VOL. 1 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBL Y FOR THE PERIOD: lO:OO a.m. - 1:00 p.m. FRIDAY, JULY 2, l982 No. 33

:; July 2, 1982 The House met at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Tape 1933 PK - 1 Order , please! ORAL QUESTIONS The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, sometime in the next week to ten days this House will wind down and close for the Summer and we will probably be not coming back until some time late Fall. I wonder if the hon. Premier could give us an accounting of the economic condition of the Province at the present time? The state of the forest industry and the state of the fishery, and the state of the mining industry?

Everything seems to be collapsing down around the ears of the administration, and the people have nothing to look forward to for the next several months. Could the hon. gentleman tell us what measures , if any, will be brought into this House before it closes to deal with the crisis in the economy of this Province that we have at the present time? MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD: The hon. the Premier. Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate question because this morning we are introducing legislation to try to save Baie Verte ,and that is one of the chief areas in the mining industry that is in trouble.

There are mines closing down all around the world and we are going to take our lumps with everybody else. It is not falling down around the ears of the administration. The economy from Bonavista to Vancouver Island is in bad shape .. In the fishing industry, as everybody knows we have taken decisive .action all through the Spring to assist fish companies and we still are. These were small and medium sized companies. We did help the Lake Group out earlier on IJO 5 R

r-·-------------- --------­ ----------------~- July 2, 1982 Tape 1933 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: at Ramea . We have negot iated the Burgeo situation with National Sea. And we are into fairly intensive negotiations now, the Minister of Finance (Dr . Collins), the Minister of Development (l-1r. Windsor) a.nd the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan), on the Fishery Products circumstance. We are trying to deal with the Nickerson circumstance. Then, in the midst of all o£ that, 405Q

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1934 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: the problems that we have had in the fishery in the last six or eight rnonths,there is a fair amount of fish around. I mean, May month was very good in most parts of the Province 1and June also. So there has been a fair amount of fish, Lobsters perhaps are only about fair to medium this year around the Province, but the price stayed up fairly good. In my own constituency itwasa fair lobster season, it was not excellent but the prices were not all that bad,and there has been a fair amount of fish.

I think in rural Newfoundland there is less a perception of doom and gloom than there is in the larger centres. So on the fishery, we have been dealing with it,and the three ministers from a Cabinet committee that has been dealing with it sort of on a daily basis and corning to Cabinet with proposals to try to salvage the small and rnediurnsizedcornpanies. The Newfoundland Quick Freeze went and we helped out two or three companies that carne in and picked up these plants that Newfoundland Quick Freeze had. We have dealt with Mr. Janes out in Hant's Harbour two or three times.

We have dealt with, as I said, with the Lake Group, we have dealt with 4 lot of other companies besides around the Province, the smaller cornpanies,and the Quinlans and the Earles and the rest. And we are still dealing now with Fishery Products Lirnited,who are connected with CDC, and meetings are going on there.Butonce again, you know, all the companies have problems, financial problems, and the South Coast plants as well where some close downs have occurred due to poor markets and that. So we are trying to deal with it as best we can and we are meeting with the companies on a regular,alrnost daily basis.

I have had meetings myself on the forestry industry and the markets are soft there in the forestry industry,as the Leader of the Opposition 40Rn

July ·2, 1982 Tape No. 1934 SO - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD : (Mr. Neary) knows. As a matter of fact, Abitibi - Price just closed down the Sault Sainte Marie plant • .,And I have had meetings in Toronto with Mr. Gimlin, the present Chairman of the Board of Abitibi-Price. They we~e going to go ahead with the second machine at Grand Falls and it got delayed because of the economic down tuzn.

One of the bri ght spots in the forestry industry was the support that the rank and file of the Papers Workers Onion gave the company by rejecting the recommendation from the union leaders to go out on strike - they did not-which is different than British Columbia. So there is some stability now in that forest 40 61

July 2, 1982 Tape 1935 PREMIER PECKFORD: industry but you do not know where it is going to go down the road because the markets could change. Abitibi-Price NM - 1 have not given up on going with that second machine. Labrador City-Wabush continues to be a real concern to all of us I guess. So we are trying to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, as best we can and. As problems come up and we can identify them and clearly see where they are 1we will take appropriate action, as we are doing in Baie Verte, as we have done in the fishing industry. In certain parts of the forest industry it ~s difficult for us to do anything.

There is nothing we can do to make people buy more paper or improve the situation. It is the same way in the iron ore industry, there is very little we can do there. So our capital budget reflects that we realize that there are problems because our capital budget is up by perhaps $15 million over what we had predicted in our five year plan for this vear. ~7e are up to perhaps a net capital outlay of $175 million or $180 million as opposed to $150 million or $160 million. So there is $15 million or $20 million of extra money being spent around the Province. Cat Arm, I think the tenders have closed.

I do not know if the contract was awarded for the drilling

section of it and once again there we ran into problems with the road and we were longer getting in - Hydro was longer getting into the site and therefore you could not call the other tenders until you got the site. But that seems now to have resolved itself and there will be a steady increase in the employment levels at Cat Arm, peaking at perhaps 700 or BOO in September or October of this year. I think that is a great boost to the Central/Western Newfoundland area. Upper Salmon is still underway but after this year will be winding down. But it is a difficult time for everybody and we are doing what we can on the fishery, guaranteed loans, trying to keep companies 406?

July 2, 1982 Tape 1935 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: alive. The forest industry, we have very little control over but we a·re dqing what \'l'e can.Bowaters and ourselves have been involved in a fair amount of reforestation around the Province and they have gone with contracts for re­ forestation. Andi know out in my area, and some other areas, there has been a lot of work generated in this reforestation area. The mining industry, we are trying to do what we can in Baie Verte. It is going to continue to be a problem in Labrador City-Wabush, and Buchans continues to experience a lot of problems.

So there are problems there that are beyond our control. Where they can be within our control and where we can help,we will try to do it within our means. But I agree that we are into difficult times and we are trying to do the best we can. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I asked the bon. gentleman a question of a aeneral nature and,of course,I got an answer of a general nature that I expected to get.and we did manage to get some information-And it would appear that our thinking is right on this side of the House, tnat the administration is lurching from crisis to crisis, merely sticking their finger in the dtke every opportunity they get,and that they have no real plans for the future development, 40111

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1936 MR.NEARY: whether it be short-term or long-term development of this Province. ah-1 Now let me get down to a few specifics here. The hon. gentleman mentioned the Fishery Products circumstance. I am not sure what he meant by that. HR.TULK: They covered it up. MR.NEARY: Yes. I would like for him to elaborate on that. And Newfoundland Quick Freeze, he talked about the giveaway there. Could the hon. gentleman tell us when the fish plant will open in St. Bride's in connection with that giveaway programme?

And are there any plans at all for the development of the - MR.HORGA...~: The plant in St. Bride's has been open for weeks. MR.NEARY: Well,the week before last they got four hours. I do not know if you would call that open or not. And, Mr. Speaker, the information that I have is that the people of St. Bride's are going to get shafted because that part of that deal is not going to be lived up to. MR.WARREN: That is right. MR.NEARY: The hon. member knows that. But, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the Lower Churchill.

You know,will there be any developments happening or taking place this year in the Lower Churchill? Or will there be anything in connection with the transmission line to bring the Labrador power, whether it is recall power or power developed on the Lower Churchill or the Muskrat, to the Island of Newfoundland? Could we not this year­ and the money is there. Ottawa is participating in the project-could we not start that transmission line and try to get some people employed? 4 0 61·

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1936 ah-2 MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: You know, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to co-operate with the Leader of the Opposition and with all the members in the Opposition. I am trying to deal as responsibly as we can with the issues. But if the Leader of the Opposition just wants to criticize for the sake of criticizing,well then it makes it more difficult for us to try to be responsible here. We are all human. But let us deal with them one at a time. The hen . member mentioned Fishery Products.

All the fish companies that do business in this Province are in trouble, that is no great news to anybody 1and we are trying to deal with them as best we can as they come up. We have dealt with the Lake Group and we are still trying to deal with that. And we have dealt with Newfoundland Quick Freeze. And then when we do something the Leader of the Opposition says we gave it away,and yet he wants us to build a transmission line from Labrador down to the Island without knowing whether you have any power to put through it.

So on the one hand if you do something you are giving it away and if you do not do anything then it is all falling down around your ears. So,I mean,it is hard to know what you are suppose to do. You are not SU?POS~d to do anythinq because you would be giving it aNay.

So on Fishery Products all I am saying is that there are negotiations underway with Fishery Products Limited to ensure the maxi .mum utilization of their facilities for the people of Newfoundland during this fishing season .Andwe are on top of it, monitoring it day by day,and I am kept informed on it on almost an hourly basis on the phone or in person if I am here in the Province. So we are dealing with it. We have dealt with Baie Verte. MR.NEARY: What kind of problems do Fishery Products have? 4Qf)c;

July 2, 1982 Tape 1937 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: They have financial problems. You know, the Leader of the Opposition knows all the companies have financial problems. MR. NEJ,RY: problems? PREMIER PECKFORD: Do they have any marketing There might be marketing problems on a couple of species, as they have always had, but generally speaking there is not, but there are in certain areas. Perqh, I think, might be the one where the problem is. On Baie Verte, I mean, the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor) and the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr.

Rideout) have themselves beat out 1 being outside the House, which I did not like, when they should have been in the House 1 trying to deal with Baie Verte. And we have a bill to put there today. On St. Bride's, we are trying to do the best we can with the St. Bride's fish plant, and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) has been meeting three and four delegations a day trying to deal with that and trying to respond as responsibly as we can, as in every other field.

But on the Lower Churchill, the Leader of the Opposition - you know, you cannot put all your eggs in ore basket of a big project that is going to solve all our problems. I mean, we have been down that road for twenty or thirty years and found it to be wanting. And you cannot go starting a transmission line unless you know that you have a market for it and unless you know that the consumer of electricity in Newfoundland is going to be prepared to pay a high price for that electricity. ~06~

July 2, 1982 Tape 1937 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: The Lower Churchill is very expensive power now these days. Muskrat Falls will come in at perhaps 70 or 80 mils per kilowatt hour; that is at site. The consumer in Newfoundland is paying somewhere between 30 perhaps and 40 mils per kilowatt hour now . So what we have to try to do if we are going to keep people to still have a disposable income is to try to bring to them the cheapest power possible.

The cheapest power possible now, additional power outside of Cat Arm and the Upper Salmon - and do not forget, perhaps the largest project in Canada going today is Cat Arm, outside of a couple of extensions to Petro-Canada complexes in Edmonton. Do you know that today, Mr. Speaker, the largest resource development project in Canada is Cat Arm? SOME HON . MEMBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER PECI<FORD: It is.

And if you add the Upper Salmon to that and add up the totals there, the Newfoundland Government is putting out more money for job creation and for resource development than almost any other province in Canada, especially if you base it on our ability to pay. It is incredible! So on the whole question of power - and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition under~tands this - what we have to do, Mr.

Speaker, is simply this, that with that Water Reversion Act,which was ruled three to nothing in our favour and is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada- and thankfully the Supreme Court of Canada is going to hear that in September and, you know, the timing is good on that - and if we get a favourable decision there and if we can put the full concep-t together, if you can bring down Upper Churchill 3.5 mil power and add your transmission costs to it, into Lake Melville or on down with a 4067

July 2, 1982 Tape 1937 EC - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: transmission line once you know that, then you can finance it, but you are not going to be able to finance it before the fact. Then you can bring power of 30 or 40 mils per kilowatt hour to the Island and stabilize electricity 4fJ6A

c-uly 2, 1982 Tape No. 1938 MJ - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: rates for the long-term. -Or do you want to go and put your eggs in the basket of Lower Churchill, which is forty or fifty mils at site 1 plus twentv, you are U? to seventy or eighty mils :?ei" kila_'latt hour, I mean that is crazy. The Newfoundland consumer would never stand for it. So we have got to try to have as our priority in our power policy the Upper Churchill. It must be our first priorityl otherwise we are really, really being naive about it all. It is going to be too expensive, you would never raise the money.

We are doing a feasibility study with Anaconda Aluminum to try to access some industrial customer for some of the power we would get back on the Upper Churchill,and that will be completed by the end of the year. At St. Bride's we are doing what we can, Fishery Products are meeting with them daily to try to resolve their problems. The Lower Churchill is there but it is no good to build a transmission line unless you know that you have power to put on that and you can finance it. You know, you cannot just go ahead and make those silly mistakes for short-term gain but for long-term pain. So have got to be careful.

So we are doing what we can and we are putting out, this year, $300 million or $400 million just in power developments on the Island and they are going to create 1,500 or 1,600 jobs, Upper Salmon and Cat Arm together. So we are doing what we can and we wish we could do more,but we have got to be careful before we leap into doing some kind of transmission line in Southern Labrador and across the Strait. I am told,for example 1 that it is technological feasible to bring across the cable as opposed to the tunnel,and it is a bit cheaper.

But the latest technology in the world on the machine used to dig down on that Strait section,,we might have to build our own machine to extend the technology a little bit, which would take some doing. So that is not a simple matter either. And you can ~ORq

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1938 MJ - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: only ?USh t'.1at ~dnd of rroney to do that if you have behind it the customers, the development, and the right cost for the power when it does get over. So that is not a simple matter. We are doing what we can and we are pushing it as hard as we can,but there are no simple answers to it and we must use as our priority that Water Reversion Act, which can have immense benefits to the Province over the long term. MR. S. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell): MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker, it seems that after ten years of Tory reign in this Province that we are no further ahead on these projects than we were ten years ago. Mr. Speaker, I let us see if I can be a little .mor8 c;·_,2.:::ific on ti'J.e fi3hery one. The hon. the Premier knows that one of t'1e big Jroblems with the Newfoundland fishery is marketing the product. Now we have the Canadian Saltfis~ Corporation that was one of the greatest reforms, I suppose, since Confederation in this Province.

Why does the administration keep resisting expanding the terms of reference of the Canadian Saltfis~ Corporation to include the marketing of all the produce of the sea ? %'hay doe3 the administration and the hon. gentleman ~eep 407n

July 2, 1982 Tape 1939 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: re~~sting setting up a separate Crown corporation, if that is the route he wants to take, to market the fresh fish and the produce of th.e sea in the markets of the world? MR. SPEAKER (Russelll: The lion. Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I would like to advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary] that he should read the latest report of the Economic Council of Canada issued over the last several months which attacks the Canadian Government and those who believe that the answer to our economic problems is to put everything under a marketing board.

They have definitively shown this in their study. And I am rather amused that the Leader of the Opposition is not up to date on the latest economic forecast and studies that are done by e:xperts in this field. The Economic Council of Canada was established by the Canadian Government to give independent advice on economic matters in this country.

And they have come down - and by the way they are mostly Liberal appointments and people who believe that governments should be involved a little bit in the planning of the economy - and they themselves have rejected this idea of just putting everything under marketing boards. So I would tell the Leader of the Opposition perhaps, for some good weekend reading while the sun is shining, that he would get that Economic Council of Canada report and read it, because I think it addresses itself to some of the structural problems that we are facing in the Canadian economy. On the Saltfish Corporation ~ecifically, Mr.

Speaker, just let me say that we have indicated that we support the Saltfish Corporation, but simultaneously while we are supporting it, we do not see anyti'.ing ~071

July 2, 1982 Tape 1939 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: wrong with trying a number of experiments so that individual entrepreneurs, if they want to become involved, that they should have that opportunity, that you should not stymie individual initiative and entrepreneurial spirit all for the sake of a marketing board, that perhaps you can have the best of both worlds and allow a few more people out there to be designated through the corporation to develop and sell some saltfish to the corporation. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, we have proposed to the Kirby Task Force and to other people in the fishing industry that we are prepared to assist in arranging a consortium of middle sized companies in the Province who should do their marketing together, that they have got to get together at it because one company can go out and hurt the other company and we should not be competing against one another . We should be doing it together.

On the larger issue of marketing with the big companies like Lakes and Fishery Products and Nickersons and National Sea,we have referred them and indicated to them that something like. what has been done in Norway is a very , very good idea,where the corporations all get together and market the one product, the one label, and refine their markets in the United States or in Europe.

So we believe that you should not just eliminate the private sector and just replace it with a great huge structure called a marketing board, but in the Saltfish Corporation you could designate more people to get involved through the corporation, give them some flexibility- and it can work, we are sure it can worx - secondly, that you need to get to get the private sector companies together. We have taken some initiative in this 407?

July 2, 1982 Tape 1940 NM - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: regard and to try to get them together, with some assistance and back up from goyernment 1to come together into a marketing arm but to leave it i:n private hands rather than government getting in, hiring a whole bunch of new people and taking it all over. We do not think that would be good and r think tha Economic Council of Canada bears us out on that. Marketing is a problem. QualitY. is: a problem. And the federal government and ourselves are trying to deal with that. So I am not against the Saltfish Corporation. We are very supportive of it.

But it does not have to be a narrow,dogmatic approach to the Saltfish Corporation. Sure.ly they can perhaps try some experiments and be more flexible in designating more people to become involved in it. And secondly, on the fresh fish side, there should be more initiatives by both governments with the private sector to encourage them getting together into a consortium like has happened in Norway. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary. MR . SPEAKER (Russell): A final supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, while we are on the ma~ter of the economy and, as I say 1 some .time in the next week to ten days the House will shut down for the Summer and I believe it is good to get these things on the table , w ~at about the construction industry? There is a major depression in the construction industry at the present time and that is one of the areas where an awful lot of tradesmen are concerned, heavy equipment operators, electricians, carpenters, plumbers and so forth, steelworkers are unemployed and they stand to not even get enough employment this year to get their stamps for the Winter.

NoN are there any 407':1

July 2, 1982 Tape 1940 NM- 2 MR. NEARY: plans for this government to take advantage o£ the housing money that was made available in Mr. MacEachen's budget the other night? ~at can we expect in the way of construction of houses and other provincial governme n t construction tha t would giv:e a little shot in the arm to the construction industry , that will get a lot of these people back to work] MR.· SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Premier. PRE~1IER PECKFORD: I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr . Neary) has been, but we have tendered already, just in Transportation alone, $.47,121,000 as of this morning. MR. NE?-RY: A lot of that was last year ' s Tur-ds. ~n7 ~t

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1941 SD - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. PREMIER PECKFORD: Jones Construction, that is a Newfoundland company, they have a contract for $1.6 million; Western Construction - $2.4 million on the West Coast; F.J. Construction Limited, a Newfoundland company - $500,000; Gid Sacrey - $500,000; Twillingate Construction - $681,000; Western Construction again - $5 million; Western Construction - $4 million - MR. NEARY: A lot of them are last year's stuff. PREMIER PECKFORD: - Viking Construction - $5.8 million, brand new; D.A. Construction - $500,000; Western Construction - $2.5 million; H. J.

O'Connell - $391,000, down in Wabush; Avalon Construction of St. John's doing a ferry terminal; Pelley Enterprises of Springdale doing a $500,000 wharf somewhere; Western Construction another $500,000; Lundrigans - $1.3 million; Penney Black Top- $300,000; McNamara- $2.1 million. MR. NEARY: All last year's work. PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. NEARY: SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, all new this year - Paying for last year. Oh, oh. PREMIER PECKFORD: - new tenders. No, no, this year, Mr. Speaker, this year, these are all new tenders out this year. MR. NEARY: Paying for last year. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, no.

I can give the bon. member the name of the project. Allied Chemical Canada Limited, H.J. O'Connell-$800,000; Trident Construction- $300,000; Suburban Construction - $400,000; McNamara again, $3.2 million; Penney Construction - $800,000; Penney Black Top $700,000; Penney Construction - $191,000; McNamara - $1.1 million; Lundrigans - $300,000; Penney Construction - $694,000; Lundrigans - $500,000; Short's Construction - $1.1 million; Avalon Construction again - $640,000; Penney Black Top - $508,000; Penney Road Builders Limited, Penney Black Top - $400,000 and $500,000; Harry Cooper, Hynes Construction, li07S

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1941 PREMIER PECKFORD: Churchill, Sun Construction, Adams Aggregate, Penney Paving, Canon Construction, Penney Road Builders , Modern Paving and D.A. Construction for SD - 2 $47 mi~lion. And, Mr . Speaker, projects which are advertised , that is $47 million already let out on roads · alone. There is another $6.3 million for which there are tenders in the paper today and yesterday and this week 1and next week there will be tenders in for another $12.2 million, Mr. Speaker.

So on roads alone I think we are trying to do what we can to stimulate the heavy construction industry and those people who have machinery and that kind of thing . And as you can see, a lot of companies: around the province are winning the bids on these contracts ·. In water and sewer we are going to be upwards to $30 million in addition to wh .at I have just said here of about $60 million - $30 million or more on water and sewer. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook). is doing a fantistic job trying to get those tenders out and getting construction. MR.

NEARY: When can we get into this water and sewerage? PREMIER PECKFORD: As soon as we get all the tenders out • You know, that takes s·ome time. MR. NEARY: What about th .e rest of the road work? PREMIER PECKFORD: Then, Mr. Speaker, what did we do? We went ahead and allotted over $2 million for the Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology to try to move that. We have given ou t ~£n7~=:

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1942 ah-1 contracts to the engineering companies to do the design on the extension to this building, to try to help out. The Minister of Education (Ms Verge) is involved in the School for the Deaf for a new building there to try to help the construction industry. And there is a new correctional centre going down in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to try to help. We are finishingoff the one at Bishon Falls and the one in Clarenville. Holy smoke~ Everywhere you turn to have to get out of the way from the tenders that are going out in the paper from the government who are trying to uplift and help out.

Housing~ he talks about housing. I was really amazed, Mr.Speaker, when the federal government carne up with a $3,000 grant. We have had a $1,500 grant in existence for the last two or three years. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: And we are only one tenth the Canadian economy and we can do half as good, only one tenth and we can do half as good . We are only ten per cent but we do fifty per cent. MR.NEARY: If we had more time in the Question Period we would be right back to normal again. PREMIER PECKFORD: And what did we do? We subsidized all the serviced lots in the Province.

In some places, in Cowan Heights I am told, in St. John's, some places we have a subsidy of $7,000 on a housing lot, a subsidy of $7,000 for a lot. Talk about $3,000 a house! We have $7,000 a lot in Newfoundland. MR.NEARY: Do not get nasty now. PREMIER PECKFORD: And that is not only in St. John's. That is every place where Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has these housing lots and that is all over the il077

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1942 ah-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Province and in Labrador. So when you look at it $175 million net, $175 million.And then you have Upper Salmon and Cat Arm going full blast and we are getting tenders out in the paper. I think, Mr.Speaker, we are doing a fantastic job myself. I think we are doing a super job. As a matter of fact we are doing so good it is almost time for another election. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. WARREN: MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Mountains. MR. WARREN: Hear, hear! Mr.Speaker. The hon. member for Torngat Mr. Speaker, maybe I would welcome another election. Why not?

I have a question for the Minister of Rural,Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. Goudie). During last year, last July, the minister and his federal counterpart ,the Hon. John Monroe,signed a federal/provincial native agreement and I think this agreement calls for X number of dollars per year to go into the designated communities in Labrador and in Conne River, Newfoundland, Could the minister advise the House why the monies th.at have been approved on the town level, the council. l.evel,have not been passed over to the councils by his departments? MR.NEAR:Y: The Band councD_ in Conne River?

MR.SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR.GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which particular·communities the hon. member is talking about but as he pointed out there are two separate agreements in place , not one; one for the community of Conne River which will provide funds for the next fours years now,and another one covering seven communities in 407A

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1942 ah-3 MR.GOUDIE: Labrador. And as far as I am aware all funds are being provided that are decided U?on and voted upon · ~ 0 7 q

July 2, 1982 Tape 1943 EC - 1 MR. GOUDIE: by the federal/provincial committees in place to deal with funding. If the gentleman could be more specific in the community, the project 1 perhaps I can provide more information. ·MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: The hon. the member for Well, Mr. Speaker~ I would like to start off with Davis Inlet, with Nain, under the Labrador federal/provincial native agreement, Conne River,with the Newfoundland agreement.

Those are three of the eight towns that have not received their money that has been approved in the last fiscal year, but somewhere along the line there has been a committee set up within his department that all of a sudden is turning down the requests that the council level is saying is nee~ed for the community. Why areofficials of his department stopping funding that is urgently needed in those communities? MR. NEARY: Right on! A good question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr.

Speaker, there is never any move on the part of the staff of my department to deliberately block the funding to any community, be it Nain, Davis Inlet, Conne River or any other under the native peoples agreements. If funding has not been provided, there are usually- without exception, as far as I am aware -legitimate reasons for it not being in. In the case of Davis Inlet, for instance, for several years now the funding for that particular community has gone through an in trust system where officials of my department are involved. But the community has hired ~nAn

July 2, 1982 Tape 1943 EC - 2 MR. GOUDIE: people over the years to train local people to become bookkeepers, accountants and so on, and that is the situation with the community of Davis Inlet. Nain, as far as I am aware, has been receiving funding. If there is a specific problem, all the gentleman has to do is to let me know exactly what the project is and I will get some answers for him.

Finally, in the case of Conne River, there has traditionally been a problem there for quite a number of years, in which the community itself - or, I am sorry, not the community, a committee from the community of Conne River, that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Andrews) and myself met with over a year ago, who seem to have a concerted effort in place in which they want to deal directly with Ottawa, completely by-passing the Province. So there are some difficulties there.

And finally, in the situation in Labrador with the seven communities in Labrador under that agreement, we have just recently put in place a new agreement manager in the person of Mr. Bart Jack, a full-blooded Indian resident of Labrador, to deal with these communities. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. GOUDIE: And things generally are going good. There are rough spots to be ironed out, but I have no particular concerns at this point in time. If the gentleman has, please inform me specifically and I will follow up on it. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! The time for Question Period has expired.

I would like to welcome to the galleries today, a delegation from the Town Council 1&0-91

July 2, 1982 Tape 1943 EC - 3 MR. SPEF_KER (Russell): of Glovertown, the Mayor, Mayor Ackerman, Councillor Warren and one of the town's employees, Mr. Thomas. I welcome you to the galleries today. 4llR'J

July 2, 1982 Tape 1944 PK - 1 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Labour and Manpower . MR. DINN: The bon. Minister of Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question from the hon. member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) with respect to offshore- how many Newfoundlanders currently employed?- the total number of Newfoundlanders hired for offshore rigs since January 1, 1978 , 3,500. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PRESENTDl'G PETITIONS MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, one of the time honoured and basic rights of people living in the British Commonwealth under our form of government is that of petitioning its government. I am delighted this morning to present this petition, and, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I get a little disconcerted that the$e petitions do not get the recognition that they deserve. A lot of these petitions come from the rural areas of this Province, and these petitions are very important to the people who have initiated such petitions, but sometimes they go unnoticed.

And if some of these petitions came from the Avalon Peninsula and some of the larger areas of the Province,I am sure that they would be recognized much more than they are. This petition this morning, Mr. Speaker, is a large petition. It is a large petition · It is on behalf of some 1,000 residents of Glovertown,signed by approximately 1,000 people in Glovertown, Mr. Speaker, from ~ n B':"~

_._ July 2, 1982 MR. LUSH: MR. NEARY: MR. LUSH: Tape 1944 PK- 2 one town. That is a big petition. Glovertown is one of the largest towns in Newfoundland, __ one of the largest rural towns, and this petition is signed by approximately 1,000 residents. That represents, Mr. Speaker, a third of the total population of Glovertown and it represents about 90 per cent of the voting population. It represents over 90 per cent of the adult population of Glovertown. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a large petition. The petition, Mr.

Speaker, has to do with the government granting funds in this fiscal year for the extension of a water and sewer system in the town. Mr. Speaker, I will go right to the petition before bringing out other points in support of the petition. "To the hon. House of Assembly the petition of we, the undersigned residents of and the electors in the town of Glovertown requests the ~cial governuer to speed up the process of granting loans to the town for the installation of a water and sewerage system.

"The installation of a water and sewerage system was begun in 1966, and today, some sixteen years later,there is still a large

section of the town still without these services. In view of the length of time involved and,much more importantly ,in view of the severe health problem in those areas not serviced caused by inadequate sewerage disposal and thus ~084

.,..._ - July 2, 1982 Tape 1945. NM- 1 MRo LUSH: polluting privately existing we.ll and water systems, in view of these facts we do urgently request the provincial government to allocate funds thl:s: fiscal year to allow the town to take care of the problem and to permit safe and orderly development of the town~' That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I support the petition wholeheartedly. Mr. Speaker, one of the complications of servicing the area that is not now serviced,of course,is caused by the Terra Nova River.

And naturally the town does not want to pollute this river,although it might get polluted by the existing sewerage systems that are now there, privately owned of course. But this is what will make the system expensive because we have to put in the proper treatment plant. And the Council of Glovertown certainly want to keep the Terra Nova River clean - 'great fishing river that it is, Mr. Speaker, one of the great fishing rivers in Newfoundland - and they want to keep that river from being polluted.

But unfortunately with the existing systems that are th~re now 1 already raw sewerage is running out into the river and into the roads causing, as I said, a severe health problem and this is why it is important. Glovertown, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most prosperous towns in Newfoundland. It was a logging and lumbering town. Today Glovertown is very famous for its boat building and ship building, probably becoming the capital in Newfoundland for boat building and ship building.

Speak to anyone right throughout Newfoundland and they know of the great craftsmanship that exists in Glovertown with respect to boat building and ship building, people of tremendous initiative, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to report that the free enterprise system is alive and well in Glovertown. I expect that there are more contractors in Glovertown than in any other town in Newfoundland on a per capita basis. So it is a thriving and ~&nFJs

JJr-=' - July 2, 1982 Tape 19 .45 NM - 2 MR. LUSH: industrious town. It has. overcome., Mr. Speaker, several fires in the town, overcome almost the wh ole town being wiped out . They have overcome that and still they have built a beautiful and prosperous town . It is on the . periphery of the Terra Nova NatLonal Park and still a large

section of the town on the periphery of t.he Terra Nova National Parks is without water and sewer. And, Mr . Speaker, as I said , Glovertown was incoporated in 1954, it was in 1966 that they got their first grant for water and sewerage and, Mr . Speaker, they were one of the first towns to bring in the property tax, one of the first towns to &ring in the property tax so that they could qualify naturally for the guaranteed loan system for putting in water and sewer systems. They were one of the first towns to bring in the !&ORR

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1946 MJ - 1 MR. T. LUSH: property tax. So , Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that the government certainly did something to speed up the process of putting water and sewer in this rapidly growing town, in this prosperous little town, and to ensure, .as the petition says, 'the safe and orderly development of the town.' So, Mr. Speaker, I support the petition wholeheartedly and certainly hope that the government can do something in this fiscal year because, Mr. Speaker, it was in 1980 that they received their last funding.

So they received no funding in 1981, they have received no funding to date in 1982, they do not know whether they are going to get it but it is getting late. They do not know whether they will get it or not. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The time for the hon. member has expired. MR. LUSH: So, Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion I would like to say that I support the petition wholeheartedly and if Glovertown gets no money this year, this will be the third year that they have got no money to put water and sewer in this large and thriving town of rural Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

Order, please! Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. H. Newhook), I would like to welcome to the galleries Mrs. Millicent Loder, the Deputy Mayor of Northwest River- Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. 4nR7

~ July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1946 MJ - 2 MRS. 8. NE\'lHOOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr . Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for eloquently presenting the petition on behalf of the people of Glovertown. I recognize the problem that the council is having. Of course, 1.,hen you have a municioality tha ·t is partially serviced with water and sewer , then everyone in the town is looking for the same service . I am very l'tap?y to be able to report, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent $2,330,000 in Glovertown • 4!1RR

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1947 SD - 1 AN HON. MEMBER: How much? MRS. NEWHOOK: $2,330,000 in Glovertown to date. ·· And I am quite aware of the area to which my hon. colleague is alluding. I think he is talking about the Southside and Saunders Cove, that is the Southside Road. I have been along the Southside Road and I have to agree that it is really a beautiful area and about half of the houses there are located on very large pieces of land. It does not appear to me to be a serious health problem.

And certainly I have checked with onr regional office in Gander and they say that they do not know of a serious or an environmental health problem in Glovertown. Now the problem with servicing the Southside and Saunders Cove is that it is going to be very, very expensive; it is going to cost in excess of $20,000 per household. So, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact, and I would like to emphasize this, that we have had $105 million worth of requests for water and sewer this year- we have been able to provide somewhere around $33 million of that amount - I would certainly be very, very happy if we could just have enough money, enough funding, to do the whole $105 million worth this year but, of course, that is impossible. But, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say that, you know, we have not forgotten Glovertown, that we are looking at it and that we will be trying to get around to servicing this Southside Road and Saunders Cove as soon as it is feasible so to do. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this petition so ably put forward by my han. colleague from Terra Nova (Mr. Lush). The 1,000 signatures on a petition from a town as large as Glovertown sure shows that the people in Glovertown are concerned about their health and safety, 408Q

July 2, 1982 Tape No . 1947 so - 2 MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the minis ter just got up and she said we have already spent $2,330,000 , ~ig deal! What is the good of spending so much money if it does not finish the project? She did the same thing in Rigolet; she spent $1 million in Rigolet and now they have to do it all over again. So what is the good of spending money if it is not spent wisely? And this is what is wrong with the department, they are spend in g money but not spending it wisely . Mr.

Speaker, I can support and I can sympathize with the people in Glovertown, the people in Nain , the people in Davis Inlet. Only one town in my district has water and sewerage and the minister no w has been neglecting Nain for the last three years, just doing a partial phase of the system . And it is federal/provincial money going in there. So, you know, why should not the people all throughout Newfoundland L&nQn

July 2, 1982 Tape 1948 PK - 1 MR. WARREN: and Labrador receive the same courtesy , not just the communities within the P.C. districts, not just these communities? Because we represent Liberal districts,is that why the people there are not supposed to live a healthy and a decent life? Is that why the minister is going ·to play politics with these kind of people? So I suggest to the ministe~ do not worry about spending $2 million,but finish the project. And if the project is finished,then the people in Glovertown and the people in other parts of Newfoundland will be happy.

They would sooner see a project completed and finished in its totality than to see a partial 1 half-assed job done with it and this is what is happening. The money has been spent in many case~ most unwisely, and I refer again, to the work that was done in Rigolet in the last two years, most unwisely. The Town Council had said to the minister's officials, 'Look,it cannot work. It will not work'. And we found out last year it did not work. And here was $1 million of federal/provincial taxpayers money gone down the drain in Rigolet, and this is just an example of how the minister spent their $1 million.

It was ill-spent. There w~s no thought, in fact, therewere not even any engineers fromher department on site. What a way to spend taxpayers money, Mr. Speaker, on water and sewer. Her department does not even have engineers on site during the construction, especially during the beginning of the construction stages. I can go on. In the hon. member's district of Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) his district the same thing is happening. MR. HODDER: In Kippens. MR. WARREN: In Kippens, for example, there is a project partially done. And again we can see the 4Qq1

~ July 2, 1982 Tape 1948 PK - 2 MR. WARREN : minister is not paying attention to the crucial areas of the Province that needs water and sewer the most. Mr. Speaker, I stand up and I support this petition put forward by 1,000 people in Glovertown, and I hope that the minister will realize once and for all not to play politics with the lives of the people. Everybody needs a decent , healthy and happy life. MR . NEARY: Right on! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Motion No. l- Budget Debate. It was adjourned the last day by the hon. melllber for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Spe ·aker, I believe I have just a few more minutes left in this debate" To conclude my few remarks I would like to say, 1£Qg?

July 2, 1982 Tape 1949 EC - 1 MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that this has been perhaps an interesting session. There has not been very much of substance coming from the government, there has not been very much said about what we are going to do to put bread and butter on the tables of Newfoundlanders, but it has been interesting. As I was saying yesterday, the government has this favourite method, this favourite tactic, of covering up their own inability to put bread and butter on the tables of Newfoundlanders to cover up their own incompetence.

I think a good title for every Hansard that comes out of this House might be 'Attack! Attack! Attack!'. Mr. Speaker, there is not much happens, there is not much of substance, as I said, in some of the things coming from the government. But ~orne of the things that have happened this year in this session have made quite a lively and enjoyable time. I am glad to see the Minister of Fisheries ~. Morgan) is coming back in the House.

For example, I recall, I think it w~s about four weeks ago, to cover up, to try to draw attention away from the interference with the judicial process in this Province, the Minister of Fisheries was going to take the member for Fogo to court. MR. NEARY: into court. MR. TULK: Oh, he was going to drag you I was going to be sued. Now, Mr. Speaker, the phychological effect of that, you would normally think, would damage one's mental health. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I still feel mentally healthy, as mentally as I usually do in any case. And I had thought that my Summer would perhaps L.nq~

-"' July 2, 1982 Tape 1949 EC - 2 MR. TULK: be exciting. You know, I understand that court work is exciting. I have not been in there before. But, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a writ from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). Unless he does that, I have to tell him that I cannot end up in court. Now, Mr. Speaker, I went through yesterday evening a letter that the Premier tabled in this House and I think it - a note that the Premier wrote back across this House to me, and I think it shows the character of the government as the Minister of Fisheries ranting and raving shows his character.

It points out, Mr. Speaker, the childishness and the undemocratic actions of this government as they try to cover up their own inaction, their own incompetence. If they do not like you they will not talk to you. MR. WARREN: Are you going to court? MR. TULK: I am not sure. We will have to wait and see what he does. MR. NEARY: MR . WARREN: to take you to court. MR. TULK: MR. MORGAN: MR. WARREN: your Summer is gone. MR. TULK: Put the question to him. Ask the minister is he going He is not goinq to answe:r i;.hat. You will find out soon enough. Your Summer is upset, boy, Gone!

If this government cannot get their own way, Mr. Speaker, they sulk, they take their marbles and they go ho~e and say, well, 'Loo~, no more, no more,' or otherwise they will attack you and force you to take it to court. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is not much else to say except that the Minister of Fisheries, ~&Qqi;

July 2, 1982 Tape 1949 EC .,. 3 MR. TULK: as I went through his remarks yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) stood over there again and attacked ~£nqc;

July 2, 1982 Tape 1950 NM- 1 MR. TULK: everybody in sight. I think those days the only people who are not feeling the wrath of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) is the union. I think now he finally realizes that the union does represent the fishermen in this Province and he is trying to get on side ~th them. MR. MO~GAN: We are cheek to cheek and heart to heart. MR. TULK: Yes, that is what it seems like. That is what it seems like. You are on the same wave length these days. I suspect that Hr.

Cashin will get the works eventually from the Minister of Fisheries· when there is a problem that comes up with the union that the minister cannot solve, or when there is a problem that comes up that can be blamed on Mr. Cashin. He is pretty good Nith the federal Minister of Fisheries too these days. After he got his whipping in St. Anthony, after he got his whi.pping down in St. Anthony he is pretty good with the Minister of Fisheries. After he got his whLpping on over-the-side sales he is pretty good with the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). MR.

WARREN: well, that is a good batting average - o..o for boD. MR. TULK: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I expect to see them all waltzing around the centre of this House come the Fall. Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks I would ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan} just one simple question, to accept his own responsibilities, to accept what he has to do, and rather than standing up in this House and trying to blame somebody else for the problems in the fisheries,stand up and say that it is. really his job and he intends to do it. ~&niH~

Jul y 2, 1982 Tape 195.0. NM- :2 MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) c When the han. minister speaks he shall close debate. The . hon. Minister of Finance. DR. CO LLIN S: Mr. Speaker 1 r am not going to speak more than just a second or two. The hon. Leade,r of the Opposition (Mr. Ne-ary) has been requesting a number of times that I table something regardin.g our capital accounts. H:e claims that wa have been fiddling the books on capital accounts. Of course, we have not. We have been doing exactly what has been done in previous years. I have bee1;1 attempting to table this for some time but every time r would get up the hon.

Leader of the Opposition got up and I had to sit down again. Anyway now that I am on my feet I am going to table informati .on on this subject 1which shows that we have been doing exactly in terms of capital account what has always ,_- been done in the budgetary process and it is fUlly laid out there.. With those remarks 1 Mr. Speaker 1 we are now debating the motion that the Eouse resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means ,and I move that that resolution be carried. On motion, that the House resolve . i. tself into a Committee of Ways and .Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. t...nq7

July 2, 1982, Tape 1951, Page 1 -- apb COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave it sit again, Mr. Speaker, returned to the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The bon. the Chairman of Committees. MR. CHAIRMAN(Aylward): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have met and considered the matters to them referred, have made progress and ask leave to sit again. On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again, Presently, by leave. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. MR. SPEAKER: Please rise for a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The following message is addressed to the Minister of Finance: 'I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending the 31st. day of March 1983, by way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly. (Sgd) ------ --- "--------------- Lieutenant-Governor." t.nqA

-·~ ..: July 2, 1982, Tape 1951, Page 2 -- apb MR . SPEAKER(Russell): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, t move that the message be referred to the Committee of Supply. On motion, the th~ Bouse resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider the message of His Honour the Lieutenant­ Governor , Mr . Speaker lef t the Chair . COMMITTE E OF SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN(Aylward): Order, please!

RESOLUTION That it is expedient to introduce a measu .re to provide for the grant ing to Ber Majesty for defrayi ng certain expenses of th e Public Se rvice for the financial year ending the 31st . day of March, 1983, the sum of $1 ,007 , 595,400 . On motion, resolution carried . 40Qq

July 2, 1982, Tape 1952, Page l -- apb On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried . On motion, schedule, carried. On motion , a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Pinancia l Year End ing The Thirty -Fir st Day Of March, One Thousand Nine Hundred And Eighty ­ Three And For Other Purpo ses Relating To The Public Ser vice". (Bill No. Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. On motion, th at the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again , Mr .

Spea ker retur ned to the Chair . MR. SPEAKER(Russell): The hon . the Chairman of Committees . MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : Mr . Speake r, the Comm it tee of Supply have considered the matte rs to them referred and direct me to report having passed the amount of $1,007,595,400 . contained in the estimates of supply and ask leave to sit again . On motion , report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again, presently, by leave. On motion, resolution read a first and second time. ~&1nfl

July 2, 1982, Tape 1953, Page 1 -- apb On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending The Thrity­ First Day Of March One Thousand Nine Hundred And Eig~ty-Three_And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 52). Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act". (Bill No. 50). MR. SPEAKER(Russell): The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. Mr.

Speaker, I am going to be relatively brief. Basically we have amendments to three sections of the Workers' Compensation Act, and it is very well laid out in the explanatory notes. The objective of the amendments to

Section 11, is to provide that a worker or his dependents can claim compensation, and may also commence an action against a third party, that party not covered by the _workers' Compensation Act. It will also provide that a worker who does claim compensation may take an action on his own behalf rather than have his rights subrogated to the board, who would then take an~ ·action that might be possible.

Section 46 is also to be amended and that comes out of the review committee report on Workers' Compensation that was 41[11

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1954 SD - 1 MR. DINN: presented to the department in December and basically the recommendation was recommendation twenty-one of sixty-seven re­ commendations. And that provides the right of the Lieutenant­ Governor in Council to provide for the method of calculating compensation under the act or the manner in which compensation is to be paid. As hon. members will remember, on March 25th, at a news conference,I indicated that the compensation paid to surviving dependants would be changed and this gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the right to change it from here on in when it is deemed necessary. The amendment to

Section 57 basically is to provide that the limitation period for making claims,which is presently six months,may be extended by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by order in respect of an accident described in the order. It also provides that such an order may have an effect from the date of the order or such earlier date or later date as may be set out therein. And basically what that does is, in the case, for example, of the tragedy offshore with the Ocean Ranger, people would have had to have applied within a six month period for their compensation or it would expire.

And basically what this does is provide for the Lieutenant­ Governor in Council,with cases such as these 1 to extend the period and to make that extension retroactive. And that, Mr. Speaker, of course, in the case of the tragedy offshore, is what the Lieutenant-Governor in Council intends to do. So that basically covers it. The explanatory notes in the bill cover it in a little more detail. So, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down now and wait for debate on the bill and, of course, answer any questions that hon. members may have with respect to the amendments. I& Hl?

July 2, 1982 MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : MR. NEARY: Tape No. 1 954 SD - 2 Mr. Speaker. The hon . Leader of the Oppos ::.tion. Mr. Speaker, this J.s a major cnange in the Workers' Compa~sation Act . Before these amendments become law, as hon. members know, it was impossible for a worker who was injured and received Norkers ' Compensation to take an action against his employer. The actio11 had to be taken by the Workers' Compensation Board . h 1 n'1

July 2, 1982 Tape 1955 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: This change now is brought about, I would suspect - I did not hear everything the hen. gentleman said but I would assume this is as a result of the Ocean Ranger tragedy, when attention was drawn to the fact that families of those who lost their lives on the Ocean Ranger would not be able to initiate an action in a Canadian court if they applied for Workers' Compensation. And this created a bit of a problem for the families of men who were lost on the Ocean Ranger. So we are going to vote for this, Mr. Speaker. We think it is a good amendment to the act.

When I first found out about it after the Ocean Ranger t~agedy, I could not understand why families of the workeffi who lost their lives,could not initiate an action if the family, or the worker himself in case of injury, received Workers' Compensation. But then I discovered that this is pretty well the pattern across Canada. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. NEARY: That is the (inaudible). That is right.

And,I would think,from my visit to Washington in connection with Bill HR4863,from the bits and pieces of information I picked up from the lawyers and from the congressmen that I met in Washington, that it is pretty well the pattern across the United States. And an awful lot of people disagree with it. Now, I presume that these amendments will be of general application and just not apply to the Ocean Ranger situation. Is that the - MR. DINN: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: application? MR. DINN: They will be of general I will have it - (inaudible). b. 1 n 1,

.n.. July 2, 1982 MR. NEARY: MR. DINK: Tape 1955 EC - 2 Well, I need the answer now. ~ith respect to the right to suef I r~an, that is of general application, that is

section 11. MR. N.EARY: That has been taken out of the act and anybody in futur.e., any family or any - MR. DINN: And anybody, any third party not,covered by Workers' Compensation. MR. · NEARY: Right. Well, as I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a major reform to the act and it is a good move. I do not know what headaches it will - perhaps the hon. gentleman oould tell us what pitfalls, what headaches it might create for the Workers' Compensation Board, if any.

But I think it is only right and proper that a worker or a worker's ,family can apply for Workers' Compensation and at the same time take an action against his employer for negligence or for any other reason, for that matter. so one thing that has come out of the Ocean Ranger tragedy, Mr. Speaker, are these amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. I might s·~y that I am still 'Very disappointed that the administration have not t.aken any initiative with regard to ~ 1f ! t;

July 2, 1982 Tape 1956 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: Bill HR 4863. If that bill is amended, Mr. Speaker, before the United States House of Representatives, if that bill is passed, then in the event,and let us hope that we will n~ver have another tragedy, but you n~ver know, in the event of los .s of life or injury of workers offshore, if thi.s bill is amended in the United States then in future residents of Canada will not be able to take an action in the United States.

We were told in the Throne Speech that the administration was going to have a resolution passed in this House unanimously, and sent off -we were planning on sending the Speaker, His Honour, to Washington to meet with the Sp~ker of the House of Representatives and bring a resolution from the House objecting to this amendment to Bill HR 4863. Nothing has happened. Mr. Speaker, I was greatly disappointed that I was not joined by a member of government when I travelled to Washington, and I went on two occasions.

The first trip I made to Washington was to strongly object to any amendment that would bar,what they call foreign aliens or foreign workers from ini.tiating an action in the United States Courts resulting from injury or death on a semi-submersible rig. And semi-submersible rigs in the eyes of the United States shippers, the United States Coast Guard - they are floating - they are considered to be in the same category as a ship.

So if they are successul in getting this amendment through,then never again will a Canadi.an, a Newfoundlander who is employed on these rigs that fly the United States flag, or a service vessel that fli.es the United States flag, never again wi.ll they be able to initiate an action in the United States Courts. And that is a terrible situation, Mr. Speaker. 41 fH~

\loL Jul y 2, 1982 Tapa 195.6 N?:t - 2 MR. NEARY: When I went to Washington to object to this, it was about tw:o or three weeks after the Ocean Ra·ngar tragedy, and the. congressman, the Suh-c~i.ttee. on Merchant Marine and Fisheri.as in tha Uni. ted States were­ terribly embarrassed about t11e fact that this bill ~vas being debated, this amendme-nt to the bi~l was being debated right at a time when we had the worst marine tragedy since the Second World War off the Coast of Newfoundland. 1£1iP

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1957 ah-1 MR NEARY: They were embarrassed about that but they had posted the time and place of the meetings, they had asked for submissions and they could not cancel it. And I am sure that if they had their time back they would have changed the timing of the meeting. But, Mr.Speaker, I was really disappointed,and I got a very lonely feeling when I was in that room in the Longworth Building in Washington,that I was not supported by a representative from the administration.

It was only later, it was only after the fact, later on, when they saw the implications of it that they became concerned about it. MR. WARREN: When you went up, when you were in there first. MR.NEARY: No, it was not a question of one-upmanship. It was not a question of playing political games. That was not it at all, Mr.Speaker. The fact of the matter is that it was as plain as the nose on your face that somebody had to intervene and make representation on behalf of Newfoundland before all the families of the men who lost their lives on the Ocean Ranger could have been barred.

They could have been barred from taking an initiative. My hon. friend,the member for Mount Scio (Mr.Barry) 1 who represents a number of these families,would have discovered in short-order that that amendment to the bill at the time, although later the Chairman of the committee announced that it would not be retroactive,but the oil companies and the people who operated the service vessels and who owned the rigs wanted to make it retroactive. They wanted to make the bill effective the day it became law,which could have been a couple of months ago,if it had not been objected to.

And it could have become law before the actions were taken in the United States courts. My hon. friend is aware of that. They said, yes, it is not going to be 4 1 1.: R

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1957 ah-2 MR. NEARY: retroactive but it would become effective the very day it was passed and that would have meant that if the actions were not taken in the United States courts at that particular time, whatever date it was, whether it was May 1st or June 1st, after that date no more actions in the United States co urts. 4 1 fz q

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1958 MR. NEARY: I think that I can claim some credit for getting the situation clarified, for persuading the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Biaggi :- Biaggi, I think is the right pronunciation of his name- a Congressman from New York, Mario Biaggi, who was very courteous, who treated me exceptionally well in Washington. And all the other Congressmen whom I met were most courteous and decent and very concerned about the problems involving offshore workers, very concerned about it, more concerned at that time, Mr.

Speaker, than the authorities in Canada~ I can guarantee hon. members that, that the United States Congress was quick off the mark to start up hearings and investigate the Ocean Ranger tragedy, very quick off the mark. They were very concerned about it. I was tremendously impressed and I realized,as I sat in that room that day and was questioned by the members of the sub-committee of Merchant Marine and Fisheries for an hour and a half -and I was only supposed to get ten minutes, Mr. Speaker, at the end.

Because bon. members will realize that I was not there representing the Canadian government or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and they were going to slide me in,ten minutes at the end,to make my presentation and then I would be lucky if I got my ten minutes. They did not have to do it,because I was not going through diplomatic circles. Mr. MacGuigan had refused to send a representative to Washington on this matter. I wanted him to do it, merely as an observer. And I wrote the Premier and asked the bon. gentleman to send a representative from this Province.

So I was not going through diplomatic circles. And everybody in Washington was walking on egg­ shells, afraid that the diplomatic boat was going to be rocked. I understood that, Mr. Speaker, and lo and behold when I got there I met a 411 n SD - 1

July 2, 1982 Tape 1959 NM- 1 MR. NEARY: Congressman from Michigan who I will be indebted to for the rest of my life, a congressman by the name of Dennis Hertell,who opened up all the doors for me in Washington. Mr. Hertell is a member of the Committee, and instead of getting last place, a few minutes at the end, I was placed number one on the agenda that day and spent an hour and a half - I made about a twelve or fourteen minute presentation to the Cornrni ttee I which nad a bigger attendance that day than it has had in recent years, Mr. Speaker, because they were very concerned about the Ocean Ranger disaster.

And I was placeq number one on the list. I made a presentation of twelve or fourteen minutes and then I was cross-examined for about an hour and a half by various members of the Committee. And it was a good session, Mr. Speaker. And if I never,ever did anything else in public life,I am proud of that. I was there representing not only Newfoundland families but I was representing Canada, and I was representing merchant seamen and families all around the world. Does Your Honour understand that this amendment does not only apply to Newfoundland?

If this amendment is passed it will bar foreign nationals, and in Canada we are considered in the eyes of the Americans to be foreign nationals, aliens, and that bill, that amendment, would have stopped all families, everywhere in the world that work on rigs and service vessels that fly the United States flag, that if compensation . was available in that country,as it is here in Canada~hat they would not be entitled to take an action in the United States courts. There is a big debate going on in the United States over this matter, Mr. Speaker, quite a debate going on.

Because an awful lot of the elected representatives in the United States feel that the United States courts are a soft touch, that lawyers take action in the United States courts because the settlements are more generous than they are in Canada or any other part of the world. And they are beginning to feel supersensitive L. 1 1 1

July 2, 1982 Tape. 1959 NM - 2 MR . NEARY : about thl,s down in the Uni:ted States·. I do no t know if it is true or whether i:t has any validity ( I do not think it does, r think when an action is taken into a United States cou r t, as in the Canadian court , that people feel they are justified in t aking that action . And what price can you put on a human li:fe, Mr. S'peak .er? 411 ?

July 2, 1982 Tape 1960 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: And what price can you put on a human life, Mr. Speaker? Maybe you had lawyers, you may have had some lawyers who have abused the system. You have what they call in the United States the ambulance chasers, and we found them in Newfoundland after the Ocean Ranger tragedy. They were in here in droves, the ambulance chasers, and I met some of them when I was in Washington. But, Mr. Speaker, I expect the former Minister of Energy (Mr. Barry) will participate in this debate.

He has gained a tremendous wealth of experience now in the last several months dealing with a lot of these cases in the United States courts. And there is another thing too, Mr. Speaker. Our own lawyers here in Newfoundland departed from tradition on this matter. Up to the time of the Ocean Ranger tragedy they were used to dealing with fee for service. As a matter of fact, to do otherwise is contrary to the code of ethics of the Newfoundland Law Society.

To charge a contingency fee is against the code of ethics of the Newfoundland Bar Society, and yet, our iawyers threw their principles out the window again and despite warnings from the Bar Society, have now departed from tradition and are taking their share of the contingency fees collected by the lawyers in the United States. That is how they operate in the United States, but not in Canada. Buti am afraid that our lawyers here have yielded to the temptation, Mr.

Speaker, and they are going to take a percentage nowof whatever the settlement is in the United States courts,or whatever percentage the legal firm in the i1111

July 2, 1982 Tape 1960 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: United States gets, the lawyers in Newfoundland will get a percentage of that. And that is a complete departure from tradition, and, I would suspect , in order to make it look right , the Bar Society are going to have to amend their code of ethics in order to cover that situation. 4 11 I.

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1961 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, just getting back to the Washington trip for a moment again, I was extremely proud of that presentation - MR. TULK: You should be too. MR. NEARY: - but greatly disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that it took so long for the administration here to move. Before the election they were going to introduce a resolution in the House, in the Throne Speech they said they were going to introduce a resolution . Nothing has been done yet and I can tell the House now, Mr.

Speaker, that that proposal is still before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fishery. And on June 17th I received a notification from Washington, it is called a mark-up notice, to members of the Sub-committee on Merchant Marine, that a meeting was going to be held on June 24th, 1982, the time 10:00 a.m. in the Longworth Building in Washington.

And the purpose of it was to discuss four items, and one of the items was HR4863, to modify the maritime laws applicable to the recovery of damages by certain foreign workers. 'Please submit your proposed amendmentp to the sub-committee's staff room in 531 House Annex 2 by the close of business on Tuesday, June 22nd, 1982~ I did not get time to reply, so I had my secretary call Mrs. Meller, the clerk on the sub-committee,and ~am told that they postponed the meeting. They had ~o postppne the meeting, they were not ready to proceed. AN HON'. MEMBER: What meeting? MR.

NEARY: ~he meeting that is taking place in Washington on this bill that I have been talking about. They postponed their meeting. So that gives the administration now an opportunity to make the representation that they said that they were going to make. And, Mr. Speaker, here is one time when I can offer the administration a helping hand. I have been in Washington twice. T.he second time I 1&11t:;

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1961 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: went was as an observer on the hearings on the cause of the tragedy. But, Mr. Speaker, I will help the government in any way I can to l& 11 R

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1962 MJ - 1 MR. S. NEARY: make a presentation to this Committee. But I think we have to act quickly, we cannot delay any longer. If we are going to make any meaningful presentation, any worthwhile presentation that will have any impact or effect on this Committee,we have to act right away. Because, Mr. Speaker, the reason I say that, the rigs are still off our coast, the service vessels are still here, there will be more rigs off our coast flying the United States Flag.

And I think it is nothing short of discrimination for the United States Congress to bar Newfoundlanders or Canadians from initiating an action in the United States courts as a result of an injury or death on one of these rigs. So, Mr. Speaker, we should make our move in a hurry. And the Government of Canada should also make a move to sort out and straighten out the jurisdictional problem that exists between Canada and the United States, as far as these rigs are concerned.

We can bring in all the safety regulations we want, the Government of Canada can pass all the safety regulations they want,but if these rigs that are flying United States Flags, if they say, 'No, you are not inspecting our rigs, we are not putting them on dry dock. We think the structure of these rigs is satisfactory. We think they are seaworthy 1 " what can Newfoundland or the Government of Canada do? I suppose we can cancel their pennits. He can do that, cancel their permits to drill. But how about if Canada sits back like they are doing now and says, 'Okay, that is fine?

The United States Coast Guard and the United States Registry of Shipping have the right to inspect their own rigs that fly the United States Flag, okay, that is fine.' How about if the Government of Canada says, 'Yes, we will give you a permit to operate on the Grand Banks.' And the Province says, 'No. We are not giving you a permit.' What would happen in a case like that? They can operate with one 1.& 11 7

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1962 MJ - 2 MR. S. NEARY: permit, can they not? There is a big jurisdictional problem here, Mr . Speaker. Canada does not recognize United ~tates jurisdiction within the 200 mile management zone. And therein lies the problem. ~ 11 A

July 2, 1982 Tape 1963 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: That is one of the reasons why the Canadian regulations that our Provincial Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) keeps referring to, that is why they could not be enforced. I found that out in no uncertain terms when I attended these hearings in Washington! that the Canadian regulations could not be enforced. All Canada was doing, Mr . Speaker, and the hon. gentleman knows this, they were just doing the housekeeping safety, enforcing if a door was not secured properly and that sort of thing. They were not inspecting the rigs to see if they were sea­ worthy.

They were not inspecting the rigs to see how they were constructed. The United States Coast Guard was doing that. And hon. members must know that,because there was a United States Coast Guard ordered to inspect the rig the day it went down, He was on his way,in Maine, on his way to inspect the rig when she sank. And so, Mr. Speaker, we are still in a bit of a quandry, we are still in a bit of a vacuum as far as our own local regulations are concerned. Can they be enfored? The miryister told us, yes, we will even go as far as to canceJ the permit. But that is no good, Mr.

Speaker, unless the Government of Canada cance~ their permit. There are two permits issued to these rigs drilling off our shores, a provincial and 'a federal permit. And the oil companies and the drilling companies can operate under one permit ,and they would be perfectly within their right and within the law. And so unless there is co-operation between the provincial and federal governments to take joint action in the case of provincial regulations not being enforced, if we cancel our permit then Ottawa should be prepared to cancel their permit. That is the only way the thing will work, or vice versa.

If Ottawa sees something wrong and they want to cancel their permit 1 then the Province could turn , around and say, no, as far as we are concerned 411 q

July 2, 1982 Tape 1963 PK - 2 MR. NEARY : everything is okay, and we are going to let them keep drilling. Mr. Speaker, all of these matters have to be sorted out quickly. Because as long as ~~ese rigs and these service vessels are there exposed to the savage storms and the conditions of the North Atlantic, there is always a potential danger, and a potential tragedy lurking in the backg~ound . And that raises the question again whether or not these rigs should be allowed to drill after late Fall, 41?n

July 2, 1982 Tape 1964 MR. NEARY: whether they should be permitted to drill in the Winter months? And you cannot hide behind the commission of inquiry, EC - 1 Mr. Speaker, that was slow getting off the mark. You cannot hide behind that. They are entrenched now down in the telephone building with a suite of offices, hiring a staff of twenty-five or thirty and they are going to be dug in for the next three or four years. It may be three to four years before we get a report from that royal commission. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that in itself is shameful.

But the administration cannot hide behind that commission and say, 'Well, let them look after it. Why do we have a commission if we have to make the decisions?' A decision has to be made soon as to whether or not these rigs will be allowed to drill out there next Winter. Mr. Speaker, the only time, I suppose, that John Crosbie and myself ever agreed was when he had the courage to speak out against the federal and provincial governments for the embarrassing delays in the start-up of the royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster. That is the only time, I suppose, we ever agreed. And it looks now, Mr.

Speaker, like it is going to be October or November before this commission meets. The people's money is being spent on such things as luxurious office space, brand new furnishings, hiring on twenty-five or thirty memberson a staff who will be on the people's payroll for anywhere from three to four years. Mr. Speaker, if more elected members had joined with us, we probably would L. 1 ? 1

Jul y 2, 1982 Tape 19 64 .EC - 2 MR. NEARY: not have had the delay that we are having in that inquiry. Perhaps the two levels of government would have put an end to this procrastina­ tionr Mr. Speaker, and bureaucratic nightmare. I think it is shameful, it is uncalled for and it is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker 1 ·there is another thing in connection with this whole sad affair that I am rather proud of 1 and that is the fact that it was a Liberal admini .stration that covered the workers on the offshore rigs, in the first instance, under Wo1:'kers' compensation.

And I happened to be acting Minister of Labour when that happened. MR. TULK: Everything that was started in this Province for the past twenty-five years. MR. NEARY: Well; I am not going to play politics with it,but I am making a statement of fact. The records are there · to show that it , was a Liberal administration. And, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Government of that day had not covered the workers on offshore rigs, if we had not flown in the face of all logic, 1£1??

July 2,1982 Tape No . 1965 ah-1 MR.NEARY: if we had not taken control and covered these workers under Workers' Compensation 1 the Ocean Ranger tragedy could have been probably much worse than it was 1 if that is possible. The workers were out there - the Sedco_Oil, I think it was that sailed into Newfoundland waters,and we were faced with the situation because it was considered to be semi-submersible,the same as a ship, the same as a vessel. And ships and vessels ,as hon. members know,are not covered under Workers' Compensation. There is no Workers' Compensation for merchant seaman as far as I know.

There maybe some burial expenses,but no Workers' Compensation. So we had to take a major decision, a very dramatic decision which we took. Andi am proud to say that we took it and we covered the workers on these rigs,otherwise they would not h~ve been covered. And I happened to be the acting Minister of Labour when that happened , Mr.Speaker.

And not only did we provide some coverage for these workers, but we asserted at that time, Mr.Speaker, despite ail the criticism and all the remarks that come from the other side, what we did at that time, we asserted outright, Mr.Speaker, Newfoundland jurisdiction over offshore. Once we covered the workers we asserted our independence, we asserted our right to own the offshore.A,nd we m.;i..ght have set a precedent, Mr.Speaker, that can be used in the present court case.

I would say one of the strongest arguments that this administration, that this Province has in the present court case over the ownership of the offshore,and may prove to be the key argument in Newfoundland's case,is the fact that Ottawa did not challenge what we did. We covered the I& 1 ? 1

.July 2,1982 Tape No . 1965 ah-2 MR.NEARY: workers, we .asserted our right to ownership by covering worker~. by providing Workers' Compensation, and Ottawa did not challenge what we did. MR. TULK: That is one that they never thought about then, \.,hen was H:? MR . NEARY: That was back in 1971. MR. STAGG: That was one that vou did a good job on . HR. NEARY: We certainly did do a good job. And that is not the only good job we did. And, these accomplishplents w-ere made, by the v1ay, without squabbling and without fanfare and without destroying federal/ provincial relations. 1-!R. STAGG: Oh! Now you are going on about it. 4 1 ~ L

July 2, 1982 Tape 1966 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: MR. TULK: to hear sarething you should be quite . MR. NEARY: No 1 I am not, Mr. Speaker. N:lw, listen to him. If you want So, Mr. Speaker, it is taking me a long while to get around to saying that I am going to support these amendments. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: But I wish I had more time to talk about this matter. Because ,as far as I am concerned, the Ocean Ranger disaster and the repercussions of that tragedy will be felt for a long time in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

And as far as I am concerned,the disaster has never been thoroughly debated in this House, has not had the exposure in this House and the attention that it should have gotten.And that has been a source of disappointment to me, Mr. Speaker. But anyway, getting back to the amendments, Mr. Speaker, we are going to support the amendments on this side of the House. Unfortunately , these amendments would not have come about if it had not been for the Ocean Ranger tragedy. And there will be an awful lot of other things - AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true. MR. NEARY: these amendments would not be - MR. MAR:lHALL: MR.

NEARY: That is true. Mr. Speaker, Which one? I am talking about the one that restricts workers and their families from taking an action against their employer for such things as negligence. That amendment to this act would never have come about this day if it had not been for the Ocean Ranger tragedy. 41/!i

July 2, 1982 Tape 1966 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: So the only thing I can say in clueing up, Mr. Speaker, let us hope that these men did not give their lives in vain . Let us hope that there will be other improvements, and other good things result from the tragedy, if that is possible. Unfortunately it took a tragedy of this magnitude to jolt the authorities into a real world, into a world of reality as far as the offshore drilling and servicing is concerned . It is a hazardous occupation, Mr. Speaker. And we should pay more attention to it in future.

And we should not allow the lives of our men and our people to be placed in jeopardy as a result of our negligence . So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to support these amendments. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for Mount Scio. MR. BARRY: of procedure Mr. Speaker, as a matter L1 2R

'· July 1, 1982 Tape No. 1967 MJ - 1 MR . L . BARR Y: under

Section 6 of the Conflict Of Interest Act, before speaking on this matter I have to declare conflicting interests because of the fact that I represent a number of peonle 111ho will have an interest in this legislation once passed. The provision is that once I declare my interest I am entitled to speak on the matter. But for the record, Mr. Speaker, I have not voted on first or second reading and I would not be able to vote without a resolution of the House so entitling, which I will not be requesting, Mr. Speaker, but I will for the record abstain from voting. Mr.

Speaker, I think the government is to be complimented for the bringing in of this legislation. It is a step which indicates that this is a government with a heart. It is a government which is prepared to recognize when the laws of the Province should be brought up to date in order to deal with what would have been, I submit, an inequitable situation.

Anc it is a matter which should have been corrected, not just for the Ocean Ranger situation, but as has been indicated, it will now be a matter of general application, tl~t where a worker is injur~d he will be able to take action as well as accepting compensation, take action t~at is against third parties. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. There are two minor points - well,one is not minor- which will be, hopefully, discussed in cornrnittee,which I have raised with the minister introducing the bill and with the Government House Leader (Mr. W.

Marshall), and I would like to refer, just for a moment, to subsection 5 of

section ll 1

whereas it stands now the board must recover the amount of any compensation paid. And what has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, by myself 1 is that there should be a bit more flexibility written into that one

section in order to permit the board, if it should so approve, to negotiate a settlement or to participate in a settlement with L. 1 I 7

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1967 MJ - 2 MR. L. BARRY: third parties who may be liable with potential claimants under the board. Andthis would permit, Mr. Speaker, in some situations,for injured employees U /R

... July 2, 1982 Tape 1968 EC - l MR. BARRY: or in the case of a situation such as the Ocean Ranger where we have a death, the employees' dependants, it would permit them, in some cases,to be able to bring about a settlement of a damage claim without having to go to trial. If the board were prepared, for example, to accept 50 per cent of the compensation paid as part of a deal where the dependents accept so much less than they would have gotten if they went to court, it might be possible for the dependents to save an awful lot of time, expense ,and possibly the risk of losing if they should go to court.

So I would submit that this is something which is a matter of considerable importance and that

Section 5 - and this will be raised again in Committee - that

Section 5 should probably be amended. And I am not moving an amendment, Mr. Speaker, but I am suggesting that when it comes to Committee

Section 5 should be amended to read, after the fifth sentence where it says, "The worker· or dependents shall return to the board the amount of compensation," it should read, 'The worker or dependant shall, unless the board otherwise approves, return to the board the amount of compensation.' And this would give flexibility. It would not impose any obligation on the board or on government not to recover compensation,but would provide flexibility that might be necessary in order to bring abo~t a negotiated settlement in instances such as we have before us with the Ocean Ranger. Mr.

Speaker, that is all I have to say on the bill. Again, I compliment government and point out that it is an indication 4 1 ? q

July 2, l982 Tape 1968 EC - 2 MR. BARRY: that it is a government with heart as well as the intelligence to update our legislation to ~eet changing circumstances, changing values in society and, Mr . Speaker, I think it is legislation which should receive the support of everyone in the House of Assembly. MR . SPEAKER (Dr . McNicholas) : The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. ~1R. DINN: Mr. Speaker , I thank hon . members for their input to the very important amendments that we have here in the Workers' Compensation bill . "11n

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1969 SD - 1 MR. DINN: There were not very many questions raised. There is a consideration of an amendment to

section 4 and we are currently looking at

section 5, as the hon . member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) pointed out in his remarks. Mr. Speaker, it is also true, for sure, that the Liberal administration covered workers on offshore rigs, I believe it was in 1971. And there was some debate as to, you know, what effect our regulations and so on have on offshore and so on. I just outlined in answer to a question to an hon. member this morning that some 3,500 Newfoundlanders worked on rigs offshore since our regu~ations carne into effect and it seems to me that the companies are living up to many of their obligations.

And, of course, it did not relate to the bill, but the bon. member commented on it and I felt that I should comment back. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we do not have a lot of time to discuss this bill in great detail. It is an important piece of legislation, it is almost a complete change in Workers' Compensation. The hon. member during his speech talked about the possibility that it did not exist in Canada. Well, it does in Saskatchewan and Quebec. MR. NEARY: the pattern across Canada. MR. DINN: I understand it is pretty well Yes.

The pattern across Canada is that every other Legislature have deemed to leave their Workers' Compensation legislation as we have had it in the past. So, Mr. Speaker, without further comment I move second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, presently, by leave. MR. WINDSOR: By · leave, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 56. 6.1:11

-·· July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1969 Motion, the hon . the Minister of Mines to introduce a bill, "An Act To Expropriate The Property Of Advocate Mines Limited," (No. 56), carried. so - 2 On motion, Bill No. 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently, by leave. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Expropriate The Property Of Advocate Mines Limited" . (Bill No. 56) • SOME HON. MEMBERS: Rear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The.hon. Minister of Mines. "1::1?

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1970 NM - 1 MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps with some regret that I introduce this piece of legislation to the hon. House today, yet with no apologies whatsoever, Mr . Speaker. !n fact,this action is being taken because this government once again confirms its con~itment to the resources of this Province,and ensures that they will be utilized for the best interests of the people of this: Provinc 'e. As I s·aid 1 it is with some regret that we find ourselves forced to introduce this piece of legislation to expropriate the assets of Advocate Mines Limited.

I will not belabour the issue, Mr. Speaker. The hon. House is well aware of the background of the situation and the events leading up to today's leads as it relates to the closure of Advocate Mines. And to indicate,first of all,the difficulty that we have been experiencing and the reason for which we are now introducing this legislation, I guess the first example one would quote would be the method by which the mine was closed,back last August 13th.,without any notice to the minister. In fact,as I understand it,the former minister, the member for Mount Scio (Mr.

Barry) 1 heard about the closure of the mine through the media. In spite of the fact that the mine had announced the day previous that some 150 people would be laid off in the short-term, for some three month period, without notice,on the following day,the mine was closed. And through the efforts of the previous minister, Mr. Speaker, the mine was reactivated and 1 in fact 1 operated until the end of December of 1981. Regretfully, of course, the mine closed then and we have been making every effort since that time to reactivate the mine.

We now find ourselves very close, hopefully, to that situation,so that the mine is hopefully scheduled to reopen sometime in August. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we find at least one company that has submitted a proposal, one of a number that hav2 submitted proposals and that considered the possibility 4 1 :11

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1970 NM - 2 MR. WINDSOR: and the feasibility of reactivating Advocate, there is now only that one company that has a firm proposal on the table 1 that being Transpacific Asbestos. MR. NEARY: But there is another company interested? MR. WINDSOR: There is another company, Mr. Speaker, that has now expressed an interest,that we met with a week or so ago, and either today or early next week, hopefully, we will be receiving some information as to their intent,as to whether or not they have a serious intent and will be prepared to put forward a proposal. Nothing in this legislation, Mr.

Speaker, precludes that. I want to emphasize that the door is still wide open for the Lake Asbestos Company, which is the other company that has expressed,perhaps,an interest. Nothing in this legislation precludes that. !n fact,this legislation is indeed enabling legislation which,in order to meet the time tables and the time constraints that we find upon us,in order to be able to supply the markets that have been identified for 1982,it is imperative that that mine be reactivated in early August. And in order to do that, Mr.

Speaker, we must proceed with the orderly transfer of assets from Advocate Mines Limited to a potential new owner, whoever that may be. 411 h

July 2, 1982 Tape 1971 PK - 1 MR. WINDSOR: It has become obvious to us,as I indicated right from the beginnin~ ~ Johns-Manville Company who are the managers of the mine, certainly appear not wanting to - see this mine reactivated. I think that is very clear to all of us who have been involved in these negotiations, the member for Baie Verte (Mr. Rideout) , the former Minister, the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry), myself, my officials, officials of the federal government,including Mr.

Rompkey who has been representing the federal government in this particular issue, that Johns-Manville certainly does not seem to want to see this mine reactivated and, in fact, are doing everything possible to delay the potential take-over, knowing that a loss of market would, in effect, mean that the mine could not be reactivated this year. And if, Mr. Speaker, the mine is not reactivated in l982,that would cast serious doubts on the possibility of being able to break into the market place in 1983 and reactive that mine in 1983.

So that is the gravity of the situation and that is why government finds itself forced at this time to introduce a piece of legislation which provides the government the authority, if it becomes necessary, and only, Mr. Speaker, if it becomes absolutely necessary and if all attempts at negotiations fail,that government would have the authority to expropriate the property. r would hasten to point out that government has the authority to exclude from that expropriation order any of the assets that are deemed not necessary to the orderly take-over of the operation.

In other words,if certain aspects can ne sold or transferred by negotiation,then government would have .that flexibility. 4 1 3 r;

July 2, 1982 Tape 1971 PK - 2 MR. WINDSOR: Perhaps the most important

section in this particular piece of legislation, in this bill, which is really a straightforward piece of legislation,is Item 7 which provides the method of compensation for the assets. And that, Mr. Speaker, simply points out that compensation will be determined on the basis of the present Expropriation ~ct so that the company will have the opportunity to receive a fair value as determined by some independent court, so that they will 1 indeed,receive fair market value.

I would point out that in meetings with Johns-Manville and the receivers last week, we talked to them about the possibility that government may be forced to take this actiono~d they certainly thought that this would be reasonable and they expressed their confidence that government would,indeed, en~ that they receive the fair market value for their assets.And that is precisely , Mr. Speaker, what this piece of legislation does. So, Mr.

Speaker, we are forced to move ahead with this so that we can obtain these assets, ,so that we can en~ that an orderly transfer takes place,and that we still have our options open 41 .'Hi

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 19 72 MJ - 1 MR . N. WINSOR: to either deal with the Transpacific proposal,or,perhaps,with any other proposal that may come forward from the Lake Company or any other company. So in essence, Mr . Speaker, and in a nutshell,that is what the expropriation legislation entails.

That is the purpose for the legislation and we certainly hope that this indicates, once again, governments commitment to resources of this Province, in that we will not allow any forces from outside this Province to control our resources and to preclude their orderly development and the ~zation of the benefits of those resources to the people of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER ( Aylward) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the This bill has nothing to do with government's commitment to the resources of this Province, this bill has to do with a difficult situation that has arisen as a result of a callous mining company that pulled out without having the decency and the courtesy to give the minister,or the Premier,or the Government of this Province notice that they were doing so. Anc I am amazed to hear that the former Minister of Mines and Energy did not know about the closing of the mine in Baie Verte until he heard it on the radio. I find that very difficult to believe, Mr.

Speaker, very difficult to believe, that the company would, doing business in Newfoundland, operating under permits and under the authority of this Province, would pull out and decide to close down their mine without as much as advising the government of the Province for getting them there in the first place. ~.,rho were responsible Now, Mr. Speaker, I can understand I& 1 ~ 7

July 1, 1982 Tape No. 19 72 MJ - 2 MR. S. NEARY: the hon. gentleman 's regret s 3ut, if the hon. gentleman will recall, one of the first items we raised in this House several months ago was the matter of the assets of the Baie Verte Mine. And we wanted the government to move quickly at that time, if hon. gentlemen will check the Hansards , check the records . We wanted e·verything in Baie Verte frozen. I suggested at the time that not as much as a stick of pencil should be allowed to be moved out of Baie Verte, Mr . Speaker.

And now, several months later, we have finally come to the realization that maybe that is what they should have done several months ago, freeze the assets of this company. When the Bell Island Mine closed, Mr . Speaker, when OOSCO pulled out of Bell Island, \o~hen they were phasing down the operation and getting towards the end of the operation .. , on Be~l Is lan d, ~y started to cannibalize the operation. They started to rob the equipment off Belle Island. They wanted to send it over to the Nova Scotia coal mines. 41~A

July 2, 1982 Tape 1973 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: They wanted to sell equipment to other mining companies in Canada. And when I saw that happening, I went to the Premier of the day, Mr. Smallwood, and I told him what was happening. He asked me what could be done about it, and I said, 'Freeze the assets. Do not allow them to move anything off the plant.' Well, he kind of looked at me like I had two heads. He invited me into the Cabinet.

I went in and told the Cabinet the same thing and some of the right wingers in the Cabinet were rather taken back, shocked, that a little rebel like myself should come in and ask the Cabinet to take on a big company like DOSCO. And when I explained to them what I thought should be done - if we were ever going to get another operator, whatever chances we had of getting a new operator for that mine, it had to be done with the mine intact.

So, as a result of my recommendation, the Cabinet of the day - I was not a member of the Cabinet - decided that they would freeze the assets, And when they called me back two or three days later to tell me that DOSCO had agreed to turn over all their assets on Bell Island to the government, turn ~hem back to the Province for one dollar, I was rather proud of that.

But then I said to the Premier, 'Well, what about the stockpiles?' And he said, 'Yes, what about the stockpiles?' 'Well,' I said, 'there are two stockpiles of ore over there.' He said, 'Yes, what about it?' I said, 'Well, is that a part of the deal? ' ~lell, he said he did not know, and I said, 'Well, that is very important.' So he picked up his phone and he called Mr. Forsythe, who was President of DOSCO, right in my presence,and he 4 1 , Q

July 2, 1982 Tape 1973 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: said, 'What about the stockpiles?' And Forsythe hedged and said, well, he would have to meet with the board of directors and he would give him an answer within twenty-four hours. And the answer came back, yes, it included the stock­ piles. So that is my first question .to the hon. gentleman: Are there any stockpiles in Baie Verte? I have not been down there recently. MR. RIDEOUT: No. MR. NEARY: There are no stockpiles? They shipped all the ore before they - MR. RIDEOUT: Every ounce of fibre is gone. MR. NEARY: Every ounce of it. So they got rid of it.

They knew what they were doing, in other words. The company knew what they were doing when they got rid of their stockpiles. And, by the way, that s-hould always be a clear indication to mining conununities .• Miners could always tell when they saw their company getting rid of the stockpiles; when the stockpiles were dropping below normal they knew there was something up, Mr. Speaker. So that should have been an indication to the administration that they were up to no good, they were up to something. But, Mr, Speaker, why can we not get the same deal as we did with DOSCO?

Why can no~ the provincial government take over whatever assets Johns-Manville own in Baie Verte? Why can we not take them over for one dollar? L. 1 ,, n

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1974 ah-1 MR. NEARY: I realize there are certain leasing agreements with Greyhound as far as the mobile equipment is concerned and that sort of thing.

There are certain things that we cannot take over for $1.00 because Johns-Hanville do not own them. ~hey own the mine, they own, I presume, some of the physical structures, they own the mills and they own some mining equipment and that sort of thing, Butapart from all the things that they do not own, why can we not pass a law in this House taking back everything in B~ie Verte that Johns-Manville own in the name of Her Majesty the Queen for $1.00? Why should we have to compensate them one red cent? That is what I would like to know.

Why do we have to compensate a company that without warning, that without notice,so we are told- we do not know whether that is correct or not~decided to pull out, leave Baie Verte economically marooned, ma~oon the workers in Baie_ Verte? And then all of a sudden we are going to be namby-pamby and expropriate. We go and tell the company- the company did not have the decency to tell us they were pulling out. We went and told the company, Look, we are going to expropriate your property.And the company says, Well, that is fine. Are you going to compensate us?

And they said, well, you know, you will go through whatever the normal procedures are to be compensated. And Johns-l1anville says, Well,boy, that is greatp You are a fine crowd. Wonderful! Okay, we will be bringing a bill into the House, they tell Johns-Hanville, we will be bringing a bill into the House now to expropriate your assets in Baie Verte. And they say, that is fine,boy. We will see you in court,or we will see you before an arbitration board. That . is great! Mr. Speaker, there is 41 41

July 2,1982 Tape No. 1974 ah-2 MR.NEARY: noth .ing dra.matic about that. But I would say now what we should be doing is taking the assets from Johns-Manville for ~1.00 and not pay them a red cent compensatic:m. Why should we? MR. WARREN: Hear , hear! MR. NEARY: They were in th~re . They enjoyed the profits from that operation and they have left gaping holes in the ground down there . They left the people down there economically marooned , high and dry, people who built new homes, mortgages on their homes, wanted to make their future in Baie Verte.

MR.WARREN: Did you not ask the minister a question a few months ago about the assets? MR.NEARY: Children growing up down there, schools financed by the people of this Province, a beautiful community and that is the best we can do, say, Look, boy, we are going to take your property and we are going to pay you for it. Well,that is what they wanted in the first place, was it no·t? That is probably why Transpacific could not get a deal, 41L?

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1975 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: because they wanted their pound of flesh. Why can we not, Mr. Speaker - I would like to hear the arguments,why we have to compensate that company. We will not look like a banana republic if we do not do it. What kind of bargainers do we have on that side of the House that they cannot sit down in a board room with Johns-Manville and say to that company, LOOk, you were a good company when you were here, at least reasonably good, you were a good corporate citizen. MR. DOYLE: MR. NEARY: You do not know if they were good or not? No, I do not.

I am just saying they might have been, I do not know. But you decided to pull out of here without warning leaving everybody high and dry. Now,Mr. Johns-Manville, so long, it has been good to know you. MR. WARREN: We will pay you to go. MR. NEARY: You have made your profits, you have taken your money and you have run away - MR. WARREN: We want to give you some more. MR. NEARY: - and we are not going to give you one more cent of taxpayers' money, we are going to freeze your assets, take over your assets and we will pay you a dollar for it. That is all they are entitled to, not a cent more.

If we could do it with DOSCO I am sure the administration with the mandate they have, the power they have, should be able to do it with Johns-Manville. MR. HODDER: A good point. MR. NEARY: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may get up and may argue that, well yes, boy, we have to do this because we do not want to get a. bad reputation in the international business world,or we do not want to make ourselves look like a banana republic. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, none of these arguments would apply in this case. And I guarantee you now,if 1&141

July 2, _1982 Tape No. 1975 SD - 2 MR. NEARY : you want to bring Johns-Manville to their knees it is not by offering them compensation, they are not entitled to it, just say, \ve are going to take your property away from you for a dollar and we are going to fill in these holes you left in Baie Verte. And we are going to take, if we ever have to dispose of the assets- if we cannot get an operator, we will dispose of the assets and we will distribute the money from the assets to the people of Baie Verte, to the miners who had the carpet whipped out from under their feet. That is what we are going to do . Never mind compensating them. ~14 L

July 2, 1982 ·Tape No. 1976 MJ - 1 MR. S . NEARY: ~·lhen we get it, Mr. Speaker, when we get the mine,I hope the government will hold onto it. If we get the assets down there, I hope they will hold on to them. I hope they will n?t make a deal with Transpacific or any other company to give these assets to another company where we will have to go through the same procedure to get them back. In the event that we are successful in getting a company in there, t~e would have to go through the same procedure again.

I hope it will be some kind of a leasing agreement,that the people who take possession of the assets in the name of the Crown will keep them forever, and we \dll oot find ourselves in t.<li3 _r;o<;ition ever again. Mr. Speaker, so I will be interested in hearing what the hon. gentleman has to say about what they intend to do with the assets. As for Transpacific or any other company who is interested in operating the Baie Verte Mine, will they be sold to another company or will they be held in the name of the Minister of Public Works Ulr. H. Young), in the name of Her Majesty, the Queen? Mr.

Speaker, I do not think that there is anything else I can say about this except that there ~re a couple of things that trouble me about what has happened in connection with the negotiation.-, to reactivate the Baie Verte Mine. And we all want to see that mine reactivated,. Mr. S):)eaker, make no mistake about that. We are all in favour of that. But the government seems to be on a course of any deal is better than no deal. That is what it looks like, any deal is better than no deal. And, Mr.

Speaker, as a result of that policy we saw a situation develop recently where the union turned down a package that was offerred by the new company. The new company was not prepared to recognize the successor rights in the labour laws of this Province , they \.;anted to make a separate deal. And the 4 1 1.. t:;

July 2, 1982 Tape No. 1976 MJ - 2 MR. s. NEARY: union said, ''No.' And they were putting the gears to the members in such a way that they were in a position \·There they could not say yes. '!'hey had to look at, well, is any deal better tha.n better than no deal? And they decided that no deal was better than the one they were being offered . 'l'hat is what it looke d like to me as an observer. And then the member for the district got ja.rraned in the middle of it and stirred up a little controversy that did not do any good, that would not help the situation. The hon. gentleman has been jett.ing around the world, 41LR

July 2, 1982 Tape 1977 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the negotiations that are going on, Well,I suppose there is nothing wrong with that,except that I think it would be far better to handle the matter on a ministerial level. I am not sure if the hon. gentleman goes with the minister when he goes,or if the hon. gentleman is off on his own. MR. WINI:SOR : He is competent. MR. NEARY: Pardon? MR. WARREN: He is very competent. MR. NEARY: He is very? MR. WINDSOR: Competent. MR. NEARY : Competent.

Well,we found out how competent the hon. gentleman was there a couple of weeks ago when the union said no to these proposals that were made by Transpacific. The hon.gentleman could not resist the temptation to take a little slap at the Steel Workers Union and at.- MR. WARREN: MR. NEARY: Martin Saunders. -Martin Saunders,and as a result Martin Saunders was placed in an embarrassing position and had to resign yesterday from the Baie Verte Peninsula Task Force. And I think that is terrible,Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. gentleman should be strongly condemned, should be strongly condemned, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman's heart may be in the right place. MR. WARREN: His mouth was not. MR. NEARY: That is right. His heart might have been but other parts of his anatomy were not. He should have kept a still tongue. It was not the hon. gentleman's business. The members of the Steel Workers Union are a responsible group of people. Their representative in this Province is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, I think he is one of the top labour leaders in this Province, And then somebody 4147

July 2 , 1982 Tape 1977 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: is going to get up and say, wel~ , you are playing to the galleries. Well,so what, Mr . Speaker ? If I cannot say • .-hat I think about that non. gentleman in this Hous·e while he is here, why should I ·wait until he leaves to say it 1 He happens to be one of my fa·.rourite labour leader s , a very responsible gentleman. I do not know if he is aware of that, but I am an~ . of his. He doe$ not subscribe to my political philosophy or maybe he does . Maybe re does . If he had been around in 1959,he might have been a running mate of mine when I ran in that e l ection .

But these are all responsible people, Mr. Speaker, very respons .ible .. And I was shocked 1.1/.A

July 2, 1982 Tape 1978 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: to hear the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) say the unkind things and make the unkind remarks and take a slap at his own people, some of whom no doubt voted for the hon. gentleman. AN HON . MEMBER: Not some - a lot of them. MR. NEARY: A lot of them did. Maybe if they had their time back it would have been different. They had high hopes for the hon. gentleman.

But the hon. gentleman destroyed the credibility of the president of the union in that area to the extent that he was forced to resign from the task force because he was afraid that private and confidential information would be withheld from him - MR. WARREN: They will get him back. MR. NEARY: - that the hon. gentleman would see to it that he did not get any information. I think that is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. gentleman should be strongly condemned,especially by the people in that area,for what he did, for his actions in this regard. So, Mr.

Speaker, really the key questions here are: Why should we have to pay any more than a nominal sum of one dollar ·for these assets? What will happen to the assets when they are taken over by the Province? And, in the event that everything else fails - and God forbid, Mr. Speaker, that they uould, because we all want to see nothing but good come to Baie Verte and the people of Baie Verte - but in the event that everything fails - ~1L.Q

July 2, 1982 Tape 1978 EC ..- 2 MR. NEARY: - that all these negotiations filter out and peter out, will the assets be held intact for a limited period of time? As long as they can be kept without rusting out or becoming corroded and motors getting damaged and that sort of thing, will it be kept intact for,say,a reasonable period of time, a year or so, and then after that will the assets be disposed of and the money distributed amongst the miners in Baie Verte? Now, Mr.

Speaker, having made these few remarks, I am happy to say that we are going to support this bill and we would like to see it pushed through the Legislature as quickly as we can. We are supporting the bill,if that is the best the hon. gentleman could do. He may have a valid reason for not just saying we are going to pay a dollar, but I would certainly like to reserve, Mr. Speaker, our right to raise that matter 1 to see if that can be done instead of going out and compensating them, paying hundreds of thousands and probably millions of dollars to Johns-Manville that they are not entitled to get. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward); Baie Verte - White Bay, SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. RIDEOUT : The hon. the member for Hear, hear! I want to take a very short while, five or ten minutes, to speak on this bill, I will not be very long,but I certainly cannot let it go without having a few words to say on it. My first reaction, Mr, Speaker, to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said in whole, or 90 per cent of what he said, would be to say, 'Hear, hear!' and 'Me too.' 4 1 c; n

July 2, 1982 Tape 1978 EC - 3 MR. RIDEOUT: If I were to allow emotion, based on the fac~s of what has happened in Baie Verte over the last ten or twelve months, my emotion would be with the LL 1 5 '1

... July 2, 1982 'J'ape . 1979 l?K' ~- ;1, MR. RIDEOUT: Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) when it comes to saying give Johns-Manville nothing, give them a dollar and get rid of them. That too, Mr. Speaker, is what I would like to do if that was what we could do. But it is a little bit more complicated than that, Mr. Speaker, there is more than Johns-Manville involved. Johns-Manville happen to be about a 30 per cent owner of Advocate Mines Limited. They happen to be the :managers, they happen to have the managing contract, and they happen to be, in my opinion, the culprits.

They have referred to us on one occasion or another as a banana republic, and I have referred to them as a banana corporation. Because, in my opinion, that is what they have been in terms of Bai