunch on the government, but anything that we can do to make our towns stronger, I am all for it. Once again on behalf of some of the municipalities in the Bay of Islands, I just say it is never enough, but we all have to keep striving to make improvements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, for some time now, municipalities have been having a hard time obtaining funding and a new fiscal arrangement with the Province. That search for the new fiscal arrangement, of course, goes on. We wish the minister luck in coming to a fair settlement with all municipalities in that regard.

These are all good projects, particularly the projects that involve water and sewage, but municipalities need funding to determine what their next strategic project will be. For government to contribute its fair share under the present arrangement, it means money for the municipalities to make that first determination initially.

We hope that government's number one priority will be that fiscal arrangement so communities can practise self-determination in project priorities. We encourage those discussions to continue. Thanks for all the work so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to reinforce our government's unwavering commitment to providing quality health care services to the people of this Province. Particularly, I would like to highlight some of the significant investments and enhancements we have made in the provision of dialysis services in the last few years.

Since 2004, our government has invested approximately $189 million in dialysis services throughout this Province. This includes the establishment of seven new dialysis sites in Burin, Carbonear, Gander, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador West, and Port aux Basques for a total of fourteen sites Province-wide. We can now accommodate 531 patients at these sites. This is an increase of 191 patients.

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of years, we have invested approximately $400,000 to expand dialysis services in St. Anthony, including funding for staffing, operating costs, and the installation of a water treatment system. This investment allows for the accommodation of six additional dialysis patients, for a total of sixteen. As a result, there is no wait-list for dialysis in St. Anthony at this time.

Mr. Speaker, residents have expressed the necessity for increased dialysis services, and through our continued investment we are successfully meeting the needs of those individuals. Enhancing dialysis services so that residents have access to treatment as close to home as possible is a key priority for our government.

In Budget 2012, we invested approximately $1.9 million to continue to improve dialysis services in the Province. This includes $1 million to further expand dialysis services in Harbour Breton by establishing a satellite dialysis unit to help meet the expected increase for dialysis treatment in the area.

Our government will continue to enhance dialysis services in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure we have the technology and equipment available to meet the needs of our residents now and into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement. Investment in dialysis services is critical to the people of the Province since the demand for dialysis service is increasing. We already know from the health officials that we are experiencing a 12 per cent increase year over year in the need for dialysis. This is largely due to the increase and the tsunami that many people are calling around diabetes and other chronic diseases.

It is also important as the minister stated that we have those services as close to home. It is important to people who live in rural and remote populations. As the minister mentioned in St. Anthony now where we have some extra dialysis units, this is so important because the nearest possible place would be in Corner Brook. So the cost of transportation, Mr. Speaker, adds a tremendous strain on families.

We are pleased to see this investment. Keeping people closer to home and the support that they have from the communities, families, and friends is very important. We will also encourage, though, the government to continue to monitor demand in those areas, and to add the capacity where it is required.

We cannot forget the great work that our many foundations and our volunteers are doing in those communities, in often as we are seeing cost-shared fundraising events to support the purchase of dialysis equipment. We want to thank our foundations and volunteers for the great work they have done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I commend the government for expanding dialysis services around the Province. Every wait-list that is eliminated, as in the case of St. Anthony at the moment, means that families can have their loved ones nearby again. Their lives go back to normal, and patients are no longer alone in a strange town.

Unfortunately, the need for dialysis services is continuing to increase as a result of our rising rates of diabetes in this Province. I encourage government, Mr. Speaker, to provide more resources to prevention, screening, and management programs across the Province so we can keep more people from needing dialysis in the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations Agency outlined changes to the Labour Relations Act. One of the key amendments is allowing multiple projects to occur on special project sites.

I ask the Premier: With the mix of projects, with some being special projects and others not, what is your act going to do to guarantee labour stability on special projects?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we did today was all about just that, labour stability. That is something we have strived for and is something we have worked very hard at. This is a process that has been ongoing for several years. It is three things that are fed into today's bill that we are very excited about, Mr. Speaker. It is all about balance and all about labour stability.

When it comes to having two projects on one site, it makes total sense. In a place like Bull Arm, for example, we could have multiple SPOs happening at the same time. It only makes sense, Mr. Speaker, that we utilize the facility we have in Bull Arm, a world-class facility, and give it the ability to operate two SPOs during the same time frame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was more about having a special project and one that is not. That is where I was going with that. The minister can probably – because I do have another question for him.

Mr. Speaker, section 25(4) is a new addition to the Labour Relations Act and permits employers to express his or her views to employees as long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue influences.

I ask the minister: Can you clarify the extent to which employers will be permitted to express their views to employees without being deemed to undermine the certified bargaining agent for the employees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had checked with the Labour Relations Board, for example, that currently kind of exists. The Labour Relations Board has made decisions on that in the past and allowed employers to go out during a certification process to give them the ability to go out and hold a meeting. He is absolutely right there can be no coercion or intimation, and that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker.

It was something many of the employers in the Province were looking for. I had discussed with them and they have discussed through the various places where they could have input in through this lengthy process. It was something that they were looking for, Mr. Speaker, and it gives the employer the ability to go out and talk to the people who work for them and lay it on the line what they have to offer. It was something that they wanted, Mr. Speaker, and something that we were glad to bring forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, under section 83.1 an employer can trigger the labour board to take a secret vote of employees on an offer without the union being given a full and fair opportunity to consider, accept or reject the offer.

I ask the minister: Why are you introducing this very special amendment that could cause both unions and employers difficulty and leaves the board without discretion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the first part of the – I am sorry, I apologize to the member opposite, I missed the first part of the equation. I am not sure if he is talking about the classification piece or the declassification of unions coming and going. That is clearly stated in the legislation. So I am not sure if that is what he is referring to but I would certainly have no trouble answering the question if I could catch it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: The question, Mr. Speaker, was in section 83.1. An employer can trigger the labour board to take a secret vote of employees on an offer without the union being given full and a fair opportunity to consider, accept or reject the offer before the union gets an opportunity to actually disclose it with their members.

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

MR. FRENCH: I apologize, I am not familiar. I am not sure what you are saying there at this time. During a strike offer, yes, absolutely. They do get the ability to ask for a vote. A vote on offer is what we have called it. I assume that is what you are talking about.

What that is, Mr. Speaker, is when you have a vote on offer what will happen, it will give the employer one chance. So the employer, whether it be the public service or the private sector, will have the ability to go out and ask for a vote on offer. They will have that ability only once. It is another tool that we have put in the toolbox to help negotiations between employers and labour, Mr. Speaker. Our goal in this, of course, is all about having as much in that toolbox as possible to make sure we do not have labour unrest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the provincial budget is based on Brent Crude trading at over $124 a barrel. At no point since the Budget was announced has the price been close to that. It is currently trading around $96 today.

For every dollar that oil goes down, how much will the deficit go up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that the Leader of the Opposition was listening to my remarks this morning to NOIA and the scrum after.

Mr. Speaker, yes, our forecast is based on the PIRA forecasting of $124 a barrel. Mr. Speaker, as we have talked about in this House many times, that is the best that you can do: take the best forecasting information that is available to you to use in your budget. We have been accused by some members opposite of misleading the people of the Province very deliberately in terms of the price that we put in our Budget for oil, given the tremendous revenues that we have received on oil over and above what we have predicted.

We will not know until the end of the year the real impact on the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, this year's Budget was the first year that the government forecast oil prices at more than the actual on the day that the Budget was announced. On the day that the Budget was announced, it was $118, and the Budget was $124.

The question is: What price will oil have to be to make up for those three months of losses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not do that kind of daily auditing in the Department of Finance. Mr. Speaker, yes, our Budget is not prepared the day before the day we present it here in the House of Assembly. It is a process that goes on for months and months. As we get very, very close to the finalization of the Budget we use the most recent forecasting. In this year's Budget it was $124 a barrel. That is the same method we have used in the last nine years in the preparation of our Budget, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are closely monitoring what is happening with oil forecasting and oil prices. Right now, our deficit is increasing, if this continues. We are being very responsible in monitoring this on a daily basis, monitoring our spending on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, and being very, very conservative in terms of the fiscal management of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the monitoring, and as prices continue to fall, there will be less money, as we know, for government coffers.

My question is: What impact will this have, for instance, on government work right now, including public sector jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are not going to be any cuts as a result of – certainly not contemplated at this point in time, but we continue to monitor very closely. The one thing that this government has proven over the last nine years is that we are good fiscal managers, Mr. Speaker. That is going to continue over this fiscal year as well. We are early into the Budget. This is not a new circumstance; this has occurred before, and we have made up as the year has gone on and prices continued to rise or rebound, Mr. Speaker. That may happen again, but it behooves us to be very conservative and very prudent in our spending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said there would not be any cuts, but we are already seeing cuts in Eastern Health, and now we are seeing cuts in the Regional Economic Development Boards in the Province. Mr. Speaker, the Harper government cut these boards to become effective in 2013; now the provincial government has followed suit and they are cutting these boards, effective next month.

I ask the Premier: Do you not feel any commitment to rural communities in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considerably more, Mr. Speaker, than the member opposite felt when she sat on this side of the House, especially in terms of economic development. As I pointed out many times before, when we came to government in 2003, there was approximately $2.6 million a year being invested in economic development in rural parts of this Province. Today, we have almost $200 million, or over approximately $200 million available for economic development in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Of all our funding programs, the vast majority of that money is invested outside the Northeast Avalon. That alone speaks to this government's commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier that it was the Liberal Government who started the Rural Economic Development Boards in this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, they were started at a time when rural Newfoundland and Labrador was not in the crisis that it is in, in many cases, today, where we are seeing transitions in the fishing industry again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask the Premier: How do you expect to fill the void that is being left in rural regions of this Province when you are eliminating all the resources that they have been accustomed to in regional economic development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is the contradiction we see on a daily basis from members opposite; we have the Leader of the Opposition getting up and talking about fiscal management, the impact that lower oil prices are going to have on the Budget of the Province, the implications of that concerning cuts. Then we have on his right hand, his House Leader, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, getting up with an expectation that we backfill every space that is created when services are withdrawn by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do both. We have responsibilities that are clearly ours to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Part of that is economic development in rural parts of the Province, Mr. Speaker. We did not rely solely on the federal government to do that. That is done very well by the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier had a 25 per cent commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and now she has eliminated that 25 per cent of funding.

Mr. Speaker, the total government investment is a little over $1.2 million to keep Regional Economic Development Boards going in rural areas of this Province. These are the people who do the grass works and the ground-up building of rural economies, Premier.

Why are you not prepared to support them in their work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can only ask the Opposition House Leader to confer with the Leader of the Third Party and perhaps the two of them could get the story right. One day they are in here moaning and complaining that rural Newfoundland has gone to rack and ruin and that there is nothing positive happening in the Province at all, Mr. Speaker.

We are the envy of Canada, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. This Province is booming. Opportunities are everywhere for people in this Province. You would never know it if you were to listen to the members in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, did REDBs drive the economy? Do we have a booming rural Newfoundland and Labrador or don't we? I wish they would make up their minds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows we have an infrastructure deficit in many rural areas, we have the highest unemployment rate of anywhere else in the country, Mr. Speaker, and we have an industry in the fishery that is changing. We have rural communities today that need the support of Economic Development Boards and the resources that go with them in order to diversify rural regions.

Premier, where is your commitment to the rural economy in this Province? Are you going to let them go bust, or are you going to step in and do something?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, you can play with statistics. There is a well-known saying I will not repeat here today about statistics.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a high unemployment rate in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has to do with the seasonal nature of our fishery for one thing, and tourism for a second thing plays a very large part in that, Mr. Speaker. We continue to step up to build shoulders on the tourism industry and to make a positive impact on the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, there was over $8 billion investment in infrastructure in the last nine years and $1 billion this year alone, most of it in rural parts of the Province. You would have to look no further than Fortune Bay to see this Province's commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there are currently 740 children with autism in our schools. Occupational therapy consultants are provided to children who are completing academics but not to those doing life skills. Experts in our Province say that if this therapy was offered to children in the life skills stream, they could potentially do functional academics.

I ask the minister: Will he commit to funding occupational therapists for all children with autism in our school system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, over the past three years we have put in $1 million from the Department of Education just to support autism in our schools. The ABA program this year is being extended to Grade 3's as of September, Mr. Speaker.

We are continually meeting with the Autism Society. As a matter of fact when this House closes down, I am going to be meeting with the Autism Society myself to see what it is that we can further do to support autistic children within our system, Mr. Speaker. Both the Minister of Health and myself worked very closely on addressing those needs and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister is meeting with them because when I met with them they say they have been waiting months to have that sit-down. There is a general lack of understanding about autism and its spectrum of disabilities. The high incidence in the Province makes this information more critical than ever before. A greater understanding of autism could help reduce the stress experienced by these individuals and their families.

I would ask the minister: Is she prepared to commit to a public awareness campaign for autism spectrum disorder?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first part of the comments. I met with the Autism Society not very long ago, not more than a month ago. That meeting has happened and I committed to continuous meetings with the Autism Society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, autism is a disorder that we are very, very concerned about. That is why we have invested $10.5 million in the last little bit of time; $2.9 million in the ABA program. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, we have also seen to it that there are increases in the number of physiotherapists who are available.

We have seen that there is a 30 per cent increase in the number of occupational therapists who are available. We have seen also an increase of 29 per cent in the number of SLPs who are available. We continue to buy seats at Dalhousie University, Mr. Speaker, for physiotherapists and for occupational therapists.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile, for a very quick question.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a carefully developed comprehensive plan to support these people with autism. Autism does not just stop at the age of eighteen.

MR. SPEAKER: A quick question, please.

MR. A. PARSONS: Will the Premier commit to an autism strategy that deals with the lifespan needs for people with autism, as other provinces have already done?

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a very quick answer.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to working with the association, and working forward and finding a way forward for all people with autism, for children with autism, for adults with autism, and I will continue to have those meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is our understanding that the issue of giving government the ability to force public sector employees to vote during collective bargaining was not discussed with shareholders in the broad review of provincial labour laws. Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of Bill 38 came out of the blue.

I ask the Premier, if consultations were held with public sector unions regarding the changes to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation has had so much consultation. In the case of the SPO, for example, we had consultations before the recommendations. We had consultations when we received the recommendations before we came to an agreement of what we would move forward.

When it comes to the ERC, Mr. Speaker, the ERC is where this one came from, is a tripartite committee made up of labour, made up of employers, and made up of government. Mr. Speaker, these are committees that have been ongoing since 2009. You can imagine the number of issues that have been talked about at those tables, Mr. Speaker, over that length of time. Mr. Speaker, we can be blamed for a lot of things here today, consultation not being one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2 of Bill 38 allows a vote forced by the employer in the midst of collective bargaining. With everything government has in its negotiation toolbox, such as deeming labour essential and even legislating workers back to work, I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why does this government feel the need to be able to go around public sector union bargaining teams and impose a forced vote on the union members?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier today, it is very easy to cherry-pick either one of these recommendations. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that depending on which side of debate you are on, you will get two totally different answers and reasons for this to happen or not to happen. That is why we had to balance, and balance is the key to this, Mr. Speaker. That is why, for example, now we have certification.

Mr. Speaker, we did not see any problem with employers being able to use that as a tool again, but we have to be – I am sure employers in this Province are not behind the door, Mr. Speaker, if you will. This is a tool, and you have to be very careful when you play it. Anybody else that – the research I have done around the country, Mr. Speaker, they certainly are very careful when they play it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister, the employers we are talking about in section 26.1 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act is the government.

The government has been saying for years that it is reviewing and researching the issue of legislating the use of scab labour in this Province out of existence once and for all. One-third of the population of Canada is currently protected by anti-scab legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why do we not see a ban on the use of scab labour in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act that were tabled in this House yesterday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, replacement worker legislation is probably one of the most divisive pieces of labour legislation in the country; two very polarized views, Mr. Speaker, again, deciding which side of the debate you are on. There are currently two provinces in the country that have this legislation, Mr. Speaker, Quebec and BC. Ontario did have it for some time; however, they threw it out once they threw out the government, much the same as the Third Party, because it is inconclusive, Mr. Speaker, whether that is any good or not.

I can take you back to studies, Mr. Speaker, a number of studies that I have had a look at. One in particular that I looked at compared Quebec and Ontario over three different decades for three or four years. I will give you the results of that in a minute, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am afraid the minister will not get a chance right now.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Community Services said she is monitoring and discussing federal plans to cut medical care to refugees at the end of June. Refugees arrive here having experienced deprivation and injury and need medical service to regain their health to start a new life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is she taking any real action to oppose this move by the Harper government to download yet another federal responsibility on to the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that we have been discussing right across the country and we have been, as health ministers, deputy ministers and officials, discussing across the country. We are very much engaged in that process. It is very much a concern for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador, as it is right across the country. At this point in time I have committed, through my officials, to continue to follow what is happening and to continue meeting with other officials across the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House, the Premier was too cute by half in her response to my question on her response to the amendments to the Province's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Centre for Law and Democracy says her remarks are not an accurate representation of their study –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - which they say is a work in progress. They also say our fall to second place in Canada represents a giant leap backwards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she explain how slipping back to second place is an improvement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Third Party should have talked to the Privacy Commissioner before she went to the Centre for Law and Democracy. She would have heard him say to her earlier on – as all of the Province heard him say – that we have a robust piece of legislation that allows the people of Newfoundland and Labrador access to information from their government – as they should, Mr. Speaker, as they absolutely should. Cut it how you like, and the Centre for Law and Democracy can cut it how they like, but we are the second-best Province in this country in terms of access to information by its people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the regulations dealing with disabled angler designations say that a disabled person has to be within 100 metres of the person doing the angling for that person. The guiding principle for disabilities, however, under present laws, runs under reasonable accommodation.

I ask the minister: Will he revisit the legislation governing present salmon fishing laws to include those with disabilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, we are reviewing the current legislation and the current rules, but I want to be clear about something. Our whole idea of disability angling and disability hunting, Mr. Speaker, is about inclusion and about getting people involved. It is about getting people out in our fresh air and out in our country. Obviously, there are limitations, Mr. Speaker; this is why this was designed. It is heralded right across the country. We are the only one in the country currently who has a disabled angling program, Mr. Speaker, something that we are very, very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to work with people with disabilities and do whatever we can to include them in everything possible in our outdoors in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Province of Nova Scotia also has rules when it comes to disabled fishing.

Part of being an inclusive society for everyone is the removal of barriers where possible. The federal government does not have the 100-metre designation for the recreational food fishery; why does the provincial government even have these designations in place in the first place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will repeat for the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, our fishery is not about – our angling and salmon fishing is not a food fishery. This is about inclusion. The food fishery, I believe, is what the federal government has; you get the ability to go out and catch cod for your table, Mr. Speaker. This is about inclusion and this is about recreation. Those are the principles that it was based on. We have worked with the disability office, Mr. Speaker, we have worked with persons with disabilities, and we will continue to do that into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: When was she or officials from the related Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development made aware of ACOA's cut to funding for the rural economic development boards in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to carry quite a bit of information in my head. The exact date that I was made aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly answer here in the House today. I was made aware of it before the public announcement was made.

We certainly made our views known to the federal government as we have done with regard to all of these cuts, Mr. Speaker. Our main response to rural economic development is to make sure that we have a robust economic development department in this government, and we certainly do in Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, ACOA has indicated that they will provide 75 per cent of their funding to Regional Economic Development Boards for one more year. This would allow these boards the time to look at other sources of funding. Unfortunately, these boards are now learning that the Province will not commit their 25 per cent –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – which they need to leverage ACOA funding. Holding back this funding, which your government budgeted for this year, spells doom to most of these boards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why isn't government helping these Regional Economic Development Boards in their bid to survive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure of specifically what he is referring to when he says that the RED Boards need money to leverage ACOA money. We have a $5 million diversification fund that is available to communities and economic development organizations to lever money from the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

When you never had a cent before – nobody ever wanted a RED Board or any other economic development agency at the table, Mr. Speaker, before 2003, because they brought nothing to the table other than good ideas. This government has given them tools in the fact that they have money that they can bring. That will leverage federal funding, Mr. Speaker, something we are very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The member has time for one quick question without preamble.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the government tell this House if the Department of Fisheries has taken any measures to ensure food safety and security in light of the federal cuts to the office –

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, to call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that we go to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.

I further move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. It has been further moved and seconded that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will be debating Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act". (Bill 33)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to this particular bill, Bill 33. This bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, is really an amendment that is being made to the act to include a child death review to occur in the Province. Mr. Chair, we have not had any authority that has spoken to that in terms of actually having a child death review conducted before in Newfoundland and Labrador, while it has been done in some provinces across Canada through legislation and has been done in others through policies that have been implemented by government.

Mr. Chair, we are pleased to see the legislation that is coming forward here. We think that it probably could have been done much sooner, but realize that there is also a process that goes along with developing legislation and ensuring that it is done appropriately and properly.

Mr. Chair, what a child death review actually is, is it will be a Committee, first of all, that will be set up; the Committee will be made up of expertise in the Province. Some of this expertise may be called to do the review of certain cases in which a child has died. They may not be called to do the review of all cases; it depends on what their area of expertise is and what the particular case is that they are dealing with.

After the review is completed, Mr. Chair, a report, as we understand it, will then be made to the minister. The minister in turn will make a report to the Child and Youth Advocate in the Province. In that report there will be a number of recommendations. Those recommendations will be made in that report to the minister. They can be as narrow or as broad as the Committee sees fit in doing this review.

The scope of what they recommend could range from a change in policy, legislation, or regulation, to holding a full inquiry into the death of a child. Anytime, Mr. Chair, that they feel there is need for recommendations or change to protect the children in the Province, or in the best interests of the public safety of the Province, then they will move forward to make those particular recommendations to the government.

Mr. Chair, for people who do not really understand this act in its entirety, I will try my best to point out what this actually means and what kind of cases this Child Death Review Committee would undertake in the Province. Right now, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have situations where if a child dies, it is then looked at by the medical examiner. The medical examiner does have the authority to call an inquiry; however, the scope of the work that he can call an inquiry into is very narrow. It does not always get at what some of the real causes might have been that contributed to the death of a child, especially if it is a cause that includes probably the wrongful diagnosis; if it stuff that includes systematic issues, especially around suicides in a contained region; or it is to do with other things that could occur on a regular basis within society.

So, the scope of what the medical examiner can do is very narrow; it is not all-encompassing in terms of looking at the death of a child. That is the reason the government is obviously bringing in this legislation to allow for a full child death review to occur in the Province.

So, how does it get triggered? How does a child death review get launched in the Province? Mr. Chair, I guess the purpose is to understand why and how children die, and to use the results of the review to prevent other children from dying, as well as improve the health and safety of all the children in our Province. It is important to understand the circumstances that are surrounding a child's death, for a number of reasons. One, I think this is necessary in order to bring closure to the family and to their friends. I think it is necessary in order to answer any outstanding questions and concerns that they might have, and I also think it potentially helps prevent the death of other children in the Province.

There are different types of child death, including the natural death of a child, a child that dies by fire, by drowning, through child abuse and neglect, through accidents such as a motor vehicle accident, through a suicide, or through choking. The reviews are done in a significant number of other areas, as I have just outlined, and, Mr. Chair, up until now we did not have any provisions or requirements in this Province upon the death of a child to ensure that it be investigated and reported upon.

The first-ever death review was done in this Province during the investigation into the death of Zachary Turner, and this was done, announced in 2003; the report itself was filed and made public in 2006. It determined that the system which should have protected Zachary Turner did not do its job. They concluded that the baby's death was preventable had the proper supports been in place. In response to this review, the government did set up a Child Death Review Committee to examine the circumstances under which children under the age of two die as a result of questionable circumstances. They did do that; that was immediately after the results of the Turner Inquiry.

Mr. Chair, in 1999 the only provinces that did not do any form of a child death review were Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon. The other provinces had a process in place now for years in Canada and child death has been investigated by different agencies with varying mandates across the country. Each province, Mr. Chair, defers, they all recognize the value of this type of work in improving the lives of our children.

Mr. Chair, when the Chief Medical Examiner is involved in the death of an individual they will try to answer several key questions, such as identifying the person, the child who has died, the date, the time and the place of the death. They will look at the cause of the death and the manner of the death but that is the limited scope, as I said, in which the medical examiner can review this. A child death review looks at a broader scope, looks at more comprehensive questions around it. It looks at the full examination of the life of the child in the hope of prevention. No matter how the death occurred, there is now a mechanism to investigate that particular death.

The new bill, Mr. Chair, will allow not only for the investigation of individual cases, but aggregated cases as well. I will use the example that I used yesterday of the 101 deaths in Northern Labrador over a nineteen-year period, all suicides. This bill will now allow the review committee to investigate this and to look at trends and systemic issues as well as to allow them to make recommendations to prevent similar deaths in the future. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, it will only get triggered if there is another child who commits suicide. That is unfortunate. We feel, Mr. Chair, as an Opposition, that the child death review, once it is proclaimed, should allow the medical examiner to bring forward any cases as they see fit to be reviewed as part of the child death review in order to make recommendations that will be in the best interest and the safety of the public.

I am going to use this one as an example. This is a case already in Northern Labrador where we have 101 cases of suicide over a nineteen year period. Mr. Chair, we should not have to wait for one more child to commit suicide in order to move ahead with a child death review into some of these cases and the systemic issues of that region. Most of these cases are confined to one particular region. A large portion of these cases apply to children and youth under the age of twenty-five. A lot of these cases have been repetitively occurring in the same community. A lot of these cases, Mr. Chair, are also connected to issues of substance abuse, poverty, and other issues within the community.

I would say to the minister, if we are going to bring in this legislation, do not wait for another child to commit suicide in Northern Labrador. Give the medical examiner the authority he needs today to now go before the commission when it is set up and say: Listen, we have had all of these cases occur. In the last two years there have been twenty suicides alone in Northern Labrador, in the last two years. I think there is every bit of reason to look at the systemic issues that are contributing to this. We should not have to wait for another child to die in order to look at it, Mr. Chair, another child to commit suicide.

Mr. Chair, I want to use another example as well. I am going to use the example everyone has been familiar with in this Province because it was a public issue. It was the example of the mother who lost her child through substance abuse. The child, she claims through medical records, died as a result of an overdose of methadone, Mr. Chair. She does not know how the child got access to the methadone or how it got on the street. She has asked for an investigation into the death of her child. She has been waiting, Mr. Chair, for well over a year for a reply.

The government under this new legislation, if that death was occurring after the act was proclaimed there would be a child death review into that child's death. Because the death has occurred prior to the act, this child will not now be entitled to the child death review. I have a problem with that because, again, are the issues around this child directly connected to systemic issues that are occurring in our Province, or in our city, or in the area where this child lives, that are contributing to this? Is it something within their environment that is contributing to this? I think, Mr. Chair, if you were to do an investigation into what happened to this child as a result of substance abuse, then you would also be able to make clearer recommendations and changes to protect other children in the Province. So why do we have to wait until there is another child who gets access to methadone in this Province, another child who overdoses on methadone in this Province, another child who dies as a result of an overdose of methadone in this Province? Why do we have to now wait for that to happen before it will trigger a child death review to look at what contributed to this, what needs to change, and what additional protections need to be put in there for the children in this Province?

Mr. Chair, I cannot say it any clearer than what I am saying it. I am not saying that every single case of where a child has died, going back the last fifty years, should go through a child death review. I am not saying that. I am saying that there are particular cases in this Province that could influence change, it could protect lives, it could save children, and it could provide, Mr. Chair, for stronger legislation in this Province, or regulations, or policy, or governance – whatever you want to call it – and it should be done. The medical examiner should have the authority – he is a professional, he is in charge, Mr. Chair, of doing –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will conclude my comments shortly.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From the debate in the past two days, we have all supported the intent and focus of the bill: the prevention of the death of a child. As I have said yesterday, we all know that the death of a child is one of the most tragic things that can occur in our society, and perhaps a parent's greatest fear.

I fully support the intent of having a Child Death Review Committee with a certain amount of flexibility and fluidity, adapting according to the type of deaths or death that is to be reviewed. The flexibility will ensure a more comprehensive analysis and understanding of aggregate deaths as well, thereby increasing the likelihood of coming up with recommendations that could possibly help in the prevention of future deaths of children. To bring this level of expertise to the table and to draw on the knowledge base of a multidisciplinary approach is a good way to go.

The purpose of the Child Death Review Committee is to make recommendations that enable government to amend, to adapt, to create policy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – to develop services to address systemic issues that contribute to problems, and to do whatever is possible to introduce corrective measures to prevent further deaths.

Mr. Chair, this process is only helpful if in fact ministers follow and implement recommendations that are developed, that the recommendations have to be considered seriously for implementation. Too often we have seen where panels and committees, inquires and reviews, have made solid recommendations that were either not acted on or not acted on in a timely manner.

A case in point would be the recommendation from the Turner inquiry to establish the Child Death Review Committee. That recommendation, as we all know, was made in 2006 and here we are today, almost six years later, debating that issue. Although there are not large numbers of child deaths in our Province that require a full review or a full investigation, there have been, in the past six years, a number of aggregates that deserve attention and should be reviewed, and might even justify a full inquiry. The suicide deaths of youth in Labrador, the deaths of a number of youth due to substance abuse or addictions, and the death of a number of youths through suicide who were either members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or queer community, or perceived to be members of that community who were bullied mercilessly – those are issues that need to be addressed, those are deaths that still need to be addressed, that need to be investigated to see where the systemic problems are, to see what we can do as a society, as a community, to take corrective measures to implement change and, thereby, to possibly save the life of another child.

If the recommendations of the Turner inquiry had been followed in a timely manner, a Child Death Review Committee would have been in place and it is likely that these deaths would have been reviewed. Who knows, there even may have been an inquiry by this point. Who knows what we would have learned from these panels of experts. Who knows what their recommendations might have been.

Is it possible that safeguards, programs, or policies that might have been put in place in fact might have helped some of these youth? Perhaps a life could have been spared; who knows? We do not know. We do know how important it is that after a panel review, after a committee review, after a full inquiry, solid recommendations coming out of that process, if they are taken seriously and if they are implemented, perhaps a difference could have been made. However, unless there is a stipulation that requires ministers to implement recommendations made by the Child Death Review Committee, then perhaps the work of those committees is rendered powerless and futile.

One more note on the composition of a committee. It is imperative to ensure that representation on the committee includes not only employees of government departments, agencies, or services of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also independent experts as well, particularly if the death of a child is connected in some way with the care or services by a government agency, service, or department.

I would also like to stress one more time my concern about the release of information from the review process. Again, I say that I understand that we all understand the nature of the need for privacy protection for the families involved and for the deliberations within the review committee. However, other jurisdictions have found ways to release information beyond simply the concrete recommendations that go forward, information that would shed light on the issues yet still protect the privacy issues that we have mentioned, to safeguard the workings of the committee and safeguard the privacy of the family.

I have no doubt that this can be done. We see that Ontario releases their reports, again, keeping in mind the need for privacy of information and safeguarding the workings of a committee, particularly when there are peer reviews involved. All those safeguards are protected, but still more than just the recommendations can be publicized; they are publicized on their Web site for the protection of the community, for the information for the right to know of the community. Families – again, families – where there has been a review in the death of their child have a right to know more than just the recommendations.

Again, I support the focus and the intent of this bill. I would look forward to the government and the minister seriously considering some of the issues that have been raised in this House in the past two days – issues that, in fact, do not weaken the bill, do not challenge the bill, do not change the bill, but issues and recommendations that, in fact, strengthen the bill and move the bill forward in terms of its mandate to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to serve the agencies, departments, and services that care for the children and for the youth of our Province.

Again, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to speak one more time to this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: You can go ahead.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to clue up the comments that I was making. I do want to propose an amendment to this section.

Mr. Chair, I was talking –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair would ask the Opposition House Leader – I understand you have amendments to clause 3, so we would need to vote clauses 1 and 2 first before you bring in the amendment in clause 3.

Do you have some comments you wanted to continue to make before then? We can vote clause 1 and 2 and then you can bring in the amendment.

MS JONES: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was talking about the role that I felt that the medical examiner should have in this new legislation. There are only a couple of things here that I feel very strongly about. The rest of it I am very comfortable with and I think it is a good piece of legislation. I think in ensuring that the medical examiner has the power to be able to recommend a child death review as they see fit, even if that death occurred prior to the legislation being proclaimed, I think is fitting for this bill, because the intent of the bill, Mr. Chair, is really to provide for the protection of children in this Province. If that is the real intent, to look at what went wrong and how we can improve it, then I do not see any issue with looking at cases where children may have died prior to this.

I cited two cases already. One with regard to the systemic issues around the suicide cases in Northern Labrador, where we have seen twenty cases in the last two years, and, Mr. Chair, a large percentage of them being children and youth in a concentrated area or region. The other case I cited was the child who died as a result of overdosing on methadone and the mother was asking for an investigation.

Another case that I want to point out, Mr. Chair, and this has not been a public case, but it is a case that I dealt with. It is a case that I know the Minister of Health and Community Services is familiar with now as well, but this is a case that goes back a couple of years where a child died. A child who was in the health care system from the age of fifteen, died at the age of eighteen, was in the parent's opinion wrongfully diagnosed and wrongfully treated, and therefore was not properly diagnosed until a very short time before he had died. It was too late for them to get the proper treatments that would have allowed them to save his life.

Now whether it would have saved his life or not, I do not know that. I cannot say that to be a fact, but I know there were treatments that would have been available had it been diagnosed earlier. Now it was no longer an option for this child. Within a short period of time after that the child died. The parents requested an investigation into the death through the minister's office, the Minister of Health and Community Services. I had meetings with the minister at that time. I provided letters and information from the family from that request. I know there were discussions that occurred between the minister, or his staff and the family; however, Mr. Chair, there was never any investigation.

What went wrong? What happened in our system? Was there a problem? Is there something that could be fixed? If there is, don't we have a responsibility to look at that? If there was not anything, if there is nothing there, if there is nothing to fix then we will find that out as well, but right now there is no way, one, for the family to get the answers that they need, and two, for us to provide for the protection of the next child who goes into a system under similar circumstances or similar events. That is the reason why I think it is very important that the medical examiner have the authority under this legislation to refer those cases for a child death review, if, in his opinion, he feels that it would be in the best interest of the protection of children under the act in this Province.

Mr. Chair, another issue might be the circumstances around the death of Burton Winters and what happened in that particular tragedy. If this legislation had to have been proclaimed at that time, there would have automatically been a child death review of the Burton Winters case, but because the legislation did not exist in this Province that did not happen. However, if it had to have been in another province that this same event, same circumstances had to have occurred, there would have automatically been a child death review in many cases.

Mr. Chair, I could name probably at least another three or four examples that I am familiar with, which I feel would back up my argument for what I am asking. I think it is a fair request. I think it is not being done for any other reason, Mr. Chair, other than to allow for these families to seek a child death review who have lost children in this Province, and only that it be done because we know it is in the best interest of all children in this Province to look at all of these cases and to make the appropriate recommendations and corrections that need to be made.

So, Mr. Chair, those are the comments that I want to make. I am sure there are other speakers, and I will be proposing amendment under section 3, once we get there.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am glad to get an opportunity to speak to Bill 33 in Committee of the Whole. I would have spoken earlier but the way things went I think it is fine that this is when I am getting to speak. I will want to listen to what the Opposition House Leader has in the form of amendments as we go on. I am sure that I will want to speak again, knowing what the content is going to be. I do know what the content of some of her amendments are going to be, so I do know that I will want to speak again, but right now there are some points that I want to make prior to going into the next clause.

As we have all said, this legislation is long overdue. I will not continue talking about the Turner report, and the fact that it came out in 2006. We know that we are literally five-and-a-half years down the road from when that report was made public. What I want to refer to is the fact that on April 30, 2007, there was in-depth news release from the government, from Health and Community Services. In that news release we were told that "a Child Death Review Committee has been created to examine the circumstances under which children under the age of two die as a result of questionable causes." When I read that, Mr. Chair, I wanted to find out what happened. It did not say we will set up a committee. On April 30, 2007, the government said that a committee was actually created.

I did some investigation of that, some questioning, some digging around; and, in actual fact, there was a committee and it was under the auspices of the Child and Youth Advocate. Of course the committee did not have any legislation; the committee did not have anything necessarily to protect it. One of the things that it did not have was the presence of the chief forensic examiner on the committee. An attempt definitely was made.

What I have learned is that the committee that was struck in 2007 basically continually failed as it came up against roadblocks. There were potential members of the committee who were identifying conflict of interest, which they were being identified under the Child and Youth Advocate. People they were coming up with potentially could have conflict of interest. There seemed to be difficulty in getting Aboriginal representation on the committee. We know that would have been absolutely essential, especially because of something that the Opposition House Leader has referred to a number of times, and that is the high rate of death in the Aboriginal community of children due to suicide. There are other deaths as well in that community – a high number of deaths of children in that community. Aboriginal representation on the committee would have been absolutely essential.

Then there was also the instability with regard to a consistency to the person in the role of the Child and Youth Advocate. That was another barrier, a roadblock, which kept the committee from functioning well, or even getting started from what I understand. Then, there was also a privacy issue. Medical professionals were concerned about speaking frankly, is what I am told, and honestly, because they were fearful that their comments could be accessed by ATIPP. There was nothing to protect them as they could see, so they were very, very concerned about that. The committee basically did not get started. That was five-and-one-half years ago. I do not know how long it went on before it was realized that legislation was the only way for the committee to work, that there had to be a role absolutely legislated. The concerns that were coming out probably could be dealt with under legislation, especially the concern around privacy, which was a key one.

One of the things I would like to raise, one of the things that is in the bill that I am very pleased with, I know it comes in under a particular clause, but I am, in general, going to mention it here, and that is the need for a review of maternal death in this Province. People I have spoken to have indicated that in the medical profession, and even in the legal profession, there has been a concern about the fact that we have never really had a review of maternal death in this Province. This review, which is a potential thing under the new legislation, would let us know better what factor, if any, that we need to work on to get our deaths closer to zero, the deaths of children who are being born. Whether the deaths are happening at the moment of birth, or whether they are happening prior to birth, still births and that kind of thing, we do need to find out why our numbers are where they are. This legislation certainly is going to give the committee what it needs to be able to do that kind of systemic review. I think that is extremely important.

I would also like to note that there is the clause that deals with how long the minister has before releasing a report is really important. First of all, within sixty day of the minister receiving a report from the Child Death Review Committee, the minister will have to make public the recommendations of the report. It is important to note what the minister will be reporting: the relevant protocols, policies and procedures related to the review that was done; standards and legislation; linkages and co-ordination of services, which is really important, that the minister receiving a report will have to bring out how all the different services under government work together with regard to whatever death issue was being dealt with in a given review; and the minister will also have to make public recommendations dealing with improvements to services affecting children and pregnant women.

The issue is: Are there other things that could be released as well? I understand the report that will be made to the minister by the committee will certainly be a report with no holds barred. The report to the minister obviously has to report fully on everything that was found, and that will include people who were witnesses, documentation, et cetera.

We have to find a way to make sure that people who are concerned about a death, family members in particular, will get adequate information to help them feel at peace with what has been found. It could well be that just releasing the recommendations covering what I just spoke about might not bring them peace. I think we have to make sure that parts of the report that would not infringe on privacy of third parties could be released to the public as well. We will need to be watching the Child Death Review Committee and make sure that the information being released is adequate for the public to get a real sense of what happened in a death or in a series of deaths, depending on what it is we are dealing with.

Mr. Chair, I will leave my comments at that for now because I am almost at the end. What I want to talk about next would come under the amendment anyway.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the section of the act that I had some concerns with. Mr. Chair, the act is amended by adding immediately after section 13 in the original act – the original act, of course, is the Fatalities Investigations Act. This here is actually the amendments. In the act now under section 13 there will be a section 13.1. Under section 13.1 it is basically laying out how this committee will work, how things will be done. Basically it says, Mr. Chair, that, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall establish a Child Death Review Committee to review the facts and circumstances of deaths referred to in…" the other subsection "for the purpose of (a) discovering and monitoring trends in those deaths; and (b) determining whether further evaluation of those deaths is necessary or desirable in the public interest."

I want to read that, Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the Opposition House Leader speaking to the amendment that she is proposing?

MS JONES: No, I have not proposed it yet.

CHAIR: Okay.

Go ahead; sorry.

MS JONES: I am going to propose it. I am leading up to where I am going to propose it, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: I am trying to hurry as much as I can.

Mr. Chair, there are actually two amendments. The first amendment that I want to propose – Mr. Chair, I will get to in just one second, but I am reading the section 13 which is clause 3, and what is going to be now added to the bill. I am trying to make a point and the point is, Mr. Chair, that under this section of the bill it says that the purpose of doing a child death review is to discover and monitor trends in those deaths and determining whether further evaluation of those deaths are necessary or desirable in the public interest, that is one thing.

Mr. Chair, what I am talking about, the cases that I have cited, the suicide cases, the cases of substance abuse where children have died, the cases in the medical system where a child has died, all of these things will accomplish this as well. Investigating those cases and doing a child death review into them will also allow you to discover and monitor as to whether there is a trend in those deaths. It will also allow you to determine whether further evaluation is necessary or desired in the public interest. I want to point that out, Mr. Chair.

Then you look at section 13.2. In section 13.2 it tells you what the committee should do. It says that the committee shall review the facts and circumstances of a child's death; and deaths referred to – and that is in another paragraph as I explained earlier, through drowning accidents and so on.

"The committee may review one or more deaths during a review." Let me explain that: a committee may review one or more deaths during a review. Basically, Mr. Chair, if a child tomorrow in Northern Labrador – God forbid if this should happen – commits suicide that will then trigger a child death review if the act is proclaimed. When that happens, they can then go back and look at previous suicides of children in that area. All I am saying is: Do not wait for another child to die; do it now. What is the difference? Do it now. If it is going to serve a purpose, if we are going to learn something from this, Mr. Chair, why not do it now?

Mr. Chair, "For the purpose of conducting a review, the committee may use any information acquired by a medical examiner or investigator in the course of an investigation under this Act." Basically, Mr. Chair, what that is saying is that any work that the medical examiner has done, in already reviewing the death of this child, can also be used in the child death review. What we are saying then, Mr. Chair, is this – in the other piece it says, "A review shall only begin after a medical examiner has completed his or her duties under section 10" of the act.

Under section 10, Mr. Chair, of the act, I can cite that for you just so that we have consistency. I will do that really quickly. Under section 10 of the act, Mr. Chair, this is the part in which once there is a notification of a death, a medical examiner is satisfied that the death occurred and the medical examiner shall investigate the death, and where possible establish the things I already outlined – identify the person; the date, time and place of death; the cause of death; and the manner of death; and they shall keep a record and so on.

Mr. Chair, what we are also saying is that we are asking that the medical examiner have the ability to refer any cases that they see is in the best interests of the public for a review, regardless of when that death occurred. So, what I am proposing is that subsection 13.2(3), in clause 3 of the bill, is amended by deleting the period and substituting the words and commas "unless, where a death occurred before the coming into force of this section," and by adding immediately after those words and commas the following paragraph: (a) a medical examiner is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to conduct a review.

Mr. Chair, that is the amendment I am proposing. I strongly feel that it is important.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: I think it is in compliance with the act –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would just ask the Opposition House Leader to take her seat for a minute while we consider whether the amendment is in order.

The House will take a brief recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment as put forward by the Opposition House Leader. The amendment is not in order as written.

I would recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will withdraw that amendment and propose this amendment, which it seems, according to the Law Clerk, is more appropriate. It reads: The proposed subsection 13.2(3) in clause 3 of the bill is amended by deleting the period and substituting the words and commas "unless, where a death occurred before the coming into force of this section,"…a medical examiner is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to conduct a review.

I think just a little clearer language there, Mr. Chair, and I will await your ruling on that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, an amendment to clause 3, and the proposed subsection 13.2(3) in clause 3 of the bill is amended.

Shall I dispense with the reading of the remaining text of the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The amendment is in order, and I recognize the Opposition House Leader to speak to the amendment.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I put forward this amendment based on the examples that I have given previously in my debate in committee and also in second reading. I feel very strongly, Mr. Chair, that the medical examiner in the Province under this act should have authority to refer any cases of where a child has died, regardless of the time of that death or the date of that death, to the Child Death Review Committee for review if he feels that it is in the best interests of the public. The bill itself, the whole intent of this legislation, is to protect children in this Province; it is to ensure that we have appropriate regulations in place for the protection of children. The whole intent here is to review the death of every child to ensure that we know what went wrong and how we can better provide for remedies in cases like this.

What I am asking to be done is no diversion or exception from the bill in any way. It is basically just giving the medical examiner the authority, as he or she sees fit, that any time there are cases that they feel are of public interest that should be reviewed, then they can certainly make that request through the Child Death Review Committee and have a review done into that particular case.

I will not reiterate anything that I have already said. I have cited a number of examples which I think are very applicable in this case, and I think are certainly well within the intent of what the bill is. I would ask hon. members to consider the amendment and to support it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to fully support this amendment as submitted. I believe there is a moral imperative here in terms of looking at – as many of us have mentioned here – the number of aggregate cases that we have seen over the last while in terms of youth suicides and youth deaths because of addictions issues and substance abuse.

The moral imperative I believe is for us as legislators, the moral imperative I believe is on behalf of the needs of the families and on behalf of the needs of the community in which these children and these youths lived. The particular cases that were highlighted today, the very high number of youth suicides in the Labrador region. The children recently only in the past year we know of in this region alone, two young people who have died – that we know of – because of substance abuses, the suicides that have been clustered in some areas in the Province due to bullying.

Some members across the floor have called out, but now you want us to investigate every death. Well, Mr. Chair, that is not the case. I do believe that common sense would prevail here, not only common sense in terms of the Chief Medical Examiner and also the committee, but expertise would prevail here because nobody can call a review willy-nilly. The safeguards are in this legislation to ensure that this does not happen. There would not be a frivolous call of a review; in fact, it would be based on very concrete evidence. It would be based on the substance of the deaths that we know have been documented that have occurred. As we know, it is the Chief Medical Examiner who can call a review. It is not just willy-nilly, every death is now going to have to be reviewed that has happened in the past. The intent of this bill is for the protection of our children. The honourable intent of this bill is to prevent death.

It would be in the public interest to review any cases that the medical examiner would like to reach back to. It is not applying legislation retroactively, but it enables and empowers the medical examiner and then the Child Death Review Committee to actually do their work. Rather than wait for a catastrophe to trigger their work, it empowers them to do their work in a comprehensive way, in a way that is informed, that is informed by their expertise. Again, this is about protecting the children and the youth of this Province and it is about preventing death.

There is much that, in fact, we can learn from the deaths of the aggregates that we have highlighted here. Who knows, there may be other aggregates or other individual deaths that the medical examiner and the review committee, in fact, in fulfilling their mandate and in fulfilling their jurisdiction would like to review because they know it would be for the public good, they know that it would be for the public interest. Then, the other moral imperative is the need of parents to know, the need for families to know, the need for communities to know. We know one of the most tragic events that can happen in our community is the death of a child, and to be able to reach beyond that tragic incident and perhaps pull something good out of it by taking information that might shed light on the potential of preventing some of these deaths so that they are not all in vain.

I would like to think that we, in this House today, may be able to pass an amendment that does not detract from the main bill but actually supports its main focus and its main intent, but that we would be actually able to support this amendment that could speak to the tragedies of the many families who have lost children in some of these particular ways. That could only be a positive thing. That could only be a good thing for our communities, for our Province as a whole.

We strongly support this amendment and we encourage government members as well to do so in light of the overarching intent and purpose of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I am not sure of procedure here, but I have been looking for some direction. It would be our wish that we have some time to consider this amendment. It is a very serious amendment and we recognize the serious pretence of putting the amendment. We would certainly like to have more time to consider it, but I do not know what procedure we can follow. I rely on our Government House Leader to help me out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do move, Mr, Chair, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and are reporting progress on Bill 33. We ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received? Now?

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. KENNEDY: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, usually I do not get into bills this deep, and usually I use quite a bit less copious notes, we will say, but today, because this bill is so broad and so detailed, I thought I should get into it fairly heavy.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister want to move it and second it before he starts making his remarks?

MR. FRENCH: I move the bill be seconded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded –

MR. FRENCH: Seconded by the Minister of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act". (Bill 37)

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador has a robust labour relations regime which has served us well. Provincial government's role in labour relations generally is to establish and maintain a flexible and appropriate framework which promotes good employer-employee relations, provides effective and timely dispute-resolution mechanisms, and by virtue of these attributes, sends the clear message that the Province is a good place to invest and do business.

Some would argue that government should be more interventionist, that it should become more involved in both preventing and ending labour disputes for the benefit of workers, employers, and the economy, or all of these sectors. However, our government's view is that the overriding principle of labour relations should be that the parties directly involved – workers and employers – should be left to resolve their differences themselves, working within a regulatory framework which provides them with the tools to do so, tools which it is government's responsibility to provide.

Mr. Speaker, there may well be labour disputes and situations that arise from time to time which do require government intervention in a manner which departs from this principle. It is important to acknowledge this and that all parties understand that this too is part of government's role. It is, after all, government's responsibility to govern, and we will not shrink from that responsibility. Such action is the exception and not the rule. Employers and employees have responsibilities as well. If they exercise those responsibilities appropriately in the collective bargaining process with the tools provided by government, exceptional action on government's part will seldom be required.

For the last several months the provincial government has been assessing the results of three initiatives with significant implications for labour relations legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador. First, my colleagues will recall the appointment in the fall of 2010, of an Industrial Inquiry Commission into the strike at Voisey's Bay and the subsequent report of that commission in May of 2011. The Voisey's Bay strike lasted for approximately seventeen months and affected the lives of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have looked carefully at that report and consulted with stakeholders on its recommendations. The legislative amendments before this House and the policy measures we will implement present a balanced response, which will aid in preventing lengthy strikes like this from occurring in the future.

Secondly, coinciding with the approval of the Special Project Order or SPO, for the Hebron Project in late 2011, we announced the review of the SPO provision of the Labour Relations Act. An SPO is a valuable tool which allows government to sanction a unique labour relations environment for a major construction project and help ensure labour stability, no strikes or lockouts, for the construction period. SPOs create a separate labour relations regime for special projects outside the normal bargaining environment for the industrial commercial construction sector, something this government, Mr. Speaker, is certainly very proud of. SPOs have been effective in the construction of special projects including the Upper Churchill development, Hibernia, Terra Nova, Voisey's Bay, Long Harbour, and Hebron. The review completed by Mr. James Oakley, in February of 2012, was initiated to ensure that the act provides the flexibility to respond to upcoming major projects and continues to achieve the intended effect of labour stability, while being responsive to the needs of stakeholders.

Finally, under the auspices of the Employment Relations Committee of the Strategic Partnership Council representing labour, employers, and government, a review of collective bargaining legislation, the Labour Relations Act, and the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act has been in process since 2007. Initial amendments to the Labour Relations Act resulting from this process were implemented in May of 2011. The Labour Relations Act, in particular, has not seen significant changes in approximately thirty years. This review process with the full participation of stakeholders should position us well into the future.

The results of these three reviews are the two bills before the House today, proposing to amend the Labour Relations Act, and the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. The common thread linking these amendments is an effort to modernize and improve collective bargaining legislation, to contribute to an environment conducive to positive and constructive labour relations, Mr. Speaker. I will address the proposed amendments arising from each of these initiatives.

The Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission – the commission's report noted that some of the processes and the lack of remedial powers of the Labour Relations Board may have contributed to some of the delays experienced during the Voisey's Bay strike. Two amendments to the Labour Relations Act are proposed to address this. First, the board will have the authority to limit the scope of a hearing. That is, it will be able to clearly enforce the boundaries of discussion and the nature of matters that may be brought before it, keeping delays to a minimum. Second, the board will be provided with specific remedial powers beyond its current ability to order the parties to cease and desist, to address unfair labour practice complaints when a party fails to bargain in good faith.

Government is introducing enhanced remedial options to encourage the parties to take these types of complaints seriously, meet their respective obligations to bargain in good faith, and to ensure that the board can take appropriate and reasonable action when needed. This new general authority will provide the board with discretion to consider remedies beyond its current powers of cease and desist, and permit the board to intervene more directly in the context of the dispute to provide a solution which addresses the unfair labour practice and its consequences.

We are leaving it to the board's discretion to determine the types of remedies that may be needed to address individual complaints. The point of this new power is to permit the board to tailor its remedy to the unique circumstances of a matter. The board remedial authority is not unlimited; rather, the board will use it to issue remedies that are fair, effective, and responsive to the facts of the specific case. This is an appropriate approach, giving the board remedial powers like boards in other provinces.

Most collective agreements concluded in Newfoundland and Labrador today make provisions for the establishment of a Labour Management Committee, or LMC, where workplace issues may be discussed by the parties. LMCs now exist in a majority of private sector workplaces, about 69 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Some agreements, however, do not contain such provisions. In the case of the Voisey's Bay strike, such a committee may have contributed to better relations between the employer and the unions. We are proposing an amendment to the Labour Relations Act whereby labour management committees will be required when at least one workplace party requests it. Parties will have six months to design their own model process or adopt a deemed model requiring them to meet every two months.

Finally, to allow government to respond quickly and flexibly to long and contentious labour disputes, an amendment is proposed to the Labour Relations Act which will provide government with the ability to make specific regulations in response to future industrial inquiries. In addition to these legislative amendments, government will implement policy measures in response to the commission's report. In consultation with stakeholders, we will be developing and encouraging the adoption of a corporate, social responsibility policy focused on labour relations. This would be a voluntary measure that business could adopt and use to profile their investments and practices in labour relations. We will also continue to assess the use of consolidation boards in workplace disputes.

These measures respond to all of the commission's recommendations directed to government with the exception of the recommendation to implement third party binding arbitration. Only one other Canadian jurisdiction, Manitoba, has such a legislative mechanism. Since its conception in 2000, it has been rarely used. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it has been used twice. Our government is not prepared to adopt such a mechanism at this time, preferring to support the right of employers and employees to resolve their differences through established processes without outside intervention. These amendments emphasizes the parties overall responsibility for labour relations in the workplace, the importance of proactive measures to enhance workplace dialogue and provide an appropriate mix of legislative and policy measures, to support a stable labour relations framework.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, is a review of the Special Project Order provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Mr. James Oakley's review of the Special Project Order provisions of the Labour Relations Act included extensive consultation with stakeholders and careful consideration of practices in other provinces. Overall, Mr. Oakley concluded that the current SPO provisions of the act accomplished the objective of labour stability but could be enhanced in several areas.

As a result of government's review of Mr. Oakley's report, a number of amendments were proposed to the act. Currently, the act defines a special project as one with minimum construction duration of three years. An amendment is proposed which will redefine a special project as one with a minimum construction period of two years. This will open up the benefits of SPOs to a broader range of construction projects, support labour stability, and promote an attractive labour relations climate. This redefinition will also remove the requirement of a geographic site from the definition.

A further amendment, will allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to prescribe either the geographic site or the scope of work to be included or excluded from the SPO. This amendment gives proponents the added flexibility of describing a project by the scope of work involved where geography may not be appropriate.

The Labour Relations Act will be amended to clarify that Special Project Orders may overlap in both time and geography. The legislation currently does not contemplate a situation where SPOs could overlap and an amendment is required to allow for such situations into the future.

The act will also be amended to remove the authority of the Labour Relations Board to issue SPOs. The only SPO issued by the board was the Upper Churchill Project. Since then, SPOs have been issued by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the board has not been involved in this process.

A further amendment, will allow the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency to refer questions to the board both before and after an SPO has been declared. Such questions could relate to whether a person is an employer or employee, whether an employee's organization is in compliance with the act, whether a union or council of unions is in compliance with the act, and whether a valid collective agreement has been entered into.

I should note that of Mr. Oakley's twenty recommendations, our government is accepting eighteen and rejecting two. These two recommendations we are rejecting are those recommending the removal of ancillary services from the current definition of special projects, and allowing a single union to act as the bargaining agent under an SPO.

Ancillary services such as catering and security have been included under all previous SPOs. They are an integral part of the smooth operations of the overall construction project and help maximize benefits to all special project participants. Government's view is that these services should continue to be part of SPOs.

With respect to the single union recommendation, government felt there was no need to change legislation. All SPOs to date have included a council of unions as bargaining agent. While all SPO requests have to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, one of the key components to major developments has been labour stability. We have had great success with labour stability and believe it is something we need to ensure into the future.

Third, Employment Relations Committee of the Strategic Partnership Council; this initiative has resulted in proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Some of the proposed amendments reflect consensus among the parties; that is, employers and labour reached agreement with respect to these changes. For other issues the parties were unable to agree and government has chosen to act.

After a careful review of these issues, including an assessment of practices in other jurisdictions, the parties agreed that the current legislative provisions of the Labour Relations Act relating to the conciliation process and strikes and lockouts are cumbersome and are not user friendly. The agreed changes will clarify that the initial request for conciliation services will be a conciliation officer rather than a conciliation board to reflect current practice. Parties will have the ability to request appointment of a conciliation board following the start of a strike or lockout, and the conciliation and the strike-lockout provisions will be reordered as a streamlining measure. Because of the complexity of the required amendments to make these changes, these amendments are not part of the current bill and will be implemented at a later time. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that was, as well, one of the consensus items reached between the tripartite committee.

Mr. Speaker, the process that follows certification of a union in the workplace is one with which most newly certified employers are unfamiliar. When parties enter into a new collective bargaining relationship, there is often a period of familiarization and where the certification process has been difficult. Acrimony may exist, making the collective bargaining process more complicated and time consuming. In an effort to assist the parties where a first collective agreement has not been concluded within sixty days after notice to bargain has been served, a mediator from the Labour Relations Agency will be appointed.

In most instances, parties conclude first agreements on their own; however, in instances where they cannot reach an agreement and request Labour Relations Board assistance, we want to ensure the collective agreement is settled as soon as possible. By prescribing timelines, this will ensure the request is dealt with in a timely fashion. The sooner the first collective agreement is established, the sooner the parties can build their collective bargaining relationship.

The Labour Relations Act currently provides that where there is evidence that a strike or lockout poses a threat to an industry or geographic area of the Province, the provincial government may order a vote to determine the wishes of employees with respect to resumption of work. However, this section does not address how the vote of employees is to be conducted, and if the vote should favour a return to work, the terms and condition under which employees would work. The section is unclear and has never been used. The parties have agreed that this should be removed.

An amendment to the Labour Relations Act is proposed which will clarify that the Labour Management Arbitration Committee applies to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Certification of a union currently requires a two-stage process. An application is made to the Labour Relations Board based on over 50 per cent of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit signing union cards, followed by a mandatory Labour Relations Board certification vote.

The proposed amendment to the Labour Relations Act will provide for automatic certification if 65 per cent or more of the employees sign a union card. If the percentage signing the union card is 40 to 64 per cent, the board will continue to conduct a secret ballot, and if less than 40 per cent of employees support the certification application, it will be dismissed without a vote. This amendment is in keeping with the practice in several jurisdictions in Canada and reflects a more democratic approach to certification. This is referred to as card-based certification.

Currently, the Labour Relations Act does not expressly recognize the right of an employer to communicate with employees. Although the Labour Relations Board has indicated that employers do have such a right, this is particularly important to employers during certification. The proposed amendment would provide clarity for employers with respect to their ability to communicate with employees and would reflect the current interpretation of this legislation by the board. Clarification would enhance communication within the workplace and any issues with its misuse could be addressed through an unfair labour practice complaint. While providing the right for employers to communicate with employees, the amendment also constrains such communication from being intimidating, coercive or threatening.

The Labour Relations Board regulations now specify that where a certification drive has been unsuccessful, the board shall not entertain any further certification applications from the same union until a period of six months has elapsed; however, the regulations do not prevent another local of the same or affiliated union from making another application immediately afterwards. This has been referred to as a local of convenience. With the input of the board, we will add a definition of applicant to the regulations to clarify that the same union or affiliates of that union are prohibited from making multiple applications for certification during the six-month period following the board's decision.

Currently, neither the Labour Relations Act nor the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act provide for votes on offer. An amendment is proposed to the Labour Relations Act allowing either party to collective bargaining to request that the Labour Relations Board conduct a vote on offer before or after the start of a labour dispute. Each party would have one opportunity to make such a request. A similar amendment is proposed to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, allowing the employer only to request that the board conduct such a vote. Since there are no employer organizations in the public sector, unions in the public sector would not have this option.

Currently, parties covered by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act do not have the ability to file unfair labour practice complaints, including failure to bargain in good faith. Parties in the private sector covered under the Labour Relations Act have such a right and government's view is that this right should be extended to the public sector. An amendment is proposed to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act to provide this right. Mr. Speaker, this amendment effectively establishes one standard of behaviour for both the public and private sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues which arise in the context of labour relations which are particularly controversial and divisive. I would like to touch on both of them as I conclude my remarks because both have been raised in the reviews giving rise to the amendments before the House today, and both have been rejected by the provincial government. I have addressed one of these in my remarks so far: the issue of binding arbitration. Binding arbitration was addressed by the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry and the commission recommended its implementation in limited circumstances; that is, where the public interest test is applied and met. Binding arbitration was also discussed in the review of labour relations legislation through the Employment Relations Committee of the Strategic Partnership Council. No consensus was reached in that forum to move this concept forward in Newfoundland labour relations legislation.

I have stated government's reasons for not enshrining this concept in our legislation. Fundamentally, binding arbitration is in use in only one other Canadian province, and even there it is conceived differently from the recommendation coming from the industrial inquiry. In Manitoba, time, or the length of a labour dispute is the key factor which would trigger binding arbitration. The Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission recommended that it be triggered by a public interest test. Regardless of these differences, however, binding arbitration removes a dispute from a purview of those who have the main responsibility to solve it. Our government rejects this approach.

The second issue is replacement worker legislation. This issue also arose in both the Voisey's Bay inquiry and the Employment Relations Committee. It has also been raised in this House during the current session in relation to the recent dispute between FFAW and OCI. Our government has looked at this very carefully and rejected it.

British Columbia and Quebec are the only provincial jurisdictions with replacement worker legislation. In 1992, Ontario introduced replacement worker legislation and repealed it in 1995. In 2010, a private member's bill to ban replacement workers was defeated in the House of Commons. This was the fourteenth unsuccessful attempt to introduce such legislation in the federal system. Academic research assessing the impact of a ban on the use of replacement worker legislation on the incidence and duration of labour disputes is clearly mixed. Research exists both for and against replacement worker legislation.

Before concluding, I would like to summarize the major legislative changes contained in the two bills before the House. The first bill deals with the amendments to the Labour Relations Act as follows: the Voisey's Bay industrial inquiry allows the Labour Relations Board to limit the scope of a hearing; two, require that parties to a collective agreement establish a Labour Management Consultation Committee where one of the parties makes a written request; provide additional powers to the Labour Relations Board to address the consequences of failure to bargain in good faith; and provide new regulation-making authority to allow government to respond to industrial inquiries.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the Special Project Order: it will reduce the minimum construction period to be required for a Special Project Order from three years to two years; it will allow Special Project Orders to be prescribed by geographic site or scope of work; it will allow Special Project Orders to overlap in time and geography; and it will allow the minister to refer certain questions to the Labour Relations Board both before and after a Special Project Order is declared.

Next is the Employment Relations Committee review: confirm the employer's right to communicate with employees so long as it does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue influence; provide for card-based certification when a 65 per cent threshold is met; require that the minister appoint the first collective agreement mediator where the parties have failed to conclude a first collective agreement within sixty days; impose time frames for the Labour Relations Board to decide on the terms and conditions of first collective agreements; and provide employers with one opportunity during collective bargaining to request that employees vote on the most recent employer offer and, if accepted, the offer becomes the collective agreement.

The second bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with amendments to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act arising from the Employment Relations Committee as follows: provide employers with one opportunity during collective bargaining to request that employees vote on the most recent employer offer and, if accepted, the offer becomes the collective agreement; and second, to allow parties to collective bargaining to file unfair labour practice complaints with the Labour Relations Board, including failure to bargain in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, government's role in labour relations, as I suggested in my opening remarks, is to provide certainty and clarity for employers and employees, to provide a regulatory environment in which the rights and duties of stakeholders are balanced and where the onus is on those stakeholders to resolve their differences themselves. Our government will continue to assist the parties through established processes. The amendments before the House are consistent with that role.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I am happy to stand here and speak to this piece of legislation today. I enjoyed listening to the minister's comments on this today, because this is a very important piece of legislation for this Province, especially in light of the fact that there is so much work that has been happening, that is coming up. I believe the term that the minister used in his briefing this morning was to update the legislation in many ways; I think that a lot of what has been suggested here would be updates to the legislation.

I am going to take my time here and try to get through this. There are amendments to this legislation as well as the new sections added to this legislation. I understand that a lot has been based on the Oakley report which was commissioned. I understand eighteen of the twenty recommendations were accepted. I appreciate the minister giving the backdrop as to why the other two were not accepted.

When you are in Opposition asking questions, sometimes the biggest part is understanding why something was not followed. If you are going to get recommendations and follow them, it is one thing; if you are not going to follow them, a lot of times what we are asking for is the clarification as to why or why not in terms of what is going on, so I appreciate that explanation.

What I would say is that I have some general comments as to the legislation, but we may have some more specific questions for the minister as we move into the Committee stage, because there are some provisions in here that are new. We are hopefully going to be able to get the minister's take on why they are there, his understanding of why this is going to happen or how things are going to happen.

What I would do is just go through the amendments that have been put forward. There are still some housekeeping sections here. A lot of this is based on, Mr. Speaker, the special projects, the SPOs. It is funny when you get in this House, or when you follow the news, you get these terms that may have been unfamiliar at the beginning, and then as you go through them they become sort of a catchphrase and everybody understands. I have heard the term SPO so many times in the last number of weeks that now it is like a second language here. If we look at the legislation, we have amended special – or that is what is being proposed, sorry, Mr. Speaker. Special project is being amended to go from the three years that existed to the two years. So, there was a backdrop for that.

The other thing I would point out, is one of the changes that is being suggested is to broaden the scope. We are removing the geographical aspect that was there before and widening the scope. I guess that has to do with the Bull Arm that was suggested, so that there could be more projects there. There were some limitations going on there.

The other thing I would put forward, and maybe I am wrong on this, is that with Muskrat Falls, which as big a project as that is, if it is sanctioned it is going to involve work in a number of different areas. It is not just up in Labrador. We are talking about down across the Strait into this Province, and across. So, I would imagine that will apply in that regard as well, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2 just talks about the board members and the alternate board members, and being reappointed and replaced. A question I would ask there is whether there should be a timeline put on there to allow for this process. I understand these people will remain in their place until they are either reappointed or replaced. I understand you cannot put too early a time on it because these things take time; but, should we not put a timeline on here to ensure that things are done within a certain period of time? I put these questions forward in all sincerity because they are questions that struck me as we reviewed this legislation last night and this morning.

Clause 3 makes all the sense in the world to me. It is a protection from liability clause which is very standard, very normal, needs to be there. I have no issue with that.

I would point out to the minister in clause 4, section 17, there is a typo that needs to be fixed. The last word in subsection 4 is discriminatory. I believe that is misspelled in the version that I have here. I just put that forward as a typo that I picked up when I was going through this. Maybe it is just in mine to make sure that we are paying attention here. So if we are, I guess we passed that test.

We move forward, in clause 5 we have a new part added, limit the scope of a hearing. My question there is to why we put that in. Again, I ask this in all sincerity. I will let the minister address that, or maybe we can ask that question in the committee stage. I am assuming there is a good reason why you would want to limit it, because you do not want to have something so broad that it is just going to bog everything down.

If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I understand the difficulty that the minister had in putting this legislation together. You have to walk a very tight wire; you have to deal with both the employers as well as the labour sector. I understand and I believe the minister said it best this morning, that he is probably going to hear about it from both sides on this, which is normal for government when they put in new legislation. It seems to me, from my first review of this, that it is a balancing act. Whether that appeases people or angers people then we await that.

We have not been given a lot of time to look at this. That is probably the one issue I have had with this, it has nothing to do with the legislation as a whole, nothing at all. It is just the fact that as an Opposition to make sure we are given the time necessary to do our work properly – and some of the changes I have suggested here have nothing to do with the ‘validness' of the legislation, but they have to do with ensuring that housekeeping errors or questions are there. I do think as we proceed, that I wish we had a bit more time because we got this late last night. We had to look it over. We looked it over this morning and we are debating it today. This is big legislation and we want to make sure that we do things right. I put that out there, that is just a concern, nothing to do with the legislation but to do with the process as a whole, Mr. Speaker.

I continue on. Clause 6, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the ones I note we asked about today in Question Period and I know the minister has been asked about it. That has to do with "Nothing in this section prevents an employer from expressing his or her views so long as the employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence." The issue there is that – and I believe as the minister said in his questions, and he can correct me if I am wrong – there is some precedence on this in past cases.

I understand the issue here. It is kind of hard to - do we legislate this? How do you legislate that to provide more clarity? One of the things we want to ensure when we have legislation is we want to make it as clear as possible. I do not know if we want to rely on precedence which will allow confusion down the road. The issue is there and it will be tough.

When we discuss something along the lines of – we are talking big words here, coercion, intimidation, promises. These are tough to quantify or to explain because they can take place in so many ways. These are things that can happen without the actual expression of words. You can intimidate without actually saying anything, or at the same time you can talk and have that conversation without any time being coercive or threatening.

It is a very tough section. I believe that the labour sector may have some issue with this. When do we cross that line where if we have a unionized workplace – like how far can an employer go where they actually get to the point where you question as to whether they are undermining the bargaining agent by expressing their views? Again, we may have situations down the road where this particular section of the legislation will be called into question. I put that out there now – and I am not saying anything that I do not think the minister is already aware of, knowing that this part is going to be questioned and scrutinized. I put that out there. We have had cases in the past where people can feel threatened by an employer, without the employer saying anything but just by that presence there. We must also look at the side of the employer in cases where they are not even allowed in their place of business because of that particular section. It is a fine line, so I put that out there and we may have some questions on that as to maybe getting a little further into figuring that part out.

We move on to the clause 7. To me, my review of this, and when I cross referenced it to the old legislation was that this made things a bit different. Before it was just a simple – and if I might just be able to look at the legislation, Mr. Speaker, so I can refer to the old section because I think this is important to note. The old subsection 47 said if the application for certification is supported by not less than 40 per cent, then the board would take a vote, and it goes on further from that and it lays out the actual procedural side of this, where the vote is taken, no more than five days, excluding holidays, et cetera. In this new section it lays out a new standard to be applied, which basically says if the application is certified by 65 per cent or above then there is not even a vote – boom, done. Now, again, there may be issues expressed there, but it is what it is and we will move forward.

In the second section or criteria of this now you have that place where you are in between 40 per cent and 65 per cent, you are in that grounds where – it seems to make sense here: the board shall take a vote, if you are in there – sometimes when you have that 50 per cent below or under, I mean that can present some problems when you are dealing with these specific issues. Then you have subsection (3) where if it is supported then by less than 40 per cent, then it is dismissed, which would seem to make sense to me. I am sure other people may have comments as to that. That part, when I looked at the old section and looked at the new section, seemed to make sense, but I look forward to the opportunity to hear from both sides, whether it be labour and employers, to see what their take on that is. That harkens back to my previous point which is a little more time may have been conducive to a better debate on this. It is what it is and we are left with the situation that we are in, so I would continue on.

We move on then to the subsection 47.1 which is purely housekeeping to follow up on the new subsection 47. This just lays out the terms of the vote when we talk about notice provisions, letting people know, so on and so forth. Subsection (7) of that – there are issues with that and I have talked to some people in the past who have faced difficult times because of the vote and who was allowed in on the vote. It can be tough.

The next three sections from my understanding are being repealed and they deal specifically with the SPOs which have been addressed in the new legislation. You move on, Mr. Speaker, again we continue on into section 70. That is where talk about the fact that the geographic site or scope of work has been expanded there. We are expanding that and that is for the reasons as outlined.

What I would do very quickly is I took the time to make some notes on special projects. When we talk about what is obviously a very big thing in this Province, you have to make yourself aware of special projects and what makes them up. After looking at the report by Mr. Oakley who says: What does an SPO do? It does offer labour peace and stability. It does allow you to incorporate important terms such as Aboriginal employment and gender diversity. Something that we have done very well in our special projects over the years is we deal with the female equality and making sure that women are fully represented and that has gone back a long ways.

These are good things, that is why this is important and Mr. Oakley noted it and it has been followed. Finally, we can see the same terms of employment apply to all tradespersons. It is another situation where we are looking at equality. Stability of SPOs allow for more investment in the Province. It makes things more attractive because we need that stability there. I stand here and say that it is a good thing. Why not do all we can to – at the same time as we maintain fairness and ensure that our workers are protected, but at the same time enhance our Province when it comes to attractiveness for business opportunities.

I did a little history on the SPOs and the first one; we go back to the Churchill River back in 1968. Even back that far we talked about that the alternative to SPO legislation was desperate uncertainty. The consultant now, all these years later, says we are talking about certainty and stability.

If we look at 1990 we had Hibernia, which was the second one. This was a time when the first realization was given that: look, we need to make sure the residents of this Province are given consideration when we talk about these jobs. That is of the utmost importance. If we are going to be talking about our resources, then our people need to stand to benefit and our Province needs to benefit from this. That is the good thing about this SPO, which is a major reason why this legislation is being amended here.

This legislation was amended back in 1997 when we talked about Terra Nova, in 2003 when we talked about Voisey's Bay, in 2009 when we talked about Long Harbour, and in 2011, now we are at the Hebron stage. As I mentioned earlier, Voisey's Bay and Long Harbour included the phrase: the protection for women's employment, a very important step.

When you talk about gender equality, and we talk about the shortage of people for positions in this Province, we need to ensure that all demographics of our society are given a fair opportunity, whether that is male or female, young or old. We need to make sure all of our people, if they are able to contribute and want to contribute, are given that opportunity. To legislate that in is obviously a great thing.

I would continue on, Mr. Speaker. As we move through these amendments, a lot of this is the same as what was in the previous legislation. There is a change to one section of a piece of legislation, but all of the rest of the sub-amendments are exactly the same, just being brought over or transferred over.

One section that is obviously going to – and I think the minister is aware of this – gather some attention is section 83.1. The minister has said right up front: look, I am putting this out there and I know people are going to ask questions. It shows an awareness that this may be contentious. From what my understanding is, the different groups have been consulted along the way. Hopefully, number one, they have the opportunity for input; the second part is to ensure that input has been meaningful.

When we talk about section 83.1, we are getting into something that may be very contentious when we are talking about the union. The purpose of 83.1 is granting the employer the right to request to the board that the vote of the employees in the affected unit be taken. When you talk to employers, that is one thing; then, when you talk to the employees, there is some concern there. The employer really just has to make an offer and then write the board to request that vote.

The only concern I would put forward there – or not the only concern, but one concern would be that this could be premature at times and possibly hinder negotiations being meaningful. That is just one of the things that could happen. I know it only happens once, but we need to make sure that is considered there; again, that is something at the Committee stage we will ask, and the minister has an opportunity to answer our specific questions, as to: this is why we did this way, this is why we are not doing it the way, or we might address these concerns that you put forward.

Again, section 83.1 is one of the big ones here that when we talk about this new legislation, we all know is going to be questioned. I am just going to refer to my notes very quickly. A lot of this language, Mr. Speaker, is obviously very technical. The wording, when we look through section 83.1 – which again is sub (1) through sub (8), just going to point to some of the specific sections; sub (5), the wording in sub (5) is very general, and again, depending on who it is, the interpretation can be very open on how this last offer can be forced into a collective agreement to incorporate the last terms of that offer.

You would think that the offer would have to be a full collective agreement, not just particular items when we talk about things such as wages. So, we might need to tighten that up, and we may put that forward in an amendment; that is just a section that, as you look through it, causes some concern. It could be problematic for parties to be forced to enter into a collective agreement that incorporates the terms of that offer. So, we are getting into a very different section here, one that the employees or the employer could have issues with, depending on how you look at it. What happens if the offer is rejected? What is laid out there? Are the employer and the union then barred from having any elements of that offer incorporated into the subsequent agreement?

So, section 83.1, this is something that came out in the public today; there was the press conference, we are debating it today, and I am sure we are going to hear more from the different groups as we progress further on this debate. I am not sure if this is something that is going to end today, but I am sure we are going to hear from the different groups as we continue on.

I understand that my colleague from the Bay of Islands has expressed some points on this as well, so I look forward to him possibly standing and discussing this piece of legislation as well.

Again, we have some more sections, Mr. Speaker, that are housekeeping in nature. We get down to 91.1 (2), and that is where we are adding in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act; this has been added to these different subsections. We talk about the subsection 85.1, where you are actually suggesting that you put in the labour committee, and if it is not there, then there is a verbatim version that you would insert in. That seems to be a reasonable amendment or suggestion.

As I continue on, what I would suggest is we have also – one of the things that has been repealed completely with no amendment or suggestion or alternative is section 102 of the previous legislation, and that is deemed danger to industry. We all know that one of the concerns government had in this was the situation we faced with Vale and how prolonged that was and how harmful that was. In this case, section 102 has been removed altogether and has been now placed into section 83.1. The union may consider this interference in the affairs of the union. That is what they may deem this. We are dealing with a difficult situation when we are talking about labour and employment. It carries with it some precarious situations but I think everybody wants to avoid a situation like we saw with Vale, where we had a Voisey's Bay industrial inquiry commission where a strike was carried on for an extended, extended period of time.

I will continue on, Mr. Speaker. Some of the other amendments are very similar to the old ones. There are small changes there. Section 147 is a very small section, but there is a very important part here inserted into what the LG, Lieutenant-Governor in Council is able to do. He is able to make regulations "in response to the recommendations of an industrial inquiry commission." That is important because if we had these commissions done it allows the LG now, by legislation, mandated in there, it is not just policy but allows them to take what the commission has said and make the regulations or legislate that on a go-forward basis, as the term has been used.

Mr. Speaker, those are all my comments as it relates to this piece of legislation at this time. I do have some specific questions that I will ask of the minister in the committee stage. I will ask them for the purpose of getting an answer or at least the mindset utilized in determining these pieces of legislation or these amendments as to why or why not. I think that is necessary, at least for the public or the people who are affected by this, to know why government does something a certain way. It is one thing to do it, it is another thing to explain to people why you do that.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand in this hon. House today to talk to Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

I want to thank the minister and his staff for the briefing they gave us this morning, very comprehensive. Obviously, it is an important piece of legislation, as the Member for Burgeo – La Poile referred to. It is because of the bright future we have ahead of us as a Province and so many economic developments that are on the horizon that are identified, and many that have not been identified yet.

I heard somebody from the oil industry talking this morning on CBC radio, talking about the oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be a very strong industry for decades to come. There are more oil developments to be found. There are more things happening, and it is important that we get the conditions right in this Province to make sure we can capitalize on our opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, our Province is a very good place to do business in so many ways, not the least of which is our people, their work ethic, and in the broader terms our unique culture. What a beautiful place Newfoundland and Labrador is. There are so many major corporations now that are coming in and getting involved with these mega developments.

I meet people all the time in the business community who are not from here, but many Newfoundlanders work for their companies. They are senior people within their organizations and they love doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador for many, many different reasons, other than the economic climate that we have here, or the business climate that we have here. Again, the people, our culture, they just love Newfoundland and Labrador and the land itself; but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot rest on these laurels. We need to create the right conditions for growth. One of these overriding conditions to ensure growth is a positive labour climate, and that is what we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker.

The goals and objectives of this legislation are designed to contribute to stable labour relations in this Province. These amendments to our labour legislation will modernize our labour relations framework. That is very, very important in creating the right conditions. It will help preserve a positive labour relations climate in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we do have a very positive labour relations climate in Newfoundland and Labrador today. It is not perfect, and never will it ever be perfect but it is a very positive climate. There has been so much work that has happened here over the last number of years with very few work stoppages. We have things going pretty good but let's make it better and this is what this is all about.

We need to ensure that our Province remains globally competitive. This legislation will bring us further down that path to global competitiveness. We also need to ensure as well that we are well-positioned to attract significant infrastructure projects, and I referred that to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, about the opportunities that exist in our future.

We need to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account with regard to labour legislation, whether it is employees, employers, or for that matter, and maybe most importantly, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have probably the most to win or lose in this situation where we need those positive conditions around us. As we grow and prosper, the jobs become available; the more people work and are paid, they pay on their taxes, the more we contribute to social programs. It is in the best interests of everybody in this Province that we get this right.

How were the amendments developed? The minister referred to it earlier; let us just touch on that for a moment. When our government considers changes to any legislation, stakeholder input is crucial. With regard to the amendments to the provincial labour laws, Bill 37, there was a significant amount of input from both labour organizations and employers that is indicative of our government's balanced approach to reviewing labour legislation, and any legislation for that matter.

As the minister indicated, these amendments have been developed from three labour relations initiatives. The Employment Relations Committee, the ERC, of the Strategic Partnership Council was comprised of business and labour stakeholders. It has been involved in a comprehensive review of labour laws for a number of years. In fact in 2011, there were some amendments that were made to the labour act that came from these discussions from the committee. What we see today, Mr. Speaker, are more recommendations after a review from government of the commission's recommendations that we are bringing into the act today.

The Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission; a very important commission, Mr. Speaker, and that came about following the labour dispute a few years back. I will not get into that in too much detail. We know what happened there. If this legislation that we are proposing today was in place back then, we would not have gone through that strike situation; I believe it was for an eighteen-month period. Finally our government stepped in and facilitated an end to that labour dispute. Now the mechanisms will be in place so that does not occur in Newfoundland and Labrador anytime too soon, if these amendments are passed.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Special Project Order review, which was commissioned in December, 2011, was headed by James Oakley, a well-respected labour relations lawyer who came up with, I believe it was, twenty recommendations of which we are accepting eighteen. The two we are rejecting that the minister referred to earlier are very positive from a union perspective. We thought they went a bit too far. Mr. Speaker, it is very well done and a very well body of work that Mr. Oakley put together. The fact we are implementing or putting into amendments eighteen of the twenty recommendations is definitely recognition of the good work he did.

First, I would like to just touch a bit on the Employment Relations Committee. Just looking at some of the details here, labour stability is the lens we are looking at these amendments from. When you take that into perspective, the Employment Relations Committee that met for several years bringing these recommendations forward involved all the key stakeholders in the jurisdiction. The provincial government recently completed its review of these proposals arising from the ERC process.

Here are some of the key highlights I would just like to touch on briefly, the Labour Relations Act, in terms of the changes that we are proposing in this amendment: card-based certification with 65 per cent of employee-signed union cards, Mr. Speaker, will result in employees not having to go through a voting process. It is a perfect example of modernization going into the twenty-first century. It is good for labour. It is good for unions. It is good for employers. This is a piece of legislation that everybody should be happy with. It just cuts to the chase, basically, Mr. Speaker, and it removes another level of bureaucracy in terms of a voting process that is unnecessary if you do certify when the 65 per cent of the people sign their cards.

The second change here we want to highlight: employers and unions, in instances when they are bargaining with multiple employers, have been provided with one opportunity during collective bargaining to request a vote on the most recent offer, and if accepted, the offer becomes the collective agreement. Mr. Speaker, this is a positive. I have been in business for the last twenty-five years. I know how difficult negotiations can be in terms of an employer-employee relationship. Having that ability to, at the right time, use that tool in the toolbox to offer up to the memberships of unions what is really on the table might facilitate a quick end to a labour dispute or possible labour dispute. In some ways, this can be a very, very positive tool.

Confirmation of the employer's right to communicate with employees so long as it does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises or undue influence; Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member for Burgeo – La Poile talk about some of those sensitivities, about how unions interact with employers and how employers interact with unions and that sometimes the intimidation that occurs is subtle, sometimes it is not overt. Mr. Speaker, I think with this piece of legislation here, I think it will be clear. I think it would be made clear to the Labour Relations Board, if that does occur and there is a mechanism for that, to be called out. Again, I think employers should have that right to communicate if they think not all the information is getting out there, to help again facilitate discussion and get to that good place in negotiations.

The fourth thing I am highlighting here in the Labour Relations Act, the amendments: The minister will appoint a first collective agreement mediator where the parties have failed to conclude a first collective agreement within sixty days of serving notice to negotiate; time frames have been established for the Labour Relations Board to decide on the terms and conditions of first collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this provision – this is a new requirement. In the past, first collective agreements have sometimes taken years, Mr. Speaker, and both labour and employers should be happy about this modernization. Appointing a mediator will help settle disputes more quickly as well, and the time frames outlined in the act are very reasonable. I am not going to get into details on that, but I have been through it – very reasonable. Again, it will help that process along, and I believe this is something both employers and labour should be very, very happy with.

The sixth thing I would like to call out, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act we referred to something earlier in the Labour Relations Act: The employer has been provided with one opportunity again during collective bargaining to request a vote – again, I am not going to get into that, but it creates balance throughout the Province, whether you are public or private sector, for access to tools that the employers have in their toolbox to be able to get to that good place of labour harmony.

With regard to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act: Parties to collective bargaining are permitted to file unfair labour practice complaints with the Labour Relations Board, including failure to bargain in good faith. That was previously not in legislation. So we are extending this to the public sector. It is a very positive change, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Special Project Order review by James Oakley, again I mentioned there are eighteen out of twenty recommendations were accepted, rejecting two, and here is a highlight of four of the key ones that I consider the key ones: The minimum construction period to be required for a Special Project Order is reduced from three years to two years. I will not belabour this. The minister, I think, was very succinct when he talked about that, but I will say there are projects on the horizon now that are going to be less than three years and that two-year time frame now will come into play, and help us get labour agreements in place before projects such as that come into play. The way things are going now, with the workforces that are coming in, the quicker we can get the work done in some instances, the better for everybody.

Special Project Orders can be prescribed by geographic site or scope of work. Again, this has ramifications in many areas. It is to give proponents that extra flexibility for labour stability. There are many different projects that are happening in this Province that are being proposed and to provide this piece of legislation will give that flexibility that is needed in today's modern world.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to clue this up very quickly. I am just going to touch briefly on the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission. This commission communicated with the Aboriginal community, with labour, employee, and employers – all were consulted, and only good things came from this. We know what happened there, and I referred to it earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are starting to look like Neddy (inaudible).

MR. CRUMMELL: Starting to look like Neddy, yes.

Things are very positive there in terms of what we need to do to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I will just go to close here now.

In closing, our government is committed to maintaining a positive labour relations climate in Newfoundland and Labrador to help maximize job creation, economic benefits, and employment relations stability. While not all changes reflect consensus among labour and employers, our government is acting in the interests of all stakeholders, including the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's future has never been brighter – more big projects, megaprojects in the resource sector are certainly in our foreseeable future, and legislation like Bill 37 will only enhance the ability of our Province and people to grow and prosper. So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all hon. members in this House to support these amendments and to support this legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in my place and offer a few comments on changes to the Labour Relations Act, as per Bill 37. I would first like to say thanks to the minister's staff who came today to offer briefing to us. I think that was a very positive thing; it was very useful to us.

It is very clear from what has been said so far that we all agree that it is important to have a solid and a fair Labour Relations Act in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially as it relates to Special Project Orders, because we know that the construction industry in Newfoundland and Labrador plays a significant role in our economy and is a significant contributor to the economy.

I think sometimes that contribution is overlooked and we do not really quantify it, but as I was reading through Mr. Oakley's report, it was pointed out that in the year that figures are most recently available for 2008, the construction industry activity accounted for 4 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador's gross domestic product. I also note that in the construction industry here in this Province, the rate of unionization in 2011 was almost 29 per cent, and that is one of the highest rates of unionization in the construction sector in the country.

When it comes to the Special Project Orders, the minister has talked about them; for the sake of people who are watching at home, I do not think we often realize what these relate to and who it relates to. One group of individuals that it does relate to is the workers who comprise the Resource Development Trades Council. That is a group of sixteen different building and construction trades in the Province who work on these large-scale resource development projects. That includes boilermakers, bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, elevator constructors, hotel and restaurant workers, heat and frost insulators, ironworkers, labourers, millwrights, operating engineers, painters, plumbers and pipefitters, sheet metal workers, and Teamsters, the people, men and women who are hauling all of the gear around. They worked on a number of projects that involved Special Project Orders over the years and they have done a fine job.

I think one of the things about the Special Project Orders that is important to realize is as it relates to what Mr. Oakley called the uniqueness of the construction industry. It has features in terms of labour relations, in terms of employer-employee relations, that do not exist in other environments. Construction work is often geographically dispersed. Men and women get up in the morning and they drive to one location to go to work; then, maybe in a month or two months time, they are driving in a different location, or they are not driving as far to get to work on construction projects. Construction projects have start dates and they have end dates. The work that goes on is for a finite amount of time.

The work sites are often not permanent locations, although one can argue that Bull Arm is a permanent location; it is certainly not a permanent location like a factory would be, or an office would be, or a shop would be, where people work. The work is sporadic for construction workers; the work is seasonal and they do not work all year round in a lot of cases. It depends on the weather and it depends on the nature and the type of the construction that is being done.

Within the construction industry there are specializations in work functions for different types of workers. Workers are organized around their skill, their trade, and their craft. Oftentimes, unions – for example, the sheet metal workers, or plumbers and pipefitters – will maintain lists of their members who are out of work. When a contractor or another employer comes and is looking for somebody with that specialized set of skills, then the union will consult their list and they will farm people out to do a job.

That is basically how it works. One of the benefits of Special Project Orders, their effectiveness relates to the fact that we have essentially one employer or employer group and one group of employees who are – for example, the Resource Development Trades Council – representing the employer and the employees. In terms of the employees, the unionized workers who are working on these projects, it helps to avoid jurisdictional disputes between different workers in different unions, because there is a certain amount of overlap between the work that people carry out.

As Mr. Oakley pointed out in his review, the Special Project Orders provide for labour peace and labour stability in the Province when there is a no-strike, no-lockout provision. Obviously workers are compensated, we hope, to a larger extent by sacrificing their right to strike. Employees also benefit by promising that there will be no lockouts for the duration of the special project.

We have been able to see great advances – and I compliment the government on its work in this area – on gender provisions in the Special Project Orders, and also for ensuring that marginalized and underrepresented groups, such as persons with disabilities and Aboriginal persons in Newfoundland and Labrador, are able to get decent work and opportunities for training that come out of these projects. That is a significant achievement that this government should be proud of. The stability that is provided by these Special Project Orders, and we have had five of these now, helps to attract investment to Newfoundland and Labrador, helps to make this a better place to work, and helps to promote further economic development here in the Province. Those are good things.

Going through the changes and comparing them to what Mr. Oakley had recommended regarding the Special Project Orders, there are a number of things the minister and his government have decided to go along with, which I think are well reasoned. To recommend that special projects be prescribed either by the scope of work or by the geographical site actually works really well when it comes to Bull Arm or in the event that Muskrat Falls receives sanction and goes ahead.

I do not see any harm in going along with Mr. Oakley's recommendation around reducing the amount of time for special projects from three years to two years, and for allowing the legislation permit the SPOs to overlap temporally as well. That really provides for further flexibility and the type of labour stability we are going to need if indeed we get a number of major resource related projects firing all at once. These are all good things.

I just make a further observation that the reference to ancillary work and services in catering, the suggestion by the Oakley report that this be removed from the SPO provisions was not accepted by the minister. That is a good thing as well because that ensures we do preserve those good jobs involved with providing food services, catering, and residential or accommodation-type services at these major job sites. We can preserve the decent jobs and the decent incomes that come with that.

There are also a number of other additional good things here that I can see. The 65 per cent card check off is a decent thing to do. The automatic certification of 65 per cent of workers sign union cards is a very progressive move. That does not impress some employers. They would have wanted reciprocity in that. That is not there and we are going to have to live with that provision. It only makes sense to have this provision in here. The labour movement has been looking for this for a very long time. That is good.

Another thing that is good here is the language around first collective agreements. Oftentimes when unions form and they are looking for their first collective agreement, it is a very difficult environment. The employer is not accustomed to that, the union is not accustomed to that, and there is often conflict and difficulty in achieving a first agreement.

The amendments to the Labour Relations Act, Bill 37, establish timelines for the Labour Relations Board to decide on terms and conditions for first collective agreements. There are timelines for the appointment of a mediator if there is a failure to achieve a first collective agreement. There are timelines for an extension of this period for mediation. There are timelines for a referral to the Labour Relations Board in event of a failure to reach a first collective agreement. There are further timelines for a board hearing if the board deems it needs to intervene, and there are further timelines for the release of the board decision. I think that one may contest the length of time, the numbers of days that are built in, whether it should be sixty or seventy or so on. We have a good place to start with here now; we actually have benchmarks and numbers of days that we have to work. I think that is all great. Of course, in addition to having positive things to say about the legislation, one would expect that a critic for labour would have not so positive things to say about the legislation. I will share those observations with you as well.

I was very interested to hear the minister when he stood up, he said – and I cannot quote verbatim. I will have to have a look in Hansard tomorrow, because he said that he wants to preserve, the government wants to preserve the rights of employees and employers to resolve labour relations issues on their own. I think when it comes to clause 13 of Bill 37, and that is respecting article 83.1 as proposed for the Labour Relations Act. This allows employers to request the Labour Relations Board a vote of employees during the bargaining process on the last offer of the employer.

Now, the minister suggested this is in the current act but I believe he is talking about the danger to industry provision, article 103 I believe, which is repealed. In that provision it is Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, that makes that recommendation, not the Labour Relations Board. It does change the situation a bit. We feel this could allow employers in some instances – think about the Voisey's Bay strike; think about the OCI standoff – in some situations to exploit the position of workers where there is a strike or where there is a lockout. Where that has gone on for a lengthy period, it could be problematic. I see it as creating a further imbalance and tipping the balance toward the employer side, as opposed to what the minister has said around preserving the rights to resolve it on your own, as is very much the case now. I will talk about the implications of all of that for Bill 38 in a little while, because it is even worse when it comes to bargaining in the public sector, I believe.

There are also a number of things that are absent I just want to point out briefly. One thing is there are no new provisions here for conciliation and mediation. I was speaking to someone from the Board of Trade today who was quite disappointed that was not there. I do understand this was raised by the minister's Strategic Partnership Council sometime between 2007 and now. I do believe that Prince Edward Island is an example of a province that has some good language around mediation and conciliation that we could look at and adapt from. I was under the impression that, in terms of the work of the Strategic Partnership Council, there was some agreement around provisions for that. I wanted to relay that disappointment from the business community and from others that this was not acted upon.

The other thing I wanted to raise – and I know I am going to sound like a broken record, because I have talked about the anti-replacement worker and anti-scab legislation a number of times – is there is no provision in here for using replacement workers. Of course, we saw that ability of employers like Vale and large multinationals to come in here and to then employ replacement workers, to prolong strikes that went on for more than seventeen months, and the damage it did.

I stood here when I was really fresh here in my seat on March 8 and I asked the minister, and I got a response from the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. He said: "The anti-replacement legislation that is being considered is something that has to be carefully considered." So it was being carefully considered, I felt. He said that the minister "has requested further information requiring further research…" and it "is a very important matter for the minister to consider. It is important for the minister to review all the information that is available to him." When the minister responsible has all of his information, he will provide his answer. I am disappointed, minister – or I say, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to enact that anti-replacement worker legislation. It is something that we saw that was deemed necessary coming out of the long Voisey's Bay standoff, and it is something we still need today.

There is also really no mention here, or I do not think there is any – there is not the sort of mention that I would like to see for settlement mechanisms in the event of a prolonged strike. I know the minister has said that the government does not want to have a third party binding arbitration process that the Province of Manitoba has. The minister has said, I believe, that only has been used a small number of times, that provision. It speaks to the rarity of the use of the provision. It is not like something the government is going to be throwing around all of the time. It is used for very specific circumstances when we have very specific problems. We were hoping to see some form of additional arbitration process when strikes are prolonged, as in the case of Voisey's Bay, and of course it is being prolonged artificially with the use of replacement workers.

That is the most of what I will have to say on this for the moment. I really do believe that this language around allowing employers to go and look for intervention, look for votes from workers on the last offer, I think that really tips the balance, unfortunately, away from unions to do the work that they are trying to do.

If you think about in the event of prolonged strikes, workers are in a very vulnerable position. They often do not feel like they have a lot of options; when you have families, you are trying to pay for the rising costs of everything from child care, to groceries, to gasoline. It is really your back pocket that is speaking to you. It is difficult to hang on and fight for the rights that you believe you should have in your work environment, and the pay that you feel you should have for getting up every morning, playing by the rules, and putting your sweat into your job. I think that is really unfortunate.

I will sum up and I will just say I feel like there are good things here. I think when government does good things we have to acknowledge that good things are done, but I think when things are being done in a way that are contrary to my values as a New Democrat, and our party, I think it is important to speak up for people who are, like I said, just trying to get ahead, trying to get a fair wage, trying to put food on the table for their families.

So I will clue up there, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 37.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few comments on Bill 37. Mr. Speaker, throughout our history as a Province, labour relations has been a sensitive issue and sometimes contentious and sometimes very damaging. I think this goes all the way back to the development of the Upper Churchill in 1968. The employees have rights that they would like to see looked after. When you define a Special Project Order, certainly the scope of work needs to be outlined and in the time frame that it has, certainly some path put down in which the project can unfold and be completed, Mr. Speaker. Labour disputes sometimes compromise that ability. I think this Labour Relations Act has been unfolding or evolving over the last forty to forty-five, fifty years, Mr. Speaker, and certainly it is one that I feel will continue to evolve as changes come through labour relations, through unions, employees, and government involvement, Mr. Speaker.

In going through the amendments here, Mr. Speaker, and cross referencing with the existing act, I see a lot of the information is the same. There are significant changes, and I will just speak to some of them if not here, Mr. Speaker, certainly when we go into Committee. In reviewing the Oakley report, it certainly brings recommendations forward that are geared towards stability in the labour trade. It offers a sense of stability; it brings forward recommendations to help resolve some of the issues that have arisen. There are recommendations there incorporating Aboriginal employment, Mr. Speaker, and gender diversity, which are both very important recommendations that come out of the Oakley report. You can see the same terms of employment as it applies to all tradespersons, Mr. Speaker. Definitely, that is something positive. It was good to see the government opposite adopt the majority of those recommendations that came from Mr. Oakley's report.

Once you have stability on SPOs, it tends to attract investment, I think. Certainly, we would like to avoid the situations that we have seen, especially in the Vale Inco dispute in Voisey's Bay where the strike carried on well over a year. Personal, corporate and government impacts were felt by every person involved in the project, Mr. Speaker. That is something that we would like to avoid.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there are a few questions that will come out once we get into the guts, I guess, of the amendments, when we do enter into Committee. I think that centres on probably section 83 of the amendments, where you can see the proposed amendments that are trying to find a balance in the act and certainly to amend it to try to accommodate all of the parties involved. In doing so, sometimes you sacrifice, you gain, and this applies to the many agencies that would be involved, Mr. Speaker. The two best examples are employer and employee. As this act will unfold, I am certain we will get some clarifications here, but I do not think it is designed for any one group. It seems like all involved in the labour relations in our Province, through these amendments, are giving some and taking losses in other respects of these amendments.

I think that once you look at special projects, Mr. Speaker, I guess going back to the Upper Churchill, the Vale Inco project at Voisey's Bay, Long Harbour and Hebron coming on board, I think most of these amendments, I am hopeful, with a little bit of clarification and a little more discussion on these projects that they will come out to the good of the Province.

You can see it being problematic to some of the parties being forced to enter into collective agreements, Mr. Speaker. In one section there, the government has removed itself from one section of any negotiations or any debate on agreements. Once you are forced into a collective agreement that incorporates the terms of that offer, what happens then if an offer is rejected? These are some of the questions, Mr. Speaker, that we will get into as we progress into this bill.

In summary, I think it is a lot of housekeeping. It specifies some of the terms and conditions laid out in the existing act. I am looking forward to hearing some explanations and clarifications as we move forward on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 37. I think the minister alluded to it earlier that it is long overdue, some of the amendments to the Labour Relations Act that needed to be changed.

I do agree with the Member for Torngat, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of it is housekeeping, that is being brought in; however, we must remember that the amendments have been developed in response to three significant labour relation initiatives: Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry, Special Project Order Legislation Review and comprehensive review of labour laws by the Employment Relations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as it has been said I am sure before, government's role is to provide the tools for a balanced and stable workforce and stable labour relations, and that is what these three amendments basically does. One of the Special Project Order reviews, of course, is a very important piece in this legislation. Before I go on, I would like to say, along with the government members, I am sure the members opposite are welcoming this legislation as well and I am sure in very short time this particular bill will be passed. We must remember as well, Mr. Speaker, these amendments were not brought in without the proper consultations with the stakeholders.

One particular amendment to the SPO, Mr. Speaker, Special Project Orders, can be prescribed by geographic site or scope of work. Special Project Orders may overlap in time and geography. The overlapping piece is also important to the industry, especially in some cases where in a special project that that particular project is cluing up and there is a contract there probably for three years and the actual contract is completed in say two-and-a-half years. We can actually begin another project in the same location, in the same geographic area. This is very important to industry, Mr. Speaker, especially when you are moving forward with economic generators, such as major projects and special projects.

This government is doing, as well, things to enhance the workforce, Mr. Speaker. In the past couple of years, this government has brought in initiatives in the skilled trades which are very important to all these projects that we are talking about here today. We have invested greatly into the skilled trades, especially trying to bring more women into the skilled-trade workforce, which is very important. This Province is known to have a friendly labour relations and that is what industry today is looking for, Mr. Speaker. They are not looking for labour unrest. They are looking for labour stability, and this is what government is doing, and this government is doing, is enforcing and adding to that, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KENT: Well said. Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, to the Member for Mount Pearl North.

I made a couple of notes, Mr. Speaker. I know I do not have much time; however, this government is providing the necessary tools that are required to move ahead with labour, with the employers and government, and have successful and profitable projects, Mr. Speaker. It is very important when you get a big industry coming into the Province, of course they want to make money, but they want to do it as friendly as they can, and I think this government is offering the tools that this can happen, Mr. Speaker.

The amendments to the Labour Relations Act – this is during certification of unions, Mr. Speaker; this is card-based certification, when 65 per cent of employees sign union cards under new employers. This is important, because now, rather than having to take the time to go through a vote, if they get 65 per cent of the employees to sign union cards then automatically they are provided with one opportunity during collective bargaining to request one vote; this will not be necessary.

Confirmation of the employer's right to communicate with employees so long as it does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue influence; this is important as well, because this means that the employer can communicate with the employees even though they are looking for certification and they may be voting. However, if they end up with 65 per cent or more, it is not necessary for them to go to a vote. I guess the main piece here is allowing the employer to actually communicate with the employees on certain issues, as long as they are not being intimidating and as long as they are not making any threats – this is the employer, Mr. Speaker. This is also a good amendment to Bill 37.

The government's role, Mr. Speaker, in labour relations is to provide a regulatory environment in which the rights and duties of stakeholders are balanced. The amendments to our labour relation legislation will modernize our labour relations framework and help preserve a positive labour relations climate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can recall back many years ago, back in the 1970s, I was fortunate enough to work in the iron mines in Labrador City. We had a very good relationship as a unionized workforce with the company, but we also worked side by side with non-union workers, Mr. Speaker. We managed to work together side by side. Yes, there were negotiations, and at times I am sure things got a little bit – how would I say it, Mr. Speaker? Probably some differences between the union workforce and the employer, but it was dealt with and was settled.

Yes, we have had several of these disturbances within negations; however, for the most part, we are known for our labour relations and having not much unrest in our labour relations when it comes to, especially, big projects, Mr. Speaker. What it does for the big projects, as well, is that – this is done, by the way, with the employer and with the unions. They will come together and they will make an agreement where they are going to be satisfied, both parties are going to be satisfied that this project is going to come in on time and hopefully come in on budget. That is what is important; if it comes in on time, everybody benefits, and if it comes in on budget, everybody benefits, and so does the employer, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 37, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act. Like I said, what we are doing here is basically offering the tools to ensure labour stability, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the members on this side and the members opposite will welcome this bill. I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased to stand this afternoon and to speak to Bill 37, which is a bill to make amendments to the Labour Relations Act. I, too, as did my colleague, the Member for St. John's North, want to thank the minister for making his officials available this morning to do a briefing with us of Bill 37; it just helps clarify. I also want to thank the Government House Leader and the minister for the first reading yesterday and our ability to have the bill in advance for today so that we could do the necessary work in order to be able to stand here this afternoon. It meant a late night last night; I would like to have had it earlier probably, but we did get it, and I think we are ready to speak to it today, which is extremely important.

As the officials from the labour department pointed out today, there are sort of three parts to this bill. When we first heard about it, it was being called the Special Project Orders bill, but in actual fact the Special Project Orders issue is only dealt with in one clause of the bill. The bill, in actual fact, is a combination of comprehensive reviews that have happened over the last four or five years here in the Province – some of it at the table of the tripartite table where labour, business, and government come together and some of it the result of very particular issues. One issue was the review of the Special Project Orders legislation by James Oakley, and that was a very important piece of work but was very specific to the special projects. Another was the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry, which was necessitated by the fact that we had the most prolongated strike in our history in this Province, and the government very wisely – and I was very pleased at the time when they did it – put an inquiry in place to study everything around that prolonged strike, and the inquiry had six major recommendations, and those recommendations have fed into what government has been looking at.

Then of course, we had, as I have indicated initially, a broader review of all labour laws that involve the tripartite committee. So we have three different things here. I think that my colleague for St. John's North did a great job of speaking to especially the Special Project Orders, as well as some of the general issues and some particulars. There are some other particulars that I would like to go a little bit more into detail on – some that he spoke to, and some I would like to push a bit further.

I have a particular interest in the recommendations that came out from the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry. I think we have all been waiting for some action on those recommendations, and we do have in this bill a lot of recognition, actually, of the six recommendations that were in the inquiry report. Unfortunately, I find that the government cherry-picked a bit, because while they did put in place some of the important things, especially, for example, the Labour Relations Committee on a work site, and some other things that were important in the inquiry's report, one of the things that I really looked forward to was action on Recommendation 5 – and I am going to point out the main parts of Recommendation 5 in a minute. The reason I did hope that there was going to be action on Recommendation 5 is that we have to make sure that never again in this Province do we have a strike like the one we had in Voisey's Bay. We cannot have strikes going on for that length of time. The inquiry into Voisey's Bay agreed with that, agreed that we need a process whereby the parties can – under a defined set of circumstances, which include a strike or a lockout of some duration – apply to a Labour Relations Board to impose a new collective agreement on the employer and the bargaining unit.

I think what is really important is the recognition that we have to get it to stop. There is a point at which we have to get it to stop. I know for sure that the labour representatives in the tripartite discussion that goes on with government, labour, and business certainly wanted this recommendation to be acted on. I have to say, I wanted this recommendation to be acted on because what the recommendation says, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to provide the process for the imposition of a collective agreement in circumstances that are outstanding circumstances. This is not for any dispute that is going, but outstanding. For example, when one of the employer or the bargaining unit makes application for the imposition of a collective agreement; and (b) the applicant shall have been found by the Labour Relations Board to have bargained in good faith, so the Labour Relations Board gets to study it and to determine has the applicant been bargaining in good faith. If it is shown that the applicant has been negotiating in good faith, then the Labour Relations Board can agree. Also, all of these things have to be there. All of the conditions precedent to a strike or lockout have been met. In other words, everything that is required with regard to having a strike or lockout, that all of the conditions have been met. All kinds of efforts have happened to make sure things are going correctly.

Under (d): it is apparent that the strike and/or lockout mechanisms have been ineffective in bringing about resolution of the dispute. If the Labour Relations Board looks at the situation and says this is getting nowhere, I cannot see how it is going to be resolved, nothing can happen here, then the Labour Relations Board should then be able to impose an agreement. The Labour Relations Board has to be satisfied that the collective bargaining process has failed and that the public interest requires the imposition of the collective agreement. This is not something that is a facile thing; this is something that is quite serious. It is a situation that is quite serious. It is a situation that I think government has a responsibility to ensure does not ever happen again in this Province, what we went through with the Voisey's Bay strike.

What we went through with the Voisey's Bay strike, Mr. Chair – Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; we are out of Committee now, back in. What we went through with the Voisey's Bay strike was something that affected the community, it affected the individual workers, and it affected their families. It was profound. The only group it did not affect negatively was the company.

The company – and this goes into another issue which is not dealt with in a recommendation in the inquiry but is talked about in the inquiry. The company was able to continue and to have such a prolonged strike because it was using scab labour. It had workers who would come in and work, to work in place of the workers who were on strike.

That is why, even if the government had said: we do not want to do anti-scab legislation – let us say they said that. They have not admitted that they do not want to do it yet. They promised they were going to do it, look at it, and study it; they have done all that and they have never really acted on it. Let us say they did not want to do it; well, what was the other mechanism to make sure we do not have a strike like this again? The other mechanism was providing for a process for the imposition of a collective agreement, and the government has chosen to do neither one.

That is why I find it very disappointing, Mr. Speaker, that government has chosen not to put in place a serious mechanism that can deal with the issue of prolonged strikes which we never want to have again. As long as we are having companies coming into Newfoundland and Labrador that are coming in from the outside – new companies, some with different workplace cultures because they are even coming from other countries – as long as that is happening, then we are running the risk of having these prolonged strikes again in this Province. I am very, very disappointed that government did not choose – I would have liked to have seen them choose both things. The fact they did not choose either one is very, very disappointing to me.

The other thing I wanted then to talk to, because it was presented to us this morning when we met with the officials from the department; the officials from the department talked about things that were in the legislation and things that were policy, policy action that they were taking. They talked about some policy actions that were being taken because of the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry. That is why I want to speak to this, because it is important for the legislation for us to know that this policy action is going on. As they move forward with this policy action, hopefully this might eventually become an amendment to the act as well.

What I am talking about is the policy action that relates to the first recommendation of the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry. The first recommendation recognizes that there is a new modern dynamic –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I think we have had in the past, but it is a new modern dynamic here in Newfoundland and Labrador where we are dealing with, in the case of Vale, a multinational corporation, a multinational corporation that has different values, and does not, I believe, understand our Canadian labour relations values.

Mr. Speaker, last fall, in the fall of 2011, I was able to go on a fact-finding tour to Brazil where I spoke with workers and community groups who have to deal with Vale in Brazil. I know first hand from those meetings, community meetings and meetings with workers, that one of the reasons Vale does not – or we had this protracted strike, is because in Brazil they just consider themselves the king of the walk. They used to be a Crown corporation there; they are not any more. They just have a sense of entitlement that whatever they want to do is going to happen, whether it is put a train through people's communities without involvement of the community, whether it is just changing whatever they want in the workplace for the workers. They have a sense of entitlement; they can do what they want.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendation from the inquiry, the first recommendation, is extremely important: "The Commission recommends that government now re-examine the mechanisms by which it facilitates collective bargaining to take account of (a) the organizational structure of…" multinationals; that is one thing, how they are organized, and they are organized differently than our companies are organized. Also, "(b) the need to ensure that such corporations respond to Canadian labour relations values…" and that is key, that is so important; also, "(c) the relative economic weight of the parties in the collective bargaining relationship".

It is the number (b) that I think is so important in this recommendation, that a company like Vale does not understand our labour values here. They have no idea of the history of what has brought to us where we are in this country with the good labour relations we have, because we do have good labour relations. That is why this eighteen month strike was such a shock to all of us. This is not what we are used to. We are used to trying to work together, even when it gets tense. Just like here in the House, at times we have tension but we all still know we have a common goal we are working towards.

It is really important, what was told us this morning is that there is policy action going on in the department. The department is seeking federal enhancements to the Investment Canada Act process to include a labour relations dimension when multinational companies seek to purchase Newfoundland and Labrador companies. Now, I think it should be when they seek to purchase any company in Canada, but we are our Province, so that is what we are certainly going to negotiate about.

That kind of thing does not exist right now in the Investment Canada Act. The company is supposed to be able to bring economic benefit to Canada if they are going to be allowed to buy a Canadian company. One of the pieces around whether or not they are going to bring economic benefit is not just how much money they are going to make as a company and how much royalties they are going to pay. We have to look at how they are impacting labour relations and what the impact on the workers is, and what the impact on the communities is. It is really important that the department is looking at working with the Canadian government to see about including this labour relations dimension.

If we looked at Vale, it would be very easy for the Canadian government to look at Vale in Brazil and to find out how they are treating workers there and what their attitude is towards labour relations. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is zilch. It would be really easy to look at Vale in Mozambique where they are worse than they are in Brazil. In Brazil, they are known by the people, they have been there, and they were a Crown corporation. In Mozambique, they have no value for the workers and no value for the people's input – nothing. I question why they were ever allowed to buy a Canadian company, but it is because we do not have this kind of determinant in the whole process around approving an outside company from buying a Canadian company. It is not there. We are just looking at the raw dollars and cents. There has to be more than that when we are allowing a company to come in. So I am really glad to know that this is going on.

I also was glad to know that the department is looking at continued assessment of conciliation boards, to use them when their appointment would help parties reach a collective agreement. Now, I would suggest that because the government has refused to put a clause in with regard to imposing a collective agreement, that it is incumbent upon the government, they have a responsibility if they really mean this – I do not want just continued assessment, I want real action. I want to make sure conciliation boards are being used and that they have teeth, and that they are being used if we need something to help with a collective agreement. If government is going to refuse one thing, if they are going to refuse imposing the collective agreement – which I do not think they should have done because it was a recommendation of the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry. I am so disappointed they cherry-picked and that was not one of the cherries that they chose, it was a key cherry, but if they are going to do that and if they are refusing to put in anti-scab legislation in this Province, well they better start doing more than just continuing their assessment of conciliation boards.

I think we need all three of those things if we are going to make sure that we have a situation where workers know they are safe, where workers know their rights are being protected, and that we can make sure we never again have an eighteen month strike in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): If the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are just a couple of things I wanted to reference, and it might take away from a few of the questions in committee, I know that were referenced by my colleague in the Opposition, the Opposition critic, just a couple of things.

Concerning the timelines for boards, I just wanted to point out that half of the board is on a one-year term, and half are on a two-year term. So there is a continual turnover, and they remain in place, Mr. Speaker, until new people are appointed. When you are appointed, you are appointed for a one-year term or a two-year term. Of course, there are two labour representatives, or people with labour backgrounds, and two people with employer backgrounds, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention that to him, and of course they continue to serve until they are reappointed.

Mr. Speaker, again, this was about balance. I keep referring to the balance piece, and I think it is important that people know, people out there in the Province. It is very easy, like I said earlier today, you could easily pick one of these items and find another argument for it, and a good argument for it, Mr. Speaker. As the regulator, it is important that we find the balance. That is why we had card-based certification, Mr. Speaker, that many employers in the Province would probably be against, while many in the labour movement would certainly be in favour of, and the same with vote on offer, Mr. Speaker. A vote on offer is something that many people in the labour movement would be against; obviously, many of the employers would be for.

Mr. Speaker, one of the consensus items, and it was talked about earlier – my colleague in the Official Opposition, I just wanted to mention it to him – is the threat to industry. Mr. Speaker, the threat to industry was something that government may have been able to order a vote to determine wishes of employees with respect to a resumption to work. Mr. Speaker, that had never been used. There was no definition for it. There were no boundaries set about when or when it would not be called. It had never been used, both parties, both labour and the employers, it was a consensus item through the ERC that we take it out of it. It was a piece of work that was there that was not in use and was never used, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to touch on those couple of things.

I wanted to speak a little bit about – the Opposition critic to the Third Party mentioned the consolidation approach. Mr. Speaker, he mentioned PEI in particular. I just wanted to let him know that currently we are having a look at the consolidation process. We did not have a chance to get it now. We are committed to it, however, and one of the examples we are looking at very closely is Prince Edward Island, so I just wanted to let him know that just for his records.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their comments here today. It is a very cordial bill, again, because I think everybody realizes that we tried to strike a balance here and as we just talked about, it was very easy to take one issue over another. So, as the regulators, it is important that we keep it as even as possible, Mr. Speaker, and give the toolbox, as I refer to it, keep the toolbox full of a variety of tools, regardless whether you are in labour or whether you are employer, you can use to help resolve labour disputes.

A couple of things that I wanted to mention just quickly, and I guess, Mr. Speaker, it comes to a total philosophical difference. I did not get it from the Opposition, but I certainly got it from the Third Party. I appreciate it. That is what they believe; that is what they stand for. The Opposition and many labour initiatives are very much like us. They roll with the punches, if you will. Different times you will need different methods, and a lot of times you have to play it on the fly when you do not have anything in the toolbox to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a real philosophical difference here and I just wanted to point it out. In particular, with the binding arbitration, it is certainly not about cherry-picking for us when it comes to binding arbitration. Yes, we know it was recommended during the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry. It was not about cherry-picking; it was something we did not believe in. We did not stand for binding arbitration. It was something that we do not believe in. We believe the employer and the employee should be the people who work out agreements. I am not in favour of third parties bringing down a forced agreement. If I was in a union, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not appreciate it. If I was an employer, I certainly would not appreciate that either. It is just a philosophical difference for me personally and I know that is where our government is as well.

Mr. Speaker, replacement worker legislation is something that – one of the reasons that this bill did not happen a lot sooner, when I took over labour it was one of the things that I really did dive into and read a number of studies on it, Mr. Speaker, and looked at it with an open mind. I wanted to get my head around it. I spent a fair bit of time at it quickly realizing that there are very polarized views around replacement worker legislation. As I mentioned earlier there are two provinces that have it, there is Quebec and there is Ontario that has this legislation. The academic research on this is very mixed – sorry about that, Mr. Speaker, it is British Columbia and Quebec that has this legislation. Ontario used to have the legislation, had it for a short period and they got rid of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out just a couple of things. It was studied a number of times over three separate decades. This was not like a flippant study; it was studied for three or four years in the 1970s, in the 1990s, and early 2000s, Mr. Speaker. On each occasion, there was a higher amount of labour unrest per 10,000 people in Quebec than there was in Ontario. Even though they had that legislation, Mr. Speaker, it actually worked against them.

I have a number of quick studies that I would like to refer to. In 2006, a federal government report reviewed work stoppages – the federal government, Ontario, Quebec and the BC jurisdictions – and quickly determined that Quebec had forty-seven days lost compared to thirty-eight in Ontario due to labour unrest from 2003 to 2005. Mr. Speaker, in 2008 there was another labour law expert I guess I will call him, and he now has gone on to be a federal court judge. Peter Annis, I believe, is his name. He studied replacement worker legislation on incidents and duration of work stoppages. Mr. Speaker, he concluded that it was inconclusive. He could not come down on either side of the argument.

I also, Mr. Speaker, read a paper written by a professor, Morley Gunderson, titled: Bans on Strike Replacement Workers: Pouring oil on the fire. Mr. Speaker, he quickly discovered that although when this is in place it actually increases the likelihood of labour unrest – actually increases.

Mr. Speaker, just to show how split this is, there was another – this is what I would call my six of one, half a dozen of the other argument. This was a 2009 article written by Paul Duffy and Susan Johnson called the Impact of Anti-Temporary Replacement Legislation on Work Stoppages. What they discovered was by having replacement worker legislation, you increase the likelihood of labour unrest by 50 per cent, but you did reduce the number of days that they were off. So, Mr. Speaker, again, no consensus; here you have an issue of what I call six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I want to thank all hon. members for their opinions and for sharing their views. Obviously, like I said, you could pick any issue here and quickly discover that a reasonable argument can be made for either side of this for many of these issues. For us, as a government, a Cabinet, a Premier, and a Caucus, it was about finding the balance, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we have achieved that.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read the second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 37)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No.2, Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2". (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act was certainly part of a larger piece of work that we have been doing to enhance our labour legislation here in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Like I said earlier, it has been thirty-plus years since – significantly – anything has been done in this Province. It has been a number of years coming, Mr. Speaker. Again, it is about forming the balance between the labour movement in Newfoundland and Labrador, our employers, and our employers' climate. The climate is to create employment by people coming into our Province and investing their money, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of this bill is much smaller than the changes to the Labour Relations Act. It is quite a bit smaller, actually, but it is a piece of all I talked about earlier today when I gave my initial address on the Labour Relations Act. These two items are nothing too significant. They are significant to those involved. It is very much a balance, Mr. Speaker.

There are two pieces to this bill, the first being that it allows the employer to call for a vote on offer. Mr. Speaker, what that is, is during a labour dispute or during negotiations, the employer has the ability to call for a vote on offer. Mr. Speaker, that is not to be taken lightly. You would not call a vote on offer flippantly. This would be something you would have to consider very, very seriously before you would ask for a vote on offer. It could have very negative implications on the whole negotiations. If you were the employer in this case, it would be the government of the day. Mr. Speaker, it is just a tool – another tool in the toolbox – to avoid labour unrest.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, these changes were about bringing Newfoundland and Labrador into this century. We were thirty years since anything had been done. Just to prove that, Mr. Speaker, this is in place in seven other jurisdictions in the country. We are the oddballs out, if you will. Seven other jurisdictions in the country actually have this in their legislation for the public sector and eight have it in their toolbox, if you will, in the private sector. This is not something new. This is something that is important.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I hear comments from the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. What I did not get into today, because everything was going very smooth, was: remember when you heard us talking about certification that we are doing in this bill that the labour movement is really excited about? It is one of the things that was the number one priority in conversations I had when I met with them. It was the Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker, who drew that back. That was in place in this Province in the 1990s, but it was the Official Opposition who took that away.

I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker – I am not sure if the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair was on the bus at the time that happened but she was chasing the bus knocking on the door to get aboard, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to remind her that that was her party. We are correcting a wrong that they made many moons ago.

Mr. Speaker, that is one point to this bill. The second point to this bill, and this is something that all other provinces in the country have, every other province has it, we did not have, and this will allow people in the public sector, our public servants who work here in Confederation Building, who work around the Province, Mr. Speaker, to file an unfair labour practice complaint with the board. Mr. Speaker, like I said, these two initiatives, one is in place in seven other provinces in the country; this one is in place in all other provinces in the country. This is about creating a balance and bringing our legislation up to date.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to have a few words on Bill 38. I heard the minister talking about in his toolbox, that the minister is just putting more things in the toolbox. The way this bill reads, Mr. Speaker, if you are part of a negotiating team, the tool in the toolbox is a hammer, because if you do not agree with what the negotiating team is doing with the union they are going to use the hammer. We are going to go around you and we are going to saw you off and we are going to go directly to your employees. That is what is in this here. When the minister is talking about a toolbox – don't forget now, Minister, you are using a saw and a hammer to give it to the bargaining team.

MS JONES: A sledgehammer at that.

MR. JOYCE: A sledgehammer at that. I say to the minister, that piece of legislation came on earlier – we heard the Premier, Mr. Speaker, talking about we do not need to listen to anyone from Toronto but every time one of the ministers gets up on a piece of legislation: Well, Ontario does it. Ontario does it, so it must be good for us. We cannot have it both ways. Just because something is good for Ontario does not mean it is good for here. I am just going on the Premier's own words, Mr. Speaker. I am going on the Premier's own words. Of course, when you use that, if the Premier is using it, saying that we do not need to listen to anyone from Ontario, I guess we should look at the bill and say we do not need to follow anybody else in Ontario or any other province. Because as the Premier said herself, and I am sure the ministers do not want to disagree with the Premier, we can do it ourselves. Some things that are in across Canada may not fit here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not usually take it that way.

Mr. Speaker, a few concerns I have about this bill, and I expressed them to the minister. One of them is if there is a negotiating team that spends its time negotiating, especially here with the public service; I will use the public service right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example. If, for example, the public service are in negotiating and the government makes an offer to the negotiating team, the negotiating team then says: Okay, no, we are not bringing this back to our employees and the workers because we do not feel it is good enough, we do not feel that there is enough in it. Now the government has the opportunity to make an application to the Labour Relations Board to bypass the employees, to bypass the negotiating team to go back and say: Okay, we want to bring this in. This here, in my opinion, it is a way to put pressure on the employees negotiating team. You are almost moving away from the negotiating team.

Mr. Speaker, I will just use this for an example. I look across and I know there are a lot of distinguished teachers across the way, and I know a lot of them, a lot of them are very distinguished that were part of a union. When they were in the union with the teachers' union, Mr. Speaker, and the negotiators were negotiating, negotiating a deal with government, I asked how many of the teachers were here now saying that: Oh, you should bypass the negotiating team and go right to the teachers. What would be the first thing? They would be crying, they would be yelling, they would be looking for the tools out of the minister's toolbox to fight him back, because they do not think that was proper.

Can you imagine now – and this is exactly what is happening. I know a lot of members opposite were a part of the union. Of course, when they select a negotiating team, they should have confidence and put their confidence in the negotiating team that they are going to negotiate in good faith, they are going to negotiate for the better of the union, and not have that extra pressure on them that, okay, if we do not agree with what you are doing, and we can make an application to the board – just a sideline to the board.

I do not know if this is practised now or not – and I am sure the minister can clarify it later for me – is that if a request goes into the board from the employer to hold the vote, the vote at the board is a private vote. I am not sure if that is common practice, or that is just being put in this legislation now, that the board has a vote and it is a private vote. So, the people who are directly affected cannot see who voted for what. I am not sure, Minister – and you can clarify that later, Minister – if it is part of it now, or is this just a new piece of legislation put in.

So, Mr. Speaker, I personally have a problem with that, because when you go into any negotiation, you select a negotiating team, and a negotiating team then, for all intents and purposes, is representing all the workers that voted them in. They were all – 99 per cent of the time – voted by their fellow workers to represent them. So, I think this is just another way to bypass the negotiation of the employees.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, that I have a bit of a concern with, and I spoke to the minister and the minister explained it to me in some way, but I have a concern with it. If, for example, there is the 500 people in a bargaining unit, and right now if this legislation goes through, if there is a vote ordered, and if we say, for example –and in most cases if the union is going to carry the vote, say, across the Province they are well organized. All of the local reps would ensure that the vote is getting out. I am not saying they will not if there is a vote ordered, but in normal cases if they recommend, they would organize the vote and ensure that employees are out there who are voting and that, Mr. Speaker. Right now if this legislation goes in, if there are 500 in the bargaining unit and just say only twenty votes, for some reason only twenty votes – it could be because they want to boycott, or it could be they just do not want to vote, or could be because they did not want to be part of this here. It could be that they never got all of the information, Mr. Speaker. It could be that they never received all the terms of the agreement, I do not know. Out of the 500 if only twenty votes, if eleven out of that twenty votes for it, then that collective agreement that the eleven people voted is imposed upon the 500. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with that and this is the legislation that is coming in.

I am sure that the members opposite who were represented by unions on many occasions as I look across, in here also, in part of the legislation, is that you need to ensure that a vast majority – you need to put it in some way that a certain percentage needs to vote and it is done on a vote. If you are going to certify a union, decertify a union, there is always a percentage. In this legislation if you go and read this legislation, Mr. Speaker, in clause 4 you can notice, 26.1(4) it reads, "Where a majority of the employees participating in the vote accept the offer the parties are bound by that offer and shall, without delay, enter into a collective agreement that incorporates the terms of that offer." Mr. Speaker, to me, I think we need to put a percentage on it. I think we need to put a percentage on it, and I see some members opposite looking puzzled. You look at section 26(4), Mr. Speaker, and that is what it reads. I am not sure if some of the members opposite – I see a few now flipping through their papers. It is 26(4). We need to put a percentage on it, I say to the minister. The percentage is something we can sit down and discuss with the unions across the Province.

I have to ask the minister one thing, and I do not know the answer to this; I could ask a lot of government members: Where are public consultations on this part of the act? Did the public sector unions agree to this? We always hear about the consultation we have across the Province and we always hear there is a lot of input into this, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister, when the minister gets an opportunity to speak on this part of the act: Were the public sector unions across the Province consulted in this part of the act? My next question is: If they were consulted, did they agree to have this put in? That is the question.

When we debate a bill, we always hear about public consultations. We just went through the ATIPPA and we said we had ten people who attended. Mr. Speaker, if there are ten people, at least we know there was an opportunity for people to speak if they had concerns with it. We always should do that when we are changing legislation or making new laws. So that is the question I have to ask the minister, because if there were no public consultations put into this to the unions, I am sure they were shocked as some of us to see this in.

Mr. Speaker, I will let the minister answer a few of the questions I asked earlier. I will have another opportunity in the Committee stage to ask a few questions on this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in my place and speak to Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. Mr. Speaker, it pains me to say I have nothing complimentary to say about this piece of legislation. I really wish there was something I could say positive about this, as I had to say for Bill 37, but there are grave problems and provisions in this bill. I will be brief in what I have to say.

We talked in relation to the previous bill about the right of employers to go to the Labour Relations Board to force a vote on final offer or last offer. I said at the time, and I will say it again: that creates an imbalance, not a balance, in the favour of employers.

I note again that the minister said that the principle of this government revolves around preserving the right of employers and employees. Who is the employer here? The employer here is government, by and large. I find it hard to believe that this is a coincidence, that it is coincidental that these provisions are being introduced in a year where thousands – and I am pretty certain it is thousands – of public sector workers in Newfoundland and Labrador who are represented by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees and who are represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees have their collective agreements up for bargaining this year.

From what I understand from speaking to folks in the labour movement today, there was no consultation on this at all and they are completely blindsided by this provision in a bargaining year. While I was saying earlier about the comparable clause in Bill 37 being problematic, it is even more problematic for bargaining in the public sector than it is for the private sector. The employer can call a vote, effectively, can call for the Labour Relations Board to force a vote on an offer in the midst of negotiations during public sector negotiations. It is shocking that it was not brought up at all before. It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to me; it is not acceptable to our party. It is not acceptable to public servants who go to work, work hard every day, and keep everything together in this Province, by and large.

I think one of the key differences that we have to acknowledge between this same provision in Bill 37 is in Bill 37, if it is a private sector situation and the Labour Relations Board has a vote and employees reject the offer, then what do they do? They go back to the table. The employer and the employees, their representatives, go back to the table and continue to bargain. They do not have another opportunity; they do not have another out. They have to come to an agreement and that is it.

What does this do? Imagine you are a public sector employee; you are negotiating on behalf of workers in the public sector. The Labour Relations Board is permitted to force a vote. You reject the offer. What other tool does the government have in its toolbox? Legislate the workers back to work, and I think that is patently unfair. Government already has very, very powerful tools – sledgehammers, jackhammers – in its toolbox. I think this goes way too far, and it does not enhance. I would have to say, contrary to what the minister said this does not enhance the position of public sector workers at all in a year where we expect many of them to be in a bargaining position. It tips the balance too far in favour of government.

The minister also said, and there was some irony in this, he said that Bill 38 – and I am paraphrasing here – was a smaller bill. It was a smaller bill in terms of the numbers of words in this piece of legislation. Well, it may be smaller in terms of the number of words but it has an awful huge impact.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member, who just spoke, for Bay of Islands, was very appropriate when he said we often hear government saying: well, we do not have to follow along with other provinces. We do it our own way here. We can have our own legislation that is made right here. I believe that, but I think we should take best practices from other jurisdictions.

I was taken back to my mother, when I was a small child my mother used to always say: Dale, if they all go down and jump off the wharf, too, are you going to go with them? That is what this is. This takes us off the end of the wharf, in terms of public sector bargaining legislation in Canada. I have to say that I will not be able to support this piece of legislation when it comes to the table, unless this particular provision is stripped, because it is unfair and it tips the balance too far in favour of government, which already has many tools in its toolbox to do the work that it needs to do for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So I will leave it at that, and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak to Bill 38, and I guess my comments are very similar to what has already been raised by my colleagues here in the House of Assembly. I was a little bit astounded when I looked at this bill, simply because it is government protecting themselves as an employer. Not that government should not have controls and measures in which they protect themselves as an employer, I am not saying that, but, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill goes a little bit far. Now there are some things in it that I like, and I will outline that in the beginning and then I will speak a little bit to the other pieces of the bill that I want to get into.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas is that the employees now have the right to go to the board with unfair labour initiatives and have that board review their particular cases. I think this is good. The employer can do the same, and they can file a complaint with the board. The complaint will now be looked at. In addition to that, the board has the autonomy to do an inquiry into any particular complaint that comes forward to them. As a result, Mr. Speaker, they can make a ruling where it is applicable in any complaint to order that pay be reinstated, that an employee be reinstated or removed, whatever the case may be. They can recommend disciplinary action. They can recommend any kind of monetary or other penalties that need to be imposed. They can recommend compensation.

There are a number of things in this particular bill that do allow for further rights for employers and employees to have issues that are in disagreement, that are unable to be settled between those individuals brought to the board, Mr. Speaker, the collective bargaining board and have them resolved. I see that as one piece in here that will certainly be a positive piece and I could see it in many cases where this would apply. I am not going to get into all of those cases, but off the top of my head I can think of a number of cases that I see where – especially public servants oftentimes are dismissed from their jobs. It allows them to file a proper complaint and have an inquiry done as to whether it was wrongful or not, and what compensations that they are entitled to. From that perspective I see it as a good thing. I also see it as a good thing in cases where government could be challenged when an employee's job becomes redundant in terms of the conditions under which their job became redundant and have those particular things dealt with through a more of an independent body in this case to decide what needs to happen or what should happen.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the big issue in this bill, and the reason that we certainly would not be supporting the bill, is with regard to section 2 of the act. I think section 2, my colleague said it gives the government a hammer, and it is a big hammer. I do not even know if it could even fit in the toolbox that they have been carrying around for the whole afternoon, because it is more like a jackhammer or sledgehammer in terms of how the government, as an employer, will deal with unionized workers or employees of the public service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note the timing of the bill, because while this bill is being introduced, we have currently the Allied Health Professionals contract that is being negotiated; we have the four different contracts for the Canadian Union of Public Employees that have expired and are about to expire; we have three contracts for the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees that have expired or are about to expire; we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, which expires this month; we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, which expires in August; and we have the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary contract, which expires this month as well. All together we are looking at – and with the Canadian Merchant Service Guild – twelve contracts right now on government's table that they have to settle with public employees. Some of those contracts, Mr. Speaker, are broken down into individual groups. As I stated, there are a number of contracts out there this year through the summer and into the fall that government will be negotiating with their employees in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in that context I think it is important to point out what this bill says. This bill basically says that the employer of the employees in the unit that is affected "may request that a vote of the employees in the unit affected be taken as to the acceptance or rejection of the offer last received by the employee organization in respect of all matters remaining in dispute." Basically, what they are saying is if the government makes an offer and the union looks at that offer – because you have to understand how unions work too, Mr. Speaker. Maybe that is what I should be explaining first instead of being all over the place.

The process that a union currently takes in this Province, to determine if an offer is acceptable or if it is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, is through a ratification process. There are times that the final offer that an employer will make – the government may make an offer; let us use the nurses as an example. If they could make an offer to the nurses, then the nurses would normally decide if that final offer is sufficient or if it is not sufficient to take to their members. Basically, that is how they would ratify the process. If not, they would continue to negotiate, they would continue to look at the mandate they have from their membership, and they would continue to work toward achieving that.

Mr. Speaker, what the government is now saying is once they table an offer, they can ask the board: listen, we want to take this to a vote of the employees. Then the employees within a period of time would be called to vote. If there happens to be 1,000 employees in that bargaining unit, and only 200 of them show up to vote, and the majority of them vote for this agreement or the offer the government made, even though the other 800 people did not vote, it now becomes the new collective agreement and the terms under which the employee goes forward. That in itself becomes problematic as well, Mr. Speaker.

In many cases, what you are going to see is unions are going to be forced to enter into collective agreements, Mr. Speaker, with terms of offers they may not want to accept. In many of these cases the union will not be given the opportunity – the full and fair opportunity – to really consider the offer the government has made to either decide if they are going to reject that offer or if they are going to accept that offer. The time will not be there to do it appropriately through those channels. It will trigger an entirely different process. It will trigger an immediate vote, Mr. Speaker, of the members. In many cases, it might be a vote where members are coming forward to vote without having all of the proper information.

Mr. Speaker, what happens if an offer is rejected? That is the part I am unclear of here. If the government does say: we have tabled this offer, now we are going to the board, we want the employees to go vote, we are going to bypass the union, we are going to bypass the negotiating team, we are tired of dealing with you guys, and this is what we are putting on the table; and the employees go in, they vote, and they reject the offer the government has there, what happens then? Where do they go then? How do they get back to a collective agreement?

Mr. Speaker, I think that is important and that needs to be clarified. Are the employer and the union then barred from having any element of the offer incorporated into a future agreement or not? I think these things are going to be important in dealing with this provision in the act. I think there has to be an out for cases in which the offers are rejected. How do you then get back to negotiating in good faith between the employer and the negotiating team?

Mr. Speaker, I think those are the two major concerns that I have with this bill. Is it really reserving the rights that employers are intended to have as part of unions in this Province? Is the government now going too far in dictating how this should be done and ordering this? Are they going too far in accepting only a majority of those who vote, as opposed to a majority of those who are part of that collective bargaining unit? I think this is where I am having some trouble.

The other part, Mr. Speaker, is that what does this do with a negotiation that is supposed to be ongoing in good faith? Where is the good faith practice once you have this vote and all of a sudden it is rejected? Will it contribute to longer strikes, longer lockouts, and more unrest? I think these are things that the government needs to consider before they pass this legislation and pull the big hammer out of the toolbox and say: We have twelve contracts coming up for negotiation, we are not going to fool around, we will put our offers on the table. If you do not want to accept it as the chief negotiators for the unions, take it back to your members, we will force a vote.

Is that the appropriate way to do things? Mr. Speaker, we will have to see how it works out in practice. As a result of it, I can see more unrest, more volatility, longer strikes and more people getting very upset with that approach because it is more top-down and dictatorial in dealing with the public servants in the Province. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand this evening and speak to Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. I am glad to speak because this bill requires that we stand and speak against it. I really was shocked when I first read this and read clause 2 which is an amendment to the act, an amendment that actually adds a piece to the current act.

Earlier, when we were discussing Bill 37 with regard to the Labour Relations Act and I could speak for the most part positively to that act, even though there are a couple of things in it I am not totally pleased with and I am upset by things that are not in it, but at least for the most part it was a fairly positive piece of legislation. It was interesting that the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations made a comment with regard to some of the things that we were promoting as a party that the reason he could not agree with what we are saying was because he just did not agree. That he did not agree with proposals around anti-scab legislation and around bringing collective bargaining to an end by imposing a collective agreement when it becomes absolutely essential to do so.

At least the minister recognized that yes, there is a chasm there between us and how we look at labour relations, obviously. When I look at this bill, the chasm becomes quite obvious because this section that is being proposed for the act, section 26.1 which gives the right to the employer of the employees in the unit affected to ask, to request, that a vote be taken in the middle of the collective bargaining and the Labour Relations Board can have a secret vote to determine whether or not the employer can go ahead and do it, is totally ignoring the rights of the workers. So I guess that is the difference the minister and me and our party. We absolutely agree in the rights of the workers and this section 26.1 proposal for the act under clause 2 is not recognizing the rights of the workers. It is quite shocking.

When I asked today as well in the House about the consultation with the public service sector with regard to this bill in Question Period, the minister stood and the minister said that they had done extensive consultation, consultation was their name; they consult. Well, since that time, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees has put out a news release saying that they were not consulted by the government with regard to this clause. I am not surprised that they were not, because there is no way that they, or anybody else in the labour movement, would be able to agree to this kind of a clause going in.

I am quite disturbed that the minister is not recognizing the danger of this clause, and I really mean danger. I want to bring us through some practical – and even from a practical perspective, I do not think that this section, this proposed new section for the act, has been well thought through. Mr. Speaker, this section, which allows the employer to request a vote of all members of a bargaining unit while collective bargaining is going on, is almost impossible. It poses a lot of issues for the public sector unions and the Labour Board, particularly in the logistics of running these votes.

Let us say this goes through – we will not be voting for it, but let us say this goes through. Let us take the largest public sector union: NAPE, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees, has thirteen units. Let us say that a number of these units – maybe all of them, is probably my understanding – are all at a table at the same time. Negotiations are going on with all of these units. The employer, meaning the government, can, under this proposed amendment, with approval of the Labour Relations Board, require a vote at each of these units, maybe all at the same time. Some of these units have 8,000 members and they are all over the Province. The logistics of trying to carry out those votes is monumental. It probably would mean a real lengthening of the process while even those votes were going on. The Labour Board does not have the resources to handle that. Perhaps they could try it by mail, but that has its own issues.

This is really a bad piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, just from that logistic perspective. There is also a danger of dividing units, bargaining units, one against the other, who are part of the same union. It is a divisive tool as well, Mr. Speaker.

The labour leaders, obviously, are quite shocked. The Federation of Labour has come out speaking about it. NAPE has come out speaking about it. I do not know if CUPE has yet or not, but I will be really surprised if they do not.

The point has been made and I am going to make it again. It seems suspiciously timely to be bringing this kind of a thing forward. I cannot believe it is being brought forward. I am really shocked by the minister, who was showing himself to understand labour relations. He has brought in some really good things in Bill 27, for example. I am really and truly shocked he thinks it is all right for this to be in here after some of the good things he has already brought in today with regard, for example, to the accreditation of the card-carrying and the rules that have been brought in with regard to certification, bringing us back almost to where we were before 1994, where radical changes were made.

Mr. Speaker, I really am imploring the minister. Before we come back to this discussion again, I am imploring the minister to listen to the voice of reason on this one. It makes absolutely no sense if government is using this as a tool for control over the public service sector. As my colleague from St. John's North has already pointed out, and the Opposition House Leader as well: government has everything it needs already. It can name essential workers. It brings people back and it calls people back to work. They bring in legislation to bring people back. They do not need anything else. They have what they need. Why this? It really has a menacing feeling to it. I really am imploring the minister to think about this and to remove this from the table.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be voting for it. We will be bringing in amendments when we go into Committee on both of these bills. I am imploring government to see the sense of the amendments we will be bringing in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a number of the comments made by both parties. What you saw just then from the Third Party is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. The people of Ontario saw it in the early 1990s and we are seeing it here now.

This is a party that believes in balance, Mr. Speaker. You can do a lot of things when you are in government, but you have to have balance. You cannot tip the scales one way more than the other, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we have been trying to do. That is why when she compliments us on certification, Mr. Speaker, which is a great thing for the labour movement, and I was delighted to bring it in. You also have to put up with the other things that balance the scales.

Here is the problem with the hon. member opposite. She does not get the balance. It would be all one way. She would not bring in vote on offer, not only in the public sector; she would not bring it in the private sector, Mr. Speaker. This was something we did a lot of research on right across our country. It is about bringing our legislation in line with much of the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker. It has not been done for thirty-plus years – thirty-plus years since anything has been done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just touch on a few things here. It was talked about the percentage of vote. I think it was the Opposition member actually, who mentioned the percentage of vote. If there are 100 people in the union and only fifty votes, then twenty-six people will pass. Mr. Speaker, that is the equivalent in all collective agreements. This is not about certification where you need a certain percentage of the employees, or decertification where you need a certain percentage of the employees. This is about a collective agreement. What happens in a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, people do not show up for votes all the time. We just had provincial elections, federal elections.

Mr. Speaker, this is just about accepting a collective agreement. This is not about certification or decertification. As like when a vote is on any collective agreement, Mr. Speaker, the majority of that vote wins. That is not something new to Newfoundland. That is not a hammer that we are trying to bring down on anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. That is the way it is. That is the way it is in provincial elections. That is the way it is in all – I do not know of any other mechanism in this country, in North America, whereby when you vote on an offer 50 per cent plus one wins, Mr. Speaker; nothing more, nothing less. Certifications are totally different, but certainly not the way it is when it comes to voting on an offer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there was a comment made that we were going to force, as a government, like seven other jurisdictions across the country, that we are about to force an agreement on the employee. Mr. Speaker, I think that is nothing further from the truth. The only thing that government can activate right now is a vote. We cannot determine how somebody votes. It will be a private vote. It will be run legitimately. I will not be stood on every ballot box, Mr. Speaker, looking at how they vote. That is just not the way it works, this is will be a private vote. They have every right to say no. They do not have to accept the offer. This is not the hobnail boot approach, Mr. Speaker, this is a vote. This is where they can actually have a private vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure you, this is not something that any employer, whether in the private sector or in the public sector, would take on quickly. This is something that you would have to consider pretty long and pretty hard. This is not something you do after twenty-four hours of negotiation breakdown, no, not at all. This is a very serious move. Again, like I said, it is a tool that is in the toolbox, but it is not an agreement. It is not a legislated agreement. All it is, is a vote on an offer, and that is what it is called, vote on offer. So to say that we would be jamming it down people's throats, Mr. Speaker, is totally untrue. I think back to some of the things that my colleagues across the hall had done over the years, Mr. Speaker, which I am not going to get into now, for reasons of time. So, that is not it. All it is, it is about a final vote offer. That is all it is about, an offer.

Mr. Speaker, there was another thing they talked about, the timing of this vote on offer. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is something I have to address because this is a bit funny for me. Since I have been there, I have been involved in this for – this goes back, actually, to four ministers. Four ministers ago this whole process began. Four ministers ago, four ministers responsible for labour relations ago this started. I am pretty sure there has been a collective agreement since then. To say that I channelled this to the appropriate time to get it right lined up for twelve unions – of which there are dozens that government votes with, there are dozens. I hear the member of the Third Party – I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong in the cookie jar. There is something wrong in the cookie jar if she can think that I can line all this up for now.

Here is the other part that she is not really getting, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that she look deep into the cookie jar to figure this one out. This will take, I would think – I was asked today, and I could not give a time – but, Mr. Speaker, this will certainly take several, several months before it is proclaimed. We will now go across the country and compare what the other seven does, Mr. Speaker. So, this is not going to happen tomorrow. I am hoping we will have an agreement in place long before this ever comes to law, Mr. Speaker, long before, because negotiations are ongoing. There is no intent; there is no malice in this, Mr. Speaker. For them to think that, it is absolutely untrue and unfounded. It has never been mentioned to me by the Premier, by anybody in Cabinet, by anybody in this caucus, by anybody at the Labour Relations Act, by anyone at the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time this has been mentioned to me, ever, since I started this some ten months ago, Mr. Speaker.

This started four ministers ago, and a collective agreement ago. For them to think that I could line this up for this month, would absolutely – are insane, Mr. Speaker. This cannot happen. This is impossible. It would be literally impossible for that many years ago for me to be home planning, I am going to line that up for when Premier Dunderdale gives me the job, Minister of Labour, and I am going to drive it down the third member's throat, Mr. Speaker, and make it into law. Mr. Speaker, somebody is dreaming, somebody is dreaming in Technicolor. Get clear of the rose-coloured glasses, Mr. Speaker. It is not possible. It is not on, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely impossible, I say to the hon. member, impossible.

Mr. Speaker, referencing negotiations and the timing; this government, and any government, when you are dealing with multiple public sector unions, are constantly in negotiations. Is there ever a right time? All different agreements ending at different times, is there ever an appropriate time to make changes? I would say, Mr. Speaker, you would have a job to find the year and the month where there is not some form of negotiation happening between a public sector union and the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, I heard a reference that we were bypassing employees, absolutely not – absolutely not. The government of the day will be asking the employees to vote on an offer. It is certainly not about bypassing union members; it is not about bypassing at all. It is asking them their thoughts on an agreement that is being offered. It is not about bypassing; we are not forcing the ballot. You are not going to be told how to vote on this offer, Mr. Speaker. That is the myth that you are seeing here. That is the myth that the Third Party is trying to create, that you will be made to vote a certain way. Mr. Speaker, that does not work on this side of the House. We do not insist how people vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would be a private vote and, Mr. Speaker, employees of government will be able to decide.

When I heard comments like dictatorial and the rights of workers, I take exception to that. I think that is ridiculous; this is not about being dictatorial at all. It is about another thing that is done in seven other jurisdictions where we lay out and give people the ability to vote. The employer, in this case the public service, has the ability to ask the public servants to vote on their offer. Mr. Speaker, it is up to them whether they say aye or nay. It is hardly a heavy hand or a dictatorial style. Like I said, I certainly take exception to that.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to take my seat now and I look forward to debate as we move into Committee on this issue. I would hope that people, in particular the Leader of the Third Party, would come away from this saying that I have some kind of grand plan that started four or five years ago, and two Premiers ago, and a collective agreement ago, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to line this up for now, it is absolutely – like I said, Mr. Speaker, please check the cookie jar on this one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read the second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KING: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 38)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

This House stands adjourned until Wednesday at 2:00 o'clock.

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