Volume XL Fr iday ~ • Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND First Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas ~ Number 87 21 February 1986

The House met at 10:00 a.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Before calling for Statements by Ministers, I want to deal with two points of privilege raised in the House yesterday. In the words of the hon. member for Port de Grave (Mr. Efford), and I quote from Hansard: "Now, Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege I want to express in very few words has to do with the fact that the Minister of Consumer Affairs lied to this House." And the hon. President of the Council's point of privilege was in connection with the statement of the han. member for Port de Grave that the han.

Minister of Consumer Affairs lied in . this House. An han. member is not allowed to accuse another han. member of lying in the House. Both points of privilege can be dealt with by the han. member for Port de Grave withdrawing that allegation and I now call on him to do so unequivocally. The han. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, just let me take a moment to explain. It was not my intention-SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. No! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am calling on the han. member to withdraw that statement unequivocally. MR.

BARRY: Will the Speaker also call on members opposite to give the member a chance to say what he wants to say? L4916 February 21, 1986 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The han. the Leader of the Opposition is completely out of order. The hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to do as I am asked in this House of Assembly, if I am allowed just to say a word on why I intend to do it. MR. BARRY: Of course you are allowed. It is not Russia yet. It is not the Philippines. You are allowed! SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No! MR. EFFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I am not in the habit of calling people liars. The reason I did say that in anger yesterday was - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am calling on the han. member to withdraw his remarks unequivocally. Otherwise, I will have to name him. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want the word "liar" and rephrase it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: to withdraw I want to What is going on here? What is this? MR. DAWE: The rules of the House, with which you are unfamiliar. No. 87 R4916

MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Order, please! The hon. member has withdrawn the phrase and the Chair is satisfied with that. MR. BARRY: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of privilege, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: We have, Mr. Speaker, a situation where the Premier has decided to aid and abet the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) in an assault on the Auditor General, when last night he got on the public media and he challenged and questioned the competence of the Auditor General. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Auditor General, as we have established before, is an officer of the House and he is entitled to be protected by this House. Your Honour should deal with these allegations by the Premier, which were a further assault and brought to a difficult situation the ability of the Auditor General to do the job for which he was appointed. I ask Your Honour to step in to protect the Auditor General. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier to that point of privilege. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, to that point of privilege.

I did not question the competence of the Auditor General at all, and I said that to the media yesterday clearly and unmistakably. I find it rather ironic that the Leader of the Opposition would get up and accuse me of somehow undermining the competence of an officer of this L4917 February 21, 1986 Vol XL House when the very person, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), had to be flung from this House last week because he did just that to Your Honour. So it is rather ironic, the pot calling the kettle black. Mr .

Speaker, I at no time questioned the competence of the Auditor General, and I made that clear to the press yesterday.

I did indicate that we had no choice as a government but to say clearly and unmistakably to the world and to the people of Newfoundland, and to the financial community, that we believe - not only believe, we know it to be true - having checked it out with world-renowned experts in the field of borrowing and finances, that the Auditor General had made a number of inaccurate statements in his report which reflected negatively upon the Province and of, course, in that light we had to respond in the way we did. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and speak to the matter of privilege. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the -member for Fortune-Hermitage. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SIMMONS: The natives are restless this morning. I support the allegations raised by my colleague and friend from Mount Scio, the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier, among other things, said that the Auditor General lacked the resources. Well, that should not be difficult to solve. It is in No. 87 R4917

the Premier's bailiwick to see that he gets the resources. If he does not have adequate resources to do his job, there is a procedure for giving him the resources through this House. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Premier MR. DAWE: There is more money spent in Newfoundland - MR. SIMMONS: I listened to the Premier. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, last evening, certainly . alleged that the Auditor General was acting outside his area of jurisdiction when he made the example about cutting the . grass and getting it paid for, etc., etc.

He made that allegation, that the Auditor General was operating outside his area of jurisdiction. He certainly implied in his statements, in this House and outside this House, that the Auditor General had performed incompetently. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was always within the right of parliamentarians to question the competence of the officers who serve them, including in this Chamber, but there is a way to do it, . and I would urge the Premier not to do it by the backdoor. If he has some reservations about the competence of the Auditor General, if they have decided, as I believe they have, Mr.

Speaker, that he must go - they are going to make life rough for him now ever day they can - if they have decided that, let them have the courage of L4918 February 21, 1986 Vol XL their convictions and come into this Chamber, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, and do what has to be done to put this issue to a test. The Auditor General is an officer not of the government, of this particular House. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins), and by the Premier, that they take advice from a number of sources, including the Comptroller General. But we all know that the Comptroller General is in a conflict of interest position, because he is also a servant of the Minister of Finance in one of his two capacities, his capacity as a collector of revenue. So what the Comptroller General has had to say on this situation is completely beside the point, he is in a very severe conflict of interest position.

I appeal to the Premier, and the · Minister of Finance in particular, if they have concerns about the Auditor General, let us not do it by the backdoor, put down the appropriate motion and let us have a debate in this Chamber. We are the people to whom that gentleman answers, not the government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I can indicate a little bit of surprise. The bon. gentleman has gone on on a point of privilege when really trying to inject debate into this House. This is really what the hon. gentleman is doing.

Words of members outside the House, by the way, Mr. Speaker, do not constitute items No. 87 R4918

of breach of privilege. Otherwise, Your Honour would be going through the esoteric exercise every day of reading the paper and listening to and monitoring news bulletins. The fact of the matter is, it is quite clear, it is crystal clear where this government stands with respect to it. The Minister of Finance and the government have questioned the way in which the Auditor General, in one particular instance, executed his office, or his function, and we stand by that, because we are not going to have, as a result of that particular statement, the credit of this Province impugned in any way.

Now, I went over all that yesterday. The bon. gentleman can twist things all he wants. He gets up and he talks about impugning an officer of this House and then, in the next breath, he gets into the Comptroller General. The fact of the matter is, the Comptroller General and the financial advisors of this Province have all concurred with the government; all expressed the concerns about a matter where the Auditor General has exceeded his authority and has been completely, absolutely and consummately wrong. That is an end to the matter. Mr.

Speaker, I would say to hon. gentlemen there opposite that when this House reconvenes, if they are so concerned about the officers of this House they should show a little bit more concern for the institution of this House, and particularly Your Honour, and not have the kind of circus they are trying to draw into this House, the questioning of Your Honour's own integrity and judgement, as we saw today from the Leader of the L4919 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Opposition, and we see by the twisty little words that emit from the member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. BARRY : Just briefly on the matter of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, before Your Honour rules. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition. the Leader of the MR . BARRY : Mr. Speaker, in addition to questioning the . competence of the Auditor General, also question whether the Auditor General has the resources to do the job. In other words, to identify how much money they are losing on a yearly basis by their mistakes.

Now, if the Auditor General does not have the resources, the Premier should see that he is supplied with the resources to do his job properly, and he should not use the financial restraint that is imposed on the Auditor General as a backdoor way of then attacking the competence of the Auditor General. The Auditor General, fortunately, had enough resources to identify a problem, and it is not good enough for the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) to then try and pass off that $5.25 million mistake, and try and develop the red herring, by attacking the Auditor General to detract attention away from their own incompetence and their own bungling in the management of the resources of this Province. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr . Speaker, to the point of privilege. MR . SPEAKER: No. 87 R4919

To that point of privilege, the hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: In the point of privilege there is a very important point that both hon. members brought up which has to be corrected, Mr. Speaker, because it cannot be allowed to stand on the record on this point of privilege, and that is that I said that the Auditor General lacks resources. Now, that is an incorrect statement. I did not say that. MR. TULK: Yes, you did. MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me explain.

I indicated that the Auditor General's department in Newfoundland has twice as -much money to do its work than Nova Scotia, which has a larger budget, or New Brunswick which has a larger budget. Then I went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the area MR. BARRY: You are trying to backtrack now. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: I was quiet when the Leader of the Opposition made his points. MR. BARRY: You are trying to backtrack now. Come on! PREMIER PECKFORD: No, no. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! L4920 February 21, 1986 Vol XL PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I request silence to finish my submission on the point of privilege. I went on to say that in the area of financial borrowing, in the Province borrowing, in the New York market, Toronto market, European market, London, or Paris, or Zurich, or in Japan, I did not believe that the Auditor General had the people on staff who were qualified in that field, that he did not have the resources in that field.

He has a lot of resources, more resources than Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, but he does not have the resources at his disposal in this field of expertise as the government has in hiring Dominion Ames, or Merril Lynch, or McLeod, Young and Weir or anybody else, and that is a problem, Mr. Speaker. But to say that the Auditor General does not have a lot of resources for the normal kinds of things that he does for 98 per cent of his report is untrue, because he does. He has more resources than Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, who have larger budgets. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just a final submission. MR. BARRY: The point, Mr. Speaker, is that we know that the Province is out borrowing in the financial markets, we know that the Auditor General has a responsibility to supervise and oversee that borrowing, so if he does not have that staff, why is it that the Premier has - No. 87 R4920

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, how is it that Your Honour jumps up every time there is a sneeze over here and I have to put up with this sort of nonsense from the other side when I am speaking? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition please sit down. MR. SIMM ONS: He is sitting down. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I do not wan~ any comment from the hon. the member for Fortune Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) when I am speaking. If he speaks, I will name him. I will give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) a few minutes to conclude his remarks on this point of privilege . It has gone on for a very extended time and I, certainly, have heard nothing so far that indicates there is any possible breach of privilege. MR. BARRY: Your Honour, I am very happy when Your Honour feels that I have gone on long enough to sit down. What I am objecting to is having to try to scream out over thirty-six screaming temper tantrums opposite. That is what I object to, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: L4921 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Would the hon. - MR.

BARRY: The point I am making is that Your Honour is very quick to jump if there is a sound over here, but lets the rabble bay and bray when we try to sepak over here. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. BARRY: That is what I am saying. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Now, if this is going to be a Legislature, it is going to be a Legislature where people are going to be treated fairly on both sides of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a comment to make, I would ask him to make it now. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, yes, and I would ask if Your Honour would enforce silence while I make it. MR. PATTERSON: You need a new pamper. pampers are wet. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Your Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: The Auditor General has a responsibility - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! No. 87 R4921

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I ask bon. members on both sides for silence. HR. BARRY: The Auditor General has a responsibility when there is a commitment to obtain funds and when funds are obtained, to ensure that the process is done properly so that there is not a loss to this Province. The Province is going out into international markets. Mr. Speaker, there are funds held as a result of international borrowings, there are obligations incurred as a result of international borrowings.

We have heard the Premier admit that the Auditor General is not given the resources, not given the staff, as he said last night, is not equipped to properly supervise w~at is going on with respect to these financial borrowings and the question is, Why is the Auditor General not given those resources? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There appears to be a difference of opinion between both sides. There is no prima facie case of breach of privilege. PREMIER PECKFORD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: We have just witnessed again, because of his petulant nature, the Leader of the Opposition, after Your Honour brought him to order because he was not sitting L4922 February 21, 1986 Vol XL down, get up again - he always has to be the one to have the last word, even though he is out of order - and what did the Leader of the Opposition say? Get the Hansard and see what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said nothing which bore upon the point of privilege. Not one syllable did the Leader of the Opposition say that bore upon the point of privilege.

All he said was that I said the Auditor General did not have the resources, which I contradicted earlier, and that he has a responsibility to see that things are done properly when we borrow in the borrowing markets of the world. There was nothing bearing upon the point of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to take this House on his .back, and when our side is quiet to allow him to get up, then we are supposed to listen to him because he is so petulant. Now, Mr.

Speaker, because the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition is petulant and is stubborn, that is no reason why we have to give him license to always get up, when he is completely out of order, on a point of privilege. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, last Fall we saw the Premier, when the legislative programme was half finished, chicken out because he could not take the heat and close the House. We now see, Mr. Speaker, the Premier doing the same thing in this special session.

Remember this great historic moment in Newfoundland history, a special No. 87 R4922

session to pass the Atlantic Accord, and when we started to ask a few penetrating questions as to what was in the Accord, the Premier said, "We are closing her down. We are going back to plan c. We cannot stand the heat. We are getting out." MR. SPE AKE R: Order, please! MR. BARRY: I have not finished my response to the Premier's remarks. MR. SPEAKER: I have heard enough on that point of order to rule there is no point of order. MR. MARSHALL: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege, the hon. the President of the Council. MR..

MARSHALL: The point of privilege arises out of remarks made by the han. the Leader of the Opposition and remarks, I do not know whether they are in Hansard, by the member for Fortune - Hermitage during the time of Your Honour's ruling, shouting at Your Honour, indicating that Your Honour does not keep this side in order and allows this side to interrupt, and casting aspersions - PREMIER PECKFORD: He called the Speaker a nut. MR. SIMMONS: I was being kind at the time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name him. Give him the boots! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! L4923 February 21, 1986 Vol XL MR.

MARSHALL: The bon . gentleman says he was being kind. I want to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, page 38, paragraph 117 on the Speaker which reads: "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. He calls upon members to speak and in debate all speeches are addressed to him. When he rises to preserve order or give a ruling he must always always be heard in silence. No member may rise when the Speaker is standing. Reflections upon the character or actions of Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege .

His actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form or proceeding except by way of a substantive motion. Confidence in the irnpartiali ty of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized.

"The Presiding Officer, though entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by the individual Members, because the power, dignity, and honour of the House are officially embodied in his person, is yet but a servant of the House. ''In order to ensure his complete impartiality, the Speaker cannot be consulted from the floor of the House, etc." Now, Mr. Speaker, what has occurred and what is occurring in this House, and I do not know whether members of this House or the general public realize it, is No. 87 R4923

a very, very serious situation. There can be and there should be in this House debate and heated debated from time to time on public issues, and there will be things said back and forth about members from time to time, but it is an entirely different situation when we have these kinds of comments made by the Leader of the Opposition - and emitting from the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr.

Simmons) at the present time, as well - with respect to the impartiality of Your Honour as Your Honour executes your duties, casting aspersions on Your Honour and casting what can only be determined to be insults on Your Honour.

Although I have not seen it, there are times when the person in the Chair is going to make rulings which are not correct and what have you, but regardless of whether they are correct or whether they are palatable, they are to be accepted by everybody in this House, on both sides of the House, otherwise you have a complete breaking down of this institute of parliament, which is what is happening. Hr.

Speaker, I see it in this session of the House, because of two members particularly, and in my own heart I do not feel, the way in which the Leader of the Opposition is tackling this House, whether his jealousy and his feelings should be able to permeate the mood of this House to such an extent that he should be allowed to attack the basic institution, which is the Speaker of this House primarily, which has been handed to us for generations, otherwise, we are just going to get into a beer garden type of atmosphere in this House to the shame and the detriment of the L4924 February 21, 1986 Vol XL House itself and the people of this Province.

I think it is very serious, and I think one of the reasons why the House is at the stage it is is because of the han. the Leader of the Opposition's obvious petulance and the way in which he just cannot take orders. But orders and rulings have to come from the Chair and they have to be complied with, Mr. Speaker. I think the two han. gentlemen owe it to Your Honour to get up and apologize to Your Honour and to the House, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMONS: All equal time. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: The han. gentlemen will get equal time.

The only time -the bon. gentlemen need, Your Honour, is time to get in a few sentences and apologize to the House and the people of Newfoundland for their conduct. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Your Honour, we know you have a difficult job. Your Honour will, himself, know that when there are thirty-six yelling and screaming at Your Honour, it is very easy for Your Honour to unconsciously, at times, permit that yelling and screaming, that mob rule from your left, to, from time to time, Mr. Speaker, cause your perspective to be unconsciously distorted.

No. 87 R4924

Now 1 Your Honour 1 if the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) was doing his job in controlling those sitting on his side of the House 1 if 1 Mr. Speaker, he was not in fact the main instigator of the attack on the integrity of this House and the rules of this House, if we did not have to, every time the Government House Leader stood up, listen to the impugning of our motives, the impugning of motives of this member and other members of this House - as a matter of fact, it has been the entire strategy in the Atlantic Accord debate to make the point that I am jealous. Jealous? MR. MATTHEWS: So you are. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Jealous of those 80,000 who were left unemployed by the conduct of members opposite? Is that a performance for me to be jealous about, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, we heard the Government House Leader again, standing on a point of privilege, talking about enforcing the rules of the House, make that same point to impute my motives, that when I perform as Leader of the Opposition, no I am not performing because L think there is an attack on the Auditor General because the Auditor General needs protection, no, no, I am attacking because I have particular motives.

Now, how is it that the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, is not ruled out of order? How many times do we have to get up and make that point? Is there any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the L4925 February 21, 1986 Vol XL House, at times, falls into disarray, when the person who is primarily responsible for assisting Your Honour to keep order with every word that comes out of his mouth is subverting the rules of the House and the order of this House? Is there any wonder?

Now, Your Honour, if I said anything this morning in the heat of debate, in the heat of the moment in trying to make a point while being screamed down, shouted down by members opposite, I withdraw and I withdraw unequivocally, and I acknowledge the difficult job Your Honour has. But, Your Honour, as Leader of the Opposition I have an historic position, I have an important position and it is a position that requires my protecting the prerogatives of those on this side of . the House, and this I will continue to do as long as I am Leader of the Opposition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of privilege, I think what both the bon. the President of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition said is well taken. I do not want to expand on what either side said. I think we are here to deliberate . My job here is to be as fair as I possibly can and I have always done that and will continue to do so. I know in the heat of debate things are said sometimes which are not really meant. I would like, at this time, to just leave it at that. At this stage I would like to No. 87 R4925

welcome to the galleries sixty-seven Grade X students from Eugene Vaters Collegiate with their teachers, Rick Canning and Sid Stacey. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Agricultural and Development. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. R. AYLWARD: of Rural, Northern Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to brief hon. members on recent information supplied to me by the Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board.

The Newfoundland dairy industry, over the past three years, has seen a tremendous growth since the formation of the Milk Marketing Board on February, 1983. During 1983 local milk production totalled 12,953,677 litres. The total production for 1985 was 15,369,871 litres. This shows a very significant increase of 18.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker, in just two years. During 1985, local milk production represented $10,211,000.00 to the economy of this Province. Over the past three years consumption of milk in this Province has increased from 42 litres per person to 46 litres per person.

We are still far behind the national average, which is now about 102 litres per person. L4926 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a conunent here. The Newfoundland Marketing Board, through their own initiative, have started an experimental school milk programme to increase the awareness of milk by our younger people so that consumption might be increased. There were 49 registered producers when the board was formed in 1983. Today, we have 68 registered producers. There are, as of today, nine new approved producers clearing land and constructing facilities.

Two of these producers, who are in Western Newfoundland, will begin shipment of milk in April of this year. Consumption of reconstituted milk has been reduced by 63 per cent over the past three years. The board looks forward to the era~ication of reconstituted milk by the Summer of 1986 . This will allow for an additional 300 cows to come into the local dairy production system. Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged with these statistics indeed.

I feel confident that with the continued sound management of the Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board and the dedication and hard work of our dairy farmers, the dairy industry in this Province will continue to grow. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. SPEAKER: The hon Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the minister with his release. I want to thank him for giving us a copy of his release before reading it. I must say, it is a pleasure No. 87 R4926

dealing with certain ministers and having them stand in the House. I think the minister is one who, by and large, on that side of the House, operates as a gentleman and is courteous in his participation in debate. I know that means he may get the flick out of that caucus, as the member for Grand Falls (Mr. Simms) was indicating. I would say to the minister, as he probably knows, I have had some dealings with the Newfoundland Milk Marketing Board. I know some of the people who are working there. There is a young man from the minister's own district who is doing a very fine job, I think, in working with the board.

We are very pleased to see the thrust of this programme. It is one, I think, where there is room for expansion of production; we can have less reconstituted milk, we can have more of our locally grown product, and we can have more people employe~ in farming in this Province. There are a number of things that have to be done, of course, and all is not well, all is not wine and milk with the minister's department..

We do have a situation where there are farmers who are feeling they are not getting the assistance from the board they should get, all the farmers are not totally satisfied with the way the Milk Marketing Board is operating, and the other point that should be made is that there is a threat to agricultural land. Particularly around our urban areas there is a threat to agricultural land as urban sprawl encroaches.

It is a matter of, on the one hand, preserving our agricultural land and, on the other hand, not forcing the farmer to bear the brunt of that policy which is in place for the benefit L4927 February 21, 1986 Vol XL of all Newfoundlanders. The minister has made some improvements to the agricultural land freeze, but I do not think it has gone far enough yet. I know in his own constituency he has many farmers who are seriously concerned about having a proper agricultural land programme.

I would ask the minister to continue to devote his efforts to improving that agricultural land programme so that we can save our agricultural land, but permit the farmer to see the benefit of his life investment, not have the value of his land frozen where he cannot get at it. I commend the minister on the work that has been done to date in increasing the amount of milk production and I hope we will see more of this in the future. Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

I guess he has given up, after the questions on the Auditor General. DR. COLLINS: He will be right back. MR. BARRY: He will be right back? DR. COLLINS: Yes. MR. BARRY: Well, maybe the Premier can hear me from outside the House. The Auditor General, in his recent No. 87 R4927

report, indicated . that in his opinion the Rural Development Authority was exceeding its statutory authority by granting, under the guise of rural development loans, loans and grants, presumably, making money available to urban areas. Now, I would like to ask the Premier does he accept that approach and does he believe that there is sufficient rural development, that there is enough money now being spent in the rural areas and that the money should be diverted to the urban areas of the Province? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is difficult to define when a place becomes urban and when it is no longer rural. Take, for example, the town of Gander today. Quite a few of the small businessmen in Gander employ people from Gamba and Bonavista North. Right on the little base that is there, most of the people who work there as labourers and skilled tradesmen come from Bonavista North. Very often you will find that when somebody applies for assistance under the Rural Development Authority, it is difficult for the board to make a decision.

Do you use the criteria, for example, that if you have more than 50 per cent from outside Gander that it is rural? I mean, is Gander rural or is Gander urban? Portugal Cove, in the hon. member's district, is that in Metropolitan St. John's and therefore should not qualify for a rural development loan? So it is a question of the definition of rural and in Newfoundland that is accentuated, as we all know, by the nature of L4928 February 21, 1986 Vol XL the Province, and so it is extremely difficult.

But if we see that it is going to create jobs and some of those jobs are going to be not only in Gander but in Glenwood or Appleton or in Clarke's Head or Phillips Head or in Gamba or Dark Cove, well, then, obviously the board approves the application. So it is a grey area, it is not a black and white area, and that is what the Auditor General is talking about. Perhaps we should have a definition of urban and rural, but I think it would be very difficult to get. So what the board does in its wisdom and its discretion, is try to be as fair as it can in the loaning of money for job creation.

We would not want to automatically and categorically outlaw a small business in Grand Falls or Botwood, if that is to be considered urban, or. Gander, from getting access to some of these funds if, in fact, some of their activity is going to be outside Gander in the pursuit of their business, number one, and, number two, they would be hiring people who are not all from that so-called urban area. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Mr. Speaker, again we saw the Premier embarking on a speech in response to a short question.

Now, I would like to ask the Premier whether he would answer the question which is, is there enough money being spent in rural areas? If there is sufficient money to follow the intent of the No. 87 R4928

act and to create employment in the rural communi ties, then, I am sure, nobody would question any excess money being spent in urban areas to create other jobs to attract people from the rural areas. The policy of the act is to put the money in rural communities, and the Auditor General says loans were issued to applicants for use in other than rural areas. Does the Premier agree with this? Is there enough money to put the jobs in the rural areas? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, if that is the Auditor General's opinion, he has determined in his own mind what he considers urban and what he considers rural. That might not be what the Rural Development Authority considers to be rural and urban, number one. Num~er two, in cases where there are applications from what the Auditor General considers to be urban areas, I would say they are by far the minority and might be 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the applications which are approved.

Ninety per cent or ninety five per cent of the applications under the Rural Development Authority go to rural Newfoundland in the sense that it is not Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Stephenville, perhaps even Botwood and those larger centers, but where do you draw the line? Marys town, Burin or Harbour Grace, is that rural or is that urban? It is a question of how you want to define urban and rural?

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that in by far the majority of cases, and I would hazard a guess of up to 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the applications approved, under the L4929 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Rural Development Authority go to very small communities and small businesses in rural Newfoundland, outside the major centers. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Opposition. MR.

BARRY: the Leader of the Is the Premier aware that one of the criteria employed for distributing money under the Rural Development Act as stated by the - it is only a joke to say that this is a departmental response Minister of Finance is the source of the raw material, the origin of the raw material? On page 97 of this report ie says this is one factor. Now, applying that criteria, all the money could be deposited right here, next door to Confederation Building, or downtown Water Street. Now, does the Premier accept that as a legitimate criteria to be applied in deciding where the money is spent?

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaket". MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is theory again. That is all theory again, that is not what happens in practice. Let me give the Leader of the Opposition a good example: In the industrial area or the commercial area, whatever you want to call it, of Gander, for example, where they have a lot of those small businesses along the Gander Bay Highway, where the roads come out there, you could have a gentleman or a businessman No. 87 R4929

there who has a saw mill. Now, he does not get his saw logs from the town of Gander, he gets his saw logs from down on the Gander Bay Road, where there is a forest access road put in with government money and so on. Now, that is a good question. The business is in Gander and now this gentleman is not going to qualify because Gander is urban, even though he gets all his logs from down on the Gander Bay Road, and even though, perhaps, he employs in that sawmill, the people who cut the saw logs, people from Gander Bay; some of the people who are going to be operating the sawmill are from Gander Bay.

Now, does that person qualify for a rural development loan? The theory that the Leader of the Opposition just advanced just does not work in practice. The majority of the loans - MR. BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. PREMIER PECKFORD: I am trying to answer the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: The Premier is going on at untold lengths. It is the last Question Period, and the Premier is going to bolt the doors of the House and run away.

I would just like to say that if the Premier keeps up his policies there is no question that Gander will be a rural area, if he continues his policy on Air Canada. PREMIER PECKFORD: L4930 February 21, 1986 Vol XL To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I am trying to answer what the Leader of the Opposition has asked. It is an interesting question: where do you draw the line between rural and urban.

It is the Liberal Government, in Ottawa, which was determining whether Gander is rural or urban, because they took 300 or 400 jobs, EPA, and sent them to Halifax. That is the problem in Gander. But the point of order is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to answer a question which is in a very grey area of government policy. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must rule there is no point of order. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, lest there be any doubt, I think it is understood in Gander who drove Harry Steele out of Newfoundland. It was nobody on the Liberal side of the House. It was not a Liberal Premier who refused to meet with him. Mr. Speaker, I noticed when the Premier was answering one of the supplementaries from the Leader of the Opposition that he again took a mild flick at the Auditor No. 87 R4930

General when he talked about, "Well, that is his opinion." Now, I would like to get back to - MR. TOBIN: Do not be talking about sudits, boy . MR. MATTHEWS: Of all people to be talking about audits. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, there they are again. Can you not keep control in this place? AN HON. MEMBER: Are you chastising the Speaker again. MR. SIMMONS: Yes, I am. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier dismisses the Auditor General once again. I would just like to know from the Premier, because in former times, when Mr. Moores was Premier here and Mr.

Smallwood was Premier, there was a certain respect by the leader of the administration for an officer of the House who had a legitimately mandated function to perform. Sometimes the administration will not agree with his opinion but, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have to allow that gentleman to do his job. I wonder would the Premier indicate where the administration is coming from on this particular issue?

Is it their intention, notwithstanding the fact they may disagree with his opinion at times, and that is understandable, L4931 February 21, 1986 Vol XL to allow this gentleman to perform his function or are they going to run him into the ground? MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECI<FORD: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is performing his function. He has issued his report and it has been tabled here in the House. And we have issued, at the same time, with the Auditor General's Report, departmental responses and our arguments back on points that he has made.

As Premier of the Province, yea, as a citizen of Newfoundland, if the Auditor General or the member for Fortune Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) says something that I do not agree with, I have the right and, yea, the obligation to point out the other side of the argument, to point out the other side of the issue. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER PECI<FORD: If the member for Fortune Hermitage is accusing the government of trying to muzzle the Auditor General, I say what is the member for Fortune - Hermitage trying to do with me and members on this side who want to express a point of view different than the Auditor General's? Is he trying to muzzle us, Mr. Speaker? On the business of rural development I say to you, and I say any reasonable Newfoundlander would agree with me, that on the question of rural versus urban, the Auditor General is splitting hairs. We know of an example, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) was on the government side of the House, where there No. 87 R4931

were loans made to Marys town. Is Marystown urban? I would think, the way the Auditor General is speaking, that Marys town is urban and the gentleman in Marystown should not have gotten his loan approved. So where do you draw the line? We all know that that is a grey area, we all understand that. MR. SIMMONS: That is not the question I asked. PREMIER PECKFORD: The question you asked! Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question, which was this: I have the right to disagree with the Auditor General in the same way as the Auditor General has a right to disagree with me. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I would normally ask this question of the Minister of Health (Dr Twomey) because it does concern health care, but I think the matter is now sufficiently serious to direct it to the head of the administration, the Premier.

Now, that government's fiscal restraints have pretty well brought health care service to its knees in this Province, where we have hundreds of people waiting to get in hospital, desperately in need of health care and are unable to get that care because of staff cuts and cutbacks in hospitals, is the Premier willing to admit that maybe the time has now come to review the health care service in the Province with a view to freeing up the necessary money to ensure that the people of Newfoundland do get the type of L4932 February 21, 1986 Vol XL health care they . deserve? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, first off, the

preamble the hon. member for Twillingate made is really an erroneous statement. The increase in the budget for the Department of Health since 1979, since I became Premier until today, has been over 100 per cent. There has been an increase of more than 100 per cent in the budget of the Department of Health from 1979 until 1985. Now, if that demonstrates that we are somehow restraining, when we increased the budget of the Department of Health by over 100 per cent, then I would like to know what restraint is all about. To me it does not seem right at all. It is 25 per cent of the budget now.

One out of every four dollars out of the Government of Newfoundland goes to health services. But that is not to say that we do not need to do more. We are building new hospitals; we have built a new clinic in Whitbourne, we built a new hospital in Port aux Basques, a new clinic in Forteau, a new hospital in Clarenville, and a new hospital in Burin. That is hospitals in general. We are trying to do what we can.

On the question of nursing care and senior citizens homes, ·there is a problem in the sense that the ongoing input of money through CMHC, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, or the Department of Health, has not been as great as in previous years. But we are still bu i !ding new homes , Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to do so. No. 87 R4932

Talking about having a study on health care, we had a study on health care, Mr. Speaker. We had a royal commission on health care costs and what did that royal commission show? The royal commission said, "You can freeze the budgets of the hospitals in St. John's at the present level for three years." And the Hospital Association came in at the last minute and said, "Ho, ho, ho, before you do that let us have another kick at the cat. We want to prove to you that you really cannot do this." But when they came into the royal commission to prove it, they could not prove it.

So the hospital budgets were frozen in the St. John's hospitals for a three year period and they are getting along quite well. At the same time, as more money has to be put into the health care system, we must ensure that every dollar that we are spending is being spent efficiently. Because, Mr. Speaker, there were instances in the last few years where, in the last two weeks before the fiscal year . was over, some hospital boards had a surplus and at the last minute, in the last week or two, threw that money at something so ·that they could tell government they had all their money spent.

So you have to be careful, when you are talking about health care systems, to make sure that the taxpayer is getting the value for the dollar. At the same time, we do recognize that in certain components of health care more money has to be spent. MR. W. CARTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for L4933 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Twillingate, a supplementary. MR. W. CARTER: The Premier obviously has his head stuck in the sand, because there are people actually dying while waiting to get into hospital. And whether or not the budget is increased by 100 per cent - SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says the budget has been increased by 100 per cent in the past so many years. It is obvious that it probably should have increased by 500 per cent, because the service has deteriorated to almost its lowest point since Confederation. I repeat my question, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that people are seriously in need of hospitalization - we have cases which, I am sure, will come forward here today - will the Premier undertake an immediate review of hospital care in this Province with a view to making more funds available?

It does not matter that there has been a 100 per cent increase, obviously there should have been more. Will he undertake a review to make the necessary funds available to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get the kind of hospital care and treatment they deserve and need? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I do not know where the member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter) has come from. On the one hand the Liberal Party is saying we are No. 87 R4933

;_j borrowing too much so we cannot borrow any more, we are being very, very crazy in borrowing so much, and on the other hand they are saying, "Increase the hospital budgets by 500 per cent rather than 100 per cent." Now, if we cannot borrow any more, where are we going to get that extra 400 per cent? It has either got to come from increasing taxes - MR. FLIGHT: Stop wasting. Stop wasting. PREMIER PECKFORD: There is not enough waste there to do it, and everybody knows that. The Auditor General will tell you that over the last three or four years there has been no wastage in the system.

He has said it over and over again, 'There is no wastage.' To put a 400 per cent increase in the budget would mean $2 billion or $3 billion, Mr. Speaker. MR. FLIGHT: What about the $500,000 for your office? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Who is abusing the rules of the House now? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) was accusing us of speaking up when somebody else was on their feet. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The bon. Premier has asked for silence. PREMIER PECKFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

L4934 February 21, 1986 Vol XL I want to answer the member for Twillingate, who wants a 400 per cent increase in the hospital budget. It is now around $500 million. So he wants it to go up - what? That is $2 billion - to about $2 billion. He does not want us to borrow any more because his party is against borrowing. Now, where are we going to get the money? The only place we can get the money is to increase taxes. So we have to put up sales tax or income tax or gas tax or some other form of tax to raise some money, or we have got to take it out of other areas. Now, where does he want us to take it from?

Does he want us to take it from Education? Does he want us to take it from Rural Development? Where is the member for Twillingate going to come up with that $2 billion to get that health budget up ever higher? The member for Twillingate cannot have it both ways. He cannot get up and say we are crazy for borrowing so much and then turn around and say we have to have $2 billion more for Health without increasing taxes, without taking it from any other department or without borrowing. That is an irresponsible kind of attitude for the member for Twillingate to take. MR. W. CARTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: The Premier is grasping for straws. I said that if the budget has increased by 100 per cent in the past so many years, obviously, judging by the qualify of service today, it should have increased by 500 per cent, maybe. Mr. Speaker, No. 87 R4934

the point I was making is that the Health service has deteriorated and that if it takes more money to bring it back to an acceptable standard, then the Premier's job is to get the money, Mr. Speaker, maybe cut out some of the waste . Maybe the $50 million ivory tower next door was not necessary. Maybe the Premier's office renovations were not necessary. Maybe the money wasted on the sculptures in the building was not necessary. MR. SPE AK ER: The bon. the Premier . PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, let us just look at those three areas the member for Twillingate mentioned.

Let us get down to it, if he wants to get down to it. The building next door is saving the government money, because we will be able to pay it off in ten years and have no rent. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: I must be hitting a nervous strain over there. They have gone crazy again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that is completely incorrect. We are saving money by building that building. That is why we built it. otherwise, we would have an ongoing cost for the next twenty or thirty years, on rent, of a couple of million dollars a year.

We will be able to pay off that building and save money. That is a fact. That can be proven and has been proven. So that is no place to get the money. L4935 February 21, 1986 Vol XL He talks about my office, $400,000 or $500,000 . How many hospitals is $400, 000 or $500,000 going to build? One hospital costs, how much? The hospital at Port aux Basques cost about $15 million. The member for Twillingate is talking about $1.5 billion - $2 billion, and he is going to try to get it by not doing what we did over here. That would cost more money. Then he attacks art.

We are supposed to forget all about culture now, then. So we will eliminate culture. He is attacking the artists. He does not want any art work, which gives jobs to Newfoundlanders. One per cent of the capital cost of all public buildings goes to art so that we have artists working. We have created more jobs in the art field in the last three or four years than any other government in our history. So if he wants to eliminate all the artists, I do not think that is an acceptable alternative.

Because the amount of money that is going in there, again, is only $400,000 or $500,000 a year, still not enough to build a half hospital or a quarter hospital. So the alternatives that the member for Twillingate is giving would not build one quarter of a new hospital, therefore, I can only say that his question is politically motivated and has no substance in fact. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Port de Grave. No. 87 R4935

MR. EFFORD: I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, while he is making his speech which has no substance to it at all, if he is aware that there are 1,100 people on the waiting list at the Grace Hospital, 375 on the waiting list for the Gynecology Department? One of my constituents called me last evening and told me that she has been on the waiting list for six weeks to have some serious surgery done and was informed by her doctor that she is going to be on the waiting list for at least another two months. Meanwhile, the Premier is saying that our health services are in good hands?

Will he answer that question? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: The wealthiest Province in Canada has hospitals where there are waiting lists. Now, you tell me, if the wealthiest Province in Canada has hospitals with waiting lists, what can the poorest Province in Canada do, not have waiting lists? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance.

In the last couple of days , we have heard a very unseemly row between himself and the rest of government and the L4936 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Auditor General. What we seem to have is a situation where the Auditor General says our debts are not correctly recorded, while the Minister of Finance says they are correctly recorded. Obviously, both statements cannot be correct at the same time, so I want to ask the Minister of Finance how we can get that question resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS : - Mr.

Speaker, I think it is a sensible question on this issue, at last, a sensible question from the other side of the House, and obviously there is a sensible answer to it. That question is already resolved. If the hon. member will read the Public Accounts he will see the Auditor's Report in the front of the Public Accounts, signed by one J. McGrath, which says, "I certify that these accounts present fairly and squarely" - or something of that order - "the financial affairs of this Province under the accepted accounting procedures." That is signed by him.

Now, in addition to the Auditor General saying that our Public Accounts are correct, we have consulted, because there was some question raised in a later inconsistent report by the same gentleman - I have difficulty understanding myself how he can speak one way out of this side of his mouth and another way out of the other side of his mouth, because it is all there. Just let me read out what the hon. member says: "In accordance with

section 62 of the Financial Administration Act, 1973, I have examined the statement of assets and liabilities of the Province of No. 87 R4936

Newfoundland as at 31 March 1985, the Consolidated Revenue Fund statement of receipts and payments, the statement of changes in financial position and the

summary of revenue, expenditure and related revenue by department for the year then ended. My examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included such tests and other procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances. "In my opinion, these financial statements present fairly the financial position of the Province as of 31 March 1985 and its receipts and payments, changes in financial position and the

summary of revenue, expenditure and related revenue by department for the year then ended in accordance with the accounting policies described in Note 1 to the financial statements applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year. I further report that, in my opinion" - MR. BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: The Auditor General's Report has been tabled and the minister is taking up Question Period reading the it. There are supposed to be short answers, Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, not lengthly speeches.

The minister is engaged in a lengthly dissertation. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the questions and answers should be as brief as possible. From what I can judge, this statement is just L4937 February 21, 1986 Vol XL about finished. DR. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct, because there is only one more sentence to state. It says: "I further report that, in my opinion, proper books of account have been kept by the Province and that the financial statements of the Province are in agreement with these books of account. Signed, J.D. McGrath, C.A., Auditor General, St.

John's, Newfoundland, December 16, 1985." That was two months before he submitted the report to me. Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we consulted the Comptroller General of the Province, i.e. a servant of this House, and he confirmed, yes, the statements there, including those regarding our debt are perfectly correct.

Also, I raised the question with one of the largest financial houses in Canada, McLeod, Young, Weir Limited of Toronto, whom we engage, as do other provinces to advise them on their borrowing programmes, in particular, and asked them to pass their opinion on it and they completely validate the way we are doing our work in this regard and the way we are presenting it in our public accounts. So, all I can say , is that the facts have already been stated. There is something right, what I just said, but there is something wrong in another report and I have already reported that to the House. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Menihek. the No. 87 R4937

.. MR. FENWICK: We still have a problem. As I understand it, the Public Accounts Committee will be examining this report in a couple of months and will be passing its judgement on it. It seems to me still, notwithstanding the standard disclaimer at the front, that we have a very substantial difference of fact by the Auditor General by saying this is a misstatement and government's statement. It seems to me that there has been opportunity for government to reiterate its statement and the Auditor General to reiterate his statement so that we are not talking about a difference of opinion in terms of reconciling it.

In other words, somebody is wrong here. It is of such a serious nature, my question to him is this: If the Public Accounts Conunittee upholds the government's position, are we then in the we must dismiss the Auditor General? And, if the reverse occurs and the Public Accounts Committee upholds the Auditor General, should the minister not feel that he is in a position where he would have to resign his position as Finance Minister? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I first must disagree with the hon. member when he says, 'this is just a standard thing • , as though it is of no importance. This is an official document of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of nearly 600,000 people and it is signed by an appointed officer of this House, who, if he does not believe what is written in here, I would be appalled, I would be totally appalled. So to dismiss this as L4938 February 21, 1986 Vol XL just a standard statement, I have to reject that, I am afraid.

Now, in regard to the other matter the hon. member is right in that the Auditor General puts in a report on the accounts. We have, for quite a number of years, drawn to the attention of the House of Assembly, and the people of this Province, areas where we do not think the report accords with the facts. Usually, that is cal-led Observations by Departments on the Auditor General's Report - some phrase like that is what it is called.

In addition to that, because of the extremely serious nature of the report in a few regards this year, I felt that to accentuate what those departmental observations were I had to make a special statement to make sure that everyone understood that there were a number of very, very damaging - damaging to the Province that is, not to the government particularly.. but damaging to the Province reputation-was - statements in the Auditor General's Report which could not be allowed to stand for one minute without being challenged. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that should end the matter until the PAC has judged on the thing and they bring back a report to the House. And we should wait for that. Unfortunately, that did not occur because there were statements made by the Auditor General himself in regard to his report which I think were unfortunate. There were then statements made by the Opposition which had to be counted, and I think those Opposition statements were the most unfortunate. So the issue has gone on. I say it should lie at rest now until the PAC has come in with a report, and when that report comes in, it will No. 87 R4938

be judged by this House as it always is. To say what should happen or should not happen after that is totally hypothetical and I am certainly not going to get into it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Question has elapsed. MR. SIMMON'S: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of privilege, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I believe, Kr. Speaker, watching closely the events this morning with as impartial an eye as I could possibly muster, I owe the Speaker an absolutely abject apology.

I watched the Premier with his very brief answers kept under control by the Speaker. I watched the minister then in his absolutely brief, concise, under-one-minute answers. I watched with disgust yesterday, the gentleman for Port de Grave go on and on and on for two sentences before making a point and I watched the Premier only get five or seven minutes this morning to make his point of order, poor fellow! Of course, Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Anybody can judge the fairness of what has gone on today, anybody. MR. MARSHALL: Kr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: I have no intention of responding L4939 February 21, 1986 Vol XL to the sarcastic statements made by the bon. gentleman but, I hope the press can see from the statements emitting from the hon. gentleman why we have problems in the House. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, I do not want to expand on the sarcasm of the hon. member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons). MR. HISCOCK: Who said it was sarcasm? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would like to assure him that I will deal with matters here according to our Standing Orders and rules. MR. SIMMON'S: When? MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. member knows he is completely out of order . with his comment. When I am speaking, he will just keep quiet or he will be thrown out of the Chamber. SOME HON'. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear! MR. SPEAKER (KcN'icholas): Order, please! N'otices of Motion MR. WARREN': Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN': Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the N'o. 87 R4939

following resolution:

WHEREAS many oil companies in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have lessened the burden on consumers by reducing the price of their petroleum products; AND

WHEREAS all companies in Central and Coastal Labrador have decided not to reduce their prices; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House unanimously request that those oil companies in Labrador show compassion to the consumers who are already paying the highest price in Province by taking similar action in reducing their prices. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear! Petitions MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of more than sixty residences of Victoria Cove, Rogers Cove, Carrnanville, Clarke's Head, Port Albert, Davidsville, Aspen Cove, Ladle Cove, Gander-Bay South, Wing's Point and the surrounding areas. This petition, Mr. Speaker, is to the government and is eventually to be brought to the attention of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) concerning the road situation in Gander Bay and thence to Gander. The petitioners point out that for L4940 February 21, 1986 Vol XL a number of years they have been commuting to Gander as that is their place of employment.

They point out that the road conditions that they have had to experience during the Winter have lately become deplorable. They attribute this perhaps to cutbacks in service in the last couple of years in our road network and I would suggest as well, Mr. Speaker, the conditions probably have to do with the fact that there is no secondary roads agreement yet. The road conditions they refer to, Mr. Speaker, have to do with the lack of proper sanding and salting and the lack of . proper snow clearing facilities in this particular area.

They point to the fact that the salaries of the employees of the Department of Transportation have been frozen over the past couple of years and salaries have been reduced. They point out that this causes personal financial problems, along with a morale problem. Mr. Speaker, using the wage freeze, they point to the fact that this creates a morale problem within the Department of Transportation in that area. This morale problem results in these people quite often during the Winter losing half a day's pay here, half a day's pay there, simply because the roads are not handled quickly enough or well enough.

In this area some of the hills are rather steep. If there is freezing rain and so on and if they have to wait a couple of days to be able to get up that hill, then, of course, they have to lose the corresponding day's pay. These people travel in car pools. It is not a matter of a lot of vehicles, and I am sure that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. No. 87 R4940

Dawe) knows this, it is a matter of some vehicles but all of them full coming into Gander and getting stuck at the bottom of hills and so on . They refer to the mechanisms within the Department of Transportation where a truck goes out along this road and all of a sudden 40 kilometers, 50 kilometers and 60 kilometers from the depot, the truck runs out ·of salt and then it has to go back and spend two or three hours before it can get back and refill with another load.

They point out that perhaps this can be alleviated by better organization within the Department of Transportation and by having supplies scattered at strategic locations throughout the area . I feel for these residents, Mr. Speaker. I am introducing this particular petition because the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) is unavoidably out of the Province for today and could not present this particular petition but, it does relate directly to Gander and people who come into Gander to work. I understand there are about 600 or 700 who do that every day.

When you have a community like Gander, which is a development area and draws on the labour force from outside, you have to pay particular attention to the fact that these people who drive to work to a growth centre like this should have special consideration so as to make sure that during the Winter a method of transportation is available to them. The only method of transportation is by car and apparently these roads are not being kept up satisfactorily. They are losing work and so on. This effects not only their pay L4941 February 21, 1986 Vol XL cheque but, I might point out Mr .

Speaker, it also effects their businesses and so on that they work with in the Town of Gander. So I strongly support the petition on behalf of the residents of these communities. I am sure that it will be passed on to the Minister of Transportation for appropriate action. I sincerely hope that he has the interest and the resources to try to correct this. I would suggest to him that perhaps if he can ensure that he has a secondary roads agreement signed it would go a long way towards ensuring that a lot of roads and a lot of conditions all throughout the Province will be alleviated as quickly as possible. MR.

BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand in support of that petition. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition . MR. BARRY: We saw the Premier over the last number of elections hold out the promise of prosperity once we had a Conservative Government elected in Ottawa . That has now been the case for about a year and a half I think.

The Premier has had the opportunity to inflict prosperity, to assist the new Conservative Federal Government to inflict prosperity on this Province, and still, in this day and age, we have people putting up with the hardship and the inconvenience that this petition indicates. Mr . Speaker, I have no hesitation in fully supporting the petition on behalf of these citizens and taxpayers of this Province. We ask government to do something to assist them as quickly as possible. No. 87 R4941

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! There have already been two speakers. Is this a new petition? MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Harmon Complex in Stephenville who are opposing the latest rental increases that have come into effect in February month and that will come into effect in August month.

Over the last three or four years they have been faced with rental increases of up to eighty-odd per cent and it has been done in a very quick and, I believe, in unfortunate manner, without the proper consultation being done or the without taking into account the low incomes of some of the people there. They are not making an unreasonable request to this government. They are telling you, if you are going to increase the rents, do it in a reasonable manner. I wonder if that word is in the dictionary of the present administration.

Reasonable manner is not a $65 or $70 increase in one shot to people who are on a fixed income. Reasonable manner would, maybe, be over a number of months or a number of years to increase the rents to a market level which you feel is fine. A reasonable level is not to, in one shot, put people out of their L4942 February 21, 1986 Vol XL places or have them move from the apartments that they are living in now. As · far as I am concerned, there have been a number of moves lately that cannot justify the rental increases. One of the reasons given for the increases was the high maintenance cost in Stephenville.

Just recently we had three layoffs at the maintenance shop in Stephenville which take care of all these apartments. The minister says that this is because a report by the Western Appeals Board has recommended that and that is not so. The report recommended changes be made in maintenance and it recommended a number of new maintenance procedures that would cut costs. Instead, the only option that this government takes is to cut jobs out of Stephenville, which I am against. Another thing is that the service to the Harmon tenants is now downgraded.

As a matter of fact, I visited the place where the workers now have to work and they have been cut in half in their space to work. So, the effective maintenance is not going to be there anymore. As a matter of fact, I would say the maintenance costs are going to go up instead of down and the residents again could be faced with increases in their rents because of the inadequacy of this government in dealing with the problem. I have a report here by the union in Stephenville who work in NLHC. They presented this to NLHC two months ago. They have in here a number of cost-cutting measures that could be implemented.

They have not even had a letter of response back from the provincial government and it could cut costs No. 87 R4942

and save the department there over $300,000 or $400,000. They have not even gotten a response! That really puzzles me. On one hand, you are increasing the rents because of the high maintenance costs. You have the union who are working there and know the problems and they present to you solutions to help solve the problems but you do not even want to listen to it. Then you go ahead and knock off three or four jobs. I would really like to know what the overall strategy is with the office in Stephenville. There are a lot of people out there who would like to know.

There are over 200 names on this petition and the request is not unreasonable. They are wondering what is . going to happen over the next few years because the measures that they have seen take place so far are not good for the future of the Harmon Complex in Stephenville. I am proud to present this petition on behalf of the Harmon residents. There are over 200 names on this petition and there are more coming into to me every day. I am very proud to present it.

I think these concerns the minister and the NLHC should take into account and they should come up with an overall strategy that will see the continued improved existence of an NLHC in Stephenville as it pertains to the Harmon Complex, which has been in existence for over thirty years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. L4943 February 21, 1986 Vol XL MR . SF EAKER: The han . the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I support the petition from Harmon Complex in Stephenville with its 200 signatures. They are quite right.

What they are asking the government is reasonable. If they are going to increase rent on the properties that they are occupying, then it should be done in a reasonable fashion. In the last two or three years they have seen their rent increased up to 89 per cent. They have also seen the buildings they are living in not properly maintained. Now they are told one of the reasons why it was increased over the past two or three years up to 89 per cent was for further maintenance but now we find out that the government, through cost-saving factors, are laying off maintenance people.

The letters that came in from the union recommending how savings could be done government continues to ignore. The Harmon Complex in Stephenville is only the tip of the iceberg with the housing problem in this Province because of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. It is in shambles, it is in a mess, and there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) having to repossess boats and we are seeing now the Minister of Housing (Mr. Dinn), because of the economic factors with jobs and low income people in these houses, having to move them out.

They now have to go back from half decent housing and move into shacks or deteriorated houses that were rejected. They end up getting rural remote housing because of financial problems. They have No. 87 R4943

been ejected from these and have to go back to their old places or you see doubling up of families, or you see the Mayor of st. John's saying the housing shortage is going to come here. One of the things that the Minister of Housing has to do and has to address with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in these apartments, as is the case with the Hannon Complex, and also Newfoundland and Labrador remote housing, is tie the rent to income. It is tied to the income that you made the year before. We know in this Province we have a lot of seasonal employees, particularly loggers, miners, and fishermen.

When there is a really, really good year fishing, Mr. Speaker, you can have an excellent year and, as a result of that, your UIC is extremely high. Then you have a house from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and your rent _is evaluated on it but, the evaluation and payments do not come into effect until the following year. So you start paying on what you made the previous the year, Mr. Speaker, and then you find out there was a disastrous fishery two years in a row. You find out that you have low UIC, and what does Newfoundland and Labrador Housing do?

They still want you to maintain paying at a level which you made the year which was an excellent year. I have examples, Mr. Speaker, in my own district. I am working on two now where Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are evicting people in the middle of the Winter from their houses and telling them to go back into a house that was condemned by them, that has no water and sewerage and no electricity. They have fallen L4944 February 21, 1986 Vol XL into arrears because of the problems I outlined with regard to income being evaluated on the income of the year before but they have to pay it with low income this year.

The member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward) is quite correct in pointing out, at the Hannon Complex as well as other apartment complexes and housing in this Province, low income people in this Province are hurting. What the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is doing is trying to fix these up at the expense of these people instead of doing what also should have been done to the schools. We have seen the fanner Minister of Education (Ms Verge) allow the schools to deteriorate to such a condition that now they are a national and provincial disgrace.

We have seen this government completely ignore the Hannon Complex over the years and other housing complexes in the Province and now they need upgrading. As a result of that, they are putting the burden on the low income people in those units and are saying to them, "You have had a rate increase in February. You have another one coming in August and you have another one coming in November." In three to four years, if I am correct, there have been about six or seven rate increases, up to 89 per cent. When the Premier says that the health costs of this Province has gone up 100 per cent, well here is an example, Mr.

Speaker, that low income people's cost of housing have shot up 89 per cent. What we are developing is this great programme of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is a situation where we say it is a benefit to the people and they get in there. No. 87 R4944

Then they put the screws to them and they have to go out on the street or go back into old housing units. It is absolutely ridiculous what this government is doing to the people! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Stephenville for presenting his petition today to the House of Assembly. The fact of the matter is that the petition relates to economic rental units. I will deal with the hon. member for the district of Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) and his remarks as well.

With respect to the Stephenville Complex and the rents at the Stephenville Complex, what we are talking about here are economic rental units, not units for the poor but units for people who can afford normal rents. In the Stephenville Complex, over the past three or four years consistently, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has lost money with respect to those units. So during the last rate increases, even though the corporation . was losing money on the Stephenville economic rental units, the - MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) point of order .

MR. onrn: L4945 February 21, 1986 Vol XL This is speaking to the petition and I request the han. member stop breaking the rules of the House and interrupting while another speaker is speaking . So, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has consistently lost money on the economic rental units ·at Stephenville. As a result of that, they are forced, as a corporation, to break even on economic rental units. They are not units for poor people. They are economic rental units for people who can afford to pay the rents so the costs for operating are paid for by the tenants.

They have never ever done that and as a result the people of Newfoundland have subsidized the people in the economic rental units at stephenville. With respect to people on a fixed income, if they can afford the economic rental units, they go into the economic rental units, if they cannot - MR. FUREY: If they can afford them (inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to break the rules but, he is a rookie in the House and I can understand that. We will send him over a book of 126 rules.

He will read them before the House opens the next time and live within the rules of the House. In the economic rental units, Mr. Speaker, we have continually lost money. The rents are being increased so that they break even. During the last rate No . 87 R4945

increase, the tenancies board, which the people have a right to appeal to and we put in place, recommended that there were too many maintenance staff on staff out at Stephenville - MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the han. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Just for clarification, did that report recommend the laying off of workers in Stephenville to improve the maintenance of the Harmon Complex? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, the Tenancies Board recommended that there were too many maintenance people on staff for the number of economic rental units as compared to the maintenance staff in other areas for equivalent numbers of units. So, Mr. Speaker, they had to declare four positions redundant. Now the bon. member cannot have it both ways. Does he want the poor people of Stephenville to pay, in their taxes, monies to people who should be able to afford to pay the rent in economic rental units? If there are people at the Complex in economic rental units who cannot afford the rent, there are units out there for poorer people.

These units are done on a federal - provincial programme that has been in place since 1974. In these units people P?Y rent on the basis of their income, which is 25 per cent of their income. L4946 February 21, 1986 Vol XL If people are on social services, Mr. Speaker, and live within social housing, then the Minister of Social Services pays the rent in under social housing. So, Mr.

Speaker, the bon. member wants, through his petition, the government of this Province to collect taxes and pay to the people who are living in the economic rental units at Stephenville, yet there are people · who should be able to afford the economic rentals in there, as said by the Tenancies Board. Mr.

Speaker, if the rental increase this year is too much, as proposed by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, the tenants at Harmon, as well as the tenants at Pleasantville, at Churchill Square and throughout the Province who are living in economic rental units, have the ·right to appeal to that Tenancies Board. If they deem that the rental increase is too high then~ Mr. Speaker, they will be told to roll back those rentals. MR. K. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the han. the member for Stephenville. MR. K.

AYLWARD: Just a point of clarification before you finish your comments. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the member is out of order. The hon. minister, who is speaking, has five minutes to reply and you are cutting into his time. The bon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. No. 87 R4946

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I will permit the hon. gentleman to ask a question during my time period because I think he is really interested in what is happening out in the Harmon Complex. I can provide him with the information outside the House but if he wants to know it in here, I will be perfectly happy to supply him with that information. MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the bon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD : Has the minister seen a brief that was presented to NLHC over two months ago concerning cost cutting measures that could be instituted at NLHC in Stephenville?

Has he seen the brief and, if he did, could he comment on it? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The bon. the minister's time has now elapsed, unless he has leave to continue. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the important point here is that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has economic rental units at Stephenville. Those economic rental units are costing the taxpayers of this Province up to, I believe, $1,179,000 over the past year or so. It is not proper for the government of the Province to subsidize the people in the economic rental units.

L4947 February 21, 1986 Vol XL The Tenancies Board, who are deemed to be those people put in place to judge that, have recommended that some of the maintenance staff be laid off. We have looked into that situation and found that four people were indeed not required and these positions were made redundant. Mr. Speaker, those people who did become redundant are eligible for all the severance and all the rest of the pay and entitlements that they should get under the redundancy programme. Mr. Speaker, that should answer the han. gentleman's questions with respect to the economic rental units at Harmon.

I will be delighted to take his petition and reply to him formally through other correspondence. MR. BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Since the Premier is not here, I would like to put this to the Government House Leader. Mr. Speaker, there was extensive discussion of this on a number of occasions before. There have also been briefs presented by various individuals.

It is really a matter of when can we expect to see the Premier live up to his election commitment to see that the proceedings of the House are televised and that the electronic media access. We have students area can and view elected House of No. 87 generally, are given an occasion now where who are in the St. John's come in if they want to the proceedings of their representatives in the Assembly. I am happy to R4947

see some of my own constituents around today and some former constituents but, people in rural Newfoundland, by and large, are prejudiced and at a disadvantage in that it is only with great expense and inconvenience that they are able to come in and get direct access and a direct viewing of the House. I think also, would improve House if we televised. I Mr. Speaker, that it the decorum of the had proceedings do not think we would see the - MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I think the hon. member is making a speech now. MR. BARRY: I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker, basically the point is that we on this side of the House support the concept of bringing the electronic media, on a full-time basis, into the House of Assembly. We would like to know whether government has yet taken a position and whether, for the new session that starts on March 18, they might have the electronic media there for the complete session. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: I think that is a very wide, wide issue and I will not comment specifically on it except to say that one of the prerequisites obviously, to any consideration of this would be respect by members of this House for the procedures of the House, which the han. L4948 February 21, 1986 Vol XL gentleman has not shown by getting up on a point of order and injecting himself into it, and respect for Your Honour and a respect for the institutions. I think that would be a first prerequisite. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition just directed a question about televising the House which actually was not a point of order. MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on the statement made earlier by the Premier which, in effect, said that building the addition to the Confederation Building at a cost of $40 million was a savings to this Province of some $2.2 million. I want to clarify, Mr. Speaker, that in borrowing that $40 million - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member if he would state his point of order. What he was going on with was not a point of order. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make was that the money was not saved by the Province because of the rental at $2.2 million. In borrowing the $40 million to build the complex at eleven per cent interest - MR. SPEAKER: No. 87 R4948

Order, please! Again, I must draw att-ention. The han. member is making a statement. There is no question of a point of order there . MR. BARRY: A point of order . MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Surely, the people of this Province are entitled to not have, as members opposite have been referring to the Auditor General, falsehoods stated with respect to the management of the taxpayers' dollar.

If the interest on that investment is more than $4 million a year at ten per cent, than obviously that is more than they would have been paying in their rent, if they were paying $3 million or less. They are actually losing money, according to any simple calculation. Can the Government House Leader clarify this or do we accept that there is misleading information now being fed to the people of this Province and the House of Assembly? MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The han. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, this type of conduct is indicative of how bon. gentlemen opposite, in accordance with the way in which they are conducting their affairs, could bring the proceedings of this House to a standstill, by getting up on points that are not points L4949 February 21, 1986 Vol XL of order. There are certain times here for asking questions and there is a routine order of the day . The petitions are over . We are now into the ordinary business of the day . The han. gentlemen are completely abusing the time of this House and infringing on the privileges of the House .

I have no intention of responding to those questions. There is a question period and a time and place for that type of thing. Members can get up and say, 'A point of order,' and then conduct a debate, infringe on the privileges of the House and prevent an orderly treatment of the public business if they wish, and that is what han . gentlemen really are doing. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I have heard enough on that point of order. AN HON . MEMBER: Marshall's puppet. MR. SPEAKER: There is a time for the han. member to ask that question. MR. SIMMONS: It is not a question. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): I am speaking. Would the han. member please keep quiet? This is not the time. The item that we are now calling is Orders of the Day. MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the han. the member for Gander. No. 87 R4949

MR .. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have not done this very often. I have heard members opposite get up on points of order quite often during my short stay in this House. I have heard them point out that it is quite sensible and in order to get up on a point of order to point out that there is some inaccurate information being provided to the House and at the first opportunity it should be corrected. Mr.

Speaker, I have heard this done many times by gentlemen on the opposite side, many times, and never once has there ever been a suggestion by anybody that this is against the rules of the House, that this is not allowed in this House and that this is a subversion of the rules of the House. Never once have I heard that mentioned when hon. members opposite get up and bring up similar points of order. Mr. Speaker, I was concerned this morning when the statement was made by the Premier that by spending $40 to $50 million on the building that, in fact, we were saving money.

This is the last sitting of this session and this is the point that goes on record in this session. We cannot question it next day in Question Period. It sits on the record until we open a new session next time. Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned. This, it seems to me, is a piece of information that I understand to be not correct.

If in fact $40 to $50 million, even at 10 per cent, were financed over ten years, and the ten-year figure was used by the Premier and the fact that it would save money over ten years, then that would mean a cost of $4. 5 million per year and it seems to me - L4950 February 21, 1986 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must interrupt the bon. member. He maybe correct or he may not be. That is beside the point. It is not a point of order. 0 0 0 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a matter of privilege.

It is one of several I have raised this week, I acknowledge, and I raise this one in the same spirit that I raised the others. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege, the hon. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I watched this week, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen the few rights that we have being taken away from us altogether. Mr. Speaker, I was sent here by some people to represent them and I cannot do it if we do not observe the ordinary conventions that are applicable in other Houses in the British Parliamentary system. I have watched today the gentleman for Port de Grave (Mr.

Efford) and I watched him yesterday and I have watched, on the other hand, the Premier today being allowed to go on for five minutes and not once in that five-minute period, Mr. Speaker, did the Chair ask the Premier to get to his point of order. Indeed, at no time did he state a point of order or was he invited to do so by the Chair. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not fair play, I say to you. It is not fair play and it is particularly not fair when the gentleman from Port de Grave (Mr. Efford), a No. 87 R4950

relatively new member in this House but, at the same time, a man who can look after himself - he does not need me or anybody else to defend him but, I use him as an example only - it is not fair, particularly when the Chair is jumping down his throat before he gets his first sentence out. I submit to you that he had a good point of order, if he was ever given a chance to make it yesterday or if he was given a chance to make it today. The man has been sent here by some people. He is being harassed not only by members opposite, he is being harassed by the Chair. I mean it is shameful what is going on here, Mr.

Speaker, he is being harassed by the Chair. Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is this - DR. COLLINS: Harassed by the Chair 1 now what a statement. MR. SIMMONS: Yes, harassed by the Chair. MR. PEACH: Questioning the Chair again. MR. SIMMONS: Yes. MR. PEACH: As usual. MR . SIMMO NS: Yes. Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege and what I am doing, Mr. Speaker, I have never done in my twelve and a half years in politics, I feel very strongly about this, Sir. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). L4951 February 21, 1986 Vol XL MR. SIMMONS: There you go, how about the order now, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I must say to the hon . member for Fortune-Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) that he is accusing the Chair of harassing an individual and I will have to insist that he withdraw that. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of explaining a matter of privilege. One of the last remaining conventions that we have not thrown out yet is that a member can state his matter of privilege. I am trying to do that, Sir, and I was about to say it but I asked for the protection of the Chair because we were getting your chorus over on that side of the House trying to direct you again .

I want some silence because I have an important point. I realize what I am doing is a serious matter and I am doing it for a serious reason, at least from my vantage point. In my twelve and a half or thirteen years at this I have seen various Speakers in a couple of different houses of parliament and I have never done what I am doing now. I have never done this before. I am doing it because I believe it very strongly.

I have watched this thing last Spring, during the Fall and now again and I told myself perhaps it was only the heat of the moment on my part or perhaps it was only a matter that I had an unfair and an overload of bias that did not allow me to see properly and clearly what was going on here. I allow for all those possibilities, Mr. Speaker, but 1 in addition, I No. 87 R4951

submit that any fair-minded observer of the scene in the past two days alone, without going back any further, although I invite them to do that too, but just watching what has gone on in this Chamber in the last two days, any fair-minded impartial observer, and Mr. Speaker, I say to you that I have made it my business to do a little info~al poll of some people who have been sitting in the galleries the last couple of days, and the feedback I am getting is quite interesting and buttresses the position that I am stating here right now, Mr.

Speaker, that, however consciously or unconsciously, these matters are being done. The fact of the rna t ter . is , Mr. Speaker, I submit to you as two examples, that the Premier this morning got much preferred treatment from the Chair in being allowed to make his point of order than did the member for Port de Grave (Mr. Efford) either today or yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I do not ask you to take my word for that.

Sir, before making a ruling on the matter of privilege I am raising, I invite you to look at Hansard and I suggest that you just use a ruler and measure the length of the interventions in each case before there is any interruption from the Chair. I submit to you that in the case of the gentleman from Port de Grave you will not need a very long ruler. Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly about this.

The matter of privilege on which I am rising is that the rules are not being applied fairly in this Chamber and until they are applied fairly or, to say it differently, as long as they continue to be applied unfairly, my privileges as a member of this House are being breached. If the L4952 February 21, 1986 Vol XL Speaker finds, after due consideration, that I have a claim to privilege, I am prepared to put down the appropriate motion which, of course, is only one motion, a motion that the Speaker be censured for his actions. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: I will respond to it briefly. I think it is quite obvious from the proceedings today, as is the perception, I think, of anyone listening to it, the hon. gentleman has been on this course all morning and I think it is very; very unfortunate. I think what he has wanted and has been bent upon since he came in this morning was to get named and obviously a statement of that nature by the hon. gentleman cannot go unchallenged.

There were statements that were made today that I got up on a point of privilege about and I could have brought it to a head then, at that particular time, but obviously you do not want people to be expelled from the House. I think it is a very sad thing in the Province of Newfoundland that members are now getting expelled from this Assembly and somehow or other the press, the public, even the Assembly and everybody is almost getting immune to it. one of the biggest problems we have, Mr. Speaker, in this House is the threatened complete breakdown of the authority in the House.

The authority of Your Honour can only be upheld with the good will of both sides and No. 87 R4952

everybody upholding the authority of Your Honour. I really feel the position of the han. gentleman is most unfortunate. Look, the way in which parliamentary procedure operates is if the han. gentleman feels . that somebody is transgressing the rules in anyway, by long answers, short answers or what have you - I am not going to get into what the hon. gentleman has said because that is irrelevant to the issue - I would just point out that it is competent of any member of this House to get up on a point of order and have Your Honour rule on it. It is not competent, Mr.

Speaker, for a member of this House to get up and say that Your Honour has to be the policeman and get up and sit this one down, unless there is a complete, absolute and obvious infringement of the rule being perpetrated. One rule is there and one rule is sacrosanct, Mr. Speaker, and that is the fact that Your Honour's impartiality is to be observed. I regret very much what the han. gentleman is doing. I would think that it would be better if the hon. gentleman reflected upon it and withdrew those statements.

Your Honour, Your Honour's authority cannot be challenged in this particular and deliberate way which really threatens the whole operations of this particular House. It is quite obvious what has happened today and what it is in the process of happening. I regret it but, I think I regret ever more that this type of action has to be taken and, apparently, is now an accepted mode. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) did it the other day and now the member for Fortune Hermitage (Mr. Simmons).

It becomes accepted instead of meeting the criticism and the L4953 February 21, 1986 Vol XL criticism of the public and the disapprobation of public and, indeed, the condemnation of the public of this kind of conduct from any elected member on either side of the House who questions Your Honour's ruling. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Your Honour is put into this sort of position however, if I could just briefly refer back to my earlier remarks this morning on a similar motion.

The reason Your Honour finds himself in this difficult position is because of the person who has the primary responsibility to protect Your Honour and to protect the Rules of the House, namely, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) . He is the person who has set the tone for this Assembly and for this special session from the first moment that he openeG his mouth in debate.

If anybody has any questions or any challenge to that statement, I invite them to go back and pick up the minister's speech, read it, analyze it and look at the abuse, in total breach of the Rules of the House, imputing motives, attacking the character and reputation of everybody on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder that there are difficulties in keeping order when the person responsible for assisting Your Honour is the one who is most at fault .

If I had heard the minister get up and make one small admission that he might have been excessive in his comments, that some of his comments heaping abuse No. 87 R4953

and attacking our character, dignity and integrity, were made in the heat of debate, Mr. Speaker, there might be some hope for getting this House back on the rails. Mr. Speaker, while the Government House Leader sets himself up as the policeman and the criminal, there is going to be very great difficulty in keeping a decorous House in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to hear the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) explain how his conduct in spewing venom across the floor of this Assembly, how that conduct can be reconciled with these mealy-mouth statements that we just heard coming from him a few moments ago. How does he reconcile his conduct and the tone that he set in a first day of debate, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you I have had difficulty in keeping members here in their seats to have as much accomplished as we have had in the course of the last several weeks.

Again, I challenge anybody to read the debates from this side of the House and read the debates from the other side and see the tone that was followed by each and every member, taking their leave from the Government House Leader. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Each and every member on the government side, instead of debating the benefits to the Province of oil, instead of being concerned about the environment, what we saw, Mr. Speaker, was venom; what we saw were personal attacks on this side of the House. Now members ask why it is that there are problems in keeping order. Mr.

Speaker, there is no wonder after the tone that they L4954 February 21, 1986 Vol XL set under the leadership of the Government House Leader and the Premier. It is the Premier • s strategy and not just the Government House Leader. The Premier and the Government House Leader decided what tone they want. Members opposite followed it, but, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be intimidated, we are not going to be muzzled and we are going to speak out for the people of this Province on this side of the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please!

I have heard enough on that point of privilege. No prima facie case of breach of privilege has· been established. I would, however, like to make a few points. The hon. member for Fortune Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) mentioned about excessive time on one side or the other. He is entitled to his views and his opinion but, he made a very serious accusation against me, that I was harassing a member or members. I ask him now to withdraw that without equivocation. The hon. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, I am surprised that you did not take what I regard as the most serious parliamentary matter I have ever raised - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw! MR. SIMMONS: - under advisement to look at the issue. I respect very much the office of Speaker. I have no No. 87 R4954

respect for those who abuse the office of Speaker, whether that abuser sits in the Chair of the Speaker or elsewhere in the Chamber. I think it needs to be said also that it is difficult at times in this House to make it understood that what you are doing is talking about a person's performance rather than a person's integrity. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) made reference to that a moment ago when we have seen a constant barrage of assaults on people's integrity, dignity and motives. My experience in the House of Commons and here under five or six other Speakers always was, Mr .

Speaker, that whenever a member's integrity was impugned, the Speaker immediately intervened, immediately got up, without any request or any initiative from any others in the Chamber, as soon as the person's integrity is impugned, the Speaker gets up. That has not happened in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. That is not because, in my view, you lack any integrity. I am not talking about your integrity, Sir. I have the greatest respect for you as an individual.

What I have said this morning and what I stand by is that I believe your performance has been less than fair and I believe that, Sir, with everything that is in me . I want you to understand that there are no personal aspersions being cast on you as an individual. I like you very much. I believe you know that. You have always dealt very kindly and as a gentleman with me and I can say so for most members on the other side of the House but, that is not the issue. When we get to the point where we begin construing everything in personal terms, then this whole process is going to break down.

However, my L4955 February 21, 1986 Vol XL personal admiration for people should not prevent me, Mr. Speaker, from taking exception to the way in which they perform their duties at times and I have used that prerogative this morning. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I listened with great care to what the han. member has had to say but I have asked him to withdraw the accusation that I was harrassing a member. I call on him now to do so. The bon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I guess once again it is a case of might is right and you have it in your prerogative with that majority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw! MR. SIMMONS: So, Mr. Speaker, while I believe deeply in my observation, I realize that it is not parliamentary to say it if the Speaker says I cannot say it . So, since it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it. Orders of the Day MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my debate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: No. 87 R4955

On a point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I have not called Orders of the Day yet. MR. BARRY: The Speaker called Orders of the Day. MR. MARSHALL: Yes, he called Orders of the day and the process follows that the Government House Leader calls which order it is. Mr. Speaker, I have been tempted today to call an order other than Bill No. 59 because it is obvious His Honour is coming in at twelve-thirty and the hon. gentleman wants to be the last speaker. I could do it but, I am not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. Order 22, Bill No. 59. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! The debate was adjourned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has done everything else. We would not be the slightest bit surprised for him to withdraw the Atlantic Accord rather than give us the opportunity to debate its inadequacies .

The last day, in the brief remarks that I had, I pointed out that in my maiden speech in 1972, I think I was the first member of this House to raise the necessity of Newfoundland h~ing control over L4956 February 21, 1986 Vol XL the management of that great resource and having the right to share in the revenue from that resource. The Government House Leader at the time, Mr. Speaker, had set himself out another objective.

Despite the fact that he and members opposite have gotten up and challenged my right to talk about the Atlantic Accord and offshore oil and gas, the Government House Leader was specializing in something else. It was called the Conflict of Interest Regulations.

As I mentioned the last day, when my contribution to the Province in those early years are measured against the monument to the Government House Leader, the Conflict of Interest Regulations, it brings back to mind the poem that I am sure the students in the gallery are familiar with: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: I Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! " I think that we do not have to go too far into the future to have people looking at the works of the Government House Leader in despair. Mr.

Speaker, I am prepared to have, and I am prepared to briefly review it today, my input and my involvement in the development of offshore oil and gas policy for this Province compared against any member of this House and any member of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. I will not despair when that comparison is carried out. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate, before I get carried away in oratorical debate, to just set out directly what the position No. 87 R4956

of the Liberal Party and the official Opposition is with respect to the Atlantic Accord. I have taken the trouble to put this in writing so that there will be no misinterpretation of my remarks and I have issued copies of these extracts. If anybody asks if I am reading, yes, I am reading from some very carefully prepared notes so that there will be no misunderstanding and nothing overlooked.

I will be continuing my debate in a free-flowing fashion afterwards but, let us understand the principle of the Atlantic Accord legislation is that Newfoundland negotiate an offshore petroleum deal with the Government of Canada in order to be able to participate in the management of the offshore resource and to share in the benefits of offshore development. The official Opposition supports that principle and will be voting in favour of it at second reading stage. However, the Accord, in its detail, is a seriously flawed document and a seriously flawed agreement.

In that respect, it could be compared to the Churchill Falls agreement. A very serious flaw existed in that agreement which we are still living with, Mr. Speaker, and we will have to live with for a number of years in the future. We are trying to make sure that the flaws in the Atlantic Accord agreement are removed here, while we still can, before they are enshrined in legislation and possibly even the constitution, which may mean we have to live with these flaws forever. These flaws are contained in certain clauses which the Opposition cannot support and which we will be seeking to amend.

If the amendments are made, we will be supporting the L4957 February 21, 1986 Vol XL legislation also. at third reading If the present administration votes down our amendment, as they can - they have a majority in this House - we will have to consider whether the high level of unemployment and the present stagnant economy forces us to accept a quarter of a loaf rather than none. We hope, however, that the Premier listens to reason and that we are not faced with requiring Newfoundlanders to loose the major long term benefits from yet another resource in order to obtain some short term construction jobs.

The Premier has admitted that the original draft of the Accord is flawed in the way we pointed out, in the way it deals with refining in this Province. He has admitted, Mr. Speaker, that the original draft was flawed and he tried, after we raised the point and brought the clause to his attention, to correct it but, Mr. Speaker, his proposed amendment does not remove that flaw as the questions that I will set out in a moment will show. I want this known, Mr. Speaker . The Liberal party will, upon forming the government after the next election ~ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

BARRY: be seeking amendments of the Accord in the event that our proposals for improvement are not accepted now. The following are some of the questions we have concerning the Atlantic Accord and the answers which must be reached be anyone other than those blinded by slavish partisan adherence to the Premier's rhetoric. In other No. 87 R4957

words, they would have to be answered in the way that I will suggest by anyone other than members sitting on the opposite side of the House. The first question is does Newfoundland get ownership of offshore petroleum resources? Answer: No. After the Premier's administration lost the offshore case, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Crosbie reneged on their earlier promise to give Newfoundland ownership regardless of the result of the case. They changed their offer from ownership to joint management and revenue sharing. The Premier, having gone to the Supreme Court too soon and lost - MR. TOBIN: You advised him. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I want protection and I want no interruption. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we please have silence while the bon. the Leader of the Opposition is speaking? MR. BARRY: The Premier, having gone to the Supreme Co:Jrt too soon and lost, had no further bargaining power and dropped the request for ownership. So, we do not get the ownership that I stood in this House and made my maiden speech on in 1972 and said that we had to seek but, the Premier blew that. Question number two is does the Accord give Newfoundland the same rights with respect to offshore resources as though they were on land?

Remember now, the Government House Leader has stood in this House and said ''yes" to L4958 February 21, 1986 Vol XL that. Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. The Accord does not treat petroleum resources offshore Newfoundland as though they were on land because Newfoundland is not recognized as having ownership. It will not, for example, be able to hold back production as Alberta was able to do if the federal government sets a price for oil that is lower than Newfoundland thinks is fair. Let us all think back now.

We can recall not too long ago, I was looking at reports last night, that in Canada, while the world price was thirty-five dollars a barrel, the Canadian price was fifteen. In other words, there was twenty dollars a barrel lost to the Province that was selling the oil but given to the benefit of the consumers in the consuming provinces. Peter Lougheed did not think that that was fair and he said, "I am not going to sell my oil for twenty dollars less than I can get on the world market," and he turned the taps. He did not turn them off, Mr. Speaker. He was too shrewd for that.

He knew that in Alberta, as in Newfoundland, people recognized the national interest and they do not accept a radical intemperate approach to this sort of thing, as we have seen too often from the Premier. "No, he said, I will just turn the screw tightly. I will not completely turn off the oil. I will reduce the amount of oil that I will sell for that price." If the same thing happened today, Newfoundland, in order to get the attention of the federal government to get a fairer price, would not be able to do that. There is no right given for N~wfoundland to curtail production No. 87 R4958

in this Atlantic Accord. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, if for no other, we cannot say that we are in the same position as though the oil resources were on land. Question number three: Does the Accord give Newfoundland an equal say in other major decisions apart from oil prices? Not for the next five years and perhaps never, except, and we give credit and recognition where credit is due, for the decision on the mode of development. Even here the Province is subject to arbitration.

The federal government is given the final say over other fundamental decisions as long as Canada does not have self-sufficiency and security of supply. Despite the fact that the federal government declared in 1984 that Canada has reached the point of self-sufficiency and security of supply, the Premier now, in the Accord, has agreed that offshore petroleum resources will be managed for the next five years as though that point had not been reached. I do not know if Yo