PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSE11BLY FOR THE PERIOD: FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1977

March 11, 1971 Tape 915 The House met at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS The hon. Minister of Fisheries. PK - 1 MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my initial reaction to the various groups and individuals that oppose the annual seal hunt was· to ignore their campaigns-because I believed that to do otherwise would only serve to add publicity on which these people feed and depend for their financial support and existence.

However,in light of some of the charges that have been made by these people in recent days I feel that as Minister of Fisheries I have an obligation and a duty to give the . true side of the seal hunt, and to challenge the actions of those people who,by their lies, false accusations and malicious propaganda would destroy the seal fishery, and in so doing the honour and integrity · of those who engage in it as a means of supplementing their annual income.

Earljer this week the Minister of Justice received a telegram from the leader of one of these groups, these protest groups,in which he charged that the Newfoundland Government is paying hoodlums and law breakers to go to St. Antqony to confront and harass the protesters. There have also been charges which have received world wide attention that have portrayed Newfoundlanders as being a barbaric,cruel and brutal people, because they engage in the annual seal hunt. These people, Mr.

Speaker, in their desperation to brainwash the so-called do-gooders in the world,have gone to unbelievable lengths to discredit our Newfoundland sealers, and are causing unknown damage to this Province, and indeed to all of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I say now that this government will not stand by and let this happen. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 2521.

March 11, 1977 Tape 915 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: We will go on a hunger strike. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform my bon. colleagues in the House of my intention to hold a public meeting in St. Anthony at 2:00 P.M. Monday for the purpose of outlining our government's position regarding the seal fishery. I have issued a special invitation to all national, international and local journalists,as well as to the protest groups.to attend the meeting to hear the true and factual sid~ of the seal hunt. MR. DOODY: What about the Minister of Tourism? MR. W. CARTER: This is no longer, Mr.

Speaker, a simple protest to stop the seal hunt, but· has now· emerged as a very serious moral issue in which the good name of our Newfoundland people is at stake. And I am therefore, Mr. Speaker, especially proud to announce that leaders of the six major religious denominations in the Province have pledged their whole-hearted support behind our Newfoundland sealers and the continuation of the seal hunt. As an expression of their support they have unanimously accepted my invitation to accampany me to St.

Anthony where they will attend our meeting and ~ke known,in no uncertain terms, their respective church.•s stand on this very important issue. The following clergy have been designated by their respective leaders to attent the meeting: Reverend Father Ron Cashin who will represent the R.C. Church. Reverend Stewart Payne of the Anglican Church, Reverend Manual Saunders of the United Church, Reverend I. S. Wishart of the Presbyterian Church, Capt. Hynes of the Salvation Army,and Reverend R. J. Mills who will attend on behalf of the Pentecostal Assemblies. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

NEARY: You should get Father Hickey in there,too. MR. W. CARTER: I know, Mr. Speaker, that I speak for all members of this House, and indeed for all Newfoundlanders,when I 2522

March 11, 1977 Tape 915 PK- 3 Mr. W. Carter: -say how very, very proud I am of the stand that has been taken by these distinguished churchmen. They share my determination ' - and the determinatinn of government, and I am sure the determination of our Newfoundland people,to fight those people who by their questionable actions would destroy our very important sealing industry as well as the good name of our Newfoundland people. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hen. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, let me first of all say, Sir, that we on this side welcome whole-heartedly this change in the policy which the administration have with respect to this very important question. The minister has changed his policy, he began by announcing that he had changed his policy, and I am very pleased he has, Sir, I said repeatedly and my colleagues said repeatedly both in the House and outside 2523

March 11, 1977 Tape no.916 Page 1 - MS Mr. Roberts. · that we thought the ministry's previous policy was wrong. I am glad they have now changed it because I think the new policy which they have adopted is the right one. Let me make that point first of all, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, Sir, I am very pleased that the clergy have ·accepted the minister's invitation. The minister did not say that he had extended an invitation,but it is correct to say that he did extend them aa invitation and I am very happy they have responded as they have.

The clergymen involved, Sir, are generally speaking resident in the area; Father Cashin is the Parish Priest at Sacred Heart Parish at Conche; the Reverend Mr .• Payne is the Rector of the St. Mary's Parish at St. Anthony, the Anglican Parish; Captain Hynes,! believe,is stationed at St. Anthony with the Salvation Army; Pastor Mills of the Pentecostal Church is stationed at St. Anthony; the Reverend Mr.Wishart and the Reverend Mr. Saunders are resident, the one in St. John's, the other I am told at Pouch Cove, the United Church Parish or charge there.

But I am delighted, Sir, that these clergymen will be present to lend their support in behalf of their respective denominations to the meeting. Mr. Speaker, let me make a suggestion to the government that came up earlier today in discussion with representatives of the committees involved at St. Anthony. And by the way,they tell me, Sir, they are now expecting about 150 people to come, and they have made arrangements to billet them. And the arrangements for the demonstrations that will be held, I am told, have been completed in full co-operation with the civic authorities and with the police authorities.

And I think the committee are going at it in ·a most responsible and most proper fashion in every way. 2524

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 916 Page 2 - mw Mr. Roberts. The suggestion, Sir, is this: Mr. Brian Davies is due at St. Anthony todav or tomorrow, you know, imminently, with his flotilla of helicopters. MR.HICKMAN: He cannot find them. MR. ROBERTS: He cannot find the helicopters? Is that what the minister said? ' MR. HICKMAN: Brian Davies was last heard of lost on an Magdalen~_. MR. NOLAN: The government must have cut him off. MR. ROBERTS: Well, I would devoutly hope that Mr.

Davies stays lost ~ the Magdalens • I do not wish him any ill in any personal sense, but if he were to confine his activities t9 some place other than our Province I for one would welcome it. But I understand that he and his cohorts are due at St. Anthony at some point in the next day or so. But that is a little early, because the hunt does not open until Tuesday morning and no seals may be lawfully killed in these waters until Tuesday coming, the 15th. March. There is some thought that Mr. Davies is not coming to St.

Anthony just to spend the weekend in the healthy climate of Northern Newfoundland, that he intends t~ use the weekend period to ferry fuel and supplies from St. Anthony to Belle Isle,which will be an advanced staging point for his forays to try to disrupt the seal hunt. Now, Sir, in my understanding Belle Isle is Crown land. It is owned by the government of this Province. And I wonder if. perhaps the government of this Province could not just pass an order saying to Mr. Brian Davies, "Stay out! Stay off that particular piece of our Crown land.

You have no legitimate business being there, no proper business being there." We cannot ban him from the Province • That would be very wrong even if we could do it. We might be able to keep him off Belle Isle. And let us hamper him and let us make it as difficult as we can for him to carry out a chain of events which 2525

March 11 , 1977 Tape no. 916 Page 3 - MS Mr. Roberts. he would like to carry out,which would disrupt a legal and a legitimate and a proper activity by our people and one which has extraordinarily widespread support among the people of this Province. And so I put that suggestion forward in a very positive and concrete way. I think it is a feasible one. I think it is a very good one. Just say to Mr. Davies, "If you want to disrupt the seal hunt you will not do it by making use of this large piece of Crown land'i which is some twenty-five_or thirty miles to the North of St.

Anthony itself and about twenty miles in fact off the nearest point of land Cape Bauld. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the committee at St. Anthony have asked me to ask the minister - I was to ask a question, but in view of the minister's statement that is no longer necessary. They say that they have not heard from the minister. He has not been in touch with them. And they are a little upset over that.

They feel that-since they have spearheaded this movement -in fact,a fact which has been recognized by the government giving them a grant of some $1,000.- .hey feel that-the m~ister _ sho_ul~ _ ~t _least do them the courtesy to get in touch with them when he is having his public meeting. And they have asked me, Sir, to ask the minister if he will meet with the committee and in this they speak for the Trinity South committee as well, because they are in close touch with each other, Sir, the Trinity South people. There was a· meeting there in St. Anthony last night.

They have asked that the minister will meet with them first before he has a public meeting. They do not mind the minister making publicity. They are all for it 2526

March 11, 1977 Tape 917 IB-1 MR.. ROBERTS : as long as it is publicity aimed at the same ends as the Committee have in mind. But they do wish to meet with the minister first. So I hope the minister will give the House that assurance. If he wishes I can give him the names of the people heading up the Committee. They may be known to him already. But they have made that request of me. In

summary, Ur. Speaker, I am very, very pleased the ministry have changed their policy. I think they are now doing the right and proper thing. I hope they go further than this and mount not just a c~paign in St. Anthony but an outgoing campaign to tell the truth about the seal hunt. I shall be in St. Anthony myself. I will not be able to be there on Monday because I sometime ago accepted an engagement to speak in Labrador West.

I shall ask one or two of my colleagues to · be present, and I hope the minister will do them the courtesy,since he has obviously got seats on the aircraft,to give them a lift North to - AN HON. MEMBER: What? MR. ROBERTS: The minister obviously has seats on the aircraft. He is taking two clergymen, himself, probably an assistant or two and it is a very public thing. I think it is entirely proper if the minister would offer a seat to one or two of my colleagues to go to join in the meeting. If he does not, well and good.

I think it is much more proper than the Minister of Social Services using an aircraft instead of the sixty mile drive from Gander to Grand Falls. If the minister chooses not - MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. MR. HICKMAN: Your Honour has laid down the rules so often, that when a Ministerial Statement is made it cannot be the subject matter of debate, and that the hon. Leader of the Opposition or the designated spokesman from the Opposition is allowed to make a few comments and ask a few questions. I do submit that the hon. gentleman opposite was not doing that. MR.

ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. For once the government

}farch 11, 1977 Tape 917 IB-2 MR.. ROBERTS : house leader has stated a rule correctly,but he neglected the further rule which Your Honour developed the other day, the tit for tat rule. And given the fact that there is some tit on the other side, we are .allowed some tat from this side. And if I strayed, Sir - and if I did I apologize - it was only because the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Affairs, Consumer and otherwise,have led me astray, have combined to lead me astray. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no doubt that on the comment after a Ministerial Statement there should be no debate.

And I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks "to the subject matter. MR. ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour for the very wise ruling, that there should be neither bait nor debate on the Hinisterial Statement. Let me conclude again by saying that I would hope the t1inister of Fisheries would see fit to allow one or two members who sit on this side of the Rouse to accompany him to his meeting in St. Anthony since he is not acting in a partisan sense but as he himself said voicing the feeling of every member of the House.

I think it is entirely proper of me to suggest that it would be entirely fitting and proper of him to accede to that suggestion. I cannot be there myself for reasons which I have explained,but one of two of my colleagues would like to go. I hope we will and we will show the press and the others who will attend this meeting that in this matter the minister and the government speak for all of the people of this Province. I think, Sir, that is of the utmost importance. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Rear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR.. MAYNARD: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to outline the government programme for 197·7 in relation to the Spruce Budworm problem. In previous statements I have indicated that instead of a massive chemical-spraying program during 1977, Government will undertake further research, experimentation and study into the current budworm problem in Newfoundland. Government has decided that during this year action Z528

March 11, 1977 Tape 917 MR. MAYNARD: on the problem will be undertaken as per the following four point program. IB-3 1. An independent review of the budworm will be undertaken by a review board. Members of this board will be impartial and objective people who will review a broad representative cross-section of the available literature on the budworm,and existing Government files, reports and studies on the current epidemic in Newfoundland. This review board will be requested to report to Government next Fall on the following items: (

a) the probable effects of the current budworm epidemic on the forest resources and the forest industry of the Province; cvv--J (

b) the realistic solution alternatives to the current budworm problem. This report along with other findings and analysis will be used by Government in its further evaluation of the budworm epidemic. 2. A Committee ~omprised of officials of my department, re­ presentatives of Canadian Forestry Service,and the paper companies who are currently studying and planning a forest improvement programme for this Province will be asked to broaden their task and advise Government of ways and means of using improved forest management to make our forests less susceptible to budworm attack. 2529

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 918 NM- 1 MR. MAYNARD: I must 1 however,caution that this approach is very long-term. · and will not significantly effect the current epidemic. However, it will over the long term reduce the probabilities of having to cope with periodic epidE;!miC~ C?! crisis proportions. A forest in Newfoundland immune to budworm attack is almost impossible t~ attain, but hopefully over the years, through more intensive management, we might be able to mute the effects of this destructive pest. 3. In the meantime, however, we must investigate more immediate methods of dealing with the current epidemic.

Towards this end my department will undertake an experimental spray programme during the late Spring - early Summer of this year. This programme will test under Newfoundland conditions several of the insecticides, both chemical and biological, and the application techniques that are most likely to be used in the . _eve~t ~f _ a necessity to implement a large scale control prbgramme during 1978 or in future years. Five pairs of test blocks will be treated with a different spray regime of the two chemical insecticides, fenitrothion and aminocarb (also called matacil), and the biological insecticide B. t.

The ~· test blocks are paired so that -t he-r esul ts may be " conf ~~d or compared for better - . . assessment. Each block represents a single aircraft load of insecticide. A DC-6 or equivalent aircraft will be used as the spray vehicle. MR. NEARY: Where will it fly? MR. MAYNARD: I have got a map test. It will be guided by a computerized Litton Inertial Navagation System which is reported to be extremely accurate, and this is extremely important in Newfoundland because of the geography, Z530

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 918 NM- 2 MR. MAYNARD: because of the terrain. Because of the relatively wide spacing of Newfoundland airports and other logistical reasons~this aircraft, together with its onboard navagational system, is thought the most likely to be used in any required large scale control programme. Each chemical insecticide test block will be 20,000 acres and each B.t. test block will be 4,000 acres in size. The blocks to be sprayed are as follows: Test Number 1 - one block in each of the Triton Brook and Taylor Brook areas. Test Number 2 - two blocks in the North and South Twin Lakes areas.

Test Number 3 - one block in each of the Noel Paul Brook area and Lake Ambrose area. Test Number 4 - one block in each of the Pinchgut Lake and Stag Lake areas 1 Test Number 5 - one block in each of the Georges Lake and Harry's River areas. None of these blocks are close to population centres. Each block will be intensively studied for pre-spray and post-spray budworm population levels and for effectiveness of foliage afforded. Adjacent control (unsprayed) areas have also been selected. They will also be intensively studied for comparison against the treated areas.

In order to protect our past investment of over-$2 ~llion, and -our proposed further investment this year of another $2 million in forest improvement work on various stands across the Island, an additional twenty-eight blocks will be sprayed with the chemical insecticide . '~Matacil 11 • These stands total approximately 28,000 acres and vary in size from 200 to 4,000 acres. All twenty blocks will equal 28,000 acres.· They will be sprayed by two or three small agriculture type spraying aircraft.

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 918 NM- 3 MR.. MAYNARD: While ~overnment_~~ reasonably satisfied that the chances of serious environmental or health damage resulting from spraying are very slim, the spray programme will be closely and intensively monitored by an independent environmental impact monitoring programme under the direction of the Departmentof Consumer Affai~s ·and Environment.

This group will include officials from the Department of Consumer Affairs and Environment, the Department of Health, the Department of Tourism (Wildlife Branch), the Canadian Forestry Service and Environmental Protection Service of the Federal Department of Fisheries and as well Memorial Univeristy of Newfoundland. MR. NEARY: Who is going to pay for all this? MR. MAYNARD: They will monitor the effects of the spraying on human health, soil, water, air, stream insects, non-target forest insects, fish, birds and other wildlife.

This work will commence prior to spray ~ operations and continue throughout most of the Summer. It will consist of intensive field and . laboratory analys~s. A preliminary report is expected by lat~· Fail~ 4. The fourth aspect of the programme will be a public education and information programme. Since the current budlllrorm -· 2532

March 11,1977 Tape 919 AH-1 MR. MAYNARD: epidemic is a rather new phenomena to Newfoundland, the people of this Province are probably not as informed on the insect and its problems as are the people of other Eastern Provinces or States who are more experienced or familiar with the pest. In an effort to increase the understanding in this regard of the people of the Province, we will be conducting an information program on the budworm itself, the affects and problems it causes ang the solution alternatives available. This program will make every effort to be as truly informative and as objective as possible.

Its sole p~rpose is to assist in answering some of the many questions currently being posed by thet.people of the Province so that they will be better able to discuss this most important problem. In conclusion , I must reiterate that although previous infestations of the spruce budworm in this Province have tended to be localized and have collapsed after several years without widespread serious damage, the current epidemic has reached ~pr~~edented __ proportions and poses a very real and serious threat to the imp~~~t -_forest resources and forest based employment of our Province.

The purpose 6~ the program I have just outlined is to provide more definite information on how to deal with this _,.., threat.in the future. I , --- -·--Who is going t? pay for it?- - · MR. NEARY: MR. MAYNARD: The government. MR. NEARY: The whole shot? MR. MAYNARD: Yes. }fR. SPEAKER: Ron. member for Windsor-Buchans. MRt FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the minister's statement indicating where and in what quantity the experimential spray programme is going to take place. But there is obviously a lot of questions to be asked and a lot of judgements to be made. Mr.

Speaker, the very fact the people in this Province are concerned about the environmental damage on spray programme, two out of five of the areas that have ' been disignated as t4 experimental spray programmme, one block each 2533

March 11,1977 Tape 919 AH-2 MR. FLIGHT: in Noel Paul Brook area, that is the site right now of an experimental salmon fishery hatchery by the federal and provincial gove_rn.~etl._~~· The one block at the head of Pinchgut Lake; Pinchgut Lake is the head waters of the Harry's River. One block each in the Georges Lake and Harry's River area; Harry's River is one of the most productive salmon rivers on the West Coast of Newfoundland!_Ng~ only is the river going to be sprayed in that area but the head waters of it. So this just brings out, Mr.

Speaker, that it is practically impossible to talk about a spray programme in this Province where rivers, habitats of our wildlife and ou~ people live. One of the big concerns, Mr.

Speaker, about a spray programme in this province is what it will do, not necessarily to the health as much - I would suspect that the minister and all his officials would make sure that a spray programme would not affect adversely the health of our people-but on a Island - ---where our wildlife is concentrated th.e way it is concentrated, -·-- ------ we have in four or five·areas of Newfoundland, the salmon rivers of the West Coast- all the salmon fishing in Newfoundland is basically in the West Coast area.

The Central Newfoundland area and the Noel Paul Brook area is probably one of the heaviest P?P~latedmoose areas in Newfoundland in the Millertown · _ _,_ t? ~he,ad of_Noel I>.aul. People are concerned, Mr.

Speaker, about what the spray programme is going to do : And I read a minister's statement not long ago and it would make one shiver,.~e said, ''We_ are not going to undeTtake a spray programme where we might drop a thousand gallons or ten thousand pounds of insecticide on a target and miss the target, and it would fall somewhere else." Now I would presUme that this type of an experimental programme is to perfect the ways we will spray but we are going into a Z534

March 11,1977 Tape 919 AR-3 MR. FLIGHT: spray programme not knowing if the insecticide we are going to drop is going to drop on target or drop two miles down wind and two miles down wind will make- PREMIER MOORES: You are agail'i.st doing any spraying. NR. FLIGHT: }1o, I am not against:. I am against doing anything that I do not know what the results are going to be, that is what I am against. Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he is going to have a board; members of this board will be imparti~l and objective _.

Well then I suggest to the minister that I would expect that there would be very few people from the present paper producing companies in this province on that board. _MR. MAYNARD:_ MR.. FLIGHT: None. None? - - -~ 2535

!-!arch 11, 1977, Tape 920, Page 1 - apb MR. FLIGHT: Good, because they will not be impartial or objective. The pressure they put on this Province this past year for a massive spray prog~amme rules out any possibility of their ever sitting on a board and being impartial or objective. AN RON. MEMBER: And no government no anything. MR. FLIGHT: No government, no anything. The results of this spray . programme, , Mr. Speaker will have to be -- ~ --- publicized completely.

There will be no possibility that the public of Newfoundland or any of their spokesmen will accept anything less than complete disclosure on the results of the spray programme. Mr. Speaker, I am as responsible as the hon. the Premier. He says I am against everything. PREMIER MOORES: I did not say any such thing. MR. FLIGHT: But, Mr. Speaker, if the Department of Forestry had probably met their obligations this past five or six years and insisted that the - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must point out to the hon. gentleman now that he is straying from the legitimate area of comment and getting into debate. MR.

FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it is accepted that forest management is just as important in budworm control as spraying. Now, Mr. Speaker, over the years people who have been familiar with the forest operations of Price (Nfld.) and Bowaters have indicated' to past governments that they were carrying out a very, very ill-advised forest management. They were going in and taking out the most accessible and cheapest timber and as a result we have acres and acres and acres, hundreds of thousands of cords of over-mature,dying wood in the forest.

There are people who basically believe that that is the cause of the massive infestation of budworm that we have today. Had we followed a policy of harvesting over-mature timber,we may not have had the massive infestation we

March 11, 1977, Tape 920, Page~ -- apb HR. FLIGHT: have today. Now apart from a spraying project, the government,! would think, have the obligation to insist that the paper companies as of now harvest the over- mature timber and not be allowed to cut second growth . w~il~ the over-mature stays there and,number one, increases the possibility of more infestation, or rots whilst the second growth is being taken out. -Hr. Speaker, the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Nearyl I think, asked the minister who would pay for the spray programme. I~ would seem to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the paper companies would share some of the cost of this programme. We know what the value of the pulpwood is to the economy of Newfoundland but we also know what it means to the profits of those companies. Over the years, Mr. Speaker, they have ruled ~ - - - - supreme._ They. have done nothing, but _nothing to gu~rantee our forests - the stabiliza~_9· n._- of- a_~~PP17t· -··-!iii~=~i_~viic~- ~ill go o_'\,!_t _ ~­ - ~ome pe~ple say this Province will not have an economic wood supply by the year 2000. The paper companies have just cut, cut, cut.

There has been no reforestation, there has been no cutting of over-mature timber stands. They have made all kinds of money on our resources. . --xrid the- result of their management is maybe one of the reasons we have such a spruce budworm problem. I ~ugg~st, Mr. ~peaker, --------.- tliat- tlie -miiii~iter snould- have - the paper companies contribute ~owards the cost of spraying our forests. In as far as the pulp itself is concerned they stand to gain more than anybody else. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr.

Speaker, having said that I want to assure the minister that the people from all walks of life will be watching that experimental spray programme and will be expecting that everything will be publicized. There should be no holdi~ back -~£ informa ti~_~ -receiveci" -~~-~ a ·--r~~~lt - of the ~pr~yi,n:g-.- ­ Then having the experimental spray programme completed that the ----- - government will recognize the rights of the people who- may be Z537

March 11, 1977, Iape 920, Page 3 -- apb MR.. FLIGHT: opposed -:-based on !~o~tion available to decide whether or not there will be a massive spray pl;'ogramme in this Province. SOME B.ON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: '1R. ROBERTS : Hear, hear! ORAL QUESTIONS The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier who has done us the honour of returning to the House. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR.. ROBERTS : It is nice to see him back. In the _ ~remier _' s absence, Mr. Speaker - he may not have 2538

March 11, 1977 Tape 921 PK- 1 Mr. Roberts: had the opportunity to review the Hansards his colleague, the Minister of Justice said tha~ upon the Premier's return to the Province he will be making a s _tatement with respect to the Scrivener" - MR. HICKMAN: What page? MR. ·ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is found on;-:page - I realize the Minister of Justice may not remember what he said, Sir, many times he does not know what he sajs - but it is found on page 2225, quoting the Minister of Justice, ·~r. ~peaker, I will have to take that as notice and when the hen. Premier returns"- ~ell that clause has been met..:.

"I am sure" - ·the Minister of Justice - is sure that =-''he will be in a position to answer the question: -.,· Well, 1 - . - - ·- ·-· -; - -------- -- - --- - - Sir, the ~remier has returned. The Minister of Justice was sure that the Premier would be in a position to - the minist~r of Justice does not know what he says most of the time. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I would remind hen. gentlemen that to make with respect of what the Minister of Justice. said or did not would be out of order,and I would ask the hen. Leader of the Opposition to proceed with his question. MR.

ROBERTS: Well,thank you, Sir, I was ·just trying to se~ the background for the question, because I did not know whether the Premier had had the opportunity to review this matter, and I do not want to mislead the Premier. The point is, Sir, is the Premier now in a position to tell us whether the government are now going to have an impartial outside investigation into the Scrivener donation, which has now been admitted, and the Premier may not be £amiliar with this, by Mr. Richard Greene as haYing being in fact received by the P.C. Party? 2539

March 11, 1977 Tape 921 PK - 2 MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, I have had very little opportunity to give much thought to it since getting home, getting home late last night and getting in just at Q:OO , just three-quarters of an hour before the House opened this morning.

Before I left I asked the Department of Health and the Department of Public Works and Services to get ail of the information together so we could see exactly what the cost escalation wa~, not just on the Health Sciences Complex, but on the Twillingate, Carbonear and Corner Brook Comple~es as well, to find out what caused these increases in costs which is really the only concern of government an<! _th_is_ House. And if,we see there is any reason -· - - for suspicion ,: we will have to look at the thing very carefully.

Equally I would suggest that if there is any reason why any political donalion,whether it be in 1967-1968 when the contract was originally let with Mr. Doyle's involvement in the situation, whether there was any donation - MR.. ROBERTS : Mr. Doyle? PREMIER MOORES: Well his man made the first accusation that the Leader of the Opposition and others have . quoted from, Mr. Speaker. MR.. ROBERTS : Oh,I will deal with that. PREMIER MOORES: And I suggest that maybe the Minister of Health of that day, the Premier's Executive Assistant of that day ~ ,~£ the Premier of that day, Mr. Petten, Mr.

Vardy was a bit difficult to get for testimony, Mr. Derrick Lewis, maybe under the Election Act we should be looking at the whole shebang, Mr. Speaker. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER MOORES : Because I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, we have done a fair amount of inves.tigation in this, and ._t_!le political donations ·t:liat --naveoeen ·made- to -·tnisparty - are only ·Small . - _ _.~ - .. . potatoes compared to what was associated with the party previously." "MR.~: --- -- - -· , Some small po~at~es.

PREMIER MOORES: The fact is, Sir, that I think that should be dealt with under the Election Act regarding the increase in the -·- Z540

March 11, 1977 Tape 921 PK - 3 Premier Moores: cost of the health services through hospitals. I would suggest, as I said last week,the position has not changed, that I will be receiving the report from Health and from Public Works and upon receipt of that report I will be tabling it in the House. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR •. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. ROBERTS: I know I am not allowed to debate the Premier's answer, but I think his.answer is cowardly as well as incorrect and I will debate it - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please~ Order,please!

The latter remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition would be out of ___ order, with reference to cowardly, The other . matter would be a difference of opinion. I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw. MR. ROBERTS : Thank you, Sir, and assuming the government aall the Address in Reply I will have- an op-portunity to debate it this morning anyway. A supplementary, Sir, would the Premier - MR. PECKFORi>:' On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification t a-_ point of order, _As I understood Your Honour's ruling you had asked the bon.

Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his comment. ~had-made earlier, and the Leader of the Opposition has since gotten to his feet and proceeded to continue without the withdrawal that was directed by - MR. ROBERTS: -- :O:idhe? MR. NOLAN: Your Honour did not ask that. MR.. ROBERTS : To that point of order, Your Honour. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! ---- MR. SPEAKER: The hon. ~eader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I did not hear Your Honour request me to withdraw a remark. If _Your Honour did,I certainly would, but ... ----

March 11, 1977 Tape 921 PK - 4 Mr. Roberts: I certainly did not hear any such request. MR. PECKFORD: Tbat is your problem. MR. ROBERTS : I did not hear any such request made, if one was made of course I would withdraw - SOME RON.. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. ROBERTS: - the remark. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please.. I think this is a genuine question of whether I wa~ _ heard O!'__ '!!._0~. ·- To the best of my knowledge I - SOME BoN. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! mt. SPEAKER: 0rder, please! Order, please! I did 2542

}A' ,arch 11, 19 77 Tape 922 IB-1 MR. SPEAKER: point out that one word in the hon. Leader of the Opposition's remarks was out -of order and ask him to withdraw that. With regards to that, he did not clear that. _MR. ROBERTS: Well I am sorry, Your Honour, I did not hear the ruling on that point and I will certainly withdraw the remark.

If I could go ahead with the supplementary question? ~.J'ould the Premier tell us whether in his opinion it is proper for his party to have accepted a donation of more than $50,000 from a firm with whom the government were negotiating a contract during the period when that contract was being negotiated? MR.. SPEAKER: The hon • Premier • PREMIER MOORES: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the fact that the member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons) is running in Humber West • I am delighed to hear that, and we all heard it here in the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS : So am I.

So am I. - -PREMIER MOORES: Raving said that, Mr. Speaker, because it would be nice to have him out of the House. -- MR. SIMMONS: Provided the Premier - PREMIER MOORES: I will resign if you promise to run in the by-election. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the question-as the h~n. Leader of the Opposition well knows,political donations are made throughout before, after and during the term of office of any Opposition or government. He also knows very well that there were five elections in four years at that particular time, between 1971 and 1975. He also knows that the party collectors have no way - MR.

ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. PREMIER MOORES: I mentioned - MR. ROBERTS: To a po-int of order, Sir. The Premier may not know the rules, he is not here often enough but, Sir, the point is this, the PREMIER MOORES: You are always here. MR. ROBERTS: - rules say specifically, Mr. Speaker - 4543

}'f..arch 11, 1977 Tape 922 IB-2 PREMIER MOORES: Put your hands in your pants pockets, it is more suitable. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker,the Premier is unduly tender - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I must interrupt all hon. gentlemen now. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When a point of order is being made it is essential that there be no interruptions. When questions are being asked and answers given, it is equally essential except for a point of order interjection.

But certainly during points of order the tenor of the House and the ability of the Chair ~o follow argument and to maintain order become seriously undermined if there are interjections. So I would ask all hon. members not to interject on points of order. The bon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is this, Sir. The Premier ought to realize that neither he nor any other member is allowed to cast - and if the Premier does not like my hands in my pockets, my answer is at least my hands are in my own pockets. I would commend that to hfm,-=-,Mr.

Speaker, the point is this that the Premier is not -----'-~· allowed nor is any other member allowed ·to cast aspersions upon any member's motive-s. He has trice said in answering or attempting to answer a question that I ought to know or I very well know or words to that effect. And that, Sir, is clearly casting aspersions because it is clearly trying to indicate that I know some th~ngs which I will not acknowledge,or that I ignore in framing a question. That, Sir, is completely out of order. The Premier may_not realize it. I accept that.

But I would ask Your Honour, Sir, to direct his attention to·the rules and to inform him that he has to follow the rules and would he please be kind enough to do so. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. May I first remind hon. gentlemen opposite that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked for an opinion,invited an opinion from the hon. the Premier. The hon. the Premier,as I listened very carefully,was giving an opinion.

?:-f..arch 11, 1977 Tape 922 IB-3 MR. HICKMAN : The _second point that is very relevant, that the hon. the gentleman opposite, the hon. Leader of the Opposition on his point of order so concerned about aspersions, started by casting aspersions upon the Premier, co~tinued on that the hon. Premier obviously does not know the rules, etc. And having said all that he suddenly turns and says, "I do not want any aspersions cast upon me." I had not heard the hon. the Premier cast aspersions upon anyone. He is simply saying, that I am sure the bon. Leader of the Opposition is aware. And, Mr.

Speaker, it is a facetious, frivolous, unprecedented point of order. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear , hear ! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! On the point of order before the Chair, as I see it there is a difference of opinion. 'Whether an hon. member does in fact know something or does not is obviously a difference of opinion. And whether something which he should or should not know is,in my opinion, a difference of opinion and there is no aspersion upon anyone but a difference .of opinion. The bon. Premier.

PREMIER MOORES: I withdraw the remark that I made that the Leader of the Opposition knows how to run a political party. But, Sir, one would as.sume that one would know what is going on as far as the method by which donations are made. The fact is, Sir, t~t to my knowledge,nor to anyone els~s knowledge on this side of the House, there has never been party influence in governmental decisions on things of that nature. If that answers his question, that is fine. It is absolutely true. They may be laughing on that side, Mr. Speaker, because they are not used to it. MR. ROBERTS: ·A su~plementary. 2545

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 923 Page 1- MS MR. SPEAKER: A suppl~entary by the origi~al questioner. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I must accept the Premier's answer, but I do not have to believe it. Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary for the Premier. Would he tell the House,please,when he first became aware of the fact that the Scrivener firm had made several donations to the PC Party? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Premier. PREMIER MOORES: I will have to take notice of it, Mr. Speaker, · because we had several substantial donations at that time a I am sure the Liberal Party have had over the years as well.

And that is the honest answer, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to the innuendo . that we have been listening to otherwise. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear , hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for LaPoile followed by the han. member for Port au Port. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, Sir, what plans the government have to discourage increasing drunkenness among our people, especially among the youth, including those in their early teens? SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I find it difficult to hear the question~which I have to do,so I would ask han. gentlemen, in general, to be more quiet. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Justice if he would tell the House what plans the government have to discourage increasing drunkenness amoung our people, especially among the youth, including those in their early teens? MR. SPEAKER: The han. minister. MR.. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, how do I answer that question and remain within the rules and not make a speech, you know? And how do I r 2546

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 923 Page 2 - mw Mr • Hiclanan • answer the question when I have to listen to the nonsensical interruptions from the hon. member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (Mr • Simmons) • SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HICKMAN: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of this House be enforced to protect me from this type of vicious harassment, this type of vicious harassment that I am getting from the hon. ~~e _!!l~ber for ~~rgeo-Bay d 'Espo~r (Mr. Silllm.ons).. I cannot stand it. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. HICKMAN: May I solicit the protection of the HouseZ PREMIER MOORES: Get his hard hat back.

MR. HICKMAN: Now to the very sensible and concerned statement from the hen. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). I concur with him, with his feelings, th~t there seems to be an indication of increased use of alc~~~lic beverages by young people. I can give some personal opinions as to what I think should be done. MR. NOLAN: What are you going to do? MR. HICKMAN: I would think that the Board of Broadcast Governors, or whatever they call themselves, those who control broadcasting and televising in Canada, and who have exclusive jurisdiction. thereof.------- --. MR. SIMMONS: The CRTC. MR.

HICKMAN:-· the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and Telecommunications,whose jurisdiction so far has been challenged but never successfully, I would think, I would hope that if they have any sense of responsibility that they would move away from allowing the advertising'of alcoholic beverages, the tremendous emphasis they are placing on youth, the tremendous emphasis that they are placing on athletes. Have you. noticed all the advertisements, Mr. Speaker, for beer; --- - -- . the national advertisements for beer that comes.on?

Every time now it is the teenagers, - th~; teenagers are coming in off the ski slopes, and the first thing they do is reach for a bottle of beer.

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 923 Page 3- mw Mr. Hickman. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of - and I would plead, I would appeal to the brewers, to those who manufacture this stuff and who avail of the free enterprise-system to advertise, to please move away from the !~ mu~t be a - financial!~~~-~e~~;.u.~ patter~ of appealing to our young people in trying to make drinking amongst young people as respectable, 'and the thing to do if you are going to be a great athlete, if you are going to be a great outdoor person, you know, that is one very simple thing I can see that should be done.

Now what else can the government dol Can we get up and preach day after day? You canno~ legislate. MR. SIMMONS: You can blame the _parents. r- - '1. ~ - " . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. HICKMAN: You can also say very definitively and very definitely, Mr. Speaker, that 'the parents most assuredly have a responsibility MR. SIMMONS: What about the minister? MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, are you going to protect me from that jackal, that harasser, that man who will not go down and run where he was born, but goes down to Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir - 2548

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 924 NM- 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear! Hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. HICKMAN: Can I be protected and allowed to give my few remarks in silence? MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER MOORES: ~~o is going to pay the taxes~ MR. SPEAKER: As hon. members presumably are aware, the specifie purpose of the Question Period is to allow hon. members, presumably as many as possible, as time will permit, to ask for information.

And also to allow ministers then to provide the information asked for,and I think.that interruptions unnecessarily prolong that process and deprive hon. members of the opportunity perhaps to ask as many questions as time would permit under regular circumstances. I would therefore ask hon. members not to· interrupt. Equally for the Question Period to serve the purpose that I understand it is designed for, requires that their care in both asking and answering questions not to consume unnecessary time. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear! . Hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. SOME HON.

MEMBERS : Oh! Oh! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. gentleman apparently has not finished. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker - MR. SIMMONS : I have a question, Mr. Speaker. MR.. ROBERTS : That is a speech. MR. SPEAKER: No, I interrupted the hon. minister when he was answering t~e question. MR.. SIMMONS : But he is finished. . ----- - -AN RON. MEMBER: Order, please 'Roger! _ MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. minister is now about to have leave to co~plete his answer. 2549

March 11, 1977 TApe No. 924 NM - 2 MR. SIMMONS: The Premier approves of Brian Davies. The Premier approves now. PREMIER MOORES: At least he has got a Premier. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! SOME RON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! PREMIER MOORES : The man-boy. MR. SIMMONS: He is a member of the harem - SOME RON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! PREMIER MOORES: Is it true when you fell in the ha:irbour and they hauled you out,you left a ring around the waterfront? SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please ! Order, please! Order, please!

Now I must insist . on a couple of things, one that whe* I call order everyone remain silent. Two, that during the question and answer period there not be interrupt1ons. During this period I think it is easy for its purposes to become distorted~ It is there presumably to afford members the opportunity to ask questions and to give ministers the opportunity to provide the informat~~n. ----- ---- And if there are going to be numerous int~rrupti~ns, if questions are too long and if answers are too long~then the whole purpose of it becomes undermined. So I call that to the attention of hon. members.

It would appear to me that on the I whole the Question Period has been quite successful. But it "is important that there be no interruptions. It is important that questions and answers be f~amed in such a way as to allow as many as possible members to ask questions and answers to be given. The hon. Minis~er of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank Your Honour and I wish to Your Honour that I am steadfastly attempting to stay within the rules to answer what was an opinion question that evokes a rather 2550

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 924 NM - 3 MR. HICKMAN: lengthy but factual answer. Now may I deal with the second prong of the approach that I see in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, and I repeat, that no matter how one looks at it, that with respect to teenagers I hope there is no one half-witted enough in Newfoundland to think that there is not parental responsibility. And I hope there is no on~ half-witted enough in Newfoundland to believe that a lot of our parents, very pr~p~rly, and very effectively show that kind of leadership • . But, Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the question from the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) I say controlt . more discretion, less emphasis on youth in advertising, more understanding on the part of the parents of this Province, better programmes in our schools,which some schools are now starting, for which I am very grateful, to show the terrible evil, show young people the terrible evils that flow from alcoholism that is inevitable if teenagers have serious drinking problems at that time in their life. That is the kind of thing.

To legislate, _ you cannot legislate on the morals of the Province, you know. . ·PREMIER !!OORES: We have legislation already • MR.. HICKMAN: And we have legislation and one other thing if I may, is there any other area that the hon. gentleman would like me to cover? SOME RON. MEMBERS: No, sit. down. Sit down. Sit down. MR.. HICKMAN: The hon. gentleman says he has a supplementary so I will wait. MR.. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

NEARY: What I have to ask the minister, Sir, the minister has laid great stress and emphasis on the parents being responsible, what about the owners of these bistroes, these cabarets and taverns here, do they not have a responsibility? And if so would the minister tell the House what steps his government are going to take 2551. =

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 924 NM- 4 MR. NEARY: to make them responsible for the over embibing in their establish.Jn .ents, by people who they just take in to spend their money and drink all the booze they can, should they not be responsible for controlling this · drunkeness to a certain degree? What steps will the minister take to curb that? MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. Z5ti2

March 11, 1977 Tape 925 IB-1 MR. HICKMAN: Hr. Speaker,- I am totally ad f:dem with the sentiments just expressed by the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), and I repeat what I said in this hon. House but two days ago, that both police forces in this Province, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Newfoundland Const~bulary,_have been asked to crack down as best they can on any breaches of the law by those who operate premises licensed to sell alcohol throughout the Province.

In fact,it was only this morning I heard the Chief of Police, John Browne of the Newfoundland Constabulary, who is one of Canada's outstanding police officers,may I add- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HICKMAN: - saying the type of enforcement that his force is carrying out and the difficulty because obviously the taxpayers cannot afford to put a police officer in every single licensed establishment throughout the Province. MR. NEARY: Put breathalyzers in the licensed establishments. MR. HICKMAN: Let me say, Mr.

Speaker, that there have been - and I heard it ratified today by the Chief of Police - many prosecutions of those who are selling alcoholic beverages to people u_nd~z:. _age_. ___ .l\nd this will continue. I would say~look,if any hon. gentleman in this House has reason to believe that a particular tavern operator is breaking the law in the strictest of - AN RON. MEMBER: The Minister of Justice does not worry about it. MR. HICKMAN: The Minister of Justice never has and hopefully not willingly broken the law. And I will do my best - MR. ROBERTS : Have not broken the law? MR.

HICKMAN: Well,unless you call speeding - I suppose I have gone over the speed limit. But I will do my very best to avoid breaking the l,aw. I admit that I once went twenty-one miles an hour in a twenty mile zone and it had such a traumatic experience upon me that I decided that the next time I had better be very careful, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, have I covered all the angles that the hon. gentleman for LaPoile (Mr. Neary)?_~ ~yi say that I am not totally satisfied with 2553

March 11, 1977 Tape 925 IB-2 MR. HICKMAN: my answer, I am not totally satisfied - SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HICKMAN: I am not totally satisfied with the question and I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday next I will debate this issue at the Late Show. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to - MR. SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary? MR . NEARY: Well,it has·to do with the same question. I want to tell the gentleman that he is too late because I have already informed the Speaker that I am dissatisfied with the minister's answer. MR..

SPEAKER: The hon. member for Port au Port. ,. MR. HODDER: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the helicopter - ~ing _ ~ed by B-~ian Davies to pursue .the seal hunt - or used in protesting the seal hunt - is the - company that this helicopter is leased from doing any business with the government? And ..!_f _ so. which company is it? Is the minister aware? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation. - ----MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all·.;he _ cQ_~pany_ doi_!lg. business with the Newfoundland Government at present is Universal Helicopters.

And upon hearing the news this morning in fact that Brian Davies. was coming in with a fleet of seven helicopters to the St. Anthony area, I i.miDediately enquired to find out whether or not any companies that are involved with government are also involved with Brian Davies because if they were - and I am sure that I would get the support of ----·-· my colleagues - while I am responsible for air services I would refuse to do business with any company who would support and lease helicopters to Brian Davies or in fact any other crackpot who is out to oppose the seal hunt.

So the company, to answer the hon. gentleman's question, the company concerned leasing the helicopters is a company called Trans-Quebec 2554

¥.arch 11, 1977 Tape 925 IB-3 }ffi.. MORGAN: Hel~copters,and I had my Director of Air Services this morning contact the Universal Helicopters,who are doing work with government,and I am pleased to inform the House that the company doing work for the Newfoundland Government at present has refused to lease their helicopters to Brian Davies. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Mr.

Speaker, we are concerned about the proximity of the oil drilling sites to the major nursery banks, the fishing banks of Hamilton Banks, Hawkes Channel, Nain, Makkovik and Saglek Banks. CoUld the minister tell us whether he has any information on any hlowouts or case ~~akings or emergency vacating due to ice damage of the oil rigs over the last five years in drilling off the Labrador Coast? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. PECKFORD: I do not have any information.

I do not know if the hon. member is referring specifically to oil rigs or whether he is referring to the capping of the actual hole. 2555

}1'....arch 11,1977 Tape 926 AH-1 MR. STRACHAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.. STRACHAN: Could the minister tell us ·the· names of the companies in which the oil and gas 6egulations which will involve these environmental controls, the names of the companies to which we have distributed these oil and gas regulations? MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister.of Mines and Energy.

MR.~ PECKFORD : I can get that information for the hon. member, all the major companies who have an interest off_the ~ast_ CoaRt have been given copies _of the regulations and that is,Amico, Imperial, Shell , East~~~ _and_BP.~ut_I can get the list for the hon. member is he wants it with all the companies that have a ~jor interest in that area. MR. STRACHAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

STRACHAN: Could the minister tell us when this Rouse and the public of the Province are g~ iE~ to see these regulations, and whether there has been any concessions given to the companies under these regulation before they are made public? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. --- ------- -----MR.

PECKFORD: ~o po_:!.nts_the_~~;_ wb~n they will be_ made public'l We are hoping that within the next month or so we will be able to make them public,_ :~<:! ~ then the second part of his question, whether there has been any concessions made to this date'l There has been none, we are just negotiating.·What we have indi~ated to the companies and what we have made public is that we will listen to their concerns in writing' - and also meetings with them.

And then after we have all their concerns and they are satisfied that they have _had amnle opportunity get their points across,then government will re-examine its .position vis-a-vis the regulations. 2556

March 11,1977 Tape 926 AH-2 MR. PECKFORD: This past week we have met in Calgary .with several of the companies~including Eastcan,and other meetings with the companies will be held in the next couple of weeks again. The problem is,one,that they have indicated to us, they have written us a page or two pages giving their immediate reactions and then they wanted their various 'exploration, economists and financial people to study the different royalty r~gimes and so on.

Now they have come b_ack in a lot more --- --··-- detailed but very expensive briefs that we are sitting down with them and going over point by point. Because many times we find that the companies in some of their responses are responding to a point which they have misunderstood in the regulations, and so therefore it takes a lot of back and forth chit-chat to clear up just what we mean, what the whole intent of the regulations are,and then give them a chance to respond. MR. STRACHAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. STRACHAN : Mr.

Speaker, could the minister assure the House and the people of this province that there has been no concessions given , or will be given to companies like Eastcan in the awarding af exploitation permits, I am not talking about exploration permits, exploitation permits on the awarding of concessions of blocks or acreage in the Labrador sea? MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR.. PECKFORD : I have already indicated, Mr.

Speaker, that no concessions have been made as of this date~ -: Whether I can assure . . . -all the people of _ the Province that no concessions will be made in the future is something that is highly~ that is within the re~lm of conjecture and that I would not like to- MR. STRACHAN: But to this day. - - - ---· -.. - MR. PECKFORD: Commit myself to that. To this day,as I indicated in the previous supplementary ~

March 11,1977 Tape 926 AH-3 MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Windsor-Buchans has a supplementary? This will be the last question. MR. FLIGHT: With regards to the regulations, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that the regulations have been completed and it will take a month or a month and a half ~efore they are made public, to the public at large or into the House. Is Ottawa aware of those regulations, have the regulations been submitted to Ottawa and why will it take a month or a month and a half to make these r~gulations available to the House? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. PECKFORD : Mr. Speaker, the. hon- member should· - with all . - due respect-does . not seem to understand some very basic things.

(1) The regulations have not been made available to Ottawa at this point in __ . . _ . -- - - - - -- or a month and a half? W~ are talking to twelve or fifteen or twenty ---- - - - . companies and we ~re_giving- thel!l time to answer to us in ·detail and then to sit down after they have responded to us in detail, to verbally make their case and this is what is taking the time. That is all. And sometimes we meet here in St. John's, other times it is in Ottawa and sometimes it is Calgary. It is hard to

schedule it. It takes sometimes two weeks just to schedule· a meeting with one company,especially if they have a main office or major offices all around the world and try to get them together to sit down to talk about them. So that is the only reason, and because the .regulations are so detailed. 2558

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 927 Page 1 - mw ORDERS OF THE DAY: MR. SPEAKER: Order 1. The adjourned debate on the Address in Reply. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. RO&ERTS: When the House rose yesterdav I had finished the first part of what I wished to say in support of this sub-amendment. Before I carry on with the remainder of my remarks perhaps I could just mention a verv minor point. I happened to be looking through -· - --- -~ -- ·- ·--- - - yesterday's Hansard, and I noticed on page 2494 there is a remark attributed to the gentleman for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall).

I think it was made in fact by the Minister of Public Works. It is not an important point, but if we are going to have Hansard we should make it as accurate as possible. I think if the minister and the member look at it they will confirm it. MR. ROUSSEAU: What page? MR. ROBERTS! 2494 of yesterdav's Hansard. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in speaking in support of the sub-amendment moved by my friend and my colleague from the district of Stephenville (Mr.

McNeil), I laid out some reasons which in my view - and I think the view of any fair-minded person - are compel~ing reasons for the setting up of a royal commission to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the donation by the Scrivener firm I to the party which forms the government of the Province of a very large sum of money, more than $50,000.

At the same time as that firm were negotiating with the government, a government made up obviously of members of the PC Party, at the same time as they were negotiating with that government a renegotiation of the contract~--and I set forth the figures which showed that one of the effects of that renegotiation obviously was to increase dramatically and greatly the amount of money payable to the Scrivener firm.

We do not know in fact how much has been paid to the Scrivener firm,-o~ now to their successors in the project, the SNC, I guess they are· called, that firm that was brought in when the Scrivener firm relinquished the contract t·' _ W!! do not know that. Perhaps one of the ministers who speaks, and I assume at least one minister will speak in this debate, and hopefully several, ~ that perhaps they could give us that information. It would be very useful to know exactly what was there. Z559 =

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 927 Page 2 - mw Mr. Roberts. Now before I deal with some of the points raised by the Minister of Public Works yesterday - he spoke on the Late Show. He raised two points that I think 1 should comment upon. Let me comment upon the answer which the Premier gave earlier this morning in the Question Period to a question or two which I asked him with respect to this contract and the government's response to the- not the allegations, because they no longe~~re allegations, -they are facts •. _______ ·- MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker., there is no quorum. MR. ROBERTS: A quorum call? MR. HICKMAN: Yes.

Before calling a quorum and leaving, may I direct the House's attention that there are only two members opposite besides the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We do not have a quorum. MR. SPEAKER: A quorum call. Coun~ the House, please. There is a quorum present. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: The only thing I would say, Mr.

Speaker, is that we should make the quorum call time a little longer than three minutes because it is simply not possible to get a cup of tea in three minute ~- Y~ !now, in the old days, not so far back- I am not sure if it ever happened in here when we met in this Chamber, but when the House met down in the Colonial Building they regularly adjourned at 4:15 P.M. for a cup of tea. My friend from Fogo (Capt. Winsor) would have been in the House then. 4:15 P.M. was it?

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 928 NM- 1 MR. MURPHY: ~fuen the Premier at that time got vexed with us they would not allow us. MR. ROBERTS: That is what happened was it? When the Premier gets vexed here we do not get that at all. MR. MURPHY: Kit Murphy used to handle that machine. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, Kit Murphy. Kit Murphy,you know,alone did what it now must take ten or twelve girls to do, you know to transcribe it., ~he kept -all the records and transcribed all the debates. MR. MURPHY: Kit Murphy is a great person. MR.

ROBERTS: In any event, Sir! now that reminiscence~ period is over let me come back to the harsh reality of the government's conduct in this matter which I think is harsh , and I think it requires examination and possibly even a word or two of criticism. I am sorry the Premier is leaving again - AN HON. MEMBER: He is going .to ger a cup of tea·e:. MR. ROBERTS: A cup of teaf _ ~e~l that would be a change and a welcome one. Mr.

Speaker, let me however refer to some of the ,---- ·-- ·- -- --·--points which the Premier made in answering ~he question because I think his answers - did ·Your Honour rule that cowardly was an improper word,-or was it just improper in the use of the question? MR. SPEAKER: In the particular context I asked for it to be withdrawn. MR. ROBERTS: Okay, then, well that being so I shall not use it again.

But let me say that I do not think very much of the tactics adopted by the Premier in: his answer because they reminded me of what the Minister of Finance on the television the other night accused the gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) of doing, namely of conducting a smear campaign. And so let me just - 1 MR. NEARY: What was that? 256i

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 928 NM- 2 MR. ROBERTS: The Minister of Finance the other~night accused the gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) of conducting a smear campaign. MR. NEARY: Me? -- ~ -- MR. ROBERTS: By tabling the Dick Greene receipt, and that was on, yes, on CJON television. Un~ ess"my very own ears deceive me it was the minister's very own voice and the minister's very own visage. But be that as it.may, Sir, be that as it may the Premier's answer today was a masterpiece of some terms which I am not allowed to use. First of all .he referred to Mr. John Doyle, Now· what the devil Mr.

John Doyle has to do with the Health Sciences Project escapes me. I do understand,and this may be why the Premier brought it up, that Mr. Doyle,after Mr. Davidson left Scrivener,and according to the Ministry at the time back in 1973, Mr. Davidson's departure from Scrivener was entirely his own decision. I ques-tioned that a< ~he time, a number of us did, but the hon.·gentleman opposite maintained that Mr. Davidson-'s decision to depart --the Scrivener firm was entirely voluntary and they did it on the best of terms. But subsequently Mr.

Davidson became connected in some way, I do not know, I really do not care how, but d_id, I understand, become connected in some way with Mr. John Doyle. Well that is for Mr. Doyle to explain and for Mr. Davidson to explain. If"the-Prel!Uer does not know about it and wants to know about it.then I would think that is one more reason why we should have a royal commission set up and let him subpoen~-- - - - ---- or let the royal commission subpoena Mr. Davidson. I doubt if Mr.

Doyle would respond to a subponea judging on his record of responding to invitations to appear in this Province at various -------- - judicial proceedings . of late. Although, I as~ the Minister of Justice, is John Doyle currently "a fugitive" from - what is the legal status? He is out on bail. ZS!L2

March 11, 1977 Tape 929 PK - 1 Mr. Roberts: _The Supreme Court of Canada ordered his bail be returned; other charges were laid and he has declined to appear. Does that make him ·"a fugitive"? SOME RON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. ROBERTS: No. I mean he has declined, Mr Doyle has declined the -Crown's invitation to appear to answer certain charges which have been laid in respect of some allegations about stock dealing~~ ­ is it?- wash trading of -stock, but he is not in position, say, of Mr. Vardy,who is resisting an attempted extradition. There are no extrdition proceedings now in train against Mr. Doyle,are there?

And he left the country legally. Is that not true? I mean,I have not followed it • It is labyrinthine and very complicated the legal dealings of Mr. John Doyle and the Crown. The Crown have not been overly vigorous in pressing their case,I feel. By in any event, Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps a little beyond the point. The point is that the Premier choose to bring Mr. Doyle name into it. I do not know what Mr. Doyle has to do with it. As: far as I know he has no thing at all to do with this, except as I have said I do understand that subsequent to Mr.

Da.Yidson leaving the Scrivener firm he did enter into some sort of arrangements in relationship with Mr. Doyle, and that ma~be is what is bothering the Pr.emier •. I do not know wha_t else .!f.ay be bothering the Premier unless ,._-it is tha~ -~-does -not want-this debate to go ahead, and I can understand that, because the Premier and the government have shown a great relucaance to have the facts come out in this matter • . The Premier also mentioned .when the contract - and I believe I am quoting him - when the contract was entered into back in 1967 or 1968. Well-;-Sir. - that is just quite incorrect.

The facts will show,and if the Premier had made the least effort to check his facts, he would realize that the contract with Scrivener was not entered into until late in 1971, in fact, I happen to have . - -·---·. --· ·---- - - - - -- -~ '------- Z5ti3

March 11, 1977 Tape 929 PK - 2 Mr. Roberts: here,by one of those lovely conincidences that makes life so worth-while,a copy of the letter which I wrote in June of 1971 to the Hon. John Monroe,who was then the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa, now the Minister of Labour in Mr.

Trudeau's Administration up there, and that was the letter in June 1971 which acknowledged the fact that the Government of-Canada had agreed to give us $30 million towards the cost of the Health Sciences Centre, and that it was subsequent to that, of course, that arrangements were made to hire the Scrivener firm, and in fact the Scrivener preliminary design report and estimate was not presented or prepared until I November 1971, in fact November 30, 1971. And at that stage, interestingly enough,the project manager, the man who signed the covering letter here was Mr. R. Harvey Self. So I mean Mr.

Davidson came into it subsequent to ~~at~ In fact, I am prepared to say that Mr. Davidson was not involved at all with the Scrivener project in Newfoundland or to my knowledge with the Scrivener firm, but certainly with the Scrivener firmS operations~in this Province until after the present government took office. So, you know, the Premier is obviously on a sticky ( ~i':~e: , he is obvious tender, whatever his motives are I do not know, but his facts are completely incorrect. _!1l_is whole train of events with . the : Scrivener firm began back in the Summer of 1971. Mr.

Davidson, the gentleman who gave the contribution to the P.C. Party,did not enter into the picture,as far as I know,until after the present Premier assumed office -·· and he~~ - his colleagues came into the l • • J' ministry,which was in January of 1972. So the Premier is on a bit of a sticky-wicket there. As a matter of fact, Sir, the Premier's statements are just completely false, inaccurate, incorrect and untrue. -. Now, Sir, the Premier also in his answers managed, not successfully, but managed to avoid, and even tried to evade,I submit, the quest~on, the real question of this motion,which is 2564

March 11, 19 77 Tape 929 PK -3 Mr. Roberts: not the escalation in costs - We will have another sub-amendment dealing with that. I think we could provide eleven or twelve more sub-amendments, I think there can be, Mr. Speaker, and then of _course there has only been one amendment moved to the Throne Speech. Each of my colleagues has the right to move an amendment when the time comes, and we can have a full round. There are,eounting the gentleman from LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) for these purposes, I think there are eighteen or nineteen of us now in the Opposition benches, and we can have eighteen sub- amendments on each main amendment if they are in order. So I confidentially expect the Throne Speech will go for a little while yet, and we have a number of specific points we wish to raise, and one of them may very well be this question of the escalation,because that is worth a day or so of debate as well.

Since the will not produce any facts, since they have avoided it and ducked it and evaded it and tried to cover up and hide, misrepresented~all of the tricks and tactics that governments are --g~ilty -·of then we shall ------· ··-- · --· 2565

March 11, 1977 Tape 930 IB-1 MR.. ROBERTS : have to force them to debate it by bringing forth these sub-amendments. And I think it is a very good parliamentary tactic; it is a new one, new to this Rouse at least,and I think it is proving very worthwhile. In any event, Sir, the Premier in his answer talked a great deal about escalations but did not deal with the main issue,which is the propriety of the government accepting a contribution of more than $50,000 from this. firm under these circumstances. I asked him straight out, man- fashion,whether he thought it proper or not. He did not answer.

Instead he launched on these completely irrelevant attacks on Mr. Doyle. He talked about me being Minister of Health. Well I will agree to have a Royal Commission look into my condu.ct of office as Minister of Health or Minister of Public Welfare anytime the Premier wants to do it,and all I would ask in return is that we have a Royal Commission into his conduct of the office of the Premier beginning with the affair of Mr. William Saunders and going on up through the piece.

Anytime the Premier wants to do that I would be very happy, Sir, and I am delighted to appear before any Royal Commission and to answer any questions that anybody wants to put to me. I would be simply delighted. The Premier may or may not be able to hear what I am saying. He has left the Chamber. He has made his brief visit and he is gone again. But if he is in one of the common rooms or one of the rooms where the public address system carries forth,! would hope that he will listen to what I say and I hope he will ~~spond by accepting my request ~nd my invitation.

But_~ any _event, Sir, I did want to dispose of those irrelevancies. There may be some who felt that they were germane and they were correct. I think I have shown conclusively that the Premier's answer was a lot of hogwash and a lot of mishmash and a lot of nonsense, an absolute attempt to smother, to cover up as opposed to an attempt to expose and to answer. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works yesterday in a very emotional plea - and there is an old statement in law, an old maxim in law, that when the facts are against you you argue the law and when 2566

March 11, 1977 Tape 930 IB-2 MR. ROBERTS: the law is against you, you argue the facts,and when you cannot have either on your side, you get emotional. The Minister of Public Works got emotional yesterday in a Late Show debate item referring to escalations. I respect the genuineness of his emotion and respect his feelings on this matter. And I hope he will speak in the debate. If he chooses to be the minister speaking in response to the motion moved by my friend from Stephenville (Mr.

McNeil), he has unlimited time, all the time he would need to speak at whatever length he wants as long as he is relevant to the debate. He made two points,though,that I think require a little elucidation. First of all he keeps repeating that the escalation provided for in the Scrivener proposal was only five per cent. Well that is just not correct. MR. ROUSSEAU: I used that as ane~ample. MR. ROBERTS: Well, he used that as an example.

If that was all he used,it as it was a very bad example because, Sir, the preliminary design report and estimate - and this is the information which I had as Minister of Health in 1971, the end of that year, I am not sure when I, yes, I got it on January 5, 1972,which would have been a fortnight or so before I left office as Minister of Health. It was dated November 30, 1971, addressed to the Department of Public Works and subsequently it would have been received by that department and sent ~h~o~gh to me. I have no doubt there are copies of it around. It is a printed book.

That contained the original budget cost estimate figures of $45 million. And I might add-my friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) would probably be more up on this than I am - that up until about a year ago the government were maintaining the project was still being done within that $45 million estimate. We found that hard to accept, but they were maintaining it time and etme again in the House and outside. But at that point, Sir, there was provided a'total of $4.5 million for contingencies and escalation, and that is ten per cent. Z567

March 11, 1977 Tape 930 IB-3 MR. ROBERTS: The time escalation, item (

g) on the list there, l~s $2 .'5 Il).illion, and item (

e) was called progressive design contingency, $2 million, Total them, $4.5 million, ten per cent of $45 million. So the Minister of Public Works picked a very bad example, Mr. Speaker, a very bad example indeed. The original estimates provided for at least a ten per cent escalation over the life of the contract. That may not have been adequate. The rate of inflation has certainly been far higher than anybody anticipated -and I will grant that. But the minister, you know,should not rely_on his handy-dandy whiz-bang calculation. If he thinks that is an argument in his favour, it is not.

There is quite a lot of explanation in here of the factors affecting the budget cost estimate. I do not propose to go into them, Sir, because I have only got about half an hour left in the time alloted to me and there are some other points I wish to make. But any hon. gentleman who wishes to look at them ! ' will be very happy to supply any and all concerned with copies of this preliminary design report and estimate. And this was the first proposal received -with respect to the Health Sciences Complex. I may add at a time - - - --- - - ---- when 2568

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 931 Page 1 - mw Mr. Roberts. Mr. Davidson,to the best of my recollection and knowledge, was not in anyway connected with the Scrivener firm. Mr. Davidson came in when the Tories came in,as I recall it. MR. NEARY: The spruce budworm, Davidson and the Tories came in at ~he same time. MR. ROBERTS: Now, Sir, - ah, but the spruce budworm did not bring the sort of goodies that Mr. Davidson brought to the PC Party.

The minister also - and I think this was the emotional point of his plea yesterday in the Late Show, Sir - spoke of his belief in the beneficial nature of the present contract existing with the Scrivener firm as opposed to the prior contract. Now I cannot argue with him. I do not have the prior contract. MR. ROUSSEAU: I have it right here. MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am glad the minister has it, and I do not have it. And in any event even if I had it I do not see how we can compare them at this stage, because we do not know - I do not know how much Scrivener have got,nor do I know what they did for it.

I do know that the whole Health Sciences Complex has been mismanaged very horribly. I think the evidence is quite conclusive on that. And I do not know whether that is the minister's responsibility or not. I know that his officials were after him.

I happen to have a memorandum here dated May 6, 1976 . f;rom Mr.- Brophy~ you know:, -talking .____,_=---------- - -- -- - ---- -- ---- ---- and this is interesting one - a memorandum,:- i~ __ was "ien£ to th-e Assistant Deputy Minister of Technical Services from the Director of Planning and Construction re Health Sciences Complex, May 6, 1976, signed ~~~R~--~Br?phj~ Professional Engineer. I do not know Mr. Brophy. I do not know whether he is still in the department or not. But apparently he sent this memorandum. It was in fact dealing with debate in the House.

But he makes a remark in here which is very, very interesting. "While it is admitted that at the outset few controls existed, this has been remedied and control has been adequate since 1973." In other words,when 2569

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 931 Page 2 - mw Mr. Roberts. we left office the decision had been taken to start. The Scrivener firm had been engaged but as far as I know that is about all that had been done. I doubt if $5,000 had been spent or committed on the project. Everything had been set.

The money had been arranged from Ottawa, and the approvals had been given by Cabinet and by the authorities, but I doubt if much more than that had been done, and here we are in May,1976, the Director of Planning and Construction advising the Assistant Deputy Minister that it was not until 1973 that there were adequate controls with respect to the expenditure. So it is going to be very hard for the minister now to maintain that the thing was in order,particu~arly in view of the fact that by 1973 these immense donations had been received by the Tory Party. Mr.

Speaker, all I will say about the question of whether the contract is more beneficial or not is that if the minister, as I believe he does,believes that it is more beneficial,then I would think, Sir, that he would be the very first to welcome putting it to the test in an impartial forum such as a royal commission. Because, Sir, it is one thing to make an assertion here in the Rouse of Assembly, a body which by its nature is partisan; it is another thing entirely, Mr.Spaaker, to have it submitted to an impartial and hopefully a judicial type of examination by a royal commission.

So I assume, Sir, the minister's firm belief as stated here in the Rouse, that the arrangement which was --- negotiate~-- ~~- ~and his colleagues, was superior to whatever arrangement existed before they came into office or before the new one was made, then I submit, Sir, that that should be a very strong factor in urging him and inclining him to support the very idea of a royal commission to look into all of the incidents surrounding the Scrivener fi~ ·involvement with the government.

Now, Sir, yesterday I spoke of what I referred to and what in fact are two very compelling facts that say we must have a royal commission. The first was that the Scrivener firm made an immense donation to the Tory Party, a donation that was admitted by the finance chairman who received it, Mr. Richard Green. The 2570

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 931 Page 3 - mw Mr. Roberts second factor was the fact that during the period that that donation was being received by the PC Party- and I suggest with the Premier's knowledge that .donation was +eceived by the PC Party - the Premier took it as notice, and he will answer me in .due course, but I suggest it was with his knowledge. And we will let a royal commission .determine that one, too. Because the man who told the Premier, of course, would also be able to testify as to when he told the Premier and what the Premier ~w.. Mr.

Speaker, __ at __ the same time as that was done the fees were renegotiated and a very large increase in the item as to fees payable in respect to the various h.ea.ds that I outlined and ment1oned yesterday. And those were figures which we got out of the ministry. Mr. Speaker, at the same time,.

March 11, 19 77 Tape No. 932 NM- 1 ( MR. ROBERTS: and this is a new point, the . government were engaged with Scrivener in another matter,and this will be o~ interest to my friend from the district of Carbonear, they had engaged Scrivener to build the Carbonear Hospital. Now, Sir, that was something done by the present government. To the best of my knowledge the Scrivener firm had not been retained ~n respect of the Car.honear project at the time we left office, no firm had been. We had decided as a government to build the hospital in C:~r~Qnear, I believe the initial contracts for the foundation work were let.

But the decision to hire the Scrivener 'firm came subsequently when the present government took office. 'MR ~ ~"EARY : In 1972. = MR. ROBERTS: 1972, at the same time of course as these immense donations were being received. Now, Sir, back in 1973 there was a lot of debate in the House about the Carbonear Hospital, because the project had gotten out of hand,and because there had been c~st-plus contracts awarded by the Scrivener firm,and because there had been some departures from the Scrivener firm. It may have?been at about this time Mr. Davidson left the Scrivener firm.

At that time of course none of us ~ -was aware of the donations that had been made. We might have had suspicions but we were not aware of any donations that had_been made, -andi particularly anything of the order of $50,000. -- · - - - . J The Evening Telegram, a newspaper which the Premier was in the habit of referring to as •a yellow dog of journalism", once called a press conference for that, ran quite a detailed story back in February,l973, that would have been before the contract was signed in fact. The Minister of Public 't-7orks at the time was Mr.

Val Earle, who subsequen_t:_ly met a fate at the hands of the electorate of the district of

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 932 NM- 2 MR. ROBERTS: Fortune Bay and Hermitage. The headline in this was "Hospital Fiasco Under Scrutiny," and I do not want to go through it all. It is here if anybody wants to look at it. February 24, 1973, the Evening Telegram. I will just read the points which the author of this_story, Mr. Bill Kelly, then a Telegram staff writer, now the news editor at the Telegram summed up.

It said, "Government officials consider the project 'a total fiasco from _ dClY. one.'" Next point, "Performance of the construction managers, Scrivener Projects Newfoundland Limited is under 1 close scrutiny' by the government, and despite the Progressive · Conservative Government's announced policy that all work on public projects was to be awarded by open public tender, _- -~wc)~con_E_:;:_act-~· at": Carbonear; valued at nearly $350,000 were negotiated and let to one construction company, The whole project was at least two months behind schedule.

Bidders on one aspect of the job were required to submit their tender to a specific Newfoundland firm - . . . . AN RON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: -which was the company that was awarded contracts without - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS : Mr. Speaker, my friend from Fogo and my friend from Bonavista South both have loud voices; please~if they want to converse would they do so outside the HouSe.

And it goes on that 11 a site project manager quit ···his job and left the Province because he disagreed with the way _ceartain contracts were awarded~' Now, Sir, the subject was debated ~ite · extensively in the House in one of those infamous al~night sessions to which the gentleman from St. John's East used to subject us in his inability to get anything out of the House. Anybody who wants to look at the Hansard for Thursday, April 12, 1973, and Friday, April 13, 1973 - MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 932 MR.. SP!AKER: A_ooint o~.o~der. MR.. MARSHALL: It may be a point of order, it may be a point of observation, The hon. gentleman obviously needs to take a refresher course in Dale Carnegie. MR. SPEAKER : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. NM- 3 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the bon. gentleman from St. John's East used to know some rules of the House, now he is just playing his ignorance of the rules of this House and his contempt for the process of debate. Mr.

Speaker, Friday, April 13th., there was a new Hansard,,it was the same session, and there are some words here, some debate here quoting Mr. Earle,who was then the ~inister of Public Works, putting up a very weak defence, an extraordinarily weak defence of the government's dealings. And interestingly enough,at about that same time,guess who was defending the government( Mr. Andrew Davidson. Mr. Earle quoted some letters written b.y Mr. Davidson defending the government and subsequently The Evening Telegram, actually the Telegram report was in February and the House debate was in April, but Mr.

Andrew Davidson was defending the government in February 1973, which of course was five or six months before he got the receipt from Mr. Richard Greene in respect of these contributions, 2574 =

March 11,1977 Tape 933 AH-1 MR. ROBERTS : some months presumably, at least two or three, after the money was paid by Mr. Davidson in behalf of Scrivener to the government. The point at issue_ was who had ordered that the contracts be given without tender,and the minister said, "Oh we knew nothing of it, like Pontius Pilot ~·7e must wash our hands of this," and Mr. Davidson agreed. Mr. Harvey Self, and he was the company president operating from the head office in Toronto,said that the order to give those contracts without going to the formality of tenders came from the government.

The man on the spot,our friend Mr. Andrew Davidson,disagreed with that.And if Your Honour or any other member wishes to look through the Hansards you will find there -Mr. Earle making as best he could a very weak answer to a very strong case, and the best argument he had in his favour was the letters from Mr. Davidson ,. and the Scrivener firm. Now, Mr. Speaker :, - and we __ als~ know,we should add of course,that the Carbonear Hospital cost about twice what it ought to have cost; my friend from Carbonear I am sure is familiar with it. It was a year behind

schedule being built, the escalations were terrific and of course Schrivener were in there as project manager and I have no doubt there fees were not hard to understand, I was going to say it was hard to understand how Scrivener went bankrupt, but Scrivener Newfoundland did not go bankrupt; Scrivener Canada went bankrupt, Scrivener Ne-.:.,-foundland did not,and of course it is not .hard to understand when you realize they were getting a fee which was a percentage of what was spent.

So the more was spent obviously the more that they got and they could well afford obviously these very large donations to the Tory party. ---:----::-- - -·- ----MR. 1-tOORES: ' _ _!__!ll~g~~ s~y_ t~t _ .the Carbonear Hospital is not finished yet. MR. ROBERTS: O~my friend from Carbonear has made a further point

March 11,1977 Tape 933 AH-2 }ffi. ROBERTS: which _ ~ ~ho~ldemphasize,that the Carbonear Hospital is not finished yet and in other words the final cost of it is not really known. Mr. Speaker, I thin~ it is obvious that any fair minded person looking at the facts which I have outlined, and I have tried to outline these facts dispassionately, ·- .. without_!h~~~~~c an~_ w~thout heat, because I believe, Sir, they are of great seriousness, of great importance.

And I think that any fair minded person, Sir, looking at those facts would have to agree that there is here a set of circumstances which cries out for investig~tion. We have on one hand the admission by the finance chairman of the .PC party that he received more than $SO,OOO,and there is no doubt, Sir, that is a very large donation. I do not know what donations the PC party get, but I have said and I say again that in my time as Leader of the Liberal Party, and that is the only time of which I can speak, donations of ~hat size are unheard of.

N_ow!Si r , _a(the same time that this firm was making these immense donations - and remember that this firm came to Newfoundland only to do business with the government and had no continuing presence or interest in the Province beyond doing this business with the government. :,:~ the same time · as they were making these donations they were negotiating with the government a new contract in respect to the Health and Science Center. They were also negotiating a contract with respect to the Carbonear Hospital. MR. NEARY: And Twillingate. MR.

ROBERTS: They did some work at Twillingate, I do not know how much, not very much_ becC!use_ I think 13~ that time the government began to realize that Scrivener were incompetent and that Mr. Davidson and his colleagues were not doing the job. If only Mr. Self here then things · woufdliave-ione ~b~ tter I believe, but be that as it may,the record is there.

March 11,1977 Tape 933 AH-3 MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the jobs were horribly mismanaged but that is another issue.We will have the opportunity I am sure to debate that. And if the government will not call estimates,we tvill make them call estimates by putting dmm the sub-amendments. By my calculation we can have something like 180 sub-amendments yet on the Throne Speech and we will put down,if it is in order, 180 of them and we will have our estimate debate that way. We will go on having our estimates debate one issue at a time since the government insist upon -sticking by this seventy five hour rule.

We have not debated the estimates of Public Works in this House for two or three years,but we will do it this way. If it is in order,and I believe it is,_ ~ros.s each bridge as-~~ --come -- ~ _ - to it. But we have these facts, Sir; , ~xtraordinarily large donatio~s, re-negotiations of contracts with total payment for fees going in the estimates, heaven alone knows what they are in reality, they are obviously higher than that in reality, with the estimated --- -- -- - -- ---- - - -- --- --- ------ =

March 11, 1977, Tape 934, Page 1 -- apb MR. ROBERTS : No public tenders,needless to say, no public discussion. We also have the government hiring that same firm to deal with another hospital. Then, Sir, we have the president of the firm saying the government had ordered them to give out contracts in respect of that hospital without going through the formality of tenders.

Then we have the minister of the time defending this action on the grounds that the president of the-company did not know what he was talking about,but that the man here knew what he was talking about, and the man here said, Oh I never had any pressure from the government. This was the same man who made the donation of $52,000, a fact evidenced by the receipt. MR. NEARY: Who later tried to sell a story to the newspapers called, "The Watergate In Newfoundland". MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and later made some affidavits which are libelous.

They may or may not be accurate - if in fact they are accurate they are not libelous,and : I couJLd rea~ ;hem here because I have protection from libel. I have a copy of the affidavit. I do not intend to read it because I do not think it is the proper thing to do,and I think my friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) felt the same way because he did not read it the other say. He has a copy of it too. The Premier referred to it. There are lots of copies around. You know, Mr. Davidson is somewhat of a discredited man in the testimony on this sense. could deny the fact he gave $52,000 to the P.C.Party.

But nobody That cannot be denied. The man who received it, a former law partner of my friend from Kilbride (Mr. Wells),has made a public statement saying that yes , he did receive it. There is nothing wrong \ .ri.th -_th_a~ --­ nothing illegal. There are those of us who think that things shou~d not be done that way,but until the law is changed,and the present government have shown no inclination to change the law. Ten years ago no province, no jurisdiction prohibited donations, now many do. The United States does, but not Newfoundland.

A few years ago it .was just an idea,and now it is reality in many other places. 25'18

March 11 7 1977, Tape 934 7 Page 2 -- apb MR. ROBERTS: Hopefully it will be here. But we have all these facts, Sir, this tangled web, this skein, this mesh of dealings between the Scrivener firm and the government~and the question quite simply is; where does the truth lie, Mr. Speaker? What is the truth? The questions leap out of the page demanding to be asked. Why did Scrivener give $52,600? Who asked them for it? Who received it? Was all that money spent for polit~~al purposes or was some of it spent . for other purposes? There are questions. Hon. gentlemen opposite know the questions.

They may know the answers. I know the questions but I do not know the answers. What did Scrivener get in return? Nobody is going to convince me that the Scrivener firm, a firm with no history in this Province and no future in this Province, a firm that had come in only to do business on this one project until they were subsequently hired by the government for a second project and until Mr. Davidson came into the picture 7 a man who was not known in my time as a minister. I do not think I ever heard of him. Certainly the man with whom we dealt was Mr. Harvey Self.

Nobody will convince me 7 Sir, or the people of this Province that the Scrivener firm gave $52 7 600 to the P.C. Party without expecting or hoping for something in return. Naivete: It would be naivete beyond naivete for anyone to maintain that •. I am sure my friend from Kilbride (Mr. Wells) does not believe that for a moment. Or my friend from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall), or the Minister of Public Works or others I could name. Not to say there is anything wrong. The crime of bribery and the crime of abuse of public trus.~~ and they are separate crimes in the Criminal Code7 are narrowly defined.

And I am not alleging that there is either bribery or a breach of public trust in this case. There may have been. The evidence brought out by a royal commission might indicate there was but I am not making those allegations. MR. NEARY: Influence peddling 7 is that a crime in the Criminal Code? 25?9

Marcb 11, 1977, Tape 934, Page 3 -- apb MR. ROBERTS: IOfluence peddling ~Y or may no~ be ~ - , _ crime depending on the precise:~cir~~~tances, Sir. Bribery _is a crime, ann abuse of office is a crime. So is theft. Mr. Speaker, the questions scream out for a:n answer. They demand an answer. The facts cannot just be ignored. I expect some minister will stand up and say - oh what will their tactic be? ____:!!_ley may_launch a __ stinging attack "on us" for alleged sins that were carried out while we were the government. Well I find it interesting, Sir.

They have been in office for five or six years now and they ·have not shown any evidence of an alleged _sin despite all the witch hunts we saw. = 2580

March 11, 1977 Tape 935 PK- 1 Mr. Roberts: I find as well, Sir, they have been in office for five or six years they made no move to make any reforms. They used to talk about public tenders. The Auditor General exploded that. I find it surpassing, Sir, that they now, these paragons of morality as they used to claim to be, the hon. gentlemen opposite, now apparently do not want this issue discussed and do .not want it examined, and I find that passing strange. If this group of men, Sir, have nothing to fear in their administration you think they would welcome it.

We have had royal commissions for far less in this Province. We have got one underway now out in Bonne Bay, into those land things for far less ~- and the moment it was raised by the gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) in response to a petition which he received from people out there, all the ministers concerned went scurrying off to the Cabinet and said, "Let us have a royal commission to protect our good names." I find it passing strange, Sir, that there has been no such scurrying here with that request. There has been scurrying,! have no doubt.

But, Sir, there has been no request that I know of, and there have been no announcement, and no decision that I am aware of to set up an investigation. So the question is, why not? What are they hiding? Was something demanded of Scrivener? Was this more than a voluntary contribution, a response to a passing of the hat by Mr. Richard Greene? Was some of this money misapplied? Because, Sir, it is proper to receive political' donations, but it is not proper to use those donations for anything except the lawful ·and proper expenditures of a political party.

If any of this, for example, was used to purchase,say,a car or a house for the use of any individual,that would be improper. If any of it were used to pay for a holiday trip,it would be improper. If any of it were used for anything other than the legitimate expenditures of a political party, advertising, travel, purchase 258:1

March 11, 19 77 Tape 935 PK - 2 Mr. Roberts: of materials, of printing and what have you, legitimate and proper expenditures - it costs $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 at least to run an election campaign in this Province. MR. NEARY: One million dollars a year. - - - ::m.. SMALLWOOD: One million dollars at least. MR. ~OBERTS: One million dollars for an election campaign? Well that may be why we did not win ~he election, Sir, ~e spent about $350,000 in the last general election, the Tories spent something over $1 million. MR. SMALLWOOD: Even that ain't hay. MR.

ROBERTS: Well I agree it ain't hay,as my friend from Twillingate (Mr. Smallwood) would say. MR. MURPHY: What it cost the Province $10 million in debt the hon. member from Twillingate told us - MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir. MR. MURPHY: - end I do not know what it- cost to campaign. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, yes, yes, yes, and-if we only knew what it cost the Province for the gentleman from St. John's Centre (Mr. Murphy) we would be further ahead. MR. MURPHY: I do not know, I have no evidence, but I would like to find out. MR. ROBERTS: But, Mr.

Speaker, the point I am making is that these questions, Sir, came naturally and envitably - SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. ROBERTS: - if the government will not set up the royal commission. Who got the money? Was it misapplied? Was it s-olicited? --What wasg iven in return, if anything? These are --- • ~ J the questions that must arise. You, do not need a suspicious mind or a cynical mind, you do not have to have the cast of mine of the gentleman from St. John's East (Mr.- Marshall) who sees worms under every rock.

You do not have to have that to ask these questions arising out of this kind of factual circumstance. 2582

March 11, 1977 Tape 935 PK - 3 Mr. Roberts: They cry out • Men of integrity, Sir, men of honour would demand an investigation. A cloud has been cast upon every member of the ministry, a cloud has been cast upon the Minister of Public Works. I do not uhink it is justified in his case. But the cloud is there, not by me, I am only giving voice to the facts. I have not made up anytning, I have not invented anything, and I have not charged _anything. But the cloud is there, the question is there, now it hangs over the head of the Minister of Justice. What is he going to do about it? Is he going to go to Cabinet?

He is a righteous man, he has told us so on m~y occasions. Is he going to go ~o Cabinet and demand a royal commission,To ' clear my name and everyliod~ elses name? I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Your Honour wishes to welcome a group of students who are in the gallery, and I would think that is a very worth-while thing, - ~~ Your Honour wishes I will interrupt myself for a moment or two. MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members I wish to welcome to the House of Assembly twenty-eight Grades X and XI students from the Swift Current ~ntegrated High School, _They are accompanied by two-teiiChers~~r.

George Lockyer and Mr. Max Oldford, and I know all hon. members join me in welcoming these young men and .women and their teachers to the House of Assembly. ---- ---------- 2583 =

March 11, 1977 Tape 936 IB-1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I hope the students have come on an historic day because I hope that the mL~ister who speaks in response to this motion will stand and announce that a Royal Commission has been set up to look into these circumstances and to clear up the allegations and that the minis~ry are a group of honourable men who want. to dispel any suspicions that these circumstances may have raised because, Sir, the circumstances are raised. The questions are there. I did not invent the receipt.

I did not invent Mr. Richard Greene confirming that the receipt was genuine, that the money was received. I did not invent the amount, the very large amount,of ~he donation. I did not invent the renegotiation of the contract with Scrivener. I did not invent the role of Mr. Andrew Davidson, defender of the government, the man on whom the government relied in an attempt to refute allegations that they had given out contracts at Carbonear without going through the tender process. I did not invent the fact that the costs of this project and the Carbonear project have escalated.

All I have done is give voice to it, Sir. So I say to the ministry ~ow - tbe Premier with his usual ~ _\i. assiduity to the House, his usual desire to participate in the legi~l~t~ye debates has of course absented himself. But I have no doubt he will be informed of what has gone on if he is not aware already. I had hoped he would speak and maybe he will. But, Sir, I say to bon. gentlemen in the ministry that they must answer this. The best way for them to answer is to set up a Royal Commission. They have done it for far less.

If we can have a Royal Commission to look tnto some very general allegations about land purchases in Bonne Bay,something of far lesser importance than the.natural circumstances, the natural questions here, questio~s .of abuse of office at the highest level because we are talking of contributions to the government party and we are talking of actions taken by the government involving thousands and hundred of thousands and millions of dollars. So if we can set up a Royal Commission to look into Bonne Bay we can surely set up a Royal ::

March 11, 1977 Tape 936 IB-2 MR. ROBERTS: Commission to look into· circumstances surrounding the gift of $52,600 to the PC Party by Mr. Andrew Davidson on behalf of Scrivener. AN RON. MEMBER: What about the welfare rec~pient who got a stove - ~. ROBER"I:S : Yes, that is right. My friend from Bell Island (Mr. N~) went through the fire and came through it unscathed. All the allegations made about a welfare recipient who may or may not have got a stove improperly valved at -what? - $300 or $400. I mean, you know, what is that? The government were quite willing to investigate that, Sir; quite willing.

Now are they going to be q~ite willing to investigate the gift of $50,000 to their party while they were negotiating a contract that has put millions of dollars into the hands of the Scrivener Firm? That is the question, Sir. That is the issue. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. ROBERTS: Sir, we have put down this sub-amendment because we believe this issue should be discussed and we stand ready to debate it, Sir. I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will enter into it with facts. If they want to confine themselves to attacks on us, let them. But let it also be known that those facts are irrelevant.

The Premier gets up and talks about John Doyle as if that had anything to do with this. And the Premier gets up and talks about 1967 or 1968 when the Premier was up in Ottawa not doing his duty. Mr. Eight fer Cent they called him then. He made eight per cent of the votes in the House of Commons during his time as a member. You would think they would have t-aken back his salary on the grounds he had been paid a minimum wage, Sir, and he would not even have earned it • . Mr. Speaker, all of the hon. gentlemen opposite now have a clear duty cast upon them. My friend from St.

John's South (D;r ~ Collins) , my friend from Exploits (Dr. Twomey), my friend from St. John's ' No; t h (Mr. J. Carter), my friend from Kilbride (Hr. Wells), my friend from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall), all men of integrity and stature, men who are devoted to this Province, Sir, and they now have to search 2585

March 11, 1977 Tape 936 IB-3 MR. ROBERTS : their consciences. I have laid out the facts. I have made no charges. I have made no allegations. I have asked the questions which must be asked growing out of these facts. The only way» Sir, to answer those questions is with an impartial investigation by a Royal Commission. We urge the government to db it, Sir. We demand that the government do it.

Whether they do it or not, Sir,-will be a cutting test of their morality and their honesty and their desire to see the affairs of this Province carried out as they must be by a group of meri above reproach whose conduct b above reproach. I will vote for the amendment, Sir. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for St. John's North. , SOME RON. MEMBERS: Rear, hear! 2586

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 937 Page 1 - MS MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the previous exhibition is a hard act to follow. Very briefly _I will recap so~e of the points that the hon. gentleman made. He did not make that many points, but he took a long time to make them. The sub-amendment calls for a royal commission to investigate the Scrivener contribution. The Leader of the Opposition has said that money is part of politics, elections are expensive, and there is no offense so far. The receipt was valid, and in fact it has been confirmed by Mr. Greene in The Evening Telegram, March 10, 1~7?:.

He claims that the circumstances are unusual and so far, although this fact has been known for some time, he alleges that there has been no government rebuttal. Now_I am not standing up to rebut for the government. I am standing up to make some comments upon this whole situation. He says that the sum is immense. I suppose that is relative. I would like to comment upon that. I would like to comment upon the immensity of the sum~ because I recall well the events of 1971-1972. Certainly the amounts of money that the Liberal Par~y were spending then were astronomical.

The increase in their demands was not arithmetical, it was exponential. There was practically no limit to their rapacity, and I am delighted to see the former Premier, whose name escapes me for the moment, sitting in this Chamber. Perhaps he can contribute to this debate. MR. NEARY: Do not be so bold. MR. J. CARTER: I cannot help a defective memory, Mr. Speaker. I would guess - and here it is absolute guess work - but 1 would guess that on the night of January 18, 1972 somebody aame by Mr.

Greene's house with a wheelbarrow and said, Look, just I wish you well. ,!!e was _;probably so use to having enormous requests made to him that he probably came by with a wheelbarrow and a truck and started shovelling it in unbidden. MR. NEARY: No~ somebody sent him a letter from Bill Saunders. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! 2587

March 11, 1977 Tape no. 937 Page 2 - MS MR. J. CARTER: This would not surprise me one bit. MR. WHITE: Bill Saunders, right. MR. SPEAKER (Dr. Collins): Order, please! 11R. J. CARTER: I do not want to get mixed up. If I could have some silence, Mr. Speaker. Now I never, personally speaking, I never liked Scrivener. I never liked the whole project management concept. It defeats the spirit of the free calling of public tenders.

And although in some complex jobs it appears to be necessary,or this is the defense that is made for it, it always in my view ends up costing you mor~,and ~t is very, very hard to control the costs. No project manager is able to give you a final irrevocable cost as a proper bidder is able to do, in fact must do because he signs a ·bond. He takes out a bond, what is called a performance bond, assuring that he can do the particular job for the amount stated.

The project manager, as far as I understand the concept, does not do this, and does not have to do it, and he says, "Oh, I will put out the sub-contracts on ·tenders. I will get the best price possible for you." But it is a very difficult thing to control. Now there is nothing wrong with an individual or a company going the project management route, but it is something else when a public agency does that. And I feel that it is not the most efficient way to run a railroad. I did not like the Scrivener's attitude either.

They had a very patronizing meeting one day that I attended while I was a member of the government, and they were saying, "Oh, we have all got to get together here and push, push, push this, that, the other." They were very patronizing, overbearing, and I just did not like their attitude. So I have never had any sympathy for them.,, ~ut that is really beside the point. Now the Leader of the Opposition did give us a very good performance. Gentlemen who were not here yesterday missed. what I thought was a very excellent performance.

At the crescendo of his speech, when he called out, "Has the government got anything to hide?" he received 2588 =

May 11, 1977 Tape no. 937 ~age 3- mw Mr. J. Carter. applause from both sides of the House. He reminds m'e of that eighteenth century revivalist who apparently was able to bring tears to his audiences eyes merely by the way he pronounced Mesopotamia. He, in fact, moved us all very deeply, but there was not much said. Now the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) as far as I am concerned is the real villian of this piece. For some years now and certainly for some months he has been 2589

March 11, 1977 Tape 938 PK - 1 Mr. Carter: going around suggesting, "Oh,I know this, and I know that, and I know the other; and if I said this, and if I said that, I could hang this one, I could hang that one." In fact there is a word to describe gentlemen like that. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the accusation, the allegation just made by the hon. gentleman, Sir,ata . completely untrue. And I ask Your Honour to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the statements that the gentleman made.

I have not been going around saying I am going to hang this one, or I got this one that one, or I am going to hang somebody else. That is not true, Sir, that is just not true. And I ask the bon. gentleman to withdraw it. MR. CARTER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I will withdraw any allegation of impropriety that I may have made, but the fact remains that the bon. gentleman has been going around with an owl-like cast to his face saying~!=~h~ _ if ~ - tol(f what I know there would be trouble." MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. The bon. gentl~an cannot twis£ his words, Sir.

The hon. gentleman now has ·shfltecfliis ground; and is using now a different phraselogy. ------- I ask Your Honour to ask that gentleman to withdraw the original statement, Sir, and apologize to the House. MR. SPEAKER (MR.. YOUNG) : I feel that it is not an actual point MR.. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, a difference of opinion between two hon. gentlemen~what I would hoped you would say. In any event there is a word for that kind of activity, and.' it is a four letter word and it begins with 'P' and it ends with 'P', and it is an unpleasant sort of activity, It does not do anyone any good.

If the han. has some evidence, some hard evidence,he should table it. He tabled something, a mere receipt. 25SO

March 11, 1977 Tape 938 PK - 2 Mr. J. Carter: And I would suggest that the kind of sums that were being bandied about at that time were astronomical on both sides. Now I would want a little more than that before I would vote for a royal commission. I have heard rumours that there is a great deal more that could be tabled, a great deal more evidence that could be pres·ented. I do not believe it. I think if it were tabled we would find that it was just as circumstantial as the present piece of evidence. MR. NEARY: That is not circumstantial,that is a fact. MR. J.

CARTER: It is a.fact, but it is merely a tip of an iceberg.As the Leader of the Opposition himself has said that as far as the facts go there is no impropriety • . MR. WHITE: MR. J. CARTER: AN RON. MEMBER: Let us have a look at it. I had a look at it. I have a ·copy. Let us have a look at it. MR. J. CARTER: I have a copy of'it. I am coming to this and I will answer the hon. gentleman's point. Now I will make no secret of the fact that I and quite a number of us, quite a number of the members of this House are not entirely happy with the record of this particular government over the last five years. SOME RON.

MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. J. CARTER: We were left with some monsters by the former administration that I do not feel we have ad~quately dealt with, and not necessarily in any particular order, but I will just go over them very quickly; hon. gentlemen know all about them. There is the Churchill Falls, Upper and Lower, that was a monster that was left to us, and impossible for us to sort out. There is the Labrador Linerboard , the debate is yet to come forward. This is another nightmare. Come By Chance is already closed, but it is still a nightmare, it stil-l haunts us. ERCO is anything but satisfactory.

The Health Sciences is really the subject of this 2591

March 11, 1977 Tape 938 PK - 3 Mr. J. Carter: sub-amendment, and the goings on related thereto. The cost escalations are certainly out of control. In fact there are some people who say that the Health Sciences should not have been conceived first nor last. We would have been much better off to use a few million dollars a year to purchase places at other universities. How many places for doctors would we have gotten if we were prepared to give $3 million or $4 million a year to Dalhousie,another couple of million to McGill, another couple of million to Toronto University.

We could have all the medical and dental places we wanted. The same way we could have had as many legal places or placement for many law students as we wanted, and engineering students and so on. Memorial should in my view be merely a prepartory school where undergraduate degrees are given. There is no need - I cannot see the need for an expensive medical school,but be that as it may we now have it. Memorial University itself is a Hydr a-he aded .monster, it is growing ' ·- out of control.

The sums that are required to keep that going each year are increasing geometrically, and we still do not have a precise accounting from them. We cannot get it. I never got it when I was minister. And I understand that it still cannot be gotten. We will see what happens this year. Now the point that should be made is that the power of this Rouse, Mr. Speaker, is very, very great. We can order·anyone - - before this House, bring ~im _ in-,- 'we can strip him of his property , we can Z5S2 ::

March 11, 1977 Tape No. 939 NM- 1 MR. J. CARTER: even sentence him to jail, I suppose we could have him publicly flogged. We can dissolve marriages, we can declare sons illegitimate. I have