Province of Newfoundland THIRTY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XXXIX Third Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable James Russell Number 69 Tuesday 18 December 1984

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question or two towards the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) . In view of the fact the Premier is not in his seat, I would like to ask him the question. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a former Minister of Labour in this Province, in the person of Mr.

Joseph Rousseau, yesterday publicly stated that when the Termination of Employment Act Bill was brought into this House originally back in 1977 there were no mistakes and that the introduction of the amendment to the bill now is merely a red herring - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: - is merely a red herring on the part of the administration to muddy up the water for bringing in this amendment, Bill 37 into this ·House. MR . DINN: He did not say that. KR. NEARY: He did say that. In view of these statements by the then minister who introduced the bill into this House, Mr.

Speaker, who has now L6265 said there was no mistake, and some hon. gentlemen there opposite were in the Cabinet at the time, will the minister who introduced the amendment to Bill 37 now admit that the administration was attempting to mislead the House?

Will the hen. gentleman apologize to the House and to the people of this Province for. his false and misleading statements in view of the fact that Joe Rousseau who originally introduced the bill into this House categorically stated that there was no mistake made in the introduction of that bill, either when it was discussed in Cabinet or when it was introduced in second reading in the House. KR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Minister of Labour. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hen. member saying something like that. Obviously I have not - ~een what Mr. Rousseau said but it is very interesting to note that Mr.

Rousseau was talking about what went on in Cabinet and I suppose we would all like to be able to do that at times. Unfortunately I took an oath to say that I should not do that and of course I will not do that and I will just leave it up to the people and the House to decide whether it is appropriate for a person who takes an oath to do a certain thing and breaks that oath, if indeed he did which I do not believe he did, but if he did then I think somebody else would have to be left to judge, certainly not myself. KR. NEARY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for LaPoile.

December 18, 1984 R6265 ..

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was in the Cabinet at that time, but I am not sure if the han. gentleman was a member of the Cabinet in 1977. The point here, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman, the minister who introduced the bill has now stated publicly, categorically, there was no error, there was no ·mistake, there was no need for amendments, that this bill was designed to create a necessary social reform, in view of these circumstances and the statements made by Mr.

Rousseau, the man who piloted the bill through the House, and in view of the fact that the Premier was in the Cabinet, would the hon. gentleman apologize to the House for any misleading statements, for any red herring they may have created during the recent debate on Bill 37? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not going to apologize to the House for saving thousands and thousands of jobs for Newfoundlanders.

The fact of the matter is that if the former, former , former minister said that, and I do not believe he said it, but if he did say it, and obviously we have to take the word of the hon. member who said he said it, although the hon. member has not got a good record of relating what a person says or what is related to the press, but if the hon. former, former minister did indeed say that there was no intention at the time, that there was no error in the act when it was brought in, then I would only have to say that former minister was wrong.

There is nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador today believes that L6266 except one; there is one person to my knowledge who has stated here in the House that the act was good as it was, but that is the only gentleman. Even the han. members opposite believe that the act should be changed, and everyone else in Newfoundland and Labrador, to my knowledge, has said that it should be changed and now the bon. member does not agree with the former, former, former minister who said that there were no errors in the act in the beginning. Well, of course, I disagree with that. The hon. member does. The member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) does and just about everybody else in Newfoundland except one, to my knowledge. There is only one, to my _ knowledge, that I am aware of, and that is the hon. member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick), who said right from the beginning that the act was good as it was. But nobody else in Newfoundland, the President of the ·Federation of Labour said it should be changed, all of the members of the Opposition said that the act should be changed, and Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there is only one member in Newfoundland who said it should not be changed.

We will have to decide whether that Johnny is the only guy in step or is the only guy out of step. But the fact of the matter is we all know that the act needed to be changed. It was certainly something that was left out . The Termination of Employment Act had

definitions in there. Every act that I am aware of in Canada have those

definitions in there, Mr. Speaker, and if the former, former, former minister does not believe that there was an error, then he is only the secong one in Newfoundland that I know of who believes what he is saying. December 18, 1984 R6266

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Port au Port . MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands, if the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands is awake. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of concern about declining domestic wood supplies in the Province, particularly in areas such as the Avalon Peninsula, some of the islands around the Province, like the Twillingate area, and Port au Port, my own part of the Province, where people are turning to increased use of wood stoves instead of electricity and other forms .of energy.

I ask the mi~ister what steps is his department taking to ensure that this very valuable resource is taken care of for the future? HR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in response to the bon. member's question, I can say that this government and the Department of Forest Resources and Lands has undertaken numerous activities to try to enhance the forest resource of this Province for the long term benefit of all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can say also to the bon. member that the interest, incidentially, in the use of wood for domestic use has dwindled over this past year from what it was in the previous years. I do not know if there seems to be a trend there or not. Bt.Jt certainly the efforts of the department with respect to forest management I think are well known L6267 all throughout the Province. And I just point out that there are all kinds of forest management projects underway, silviculture being the one of most interest, I guess, and where most of the emphasis has been placed in recent years.

In discussions that I have had with the new federal Minister Forestry (Mr. Merithew) , which in itself is an example, I guess, of the federal government recognizing the importance of the forest resource, towards a new Federal/Provincial Forestry Subsidary Agreement, it appears there will be even more emphasis placed on projects like silviculture. Not only does that employ people, of course, but it also does a lot to enhance the resource that is so important and so crucial to the future of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. HR .

SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for Port au Port, a supplementary. HR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that to say the use of domestic wood is down in the Province is somewhat misleading because so much wood is being cut in some of the areas, I have been told by officials in his department - not recently, but within the past year - that there are areas of the Province that could be without wood within five, to ten years. Mr.

Speaker, another aspect of this particular question is the minister's department allows a certain amount of wood to be cut per, say, a family unit, but there is no policing of the cutting. December 18, 1984 R6267

MR. SIMMS: No what? MR. HODDER: No policing. In other words, if you are allowed to cut two cords or three cords - I am not quite sure of the amount that you are allowed to cut, but I know it is basically what you would normally burn in a year if you had a woodstove - there is no policing of that. As well there are people without permits who sell wood in certain areas, not in all areas of the Province, but this is adding to the drain on the wood supply in particular areas of the Province.

I would ask the minister if he has any plans in order to police, perhaps, or have his officials keep a check on what is being burned? And is there any check on those people who sell wood? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon ·. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, our people in the field are constantly on the outlook for illegal activities as it applies to the cutting of wood without permits and so on. We are aware of those areas where there have been instances. But I can assure the bon. member that we intend to continue with those kinds of efforts. MR.

DINN: But you do not want to go out on a limb. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER ~Russell~: The bon. the member for Henihek. fiR. FEN-wiCK: - '... - - ~ .. Hr. Speaker, I had a question for L6268 the Premier, but since he is not here I will address my question to the minister responsible for the Petroleum Directorate. Yesterday in Question Period, in -a particularly acrimonious exchange between the Premier and the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), the Premier said that if you want to you can come down to my office at nine o'clock tomorrow morning and see - MR. NEARY: I did not go down. I did not go down! MR.

FENWICK: That is all right, I did. I wanted to find out what the information was. The question I have is does that offer to have a look at the final papers, the final documents from the PC Government versus the Liberal offer, still stand and can I avail myself of it? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I remember the exchange but I do not remember it as being bitter at all. I remember it being snakelike coming from the other side, which is normal, but I do not remember bitter from this side. Would the bon. gentleman just like to elaborate a bit? HR.

FENWICK: On a supplementary, Hr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: As I recall the exchange, the Premier was calling into doubt the particular version that the member for LaPoile -(Hr .. Neary) was putting forward of the particular December 18, 1984 R6268

offer from the Liberal ·Administration in contrast to the PC Administration. In order to prove that the PC of fer was considerably better than the Liberal one, the Premier offered to invite the member down at nine o'clock in the morning in order to have a look at both final documents. That is the way I recall it. Does that offer for me ·· still stand? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I guess it is the offer on the offshore that the bon. gentleman refers to? MR. FENWICK: Yes. MR. MARSHALL: The do .cuments oil the · Liberal offer are quite explicit, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the bon. gentleman asked the question because I came back from Ottawa and on the plane I saw the Globe and Mail wax expansive over the offer from the point of view of Newfoundland, saying Newfoundland got what it wanted. The Montreal Gazette said Newfoundland got what it wanted. And one of the papers I think it was The Halifax Chronical Herald even said that it was offered to the Government of Nova Scotia. Having returned to· St. John's, I went for an interview with CBC, and all they seem to be focusing on was what was wrong. So they got a fellow from a Mr.

Voyez from the Economic Council of Canada, who had not even seen the offer. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Who never had been in Newfoundland. MR. MARSHALL: L6269 So I said to the people out there, 'Is this a hangover of our colonial past?' MR. NEARY: You were suffering from jet lag. MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The hon. the member for Fogo, on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman does not want the answer. MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! MR. TULK: I know, Mr.

Speaker, that the government is in trouble with its offshore deal, we all know that in the Province, and we all know that the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) is trying to use every opportunity that he can to get out from under. Now the question was very simple and required a simple and a short answer. We ask him to stop abusing Question Period and let us get on with it, boy. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The gentleman for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) has asked a question and I am responding to it. Anyway so, Mr.

Speaker, I said, 'Is this a hangover from our colonial past?' December 18, 1984 R6269

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! To that point of order, the Chair again must remind all hon. members that questions should be very brief and require very brief answers. I am sure the bon. the President of the Council is aware that his answers should be very brief. MR. MARSHALL: 'Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just draw my answer to a quick close. I said, 'Have we got to get the British raj or somebody from away to tell us what is good for us?

Can we not analyze it ourselves?' If the bon. gentleman wants to know what is in the offer he can certainly analyze it because the documents are there and we would be quite happy to give them to him. For instance, Mr. Chretien was asked, "Is it a good offer?" "No, we gave a better offer." And people accept that. Nobody said to him, 'But, Mr. Chretien, they have now agreed on three/three and an independent Chairman

whereas you only agreed to have three federal and two provincial representatives and insisted federal regulations apply. Mr. Chretien, you say the offer of money is better, but you had a cap. What these people from Newfoundland have managed to negotiate is to establish and collect taxes as if the resource were on land. ' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! · MR. MARSHALL: L6270 Mr. Speaker, am I supposed to hide away from the negative people of this world, the CBC et al, and hang my head in disgrace because this government has negotiated the same position as Alberta with respect to its offshore, no more, no less?

So those documents are there and the hon. - MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for Fogo, on a point of order. MR. TULK: Like I was saying to the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall), we know he wants to take every opportunity he can to explain that deal where he is giving away, perhaps, more than he has got. We know that, Mr. Speaker. But the question simply put to him I think was would the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwich) be able to see a certain set of documents? He did not ask for an explanation, so the minister can stand up and say either yes or no.

He is abusing Question Period, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the member for LaPoile, to that point of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question the hon. gentleman asked was could he see the document, because the Premier had invited me down to his off ice on the eighth floor. · Well, let me assure the hon. gentleman that when I go to December 18, 1984 R6270

the eighth floor I will not be going to look at documents, I will be going to sit in the Premier's chair in the Premier's office. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): To that point of order, the bon. the President of the Council.· · MR. DINN: What about, 'Leo'? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about 'Leo'? 'Leo'? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: What about Mr.

Speaker, all I want to say is that the Opposition is obviously getting nervous because I am about to eviscerate the jealous Tory who is · their leader, and his superfluous, silly statements with respect to it. But I. say to the bon. gentleman, there is a letter from Mr. Mulroney - MR. NEARY: Is he speaking on the point of order? MR. SIMMS: He is still talking on the point of order, boy. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The Chair recognizes the hon. the President of the Council as L6271 speaking to that point of order. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, I say I will abide by your ruling and if Your Honour tells me I cannot go on I will not eviscerate the jealous Tory, I will just answer directly the bon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Walsh). MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, the hon. the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) I am sure is aware that he should be very brief to the question asked and I would suggest that perhaps he should clue up his answer. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I will see that the bon. gentleman gets a copy of the analysis on the offer that Mr. Chretien gave to this government, as well as Mr.

Lalonde, which was total domination of this government,. and I will also give him, as I am sure he has, a copy of the letter from the Prime Minister of Canada which indicates that Newfoundland is going to manage the offshore, have a final, ultimate decision on the mode of production, have the ability to establish and collect taxes as if they were on land, the same as Alberta, have a position where despite the flow of money that is going to choke us we are not going to have equalization payments cut off from us. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, member order. please! for Fogo, MR.

TULK: December 18, 1984 The hon. the on a point of R6271

It seems to me that the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) is trying to do through the backdoor what he cannot do through the front door, namely disobey the ruling of Your Honour. So I would ask Your Honour to rule him out of order, tell him and wait for rather than Period. DR. COLLINS: to sit in his seat other questions, abusing Question To that point of order, Mr. Speaker_. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on behalf of the bon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick).

He is apparently too shy or he does not know the rules enough to rise on his own behalf but clearly he is embarrassing the Opposition, they will not let him ask a question, they will not let· him get an answer, they keep interfering with his rights. They keep interfering with Question Period by raising spurious points of order, so Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House Leader (Mr. Tulk) opposite be asked to sit down, hold his place and let the member for Menihek get answers to his questions. MR. SIMMS: Spurious points of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I would request the bon.

President of the Council to clue up his remarks. MR. MARSHALL:· Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude L6272 by saying to the bon. gentleman, yes, we will give to the bon. gentleman, and everybody in this Province, all the information that is necessary and they will see what a tremendous agreement we have entered into and the difference it shows between us and the Uncle Toms on the other side who kowtow to everything and would have, Mr. Speaker, resulted in this Province being recipients of welfare payments, albeit from their own resources, forever and a day. So, Mr. Speaker, my heart leaps up.

The only thing I wish is that the CBC could shuck our colonial past and not rely on other people to tell us how good or how bad we did but have enough depth to do their own analysis of this very beneficial meeting for the people of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek, a supplementary. MR. FENWICK: Just a final supplementary which has to do with exactly which documents I am going to get to see because I am not particularly interested in looking at the Mulroney letter.

When I heard the Premier yesterday, and I checked back with Hansard, he said the final documents from the Liberal Government and the final documents from the PC Government in Ottawa. What I wish to see is the final agreement that is being worked on by Cabinet now. Is that the one I will be allowed to look at now? MR. SPEAKER:· - The bon, the President of the December 18, 1984 R6272

Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will realize that we are in the process which, .. we have just about completed,.. to quote Ms. Carney. There are only technicalities but they are· legal technicalities put up by the lawyers that we are required to go into, and we will do that for posterity. If the hon. gentleman wants to see the kernel of that document, he should look at the letter from Mr. Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney keeps his promises to the people of this Province, just as this government ·kept its promises to the people of this Province when it sought a mandate to negotiate to get a fair deal.

Because now we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where we are on the threshold of standing in the same position as Alberta. The jealous Tory who talks about back-in should back off, because who worries, Mr. Speaker, about back-ins and what have you when you have the right to establish and collect taxes on land? Mr. Speaker, could we do any better for the people of this Province than to secure the same rights that Alberta has for the purpose of exploration and development of oil and gas? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, could we? So the hon. gentlemen are barking up the wrong tree.

The hon. gentlemen backed quislings, three of whom remain up in Ottawa and have the gall to get up and ask questions about the offshore agreements. And the Liberal Party of this Province did not stand with the people of this Province, we did and that agreement ·will show it. MR. TULK; Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: L6273 The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. MR. BAIRD: He will be on television tonight. MR. TULK: Yes , we have to television tonight worth 500 votes. MR. NEARY: Lord Haw-Haw. HR. TULK: put him because it on is My question, Mr.

Speaker, concerns the restructuring agreement that was hailed by the Premier last year as being the greatest document since Confederation. It concerns the Resource Utilization Task Force that was supposed to be put in place and has been put in place, which is probably one of the most important sections in that agreement. Since we cannot get the Minister of Fisher-ies or the Premier in t:he House, I ask the Government House Leader (Kr.

Marshall) to be quite calm when he stands up and to take just a minute to tell me when we can expect to see that report and what effect it is going to have on the harvesting plan whenever it comes into place. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Kr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's gall absolutely daunts me, that the hon. gentleman can get up and ask questions with respect to the fishery restructuring. You talk about the Resource Utilization Task Force; the people of Burin know what the Resource Utilization December 18, 1984 R6273

Task Force is , ask them. Ask the people of Gaultois, ask the people of Grand Bank, ask the people in many other centres of this Province whose fish plants were threatened with closure, while the hon. gentleman sat there and acquiesced in it and this government fought it tooth and nail. Now what happened with the restructuring agreement was - MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the member for Fogo, on point of order. MR. TULK: I am sure the Government House Leader (Mr .

Marshall) is not deliberately misleading this House, but he is misleading the House when he says that we acquiesced in allowing Grand Bank to close. He will recall, and I am sure my hon. friend from LaPoile (Mr. Nearyr will recall that it was first the policy on this side that all fish plants in this Province remain open and members opposite stole it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the . President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. I do not know whether Your Honour would wish to rule on it? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair L6274 recognized the· hon. the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) in asking a question of the President of the Council and the Chair is satisfied that the President of the Council was answering the question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MARSHALL: They did not. Indeed they did not. Mr. Speaker, when we negotiated restructuring what the hon. gentlemen there opposite and their confreres in Ottawa wanted to do was say that Burin had to close down, that Grand Bank had to close down, that Gaul to is had to close down.

I know some of the - I have to call them people, I suppose, there is another word for them. I know some of the people we were talking to were even talking about the resettlement of Gaultois and they said, "Oh, we will give you compensation. We will build a nice little road to Harbour Breton and will it not be nice. We will put a nice little ferry on and will it not be nice because all the people from Gaultois can go into Harbour Breton ." And that is what the hon. gentlemen there opposite supported.

So I want to tell the hon. gentleman that since September 4 many of the things in this Province that were precipitating us towards disaster have been pulled back from the brink of disaster and the fishery restructuring is one of them. The matter of the Resource Utilization Task Force is a matter of real concern to the Province. As you know, we took, Mr. Speaker, ages to get a Chief Executive Officer appointed, we have a chief executive officer now appointed, we have management of Fishery Products International appointed, we have the plants operated, we December 18, 1984 R6274

have conce~ted effo~ts being taken to utilize the ~esou~ces of this P~ovince and we will do eve~ything possible to utilize them. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the membe~ fo~ Po~t au ·Po~t. MR. HODDER: I have a question fo~ the Ministe~ of Finance (D~. Collins). When will the Public Accounts of the P~ovince be tabled in the House? Will they be tabled befo~e Ch~istmas? We have asked this question fo~ the past th~ee o~ fou~ weeks and we have not got a satisfacto~y answe~ yet. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Ministe~ of Finance. DR. COLLINS: M~.

Speake~, the Public Accounts give final accounting of all of the total allocations voted by this House. MR. TULK: We will neve~ know what those a~e with you as ministe~. DR. COLLINS: The~e is a so~t of noxious noise coming f~om ac~oss the way somewhe~e. Anyway the total app~op~iations a~e contained in the va~ious supply bills whethe~ they be Inte~im Supply, main supply o~ · Supplementa~y Supply and we have not had all the supply that was passed by this House yet. MR. NEARY: A supplementa~y. M~. Speake~. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the membe~ fo~ LaPoile, a supplementa~y~ L6275 MR.

NEARY: The hon. gentleman told us the othe~ day that the Audita~ Gene~al' s Repo~t would have to be sc~tinized by the Depa~tment of Finance befo~e it was tabled in the House. Now, M~. Speake~, let me ask the hon. gentleman has not the Audi to~ Gene~al' s Repo~t i tern by item al~eady been sc~tinized by the han. gentleman's depa~tment o~ does the han. gentleman know how the system wo~ks? When will the Audita~ Gene~al's Repo~t be tabled in the House? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Ministe~ of Finance. ' DR. COLLINS: M~.

Speake~, acco~ding to The Financial Administ~ation Act it is my duty to table the ~eport if I have received it by Janua~y 31 at the latest. MR. NEARY: A supplement_a~y. M~. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A supplementary the han. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: the Has the han. gentleman received the Auditor Gene~al's Report? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: ~. Speake~, I have not yet been so info~ed by my officials. MR. NEARY: What a Speaker. cowa~dly answer, Mr. Let me switch over to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe). Mr.

Speaker, the han. gentleman will recall that when the Sullivan Royal Commission ~eported in this Decembe~ 18, 1984 R6275

Province five recommended that years ago they the Newfoundland Railway be disbanded. The Liberal Government in Ottawa at the time, through the hon. Otto Lang said no to that recommendation, that the Newfoundland railway would be given a new lease on life, that the Newfoundland railway would be given an opportunity to introduce new technology, containerization and so forth and so on and they were given an allocation of funds by the government of Canada to do all these things. Now, Mr.

Speaker, a review of the past five · years indicates that the modernization and the change over to containerization has been successful. The Government of Canada have now to approve another five year extension or they have to · approve that the Newfoundland railway is here to stay as a permanent service in this Province. What steps has the bon. gentleman taken to demand that his Tory friends up in Ottawa before March 31 will announce a decision that the Newfoundland railway is here to stay? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The time for the Question Period has expired.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the galleries a former member of this Legislature from the district of St. Mary's - The Capes, Mr. Derek Hancock. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ·Hear, hear! Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees L6276 MR.. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Development. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the annual report for NORDCO for the year 1983-84. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I table the Eleventh Annual Report of the Liquor Licencing Board.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question yesterday from the bon. the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) when he asked if we could somehow break down what is in the agreement and put down on a little piece of paper in baby talk, in simplistic terms the Province's potential financial exposure with respect to the Kruger agreement, I can tell him that the Province's share of the capital grants, the modernization programme, is $7.2 million, the upper limit of the loan funding is $11 million, the put option maximum value, which is contingent, of course, and we have December 18, 1984 R6276

the power plant as security as everybody recalls, is $30 million, the access roads is $2 million, for a total of $50.2 million and I would also point out as another part of our encouragement - MR. NEARY: Another liability? MR. SIMMS: No, it is not a liability. The other thing is that the Province also as you will recall in last year's budget, exempted retail sales tax on manufacturing equipment, based on a capital programme of about $200 million that would work out to be about $14 million. -MR. NEARY: $64.2 million. MR. SIMMS: Yes, if you want to look at it in that sort of simplistic way.

I explained through committee how all the funds were arranged but that is what the bon. member wanted. It is all in the agreement anyway. MR. NEARY: I thank the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I wanted because I was finding it very difficult to get a handle on it. We are talking about $64.2 million. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is responding to Answers to Questions which I am sure he is aware he is not supposed to do. Orders of the Day L6277 MR. MARSHALL: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Acting) (Mr. Goudie) to introduce a bill, ..

An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act, .. carried. (Bill No. 62). On motion, Bill No. 62 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. MR. MARSHALL: Order 12, Bill No. 41. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Calculation And Consideration Of The Provincial · Content Factor In The Awarding Of Tenders By Government Funded Bodies... (Bill No. 41). MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Development. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this piece of legislation today. As the bon.

House knows well, the government has for some years been implementing a provincial preference policy in relation to the purchasing of goods and services and the utilization of locally produced products and government contracts. This particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides greater impact to that policy by enshrining it in legislation and also by ensuring that all government funded bodies will now be liable to and will apply the provincial preference policies. These are listed in the act, Mr. December 18, 1984 R6277

Speaker. As han. gentlemen know the maximum limits of provincial preference is up to 15 per cent based on a factor of 1. 5 of the ratio of the benefit of provincial content to the cost of that provincial content. The contract with the highest provincial content factor of the qualified bids received is the one that is chosen. There are a strict set of guidelines and regulations which I am prepared to make available to han. members.

As han. gentlemen know, as I indicated, a number of government agencies will now be covered in addition to government Crown corporations, the municipalities and local service ·districts under the Municipalities Act, including the city of St. John's and the city of Corner Brook, school boards established under the School Board Act , any agencies and authorities of the Province, hospitals und~r the Hospital Act, any boards, commissions, corporations or other bodies listed in the scheduling. Two exceptions, Mr. Speaker, are NORDCO and Marystown Shipyard.

And as I indicated during the debate on the Public Tender Act, the rationale for that is that both of these companies are commercially competitive and must be allowed to remain commercially competitive in order to be economically viable.

It would be unfair and unreasonable of a government to expect these Crown corporations, which, although they are Crown corporations, are effectively both operating without any government subsidies at this point in time and must compete with other, of course, private .. institutions, therefore it would be unreasonable and improper for us to expect them to carry a penalty for provincial preference although, without exception, they make every effort to comply with L6278 the spirit and intent of the legislation and the provincial preference policy.

The other aspect of it is that in both cases these companies do enter into commercial joint ventures with other companies established outside the Province and are doing contracts outside the Province, so it may be difficult therefore to enforce this type of regulation upon those particular joint ventures and joint venture contracts. The provincial overhead allowance, the provincial labour content and the provincial merit material content shall be calculated in the prescribed manner and the regulations shall be prescribed (

a) in the case of provincial overhead allowance the criteria and value of the criteria that indicate a presence of the bidder in the Province: (

b) in the case of provincial labour content, the value of the labour content in mining, harvesting, manufacturing, processing or assembly done in the Province is part of the qualified bid; and (

e) in the case of provincial material content, the value of the raw material mined or harvested in the Province as part of the qualified bid. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the provincial preference policy has been extremely effective and what we are simply doing here is giving more strength to the policy by enshrining it in legislation and by broadening it to ensure that essentially all government funded bodies, with the two exceptions I have named, will be covered by this particular policy. I think it is interesting to note the success that this policy has seen thus far. Statistics -. as . or 31 - October 1984 . indicate that out of 286 contracts December 18, 1984 R6278

awarded, based on policy guidelines, with a total value in excess of $36 million, the cost of -accepting these bids other than the lower bidder was just $1 million, which is 2. 9 per cent of the total value. The percentage difference in the low bid price and preferred bid price and benefits in labour and materials amounted to an estimated $3. 7 million: Therefore our provincial content factor was a 3. 45 on the average · versus the 1.5 that we have chosen. I admit that the 1.5 was somewhat arbitrary when the policy was established some four or five years ago.

Nevertheless it seems to be working very well, it seems to be a level that is appropLiate to the policy that we are trying to put in place. A number of things have taken place. Number one, we have maximized, r think, to a very large degree the amount of local labour and the materials that have been used. Now, of course, the _ policy applies to all publicly tendered goods and seLVices in addition to capital works and we can, of course, accept other than the low bid pLice subject to certain established foLmulas and regulations.

It uses a valuated ·approach to evaluate all tenders to ensure that the Province receives maximum value for its procurement dollar while at the same time maintaining the competitive business process. The policy, of course, was originally designed to benefit provincial manufactures and processors and to encourage this sector of the economy primarily. Of course now we have expanded that to benefit other sectors of the business community indicating a reluctance to co-operate with the implementation of the policy and to source materials from provincial manufactures and L6279 processors.

It was decided to expand the policy to include all sectors of the provincial business community. I might add that a number . of _ companies have seen significant benefits. I could list them, Mr. Speaker, but I will not do that. What I will do is table these notes that I have here which gives a list of some of the more significant contracts, gives some date. I do not want to waste the time of the House reading them out here. There are a page and three quarters of companies here that have indicated to us a very strong advantage as a result of the provincial preference policy.

I might add that we have changed the threshold limit of public tenders from $1000, which was in the original policy, to $5000 in keeping with the recommendations of the Implementation Committee responsible for the Mahoney Royal Commission. And what this does, of course, is give government departments a little more flexibility and reduces an awful lot of administrative paper work.

In fact, I think we found in many, many cases that the cost of calling tenders for some of these seLVices valued at less than $1000, the tender call cost was actually more than the value of the goods or services being supplied, it was in fact counterproductive, so we have raised that threshold limit now to $5000. As I said, there is a list here of some of the companies, the most significant ones that have benefited. A number place as provincial evaluation of things have taken a result of the content and the of that.

A number of firms have moved to increase provincial content by having more work performed here in December 18, 1984 R6279

Newfoundland using local labour. We could list a number of examples of that and there is no question at all that that is indeed taking place. I have nUmerous letters in my files from companies which indicate that not only are they doing that but they have received significant benefits. It has caused a number of firms to take steps to open Newfoundland offices and to retain new staff to establish a greater physical presence here in the Province. And it is important to note, Mr.

Speaker, that in the last five or six years in excess of 300 new companies have established in our Province primarily aimed at being involved in the offshore oil and gas _industry, and that is primarily a factor of provincial preference and the provincial preference clauses of Newfoundland's offshore regulations. In addition to that, of course, there are a - number of companies that have sought out local firms to act as -agents or their Newfoundland representatives .

There is also very strong evidence to indicate that mainland suppliers and local agents accustomed to receiving government supply contracts have significantly reduced bid prices compared with the previous years to more effectively compete with local suppliers and manufacturers, obviously who enjoy this 10 to 15 per cent provincial preference. We have also found on routine investigations by officials of the department and daily contact with various government purchasing officials that this is having positive results as well for local industry.

The people are now becoming more aware of the capabilities of local ·manufacturers and make greater efforts to source requirements from local suppliers rather than L6280 from established mainland suppliers as in the past.

As a result of the efforts of officials of the department to identify opportunities for joint procurement within the overall government procurement system, officials, particularly those in the purchasing departments, have become more aware of government's standing offers and are making greater use of this mechanism to purchase materials and save money on the strength of government's purchasing power. Again, the policy is an encouragement to local business people to attempt new business ventures.

The knowledge that the government is prepared to pay slightly more than the lower competitors price reduces that risk in new endeavours simply by the fact that they have this level of government support. Government contractors, particularly major food contractors, are making a greater effort to source local products and thus increase the local content on their particular bid. The policy has the potential to create a greater awareness within government and the consulting community of the importance of designing construction projects to make greater use of local materials and local expertise.

As well in the Public Tender Act, the proposed amendments to that _ act and the introduction of the new provincial preference legislation, we will require more public tendering by government funded bodies and as a result Newfoundland firms will again be better able to identify business opportunities and to quote on government requirements, many of which may have been in the past filled from outside the Province. So all in all, Mr. Speaker, what this policy does · together with the Public Tender Act ensures that all December 18, 1984 R6280

government procurement is done in accordance with the public tender policy, the provincial preference policy is applied to it and that we are indeed giving every possible benefit to companies within the Province and that we are ensuring that the maximum utilization of goods and services from within the Province is being realized. Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be some questions and we will try to answer them as we go through. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The han. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, what we just heard is a statement from an administration that would put th .e LaSage Administration to shame when it comes to figuring out way to dole out political patronage to your friends and supporters, and to get around the Public Tendering Act so that you can show a little favouritism to your friends and supporters. The hon. gentleman made a statement that this was meant to maximize the benefits to local business. What it is designed to do, Mr. Speaker, is maximize the benefits to the supporters of the Tory Party. Because the real danger in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is in the regulations.

The regulations are made by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, in other words by the Cabinet. MR. WINDSOR: What is wrong with that? MR. NEARY: What is wrong with it? If you give the Cabinet the authority to make regulations under this bill you would want eyes in the back of your head to watch them to see L6281 what they are doing. The han. gentleman may not be aware, but there is a very dangerous situation in this Province at the present time involving . the Premier's office and two individuals who head up a group of companies in this Province, a very dangerous situation indeed between the Premier, one Mr.

Frank Ryan, and one Mr. Basil Dobbin. DR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, this House was never meant to malign private citizens. This House has privileges and there are things you can say in this House which people would be· ill-advised to say outside of this House because they might be subject to court action. But even though the House has that privilege it, was never meant to extend to the maligning private citizens without the clearest evidence for an allegations that are made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the han. member opposite is making allegations without the slighest shred of evidence to back them up. He is offering not a single thing, he is just offering a comment, a comment without any backing. He is offering a comment which is a slur on anyone's name. It is a disgrace. It is violating the intent of this House. And I do not think the bon. member should be allowed to misuse the privileges of this House for those types of purposes that do harm to private individuals who are in no December 18, 1984 R6281

position to either to defend themselves, nor indeed could they defend themselves because no evidence is offered for the outrageous allegations that are made. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I would remind all bon. members that we are discussing the principle of Bill No. 41. The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In other words, there is no point of order.

The bon. gentleman would be better advised if he concentrated on trying to balance the Budget. · In' other jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States the Ministers of Finance are a little bit out in their estimates. The hon. gentleman is usually 500 per cent, 600 per cent, 1000 per cent out in his estimates. He should go buy a $2.00 pocket size calculator to try to balance the Budget. DR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! On a point of order, the bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: What the hon. member just said L6282 backs up what I am saying.

He is so inaccurate and so wild in his statements that what he has just said backs up what I said previously. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order, I do remind the bon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) that he was straying from the principle of Bill No. 41 at that time. The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the point that I was making when I was so rudely interrupted by the incompetent Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) we have in this Province - he thinks, Mr.

Speaker, that if you buy for $1.00 and sell for $2.00, it is a 1 per cent profit·; that is the kind of a Minister of Finance we have - but the point I was making when I was interrupted by the bon. gentleman is that we have a very dangerous situation in this Province involving the Premier and two Tory bagmen, one the provincial co-ordinator for the Tory election campaigns in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who are getting the favouritism and the patronage. It is for these people that this kind of a bill is introduced in this hon. House. MR. CARTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! On a point of order, the bon. the member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker·, this is McCarthyi te December 18, 1984 R6282

tactics at their very worst. These bon. gentlemen are not in this House or privileged to come into this House to defend themselves. I would suggest that not only is the member breaking all the established rules, but all the implied rules in all the parliaments of British North America when he engages in that kind of comment. And I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to examine his statements most carefully with a view even perhaps of naming him. MR. NEARY: The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker. There is no point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, I do remind hon. members once again that we are discussing second reading of Bill No. 41. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Sir. hurts. And the truth Now maybe I will be permitted to carry on, Mr. Speaker, without silly, non-sensical interruptions by hon. gentlemen who cannot take it. They cannot take it. I am obviously touching a nerve on the other side when hon. gentlemen who really very rarely participate in debate are leaping to their feet trying to defend and trying to surpress debate on this bill. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that we can go back to the renting of office space down in the Murray Premises. For several years the administration there opposite rented office space that went unoccupied, they rented more space than they required, and, Mr. Speaker~ it went unoccupied, and yet the taxpayers L6283 had to pay rent for that space. We have gone from that situation to the Upper Salmon where Viking-Sintra - Viking being a local company, its principal, Mr. Dobbin - Viking-Sintra bid on a contract on the Upper Salmon, a firm contract, a fixed contract, no extras, Mr. Speaker, involved.

Three years ago I asked about the claims by that company for extra payment - MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! On a point of order, the hon. the member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does have a particular grudge against the hon. gentleman that he is referring to, there is a proper procedure in this House for doing that. You can get up on a point of privilege, presumably, and submit documentation to the table for consideration by the appropriate committee of this House.

But just in the course of debate to name names and to hurl accusations is the worst form of McCarthyism, which I thought we had cured the hon. gentleman of this time last year. But apparently he is so sunk into depravity that he is not even aware when he is blackening or trying to blacken the names of individuals. And as for my reluctance to get up and engage in debate, every time I hear the name of a ·person who is not a member of this House being maligned, -I will get -up and if not spring to his defence certainly December 18, 1984 R6283

question accuser. MR. NEARY: the motives of his To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, the hon . the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, this is the same hon. big galoot that viciously attacked a former Premier of this Province, viciously attacked him in this House when he was not here to defend himself, who would not allow Mr. Smallwood to have his last address in this House televised. He is so politically bigotted and narrow-minded and prejudiced, Mr. Speaker, he is so low and rotten that he could crawl under a snake's belly.

And I would submit that all the hon. gentleman is doing is harassing and trying to intimidate me. I have a point to make and I am going to make it whether the hon. gentleman likes it or not. The hon. gentleman used to defend A.B. Walsh there a few years ago on that side of the House, and we all remember that case, Mr. Speaker. But the hon. gentleman was a defender of that particular gentleman . Mr. Speaker, all we are trying to do is protect the public treasury from being gouged by these greedy moneybags in this Province. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please!

To that point of order, there is a difference of opinion between two hon. members. L6284 The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. CARTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the bon. the member for St. John's NOrth. MR. CARTER: I had to wait until Your Honour disposed of the previous point of order, because obviously we cannot bring up a point of order in the midst of another point of order. The hon. member - I call him 'honourable' because I suppose I have to - suggested that I had defended Mr. A. B. Walsh in this House, I certainly did not.

And I would like him to quote

chapter and verse and produce documentation if he continues in his accusations. MR. NEARY: He cannot take it now. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order, it was more of a point of clarification than a difference of opinion. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, they can dish it out but they cannot take it. But the fact of the matter is that we asked three years ago for information on a claim made by Viking-Sintra which had the general contract for the construction of the Upper Churchill, and we were told that the information would be · forthcoming. We asked last year December 18, 1984 R6284

. ' _,_ for the information and we were told that it would be forthcoming, we asked for the information again a couple of weeks ago and we were told by none other than the Premier that the information would be forthcoming. As a matter of fact the Premier said, 'Before this very day is over I will supply the House with the information,' and the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) said the same thing. They danced around as they usually do and told us that we would be given the information on the settlement by Newfoundland Hydro on a claim for extras by Viking - Sintra. Mr.

Speaker, to this day we do not have the information. The government is refusing to give us the information. Why? What do they have to hide? How much was the s~ttlement? What was it for? Can we have the legal opinions of the Justice Department on whether or not Viking - Sintra had a case, whether they had a claim? Mr. Speaker, we are talking about several millions of taxpayers dollars. AN HON. MEMBER: What contractor are you talking about? MR. NEARY: The general contractor on the Upper Salmon, Viking - Sintra.

I believe the original claim by Viking - Sintra was $9 million which they wanted over and above the contract, extra. They wanted $9 million more than they tendered for and the hon. Savoury King down there does not think that is a very serious matter. The King of the Savoury Patch thinks that is a big joke, that we should not raise that, Mr. Speaker, the bon. King of Dogpatch ; Viking - Sintra wanted $9 million extra over and L6285 above their contract. Last year we were told that it may go to court, this year we are told that a consulting firm was brought in from the Mainland. MR. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: The bon. gentleman, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), is abusing his position in this House. There is a proper procedure for making accusations and it is done as I understand the rules, on a point of privilege and the evidence is laid on the table of the House for consideration by the appropriate committee of this House. But it is misusing his privileges during debate just to make wildcat, McCarthyite-like accusations and I feel he should be invited to sit down. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, I would remind the bon. member that we are dealing with Bill 41. MR. NEARY: Right on, Sir. So there is no point of order and if the bon. gentleman keeps interrupting me I might send him back the bag of savoury he sent me over yesterday for Christmas. I do not know if you can get high on savoury. The bon. gentleman is on a little bit of a trip down there today, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: Why do we not stuff him with his own savoury? MR. NEARY: I would put the bon. gentleman on December 18, 1984 R6285

.. the table of the House and stuff him with his own savoury. So, Mr. Speaker, Viking - Sintra put in a claim for $9 million over and above what they were entitled to. Now we were told this year by the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) that a consulting finn was brought in from the Mainland and that consulting finn recommended a settlement. Now, Mr. Speaker, are we not entitled to all the documents in connection with that settlement, the legal opinions? MR. WINDSOR: What has this got to do with the Public Tender Act? MR. NEARY: It has all to do with public tendering . MR.

WINDSOR: It has nothin~ to do with it. Relevance, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: What do you mean irrelevant? It is not irrelevant to the bill. MR. WINDSOR: Was that contract awarded on the basis of provincial preference? MR. NEARY: Yes. MR. WINDSOR: It was? MR. NEARY: As far as I know it was. MR. WINDSOR: Well was it or was it not? MR. NEARY: I do not know, but as far as I know it was. L6286 MR. WINDSOR: Go back and find out. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of Viking, Dobbin's company joining up in a joint venture with Sintra was to give it the local flavour, was to give it the local preference.

That was the whole intent behind it. The bon. gentleman does not think we are naive or stupid, does he? That was the whole purpose of it. Sintra or any of these Mainland companies were quite able to bid on that contract on their own, but no, Mr. Dobbin's company wanted to get the door open. So Viking, of which he is the owner, joined with Viking to create Viking - Sintra. Now, Mr. Speaker, the questions that we want answered are these. How much was the settlement? I have a feeling it was several millions of dollars, but nobody knows yet. But, Mr.

Speaker, they were not entitled to one red cent according to the opinions so we are told, of the Justice Department. All this information should be tabled. Is the bon. the member for St. Mary's - The Capes (Mr. Hearn) not concerned about that matter? The main reason the bon. gentleman was sent to this House was to protect the public treasury. AN HON. MEMBER: And he is doing a good job too. MR. NEARY: Well, he is certainly not doing a good job if he lets that go unnoticed, if he does not ask questions about that. MR. TOBIN: Sit down, boy. you are making a fool of yourself. MR. NEARY: December 18, 1984 R6286

I just gave the hon. gentleman some facts. The fact is that that claim was settled out of court, fact number one. Fact number two, we do not know how much the claim was settled for, we have not seen the documents and we have not see the legal opinion of the legal counsel in the Justice Department on that matter. We have not seen the consultants report. Are the members of this House not entitled to have all that information? Is the hon. gentleman not entitled to have it? Of course he is. He has sense enough to realize that. MR. WINDSOR: It is no trouble to get that. MR. NEARY: It is no trouble to get it? Mr.

Speaker, we asked for it two weeks ago and we were told we would have it before the day was over and we have not got it yet. They have no intention of giving the House that information. It is just a straight gift to a Tory bagman, to somebody who supported the Tory party, who collected funds for the Tory party. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a donation went to the Tory party coffers as a result of that · settlement. MR. DINN: In this world there is nobody I know believes you. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman might be surprised. MR. CARTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! L6287 On a point of order, the hon. the member for st. John's North. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, this is a veiled accusation. If the hon. gentleman has an accusation to make, let him make it at the appropriate time, in the appropriate place, in the appropriate manner. Furthermore, he should substantiate it. He is abusing his privileges as a member of this House to be carrying on the way he does and I think he should be told to sit down. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I am not aware of any rule that prevents an hon. member from commenting on somebody who is not in the House.

The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the real question that needs answering is how much of the settlement went to the Tory coffers to help get hon. gentlemen over there elected and how much is being contributed to hon. gentlemen there opposite to fight the next election. They will have their party fund well established, well built up before The Election Expenses Act is brought into this House, because, Mr. Speaker, The Election Expenses Act will not be retroactive, I can guarantee you that.

Whatever is in the fund then is in and I submit that would be a pretty fat fund, that Tory campaign fund, Mr. Speaker, for the next election. The real point is this, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very dangerous situation. Here are the three musketeers, the Premier, Ryan and Dobbin, and they are getting all the contracts. They just got the one on the Burin Hospital. Even before this act came into this House, Mr. Speaker, the bon. gentleman there opposite December 18, 1984 R6287

found a· way to get around The Public Tendering Act and award a contract on the Burin hospital to another one of Mr. Dobbins companies, Olympia. MR. TOBIN: What is wrong with that? MR. NEARY: tihat is wrong with that? Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman is so dense he does not understand. MR. TOBIN: You are against Burin getting a ·hospital. You were against it when you were in government. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the construction of the hospital has absolutely nothing to do with it. What we are talking about is political patronage, favouritism and pork barrelling. That is what we are talking about in this bill.

And I am pointing out to han. gentlemen there opposite the dangerous situation we have with the three musketeers. I could go on and on. They are now in the offshore business, they are in the building material business and, Mr. Speaker, the real reason, by the way, in case han. gentlemen are not aware of it, the real reason in eliminating the tax on building supplies a couple of years ago was to accommodate one of these gentlemen who operates a building supply company, and business was bad.

We were passing through a recession, interest rates were high, business was bad and so to accommodate that bon. gentleman, eliminiate the sales tax on building material. So, Mr. Speaker, let us be under on illusions of what we are dealing ·with here; · We are dealing td th an administration that wrote L6288 the book when it comes to pork barreling and political patronage and favouritism. And we have the most explosive and dangerous situation we have ever had in this Province in our whole history now before us. And, Mr. Speaker, when they want to give Mr. Dobbin or Mr.

Ryan . a contract, they will find a way to do it. They will find a way to do it, Mr. Speaker, they · will find a way. The amount of money we are talking about is substantial, Mr. · Speaker, a substantial amount of money. And when the han. gentleman talks about maligning, the maligning he is talking about is lining the pockets of these two individuals and their companies, that is the lining the bon. gentleman is talking about. We are talking about the dangers in Bill 41, the built in dangers. ·MR. SIMMS: That is not new. MR. NEARY: It is new. Mr. Speaker, when I see a dangerous situation I recognize it.

And it may not seem likely, but my job is to protect the Public · Treasury in this Province and that is what I intend to do. My job is to protect the Public Treasury from being gouged by greedy individuals who want to get their arms around the world. They want everything: They want the offshore, they want the building supplies, . they want the convention centre. What about that one? How did they manoeuver that into the hands of Mr. Ryan, the Convention Centre? They cleverly found a way to do it and then provided him with $1 million of taxpayer money. MR. SIMMS: The city supports it too. December 18, 1984 R6288

MR. NEARY: ·The city supports it? The city supports a convention centre, but not necessarily that one. MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, they do. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing emerge here is the Ryan Dobbin dynasty, aided and abet ted by the Premier of this Province, their buddy, their pal. MR. YOUNG: He still thinks he is the leader. MR. SIMMS: He is the best leader they ever had. MR. NEARY: Who is the best leader they ever had? MR. SIMMS: You. .we were just talking and Haig said: 'He still thinks he is the leader, and I said, "He is the best leader they ever had over there." MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, if I were the Minister of Public Works (Mr.Young) who is the one, by the way, who should have been introducing this bill - the minister was in his seat and he should have been introducing this bill because he is the minister who has to carry out its terms and conditions; but I guess they were too ashamed to put him up so they let the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor) do it - but if I were the Minister of Public Works who has to enforce local preference I would not talk too much about local preference because the bon. gentleman buys his caskets outside the Province.

L6289 He refuses to buy his· caskets from a local firm. There is only one company in Newfoundland producing caskets of various kinds. MR. SIMMS: Who is that? MR. NEARY: That is in Carbonear. And the bon. gentleman is discriminating against that company. MR. YOUNG: Because he is the treasurer of the Liberal Party of Carbonear. MR. NEARY: Exactly. There we have it all. MR. YOUNG: People refuse to be buried in a Liberal casket. MR. NEARY: Now, Mr.

Speaker, that matter may be the subject of a human rights case in this Province so I am not going to comment further on it except to say that the bon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) should be the last one in the House to talk about local preference. MR. YOUNG: On a point of order, Mr~ Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the bon. the Minister of Public Works. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something because it will be on the records. The gentleman the bon. member is referring to is a sub-agent for a Mainland firm.

I must say it is probably bad policy to say this, but I have not bad good relations with that Mainland firm and I have refused to buy caskets from the bon. December 18, 1984 R6289

gentleman who is to agent in this Province. MR. SIMMS: They are not local caskets. MR. YOUNG: They are not local caskets. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are the corpses local? MR. YOUNG: Yes, all local, Mr. Speaker, and dead when they are disposed of. MR NEARY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the bon . the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: This is a rather dead subject, Mr. Speaker, but I have to remind the · hon. gentleman that we only have one firm in Newfoundland that makes caskets and it is the one to which the bon. gentleman referred. MR. SIMMS: They do not make them. MR.

NEARY: They do make caskets . the one · firm that gentleman - MR. TOBIN: And it is the bon. That is none of your business, that is a private thing. MR. NEARY: Well, I am just talking about local preference. The bon. gentleman can buy them where he likes, but as long as the bon. gentleman keeps interrupting me I will remind him that he is the one to has to enforce the local ·· ·preference and if the bon. L6290 gentleman cannot buy caskets that are made locally, Mr. Speaker, how do we expect him to enforce this act? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! To that point of order, there is no point of order.

The hort. minister took the opportunity of explaining his position on a point brought up by the bon. member. MR. NEARY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have sufficiently made the point. I do not know if the ·message has gotten through to bon. gentlemen there opposite, whether the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) understands what it is I am talking about, or do I have to recap, repeat what I said for the benefit of the bon. gentleman. MR. TOBIN: I understand, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: The bon. gentleman understands?

Then will the hon. gentleman get up and make a contribution to this debate and show us how well he understands it, show us that he supports an administration that is punching holes in the Public Tendering Act that you could drive a bulldozer through? Mr. Speaker, they are giving themselves the authority to make regulations down on the eighth floor of Confederation Building. Let me read the section. "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purpose and the provisions of this act into effect, and, without limiting the generality of · the -foregoing may make regulations (

a) for the December 18, 1984 R6290

evaluation of bids and prescribing if necessary different procedures for the evaluation of bids in relation to provincial preference policy; (b) . for the calculation of the provincial overhead al~owance?.. What does that mean, 'the calculation of the provincial overhead allowance?' That was the basis under which Dobbin's company, Olympia, was given that $1 .2 million contract on the Burin hospital. MR. TOBIN: Local preference. MR. NEARY: No, we were told in this House that it was the provincial overhead allowance. Now what does that mean? Could the bon. member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr.

Tobin) explain to me how this works, the provincial overhead allowance? I am listening, let the bon. gentleman tell me. I am listening now. I want to get it from the bon. gentleman who seems to be a bit of an expert on this. MR. TOBIN: I am not an expert on it but I know what goes on in my district. MR. NEARY: I see. He knows what goes on in his district. Now could the bon. gentleman explain to me the provincial overhead allowance? MR. TOBIN: Do you want to take your seat? MR.

NEARY: No, I want the han. gentleman to tell me from his seat what is meant by the provincial overhead allowance because that was the basis under which Dobbin's company was given that contract on the Burin hospital. L6291 MR. TOBIN: You take your seat and I will answer. MR. OTTENHEIMER: The han . member does not like speaking from his seat. MR. NEARY: The provincial overhead allowance, now that is a new one. MR. TOBIN: But I thought you wanted it answered. AN HON. MEMBER: That is not new. MR. NEARY: It is not new? Well, it is new to me.

The first time I heard of it is when we started asking questions about the Burin hospital contract that went to the second lowest bidder. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a clause that can be played with, that is a clause that can be stretched any way you want to stretch it, that is a clause that can gi v~ you an out to give your pals, your financial supporters, you bag men, to give them the contracts. MR. YOUNG: Practically all the contractors in the Province are Tories so it makes no difference to anybody. MR.

NEARY: I am talking about two individuals who have a group of companies that are getting a stranglehold on the public treasury. MR. ANDREWS: It is all laid down with the regulations . MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what are the December 18, 1984 R6291

projects? centre, hospital. There is the convention there is the Burin MR. t.JIN DSOR: What has the Convention Centre got to do with the provincial preference? MR. NEARY: The convention centre has all to do with it, Mr. Speaker. MR. WINDSOR: We have not even awarded contracts yet. MR. NEARY: The bon. gentleman has awarded the contract to Ryan's company. MR. WINDSOR: We have not. MR. NEARY: Well, maybe you should talk to the Premier about it. MR. WINDSOR: That was just a proposal. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, conference. I saw the news MR. WINDSOR: So did I. I was there. MR.

NEARY: I saw the news conference where the Premier sat down at the head table - the first time I have ever seen it in Newfoundland or anywhere else in the world - and announced a political plum, a bit of patronage. for the provincial co-:-.ordinator of the Tory Party and invited him to sit at the head table with the Premier. That is the kind of dangerous situation I am talking about . MR. WINDSOR: L6292 Are you against a convention centre? Why do you not tell the tourism industry you do not want tourists? MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I am all for a convention centre and I am all for local preference but I am opposed to the kind of pork barrelling, political patronage and favoritism that we are seeing developing in this Province today. That is what I am against. It is very distasteful, very distasteful indeed. We had another example recently where the government in keeping with its policy, the only administration in Canada that has it, is giving the Premier a rent-free apartment. MR. DINN: You have that beaten to death. MR. NEARY: No. I do not have it beaten to death. Were tenders called for that apartment? MR.

DINN: Were tenders called for your house? MR. NEARY: My house is my own business. I paid for it out of my own pocket, my own hard work. I am talking about taxpayers• money. MR. YOUNG: Not your own money. MR. NEARY: Is that so? It was not the bon. gentleman's. It did not come from the funeral home. It is my own hard earned cash, Mr. Speaker, and not taxpayers' money. The bon. gentleman can try to twist it around to say that this is personal, that we are intruding December 18, 1984 R6292

into his personal life, but when you are spending taxpayers' money it is not personal, it is public and the taxpayers have a right to know. No tenders were called for that apartment. First of all, the policy is wrong. We are the only Province i'n Canada that does it. And the hon. gentleman has refused so far to tell us what other services are being provided. Is there a housekeeper? Who supplies the drapes? Who supplies the furniture? Who pays the heat and light bill? MR. WINDSOR: Who pays for the house on Roaches Line? MR. NEARY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we can tell the hon. gentleman who pays for the house on Roaches Line. Let me clear that matter up for the benefit of the hon. gentleman. MR. YOUNG: Tell us if the furniture and appliances were tendered for in that one? MR. NEARY: ·Mr. Speaker, first of all, that house was privately owned by a former Premier of this Province. Hon. gentlemen can go down in the registry office, search the mortgage and, I suppose, it is the · only time in political history of this Province that a former Premier gave the people a house for one dollar. MR. WINDSOR: He did? MR. NEARY: Yes, he did. MR.

WINDSOR: Who gave it to him? L6293 MR. TULK: What do you mean, him?' He built suppose. MR. YOUNG: 'who gave it to it himself , I What about the 4,000 acres of land? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it was built by a former Premier. The hon. gentleman can sling all the dirt and filth he wants on the table but he will get no marks. Go down to the registry office and find out who built it. You will find a mortgage on that house. MR. DINN: How much was the mortgage? MR. NEARY: I have no idea and I do not care because it was a private and personal matter.

And that Premier gave or sold the house to the people for one dollar. MR. DINN: When he dies. MR. NEARY: No, Sir! No, siree! That is not so. Let us get that straight in our minds. There is no comparison to what the Premier is doing today and what the Premier did then because that house was privately owned. We are talking about taxpayers' money and he gave the house to the people for one dollar. AN HON. MEMBER: Was it privately built? MR. NEARY: Yes, it was privately built? If the hon. gentleman has something to say, -has charges to make, let him make them. That house was December 18, 1984 R6293

privately built. MR. MORGAN: Yes, it was built by his friends, contractors who got business from government. We all know that. MR. NEARY: Mr .. Speaker, I have no idea, I have no knowledge that anybody gave anything to that house other than what was paid for out of his own pocket, out of his own personal money, by a former ·Premier of this Province. MR. YOUNG: Yes, out of public funds. MR. NEARY: ·Is that so? That is more than you can say. But even if it were look at · the asset that was given to the people for one dollar. MR. YOUNG: What about all the land he got, 4,000 acres? MR.

NEARY: So there is no comparison, Mr. Speaker. This is not a personal matter, this is not a private matter, this is a matter of accounting to the taxpayers for taxpayers' money that is taken out of the public treasury and spent ·on that apartment over at Tiffany Lane. AN HON. MEMBER: You are jealous, that is all. MR. NEARY: Yes, I am kind of jealous all right. And if the hon. the Premier wants privacy let him go and pay for it the same as every other citizen of this Province does. MR. BARRETT: You be careful . L6294 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be careful.

The hon. gentleman can point his finger all he wants . The bon. gentleman had better be careful. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be careful about anything. My business is open, aboveboard for anybody to scrutinize. MR. YOUNG: That is now. What about the past? MR. NEARY: Yes, what about it? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sue (inaudible). MR. NEARY: Is that so? The hon. gentleman has not sued me yet. Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the summons to be served, I am still waiting for it. If I were the hon. gentleman I would just keep quite because I have a few more little · goodies for the han. gentleman yet. MR.

MORGAN: If they sued you for brains they would not get very much. MR. NEARY: Is that so? So, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison. Sometimes they try to muddy up the water. I suppose there were 100 calls on Open Line the other day. Ninety-nine of them said the Premier should not do what he is doing but the first one said, 'What about Mr. Smallwood?' MR. MORGAN: By the way, is Bill Rowe going to run for the Liberals now? He changed his mind about running for us. December 18, 1984 R6294

MR. NEARY: Maybe I will give my hon. friend from Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) a little lesson in history. The first caller said, 'What about Mr. Smallwood?' Does the hon. gentleman realize what happened to Mr. Smallwood's house, which he himself owned personally, the people did not own it, he had it built himself? MR. FENWICK: ·Why are you speaking to me? MR. NEARY: I just want to give the hon. gentleman some information just in case the hon. gentleman may fall into that trap sometime. That house was l:tuilt privately and given to the people for one dollar. But, Mr. Speaker, let me also tell - MR.

MORGAN: It was not given to . the people. There were terms and conditions that it be passed over to the Crown upon the death of him or his wife whoever lasted longer. MR. YOUNG: Look at all the land he got in exchange, 4,000 acres. MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. NEARY: No, it was sold to the government for one dollar with the provision that Mr. and Mrs. Smallwood could live in it until they die. The people own the house. MR. TULK: They own it now. MR. NEARY: They own Speaker, ·let about it. L6295 it now. Now, Mr. me say something else That was an unfair deal.

Frank Moores, when he was Premier, passed an Order-in-Council - one of his last actions - to hand that house back to Hr. Smallwood because he felt it was unfair, to pass it back to him for the same price of one dollar. Now what did the present Premier do when he came in? He came in and he rescinded Mr. Moores' order and then made another Cabinet Directive to give himself Mount Scio House rent free, compliments of the taxpayers. That is what you call compassion. MR. TOBIN: What has that got to do with Bill 41? MR. NEARY: It has all to do with it. MR. TOBIN: He is out of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: So, Mr.

Speaker, what we are talking about is a very, very dangerous situation indeed. The Public Tendering Act was quite adequate to take care of the situation. The hon. gentlemen now are using local preference - and I am all for local purchases and I am all for local employment - but bon. gentlemen are using these bills, these amendments, as an escape hatch. They are using them to give themselves a little flexibility. The bon. gentleman talked about raising the amount from $1,000 to $5,000 to give the officials in his department a little flexibility.

Well, what the bon. gentleman is doing with these amendments is giving the government flexibility to dole out patronage, public dollars, to pork barrel and to show favoritism. And we have seen enough, in the last year or year and a half or December 18, 1984 R6295

two years, of the two gentlemen I mentioned trying to get their arms around the world. They are in every sec tor now and the Premier is dangerously close, too close for comfort, to that situation. MR. TOBIN: How can you say all that when you know that this act is to clean up everything, that there will be no such thing as helping friends or anything? MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, you know I did not think the bon. gentleman was so naive and gullible. MR. TULK: Yes you did. MR. NEARY: Well, I probably did. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the real danger in the act is clause 8, the regulations for the calculation of . ·the provincial overhead allowance, the provincial labour content. Something else I have to say, by the way, in connection with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) and the contract for the Burin hospital.

The hon. gentleman, in reply to a question that I asked in this House when I said to him one day, 'Who are the owners of Olympia?' said, 'I do not know and it is none of my ·business. ' Now he had just got finished telling us that this contract was given out because the company was owned by local people, local preference and then I said to the hon. gentleman, 'Who owns the other companies that bid?' He said, 'I do not know and I do not care, it is none of my business.' How could the hon. gentleman award a contract of the basis of local preference if he did not know who owned the company? L6296 AN HON.

MEMBER: The officials would know. MR. NEARY: So the officials knew but the bon. gentleman did not. MR. TOBIN: He said he did not remember the shareholders. MR. NEARY: He said he did not know and it was none of his business. MR. YOUNG: (Inaudible) (inaudible). Panama. so much for work I am not down in MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what a gigantic joke and a bluff. The hon. gentleman knew who the owner of the company was. MR. TULK: He still does not know. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, all of these things are hush-hush. All of these things are decided behind closed doors, in privacy and in secrecy.

They used to go to Mount Pearl to the Chateau Park Motel to meet the first couple of years. know where they take probably in Tiffany Tiffany Lane. MR. YOUNG: I do not place now, Towers or I have not been in Chateau Park since I was born. MR. NEARY: No, not the hon. gentleman but the Premier was there. MR. TOBIN: Why are you against Newfoundland firms? Why are you aga~nst Newfoundland companies? December 18, 1984 R6296

MR. MORGAN: All you have to do is ask his colleague, the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) , why · he is against Newfoundland companies because he is trying to put one in bankruptcy right now, Crosbie Offshore, for a European company. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am all for Newfoundland companies. But what I would say to bon. gentleman there opposite is see if the work is being spread around or is it being concentrated in the hands of two or three people. MR. TOBIN: I think there were about nine different contractors in my district this year . MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of the track record so far of the administration, I would say it is a very, very dangerous game they are playing. They are opening up The Public Tendering Act in this Province to all kinds of abuse and they are giving themselves the authority to go down on the eighth floor of Confederation Building and make whatever regulations they like. They can give themselves all the flexibility they want and they can dole out all the patronage. They will find ways to do it.

If you are devious enough, as I said before in an earlier debate, you can find a way to get around The Public Tendering Act and bon. gentlemen have found that way. I have no doubt, Mr . Speaker, in the days and weeks and months ahead that we will see the companies and the individuals that I mentioned earlier fatten and prosper and expand and grow much to the dismay of ·· the taxpayers of this Province.

Because by opening L6297 up the public tendering, by giving everybody a fair crack at it, the taxpayers of this Province could " save literally millions of dollars every year if they would stop playing and monkeying around with The Public Tendering Act, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I have left any doubt in anybody' s mind where I stand on this kind of legislation. I am all for local preference and I am all for local employment and I am all for local purchases, but, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to a couple of individuals in this Province creating the dynasty that we are seeing now being created.

Upper Salmon, a scandal as far as I am concerned, the Burin hospital, the convention center, the Military Museum, the offshore, building supplies and you can go on and on and on . Get your arms around the world, get a stranglehold on the public treasury, Mr. Speaker, and that is the thing that concerns me about these amendments more than anything else. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER (Aylward): The bon. the Minister of Public Works. MR. YOUNG: I close the debate now, Mr. Speaker? MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Did he speak on it already? MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward): No, the · hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) can close December 18, 1984 R6297

the debate. It was intt"oduced on his behalf by the Ministet" of Development (Mt". Windsot"). It is his bill. MR. FENWICK: So he will close debate on it anyway? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. MR. FENWICK: In that case I would like to speak. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the membet" fot" Menihek. MR. FE NWI CK: I do not have a huge amount to say about it. I have no majot" disagt"eement with the bill but I thought it was impot"tant to at least put it on the t"ecot"d because myself and the membet" fot" Humbet" West (Mt". Bait"

d) have always had out" disagt"eements about cet"tain kinds of policies and thet"e is a tendency to say that both myself and my pat"ty at"e against local pt"efet"ence. While there is a specific thing that we at"e against it is not this pat"ticulat" piece of legislation. I have just now gotten a copy of the t"egulations actually and it makes a lot mot"e sense when you can actually t"ead the t"egulations. Thet"e at"e only a couple of comments and maybe these at"e questions actually. Maybe when the ministet" closes the debate he can addt"ess himself to them.

On page 7 of dt"aft Bill 41, Regulations, clause 8: 'without limiting the genet"ality of the fot"egoing, may make t"egulations,' and then they talk about the regulations you can make and "(

c) detet"ffiining t"aw matet"ial that is mined Ot" · hat"vested in the pt"ovince;" in it. I know this is a pat"ticulat"ly at"cane one but -r was just wondet"ing to what extent L6298 that is cat"t"ied. Fot" example, speaking fot" my own distt"ict which pt"oduces it"on ot"e and so on and so fot"th, is thet"e an advantage to be had fot" a company that can definitely say that the steel it is using in a pt"oject is made ft"om out" it"on ot"e? I am just wondet"ing how fat" you would go on it. I doubt if you would go that fat" but I thought if _you _ .~ould addt"ess it it might be wot"thwhile.

Anyway that is only a minot" point that came up when I was looking at it. One thing I would like to addt"ess because I think it is a pat"ticulat"ly good way of going about the pat"ticular issue. As I said, the membet" fot" Humbet" West (Mt". Bait"

d) and myself have had out" disagt"eements about local pt"efet"ence, but in the t"egulations I see that pt"ovincial !about" content is one of the things that is wot"ked into the fot"ffiula fot" detet"ffiining which pat"ticulat" biddet" will get a pat"ticular contract offet"ed by the government or by any of its agencies.

And I like the way in which it is appt"oached het"e because what it says is that if you are willing to employ more and mot"e people who are not"ffially t"esident in the Pt"ovince, then you will have a much better chance of winning the contt"act if indeed yours was within 15 pet" cent of the winning bid, if I am reading the thing correctly. So if 50 pet" cent of yout" labour is from the Province and someone else has 75 per cent, that person with 75 per cent !about" would be in a better position if their !about" costs were better. MR.

WINDSOR: You would get mot"e credit towards your account based on that, but that is only one of the factors. - December 18, 1984 R6298

MR. FENWICK: I know it is only one of the factors but it happens to be a particularly good one because what I think it does is it induces on the part of employers involved here an advantage in them having as many people as possible involved with it. I did not have a chance to go through the regulations that closely to see how it works, but it gets a bit complicated when you get to Appendixes 5, 6 and 7 in the regulations. I apologize because I do not believe they have been tabled yet. Is the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor), going to be tabling these? MR. WINDSOR: Yes. MR. FENWICK: Beyond that the only other area that I would have some questions on is the whole question of the

schedule at the back of Bill 41. The same question essentially I would like to raise here, as I raised with The Public Tendering Act, is that the

schedule includes a large list of organizations that will now be bound by it and I am wondering whether the same thing happened with that particular group as happened with the Public Tendering Act . And, indeed, were they consulted in terms of how they are going to be able to work within this local preference policy? And if they have, maybe the ministers, if they they are listening, could inform me whether or not they actually have been involved in discussing it. Beyond that I cannot say as much as the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) about skulduggery involved with it.

Having looked at the act itself and "looked at the regulations, they seem to be L6299 reasonably straightforward. They seem to be trying to accomplish something that I think all of us would see as desirable and that is to employ as many local persons as possible on these projects, and to make sure that local entrepreneurs get the preference even if they are slightly about the rest. So I think from that point of view it is really a very positive sign.

And the minister, in introducing the legislation, I believe suggested that we are only talking about 2 per cent additional costs in terms of using the local preference policy, and that again seems to be a reasonable thing. But I would like to know from any minister who wants to reply if we have a copy of a list of the bidders who have been successful in this particular respect. Who have, for example, submitted a bid that was not the lowest bid but had been chosen because of it the policy? Is there documentation that would back that up? MR. WINDSOR: Do you want a list of these companies? MR.

FENWICK: Yes, the companies benefitted by this policy in the past, have some idea. MR. WINDSOR: that have particular so we would When the minister closes the debate he will table all that. MR. FENWICK: So we will have that information. That is about the only other thing that I would like, because I think that would be a useful way of attacking the problem that the previous speaker raised, and that December 18, 1984 R6299

is how do we know whether the local preference policy is being used, to use his expression, as a means of repaying certain individuals who may have at times given favours to whichever administration which then is in a position to reward them. MR. BAIRD: In your heart and soul, do you really believe that? MR. FENWICK: In my heart and soul I believe people are capable of anything. I think the purpose of the Legislature is to pass laws and regulations to keep people from stooping to their worst nature.

The thing that I still hope for, and I know I hope against hope this being 18 December, is to see an Elections Act come down the­ line within the next day or so. I know that is pretty well futile now because I .doubt whether we will be sitting ·long enough to deal with it.

But I still repeat the same comment I made on the Public Tendering Act, and that is really the proper way to nail the hole shut is not just to pass this Local Preference Act and The Public Tendering Act, but to pass a very strong Elections Act so that it can proved by the government fn power that there is no connection between the way in which these contracts have been ·awarded and any contributions that may have been received in the p~st. I think, that is still the best way to do it.

That is why I lament that we do not see an Elections Act coming down because I think that would be sort of a companion piece to these particular pieces of legislation, and it would allow the administration opposite to demonstrate how they have not done L6300 any of the things that the member for LaPoile (.Mr. Neary) has accused them of doing, and so on and so forth. But that is really about the only comments I had on it, other than to say, and I repeat it again because I know it is important to do that - is the member for Humber West (Mr. Baird) around now? AN HON. MEMBER: No. MR. FENWICK: Oh, I see.

He popped in and he popped out, unfortunately. I would like to say unequivocally that myself and the party I represent are in favour of this particular piece of legislation which calls for local preference. We have been in favour of it not only for the contractors, although we think it is important that they be favoured, but also for the fact that there is a very definite

section in it that gives an advantage to companies that employ as much local labour as possible, and we are pleased to see that in the legislation. I say that for the record. And I am really disappointed the member for Humber West is not here to listen to it, but the fact of the matter is we do approve of that kind of legislation and hope that it will not be abused. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): If the bon. the minister now speaks, he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Public Works. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. YOUNG: First, I want to thank the bon. December 18, 1984 R6300

the Minister for Development (Mr. Windsor) for introducing the bill. Unfortunately I was out of the chamber at the time. I would just like to respond to some of the questions asked by the hon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) . I know he can be confused with the malarkey that the bon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) goes on with, bringing in caskets and all this old foolishness, and accusing us of various things. But, Mr. Speaker, this local preference policy is directly linked with The Public Tendering Act and it will come into effect, as the minister said, when the Public Tendering Act is proclaimed.

The Department of Development, Mr. Speaker, will have extensive input into that, and the legislation ft·om time to time will be received by the Department of Public Works and Services . Now getting back to some of the questions asked by the bon. member, I will be tabling the guidelines and also when it is printed, we will have the list of some of the firms who have benefitted through this local preference policy. Mr. Speaker, members opposite said The Public Tendering Act has been watered down, but The Public Tendering Act mainly resulted from our implementation of the recommendations of the Mahoney Commission.

For instance, for the bon. member's benefit, when we built the Confederation Building Extension arid all our hospitals we specified that the brick must be local, so at least we kept these people in the Clar·e ·nville area of · Trinity Bay ·employed. I think L6301 there were about twenty-nine employees who produced something like three-quarters of a million bricks for the extension. All the local materials we can get we purchase under this local preference policy. The member asked about the labour content and whether it applies to such manufactured goods as steel for some of the buildings and so forth.

If it is manufactured here in the Province. although the raw material is imported, the labour content applies; an example would be trusses made here from imported material. Local preference is determined on a scale of 0 to 10, and applies when the difference in bids is not beyond the 15 per cent limit. The local preference policy also applies to subcontractors and is beneficial to them when they use local materials and labour. That is all taken into consideration. Mr. Speaker, it gives me gr·eat pleasure to move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Calculation And Consideration Of The Provincial Content Factor In The Awarding Of Tenders By Government Funded Bodies," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 41). Motion, second reading of a bi 11, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act", (Bill No. 55). MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . SOME HON. MEMBERS: December 18, 1984 R6301

Hear, hear! MS VERGE: I am pleased to introduce this bill in the House of Assembly and to speak to the principle of the bill. The bill relates to two important subjects in education; the first is the composition of school boards, and the second is the provision of school services to children from the age of five on, and, in particular, the offering of kindergarten to children who reach the age of five before the end of the calendar in which the school year starts. Mr. Speaker, the present Schools Act required that at least one-third of school board members be elected by popular vote.

This provision was put in place at the end of the 1960s when the administration of education in our Province was restructured in the wake of the Warren Royal Commission report. One of the major changes implemented was the consolidation of school boards. Formerly there had been literally hundreds of small local school boards. Virtually every small school, and there were way more schools then than there are now, had its own school board.

At that point school boards were consolidated and there were brought into existence thirty-five centralized regional school boards which were then affiliated with the various religion denominations which have constitutional rights and legal rights in education in our Province and, Mr. Speaker, that legal situation has continued to this day.

The leaders in education in the 1960s, who drafted the present act, many of whom are still involved - in - our school system, tell me that at that time it was L6302 intended that one-third, as the minimum of school board members who had to be elected by popular vote, be simply the start, and that in the years to follow that minimum be increased beyond one-third. Mr. Speaker, in practice now many more than one-third of our school board members or school trustees are elected. In fact, at the moment, roughly 60 per cent of our school board members are elected .

Now, while something more than one-third have been elected in accordance with the act and the regulations under the act, many of the others, to make up the total of 60 per cent, were elected more informally, generally at meetings called for the purpose of choosing school board members; for example, a parish meeting advertised which could be attended by all eligible voters, or a meeting in a school auditorium, likewise publicized and open to all qualified voters. So, Mr. Speaker, right now 60 per cent of our school board members, that is 311 of the 517 school board members, have been elected. And, Mr.

Speaker, all school board members serve four year terms and are eligible to serve more than one term. The last time that there were general elections under the act and regulations right across the Province was Kay of 1982. At that time, 236 school board seats in 33 of the 35 school boards were up for election. That is 236 of the school board seats in 33 of the 35 school boards were advertised for election. There was publicity about the conditions of the elections, the criteria for candidacy, the qualifications for voting. But, Mr. Speaker, the results of those elections were December 18, 1984 R6302

very disappointing. What happened, in fact, is that of those 236 seats, one-third did not attract even one nominee and, 'therefore, those seats were really forfeited to the democratic process and, in accordance with the law, were later filled by a subjective selection process by de facto or appointment. Another one-third of those 236 seats drew only one candidate and therefore those seats were filled by acclamation. So, Mr. Speaker, that left· only one-third where there were contests, where there were more than two candidates and, sadly, even in those cases, very few people voted.

So even though something like 60 per cent of our present school board members were elected, 311 out of 517, very few people took

part in those electoral processes. Mr. Speaker, school boards are local government in education under the provincial legal and regulatory framework that is provided by the Department of Education and the provincial government on the one hand and the churches, who have constitutional powers, on the other. School boards make most of the decisions that are important to children in classrooms. Furthermore, school boards, through their local school tax authorities, levy taxes. And, Mr.

Speaker, it is the position of this government that more of the members of the general public of the Province, more of our citizens, should be participating in those school board decision-making processes, for a start should be taking

part in school board elections. Mr. Speaker, we may ask ourselves, Why is it that only a very small minority of our total population is participating in our school L6303 board system? Is it because people are not concerned about education? No, Hr. Speaker, that certainly is not the case.

Public opinion surveys, which have been conducted by various authorities, national and local, one conducted quite recently by professor Phil Warren of the Memorial Faculty of Education, point out that people in Newfoundland and Labrador have a very deep interest in education and regard education as a key determinant in people's success in life. So it has been shown clearly that the population of our Province are interested in and care about our schools. MR. TULI<: Is it just apathy? MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the member for Fogo (Mr.

Tulk), the surveys have shown that the p~pulation of Newfoundland and Labrador attach a great deal of importance to education and they care deeply about our schools. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not because of any lack of interest, or apathy, on the part of the public by and large that so few of them are taking

part in our school board decision-making processes, that so few of them have turned out to vote in school board elections. There has to be some other explanation. Mr. Speaker, I have asked various people around the Province to give me their explanation and some of the suggestions that have come forward include the fact that very few people understand how our education system works. A lot of people simply do not understand and appreciate the role of school boards. School boards, after all, as we December 18, 1984 R6303

now know them, are a relatively recent addition to our political scene, since the restructuring to which I referred earlier occurred only fifteen - - years ago, but in those short fifteen years school boards have had a low profile. I challenge the members opposite as well as the members on this side of the House to tell me the names of the members of their local school boards. I wonder if the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) can name the members of the Labrador West Integrated School Board or perhaps the Port au Port Roman Catholic School Board? MR. TULK: Do you expect any member to be able to do that? MR.

NEARY: Of course she does not. being nasty. MS VERGE: She is ·Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to be nasty because I do not expect the member for Menihek to be able to recite any more or fewer of the names of his school board members than the member who sits at my left or any of the members in this House, or any of the general public. The fact is that school board members have had a low profile and the news media -do not make a practice of reporting on school board meetings or school board decision-making processes.

Another suggestion that has been put forward to me as an explanation for why so few people vote in school board elections is that the elections are not well-publicized and people have not found it easy or convenient to --- .get out and vote. So, Kr. Speaker,- the changes that are embodied in this bill are L6304 calculated to increase, and increase dramatically, public participation in school board elections, first of all, by increasing the fraction or proportion of elected members.

Although when you consider that about 60 per cent of present members were elected in some way, and the increase is to a minimum of only 66-2/3 per cent, that is not a major change; however, it may lead to a change in perception on the part of people who may begin to see that school board members, school trustees, can have an active

part in school board decision-making and that they themselves, with their various interests in education and qualifications, can make a very real and valuable contribution to our education system. The second provision of the bill, which .! think will go even further to raise the participation rate in school board elections, is _the scheduling of school board elections to coincide with municipal elections. In that way, Mr.

Speaker, in our incorporated municipalities, which do accommodate the bulk of the population of the Province, with cooperation between school boards and municipalities it will be possible for polling stations to be set up in the same building so that voters will be able to go to the one location on the one day, cast a ballot for his or her municipal government and then go over to the other side of the room and cast a ballot of his or her choice for the school board of the denomination of which that voter is an adherent and then cast a ballot for his or her school board.

Traditionally in this Province we have had a high voter participation - rate in municipal elections and it is only December 18, 1984 R6304

reasonable to assume that that high voter participation rate will carry over to school board elections. MR. TULK: Mr .. Speaker, a question, by leave? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Does the hon. member have leave? SOME HON .· MEMBERS: Yes. MR. SPEAKER: By leave, a question from the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: In putting this bill together, did you do any research to see just what the voting percentage is in municipal elections? Did you manage to get into that? Obviously it should translate. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, yes, I did consult with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle) and his predecessor, the present Minister of Consumer Affairs and Communications (Mrs. Newhook), who informed me in a general way that certainly in the larger municipalities in the Province - I am thinking of St. John's.

Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls, Stephenville, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Labrador City - Wabush there has been a very high voter participation rate in municipal elections and certainly there is no comparison between the voter turn out rate in municipal elections generally and in school board elections generally. Mr. Speaker, I recall that in the last round of school board - elections, which as I said before was in May L6305 of 1982, I voted in one of the Avalon Consolidated School Board zones in St. John's.

I arrived ·at a polling station at about five minutes before the polls closed and I was there when voting was cut off and I remember discovering to my dismay that even though there was a lively contest, there were about five people contesting that election, the total voter turn out - now this is from the whole City of St. John • s and surrounding areas served by the Avalon Consolidated School Board - only about 300 people. I wonder how many people in this chamber voted even though I am sure most of you were eligible to vote. So, Mr.

Speaker, in determining the proposed new minimum number of elected school board members, the constitutional and legal rights of the churches, were taken into consideration. Two-thirds was chosen as the new minimum so that the participating denominations would still have the right, if they so choose to select up to one-third of the school board members so that they may be sure that their denominational interests are well reflected in the composition of their school boards and their concerns are properly addressed in school board deliberations. Mr.

Speaker. this proposal which is now embodied in the bill before us has been discussed quite thoroughly by me with all the leaders in education in the province over a period of two years. It was on October 27, 1982 that I first raised these ideas in a formal way with the General Advisory Committee. That is a committee established under the Department of Education Act with a mandate of advising the government through the Minister of Education December 18, 1984 R6305

on all matters of education policy. That committee is made up of the Executive Directors of the Denominational Education Counsils, the leaders of the Provincial Federation of School Boards as it was called then - the name has been changed since to Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees Association - the President and the Executive Director of the Newfoundland Teachers Association, the Dean of the Faculty of Education at Memorial University and a leader of the Provincial Federation of Home and School and Parent/Teachers Associations. Mr.

Speaker, the PTA's federation representative on the General Advisory Committee is the past president Renee Gaulton . Mr. Speaker, at about four subsequent meetings of that Committee this proposal was discussed. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial School Trustees Association which encompasses all the school boards, has ·publicly supported this measure. Just a couple of weeks ago I heard a radio news report quoting a leader of · that association expressing full support for this. I think his words were, 'We are all in favour of the measure.' Mr.

Speaker, I would like to turn now to the final provisions of the bill which have to do with the provision of schooling for children from the age of five. Mr. Speaker, the law makes it discretionary on the part of school boards to offer kindergarten and to take into school children who are under the age. of six. The practice, however, as I am sure we all know is that kindergarten is universally available and it is widely assumed that parents have a responsibility - ·to · have · their children in school once they L6306 become five. Mr.

Speaker, the contents of this bill propose to change the law to accord with or to be the same as the practice and th.at is to make it not discretionary but obligatory or mandatory for school boards to offer kindergarten and to admit to school children once they become five so that at the start of each school year school boards have to take into school all children who are then five or who turn five before the end of that calendar year. Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the bill has one inaccuracy quite crucial due to a printing error which I intend to have rectified at the committee stage.

Page 5, clause 3 (1) should say: 'A School Board • shall' establish kindergarten classes in a school to teach and train children who are five years on or before the thirty-first day of December in that school year .. • So, Mr.

Speaker, to sum up, I believe that the provisions of this bill as they relate to changes in the compositions of school boards and the manner of electing school board members on the one hand and in the requirement of school boards to offer kindergarten and take into school children from the age of five are progressive measures which will meet with the favour and approval of the parents and general public of this Province. Thank you. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The bo n. the member for Fogo . MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell the minister · in making a few little comments on this bill that December 18, 1984 R6306

certainly we on this side of the House are not going to vote against the bill, absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I believe where it is possible - and I realize the stake the churches have - we should try to elect all school board members, although I realize that there are some complications in the Province with that. So we will certainly be voting for the bill. In regards to kindergarten, the minister made a very wise decision by having the word 'may' changed to 'shall', because that is basically what she was saying out of one side of her mouth, and I was saying to myself, 'How can she do that?

MS VERGE: That is just a drafting error. MR. TULK: It is a drafting error. And it should certainly be the point that the school boards 'shall' rather than 'may' establish kindergarten classes in this Province. As I said, I am not going to take too long. The minister reviewed the period of consolidation that took place in the early 1960s as a result of the Warren Commission. Another note I made was she said that 60 per cent of school board members were elected. MS. VERGE: Are now elected. MR. TULK: Yes, are now elected, and she went on to get into that as well.

What really happens in Newfoundland is that the democratic process is followed in the election of very few of our school board members and I think there are a couple . of reasons for that. · L6307 Let me say to the minister that there are many people in this Province today who are wondering, and quite legitimately, which has nothing to do with the person who is the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge) but certainly has to do with the department itself, just what the duties of the Minister of Education are.

It is very debatable just how much power the Minister of Education in this Province has to rectify any situation. MR. CARTER: You are attacking the minister. You are getting personal. MR. TULK: No, I am not saying anything about the present Minister of Education (Ms. Verge), I am not being personal at all, I am just talking about an office that has been established, something that has happened as a result of the consolidation of school boards. And I do not think we have learned adequately how to deal with that problem. The Minister of Education has very little to say for example, about school busing .

The Minister of Education has very little to say about the way that money is spent. The IECs, as the minister says when she passes out money, are the people who determine where that money is going to be spent and so on. Really the essential component of the Department of Education today seems to be in curriculum development, and perhaps that is its biggest role. And there are very few protections, I tell the minister as a former teacher and also as a citizen, for people in communities against school boards.

While I am for consolidation of school boards, somehow or other we have to work out a system whereby people who December 18, 1984 R6307

are superintendents in this Province, who are building their own little empires at the expense of the Minister of Education and sometimes at the expense of the people and contrary to the wishes of the people, I would like to see an example where one superintendent in this Province was fired. I do not care who it is as long as it is justified, as I suggested to the Minister lat year in this House. I would like to see one superintendent in this Province fired so that we could establish that indeed school boards do have some power.

Now it may have happened in the last six to eight months, I do not know, but I do not believe it has. I do not believe there has ever been a superintendent in Newfoundland fired. I do not think so. I have never heard of one. Yet if you are a superintendent on the Mainland of Canada or in the United States, well, you are a sitting duck, every morning you get up to get fired.

It seems to me that one of the things that has happened as a result of the consolidation of school boards in the Province is that of people lost contact with their school board, and I would suggest to the minister that that is primarily the reason why people are not voting in school board elections, because they have lost touch with something that they had. It is a fact of history that in Newfoundland, especially in the outports, the school was there and the school board was there, all in the same corrununi ty, and it was a vital part of that corrununity.

Now what we have - I am not saying we should not have it, I am just relating to the minister the reason that I believe people do not get involved - is a school board lo~...--ated at -a-central: point; · perhaps sixty or seventy miles L6308 from the corrununity in which the school is situated, and the people in that corrununity feel very little power when it comes to controlling the affairs of what · happens in their schools.

You can add to that the fact that you have superintendents in this Province who are building their own little empires, as they are, and I can give the minister case after case after case where it is happening and I am sure she can too. Superintendents control the information for school boards, and, as the minister knows and as everybody in this House knows, the guy or the woman with the information, the person with the information is the person who has the power absolutely. The make-up of school boards is such that you get a guy or a woman who has to work from da