PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Volume 1 Number 118 4th. Session 34th. General Assembly VERBATIM REPORT THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1970 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE GEORGE W. CLARKE

June 18th. 1970 The House met at 10:00 A .H. Hr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order! Tape 1284 PRESENTING PETITIONS PK - 1 HR. A. J. l·nJRPHY: (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Hr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the District of Ferryland and lt is with reference to petitions for roads. They asked me to support a petition that was submitted to the Premier on June 4th. Now what the legal or moral implications are of presenting petitions in this House, I do not know.

But I feel that to be just to those people ~ho have no member in this House, and possibly will not have one for some time, with passed experiences to be takenj I would like to read the purpose of the petition~ Now whether that is in order or not, I do not know Sir, but it is enclosed in a letter to the Premier. With leave of the House, Sir, I would like t~ HR. SPEAKER: I think that possibly the correct tirr:e to do this uould be on Orders of the Day, to make inquiries ab.-ut a petition which is alleged to have been presented and make some inquiries and make some comments. The Order is,Presentinp, petitions.

The hon. the member for St. John•s Centre is not now presenting a petition, is he? MR. fnJRPIIY: Well the prayer of the petition is with reference to roads. I mentioned to the Premier on two occasions in the past week with reference to this petition. HiR enthusiasm was a little less than I expected, to presenting the petitirn I am just wondering. I ~ant to make this petition clear, as, I, Leader of the Opposition,arn trying to the best of my ability to fulfill the prayer of a district that has no representative.

So with the permission of the llouse~a bit later on I would like to present this letter and also the accompanying letter to the Premier.

Jwte 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 2 ORDERS OF TilE DAY MR. MURPHY; Mr. Speaker, before we go into Orders of the Day, I .,.1ould like to indicate to this House a matter that has come to my attention• It is in r~ference to a petition passed to the Premier on Hay 12th. with reference to roads in Ferryland District. As I said earlier~ there is no sitting rce:mber in the House ·at this time.due to the resignation of the hon. Hr .. Maloney. I would like to read into the record of the House the copy of the letter to me and also a copy of the letter to the Premier. MR. SPEAKER!

I would suggest that the han. member tell us the contents of the letter without reading it into the record. HR. HURPHY: Well actually the letter to me is ~ith reference to a petition presented to the Premier.containing some 1150 signatures,re~arding roads in the District of Ferryland asking me to support a pe~ition. As I mentioned,that was passed to the Premier.' This deals with the condition- of roads in the Ferryland District and with reference to a request that the roads be. paved.

Jt also deals with a matter "'here the Premier in 1965 promised the voters of Ferryland District that there would be at least fifteen miles of road paved in that district. MR. SMALLIJOOD: Each year. MR. HURPHY: Each year. So that is five years ago, Sir, r rhey are quite upset with the statement of the highroads department that there are only going to be five miles of road - five mile stretch from Cape Broyle to Ferryland.Sasically that is the intent of the letter. I may say that these people are quite upset. They have no sitting member to fight their cause.

They submitted this to the Premier on Hay 12th, and to this date there has been no word heard in this House about this petition. As I said, I went to the Premier on two occasions and asked him was he presenting 7585

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK- 3 MR. MURPHY: the petition. Ris response~ as I said earlie~was some what less than enthusiastic to presenting this petition. So on behalf, not only of myself but of the Opposition whose duty it is to carry out the wishes of any district of this Province, I would like to put on record, Sir, that I support the prayer of the petition, and if the prayer of the petition and the petition ever comes to light, I will support it again. MR. CROSBIE: ~r.

Speaker, we would like to say that we also support this petition, which has not been as yet presented to the House. ~ut we support the Leader of the Opposition's presentation of this petition that the bon. Leader is trying to present to the House. We congratulate him for his pertina~ity in this matter and hope that this road building program will be expedited during the coming summer. MR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I would certainly like to support the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition in bringing the roads need~ of the people of Ferryland District to the attention of the House. .;;In that connection, Sir, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Premier and ask him,this morning, if he can inform the House just when a by-election is going to be held in Ferryland to give the people down there an opportunity to - AN RON. ME~tBER: You are worried a lot,! know. MR. COLLINS: Sure, sure we are worried, Mr. Speaker.

We are missing a member in the House representation. expect and the people of that district are without Maybe the Deputy Premier could tell us when we can AN HON. MENBER: Can that vote be made Conservative? HON. F.W. ROWE: (HINISTER OF EDUCATION): Mr. Speaker, I rise,uot to answer the hon. gentleman's question . but to support the petition. the 7586

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 4 MR. ROWE: first part of which I did not hear but I assume it is a petition for a continuation of the paving of the road on the Southern Shore. MR. STRICKLAND: The petition has not been presented yet. MR. ROHE, F. tV. At least that was - if it has not been - MR. WELLS: Inaudible. MR. ROWE, F.H. I would like to point out, Hr. Speaker, that already we have paved over the years a goodly portion of the Southern Shore road and that I do not think there is any doubt,in anybody's mind, .but that work will continue and will continue as fast as it is - I will submit, Hr.

Speaker, that no one actually knows at this moment how many inches or yards or even miles of road will be paved between now and let us say the end of October. AN RON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROWE, F.W. A good deal depends on the progress of work in rebuilding a road and,secondly.on the nature of the fall. We have had falls when it started to snow in October, and has continued to snow right on through the fall and Winter. We have a~so had falls when you could pave. This happened one year whe11. I was the Minister of Highways, when you could pave right up until Christmas.

That does not happen very often but it makes a big difference. Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this, (I do not know what you would call it), whatever it is, not a petition yet I understand. I would like to support the idea because in my view there is no more beautiful part of Newfoundland than the Southern Shore, what we call the Southern Shore, running from St. John's down to T~epassey, apart from the fact that you have some of the finest fishermen, and some of the finest citizens in this Province on that shore.

I am not saying this with any ulterior motive at allJin mind, This is an established fact, They have been there for over two hundred years, in ~act I suppose some of them their families have been there for nearly four hundred years. But. apart 7587

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 5 MR. ROWE, F.W. from that altogether, it is also a very great tourist attraction, the fishing villages and the people and the scenery - AN HON. ~ffi~ffiER: Inaudible. }ffi. ROWE, F.W. That is ri~ht. This is t~e not only of the Southern Shore, My hon. friend should not be so disgusted over it, I mean,this is true of a · good many hundreds of miles of road. This is true, for example, of the entire road from Gambo on the northside of Bonavista Bay on to Gander Bay and up to Gander. This is true, the entire road, a hundred and ~hirty miles, is it not. True, · Hr.

Speaker, I would like to give my support to this idea and. I take it,to this potential petition for the paving of the Southern Shore road. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, HON. ~ffi}ffiERS: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! HR. HICKMAN: Hr. Speake~, befpre Orders of the Day, I would like to_ direct - particularly as this is the last day in which we will have an opportunity to get some information that is vital to the Province- I would like to direct a question or questions to the bon. the Acting Premier or altern~tively the Minister of Finance.

Would either of these or both of these gentleman confirm that . Government has called for and there is on going an investigation by Winfield Chemical Industries Limited of Woodstock, New Brunswick,into Sea }lining Corporationl And,if that is correct- and. it is correct,! am sure,that the investigation has been initiated by Government, would the bon. the Minister of Finance or Acting Premier give this House a report on the status of the investigation( MR. CROSBIE: Who is the Acting Premier? MR. CALLAHAN: The Deputy Premier. 7588

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 6 }ffi. HICK}UU~: The Deputy Premier or the Acting Premier. }ffi. MURPHY: It all depends on what comes up. HON. }~}ffiERS: Inaudible. ~m. HICK}~: Well may I repeat the question to the hon. Minister of Justice and Acting Premier. Would he report to the House the status of the investigation that is being conducted into Sea Mining Corporation on behalf of Government by Chemical Industries Limited of Woodstock, New Brunswick? MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on it at all. MR. HICK}Ulli: Could the hon. minister confirm - MR.

CURTIS: I cannot even confirm if there is an investi~ation, It is the first time I he~rd of it. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Acting Premier, who,! believe, is the Hinister of Justice - MR. CURTIS: You seem "to be sure. MR. CROSBIE: Well I thought that the Deputy Premier would be Acting Premier when the Premier was out of the Province, but apparently the Deputy is not acting. ~fR. ROWE, F.W. My bon. friend thought wrong. ~fR. CROSBIE: He is not an acting-deputy. MR. CURTIS: If my bon. friend would like to be Attorney General, I would _be glad to talk it over with him. MR.

CROSBIE: }fr. Speaker, this may be the last day. we will see the Acting Premier acting or in any other capacity in this House. MR. CURTIS: I hope so. that ~m. CROSBIE: In~connection- he deserves a well-earned retirement. I bad a ~uestion, Mr. Speaker, and the question is this the~e are 121 questions on the Order Paper unansl-Iered, as of this moment~· Will the Government be answering these questions before the session closes today 7589

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 7 MR. CROSBIE: or to~orrow? If not, when might we expect to get the· answers to these 121 questions? MR. COLLINS: You mip,ht find them in the Bulletin. MR. CURTIS: That is a very difficult question to answer, Mr. Speaker. we have endeavoured to answer all the questions. We have asked the various ministers to answer them all. s my bon. friend knows, there is no obligation to answer questions, hut certainly we intent to answer them. I know definitely we will not be able to answer them before the House c'!oses. MR. CROSBIE: I have another question, Mr. Speaker~ for the Acting Premier.

That iSjCan the Acting Premier tell us whether or not the Shaheen group,in accordance with their obligation under the Government of Newfoundland Refining Company Agreement,have arranged the sale of $30 million in bonds to be guaranteed by the Government of Newfoundland/ Has the sale of bonds been completed proceed? AN HON. HD-1BER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: Fifteen year bonds. and is the project, therefore, going to MR. CURTIS: Well we are expecting a report on that matter, Mr. Speaker, momentarily. MR. HICKMAN: Again on Come-by-Chance, Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Acting Premier. lolould he care to conunent on the statement this morning of Captain Stuart Wallis, late of the Newfoundland Refining Company Limited, who says that this project cannot proceed under present management? Is there any thought of changing management of Come-by-Chance? What does he know about that? MR. CURTIS: I would not care to comment• I know nothing about it. MR. HICKMAH·: Hell may I direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Highwaysl Can the bon. Minister of Highways confirm to the House that 7590

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 8 MR. HICK}~: the bamboo curtain that stretches across that public highway to Come-by-Chance has now been removed,on his orders; and that the road is nmJ once again open to the public? ~ffi.. STARKES: I cannot report on that now, but I will later. MR. CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the 'Hinister of Justice and Acting Premier, whether he can report to the House now on the results of the investigation of the case of Fred Tremblett and Gus Tremblett of Grand Falls and Winsor, who were removed from the Churchill Falls site and were suppose to appear in Hagistrates Court there on June 11th.? Was the trial held on June 11th. at the Magistrates Court at Churchill Falls or what has happened with respect to these two men7 MR. CURTIS: That_matter, 1-fr. Speaker, has been looked after by my Deputy.

He tells me that it has been arranged, but I am not familiar with the details. All I can tell the House is this; I can assure the House that justice will be done protected. nd the interest of the men will be fairly HR. MURPHY: Hr. Speaker, I would like to dire::t a question to the Hinis~er of Labour. Re: the refusal of -the company on behalf of the fishermen of the St. Barbe Coast, the refusal of the company with which they are dealing there, Fishery Products, to recognize their union~ has this been brought to the attention of the Department of Labour and,if so, what action have bean taken, Sir? HR. KEOUGH·~ Mr.

Speaker, it has not been brought to my attention officially. All I know is what I have read in the newspaper. Of course-, a group of plant workers, workers at a fish plant, workers on a fishing boat, they can make their own deal with a plant owner or an employer. and,if they cannot deal with them, they can organize a union and,if they get fifty-one percent of the employees, they can apply to the Labour Relations Board for certification. Ahd if the Labour 7591

June 18th. 19'70 Tape 1284 PK - 9 1-IR. KEOUGH: Relations Board certifies them, then the employer has to deal with them. }ffi. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Premier,in connection with the proposed lay-off at the St. John's Dockyard, · the Hinist'er of Health told the House several days ago that the Government have made represe~tations to Ottawa, albeit the Minister of Transport,to obtain more work for the St. John's Dockyard so this lay-off could be avoided. Have the representations that were supposed to have been made by the Government been responed to or have they been successful?

Has anything been heard further ' from Ottawa? }ffi. CURTIS: I only thing that I can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier is at the moment in Ottawa. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to ask the Acting Premier- the House was informed that within a month, and that was a month ago, the Government's White Paper proposals on the Bonne Bay Park,in the Northern Peninsula,would be accepted by the Government of Canada. Has the Acting Premier been informed by the Government of Canada that the so-called White Paper proposals have been accepted? 1-ffi. CURTIS: We have no answer. MR. MURPHY: ?lr.

Speaker, just one last question, as far as I am conce~ed, and that is with reference to legislation on the Order Paper. It is the purpose to deal with Order seven today, and that is respecting the pension plan for the constabulary force of Newfoundland, I wonder are we going to go into that Bill today, because I feel that it is very important'l MR. CURTIS: Yes. HR. HURPHY: We are. Thank you1• MR. HICKMAN: Hr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the bon. the Minister of Education. Quite some time a~o now, it must have been about two months a~o, there was tabled in this House an answer to a question that 7592

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 PK - 10 HR. HICK.'1AN: I had asked, correspondence concerning the resolution that was unanimously passed in this House last year to recognize the Pentecostal Denomination . as an educational authority under the Education Act. It that time the correspondence that was tabled indicated that Mr. Andrew Chatwood, who we were told was part of the Government of r Canada, had send it ~o the Department of Justice in Ottawa. ~hat was some time in January or February.

Has the Minister of Education received any indication,or Government,from the Federal Department of Justice or any other appropriate department in Ottawa indicating that the necessary steps would be taken to implement the resolution that was passed by this House? MR. F.W. ROWE: Hr .. Speaker, as your Honour knows that was handled through the Premier's office and through your Honour's office as well, in the initial stages. The matter was dealt with here formerly at our level and forwarded to Ottawa. I am not aware.

I am not aware that any, in fact, I have discussed this ,·ery matter with the Premier only, I think it was,yesterday morning, if not yesterday the day before. I am not aware that any formal action has been taken in Ottawa. I believe that, the hon. the Premier has this on his agenda for discussion while he is in Ottawa. Now we have gone through all the steps that we were suppose to _take and, I think your Honour would collaborate that statement.

We have,at this level . we have gone through all the steps we were suppose to take and the matter now rests in the lap of the Government of Canada, or perhaps I should say. in the lap of the Parliament of Canada. MR. CROSBIE: Hr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Provincial Affairs; is there any truth to the report that the Government of Newfoundland will be holding an official banquet in honour of Captain Wallis, late of the Newfoundland Refining Company? 75!13

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1284 l.N HON. HE~IBER: A brunch. A brunch. AN HON. t-!Ei1BER: A cocktail party. ORDERS OF THE DAY PK- 11 Motion, Second Reading of a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Apprenticeship Act, 1962." ~m. KEOUGH: Mr. Speaker; since this is the first opportunity I have had of doing so, I wonder if the House would mind if I digressed for one moment to apologize for my absence from the House for a number of days past which was due to medical advice. As a matter of fact, I should not be here now, but this is not the first time I have not done what I was to~d to do.

But I did not win this floor over for this reason. What I would like to do is to make a request of the House. If I should flake out on the floor, and in the good old Newfoundland expres~ion, "kick the bucket" I would like to be buried in a welfare coffin on the 5111 of Cape St. George, I would like to hear the hon. the Minister of Health top that one. He can be buried in his welfare coffin, if he wants to, but I staked out the Bill of Cape St. George twenty-five years ago. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. KEOUGH: No comment. With regard to the Bill, Mr.

Speaker, the Justices Department advices that there are some questions to whether authority exists for making regulations which prescribes the functions and duties that maybe performed by persons in designated trades. As far as I can figure out,what they want is, if you could turn to page, the main Act,

Section twenty-three, they want the word "and" deleted from 7594

June 18th., 1970 TaPe no 1285 Page 1 Mr. Keough. Paragraph (

a) of subsection (1) and they want the word, "and" added to subparagraph (4) of paragraph (a). They want

section (

S) added as set forth in the Bill. I do not understand it, but there it is. On motion a Bill, "An Act To Amend 'rhe Apprenticeship Act,1963," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Provide For The Abatement A3d Control Of Pollution Of Air, Soil And Water And For The Conservation And Use Of Water As A Natural Resource Of The Province : To Provide An Aid Towards The Centralization And Coordination Of The Multiform Controls Over The Use Of Water Generally By The Creation Of An Authority As An Arm Of Government." (Adjourned debate.) MR. CALLAHAN: Mr. Speaker, there is just one,, MR. SPEAKER: If the hon, minister speaks now, he closes the debate on it. MR, CALLAHAN : There is just one comment I would like to make, Mr.

Speaker in respect of the single objection there was yesterday to the location of the responsibility for administration of the Bill,in Mines, Agriculture and Resources. Very simply I want - the suggestion, of course, that it should be located in the Department of Health , I simply want to tell the House that nowhere in Canada.either in the Federal field or in the Provincial field in any pf the provinces,is this matter, this general matter of pollution,located in a department of health.

In fact,in eight of the provinces and in the Federal administration, the responsibility falls, indeed, under the responsibility of the appropriate minister - being the Minister 7595

June 18th.,.1970 Tape no 1285 Page 2 Hr. Callahan. responsible for Resources in the .Province and,in the federal administration,where it is the Minister of Energy, Hines and Resources, The only exception to that are the bon, Hr. Rusty of Alberta and the bon. Hr. Akerley of Nova Scotia,both of whom are found members of the Council of Resource Ministers which as the national co-ordinating body is the body responsible for the whole matter of pollution.

Indeed, the first national initiative made in the field was made by the Resource Ministers' Council who sponsored the conference - the national conference on pollution in the environment in 1966. It would be flying in the face of practice and convention to locate this matter anywhere but in the Department of Resources.

The other thing is that,while Health is certainly a very important aspect of the total pollution consideration, the problem itself transcends Health and also other specific activities and agencies and responsibilities of the Government and this precisely is why we have made Statutory provision for the membership of these other departments, including the Department of Health in the authority.

This I might say, too, was discussed at considerable lengthy with my colleague the Minister of Health, The decision was that there should not be in any sense a divided authority and that it had to be placed firmly under a particular minister, not as in the old Bill, which divided the final authority and that, in view of the fact that this really is a resource management, 7596

June 18th,, 1970 Tape no 1285 Page 3 Mr.

Callahan. even though it impenged on other areas, it should be located in the Department of Resources, I simply wanted to make that clear, On motion a Bill, "An Act To Provide For The Abatement And Control Of Pollution Of Air, Soil And Water And For The Conservation And Use Of Water As A Natural Resource Of The Province: To Provide An Aid Towards The Centralization And Coordination Of The Multifo~ Controls Over The Use Of Water Generally By The Creation Of An Authority As An Arm Of The Government," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently.

On motion : of the hon. the Minister of Justice, a Bill, "An Act Respecting The Conso~odation And Revision Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland," read a first time, ordered read a second time presently by leave. On motion of the hon. the President of the Council, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Water Protection Act, 1964," read a first time, ordered read a second time presently. On motion of the hon. the President of the Council, · A Bill, "An Act Respecting Collective Bargaining Between The Government Of The Province And Its Employees And Certain Other Employees," read a first time, ordered read a second time presently.

On motion of the hon. the President of the Council, a Bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Ado~t An Agreement Made Between The Government And Radex Minerals Limited, And To Make Certain Provisions Relating To That Agreement, read a first time, ordered reid a second time presently, On motion that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Bills no. 84 and 51. Mr. Speaker, left the Chair. 75!)7

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1285 Page 4 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: A Bill, "An Act To Provide For The Abatement And Control Of' Pollution Of Air, Soil And Water And For The Conservation And Use Of Water As A Natural Resource Of The Province: To Provide An Aid Towards The Centralization And Cooordination Of The Multiform Controls Over The Use Of Water Generally By The Creation Of An Authority As An Arm Of The Government. On motion Clauses (1) - (18) carried. MR. CURTIS: - I move that the Committee rise report progress and ask leave to sit again on that Bill. MR.

WELLS: Or let the remainder of the Bill stand; There are a couple of amendments - proposed amendments being drafted. Would you let the reaainder of this stand and consider it again later? Okay. Now we will do the other one. A Bill, "An Act To Amend The Apprenticeship. Act, 1962. On motion Clauses (1) and (2) carried. Mo·tion that the coiiDIIittee report having passed the Bill without amendment. Carried. On motion that the committee rise report having passed the Bill, "An Act To Amend The Apprenticeship Act, 1963," made ~rogress and ask leave to sit atain, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair. _MR. HODDER: Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of The Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report having passed Bill no 51 without amendment, made some progress on Bill no. 84 and ask leave to sit again. On motion report received and adopted, ordered read a third time now by leave. On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Apprenticeship Act, 1962," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. 75!18

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1285 Page 5 On motion committee ordered to sit again presently by leave, Second Reading of a Bill, "An Act Further To A;nend ' The Revenue And Audit Act," HON. E. JONES (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, a message from his Honour the Lieutenant ·Governor. MR. SPEAKER: "In accordance with

Section 5 of The Revenue And Audit Act,

Chapter 31 of the Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1952, as amended, and the British North America Act,l867, I, the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit certain provisions amending the said Revenue and Audit Act and I recommend the said amendment to the House of Assembly. Sgd, E. John A Harnum, Lieutenant Governor." On motion that the House go into Committee of ~he Whole on these Resolutions. Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Resolution: To bring in a measure further to a~r, end The Revenue And Audit Act. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman , we will discuss the Bill. It is • the easiest way to do it.

Does the minister want ~o speak first or •• ? MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I will give a brief outline of the effect of these amendments to the Revenue and Audit Act. The first one is that it provides for the appointment of a president to Treasury Board _in the place of the chairman of the board and authorizes any m:f.nister appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to be president of the Treasury Board other than the Minister of Finance as it is at the present time.

Another amendment would authorize the Government to invest revenues directly into the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation and the Newfoundland Industrial Development Corporation and to desposit funds in any bank approved prior by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. 7599

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1285 Page 6 Mr. Jones. The present legislation only authorizes the Government to deposit money in a bank registered under the Bank Act of Canada. A further amendment,

Section 4 - the first part of

Section 4 relates to the investment of sinking fund monies and was changed to improve the present legislation. It authorizes the Government now to invest in bonds and debentures of companies which basically have rental purchase aguements with the Governments. It also provides that the Government cannot part with the ownership of any of the shares of such a company until all securities have been redeemed by the company. The se~ond part ·of the same section, Mr. Chairman, provides the Government with the authority to borrow in so called multi-currency loans.

This type of vehicle is now popular in the Euro dollar markets and provides for the Government that while it receives a loan in one currency, it has the option to express such a loan in any number of selected currencies and such loan may upon the approval of the lender. be redeemed and any option provided. The lenders - the people that lent us the money are insisting that legislative provision be made for this in order for the Government to take advantage of all the options available under the loan agreement. &ome other amendments, Mr. Chairman, are just a matter of redrafting.

There is a provision made for the p~yment of a salary to the comptroller of $25,000 a year. Also, further provision is made to pay the auditor general the same salary as the comptroller that of $25,000 a year. This is putting the salary of 7600

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1285 Page 7 Mr. Jones. the comptroller and the auditor general on the same level. This has been traditional up until a few years ago. That

section 8 and 9, Mr. Chairman, have been done on the advice of the auditor general and takes care 'of some of the complaints which he had in his report on the Public Accounts in 1968-1969 as to the method of auditing and checking and reporting the accounts. I move second reading, MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairmaft, we have reviewed these amendments of the Revenue and Audit Act and compared them with the previous Act and amendments. I do not think there is any serious objections but there are a few things that should be pointed out. It was Sectbn 3 of the present Bill that amends the Revenue and Audit Act.

The law, previous to this Bill, if this Bill is passed the law will be changed. The law previous to this Bill was that it was only legal or valid for the Government of Newfoundland to invest monies from the consolidated revenue fund by way of deposit in any bank to which the Bank Act of Canada applied. That is the law now, Mr. Chairman. It was the law of last year. It was the l~w the year before and it has been the law and will continue to be the law unless this piece of legislation is passed. Now

Section 19 stated before this time that the Government could invest any portion of the consolidated revenue fund by way of deposit in any bank to which the Bank Act of Canada applies. Now we were told in this House a month or several months ago, Mr. Chairman, by the hon. the Premier,that the Government had deposited an amount of about $1 milliunin the Franklin National Bank of New York and that the Government had this deposit and made it some months ago and was earning - it was deposited with the Franklin National Bank,earning some interest. At that time the bon. member for Burin raised a question 7601

June 18, 1970, Tape 1286 Page 1 -- apb MR. CROSBIE: The Government had this deposit made some months ago, and it was a deposit at the Franklyn National Bank earning some interest. At that time, the hon. Member for Burin raised the question whether or not it was legal and in accordance with the Revenue and Audit Act, for the Government to have a deposited any monies in any bank outside of this Province. This amendment is now being brought in to legalize - to legitamize what the Government has done by making a deposit in the Franklyn National Bank.

The Government of this Province has ignored the laws of this Province, has ignored the Revenue and Audit Act by depo~iting the sum of $1 million in the Franklyn National Bank of New York, when it did not have the legal power to do so. This amendment,

section 3, of the amending Bill, is to make legitimate what was made ultra vires,this action of the Government.

Section 3, of the Bill, the last

section of this . Act,

section 11, states that

section 3 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 28th. day of May, 1968. In other words, it is going to go back and say that the law since May 28, 1968, has been that the Government could deposit monies in banks other than to which the Bank Act of Canada applies. This deposit in the Franklyn National Bank was probably made around May 28, 1968. The point is Mr.

Chairman, that the Government should be censured for having ignored or disobeyed the laws of this Province by making a deposit in the Franklyn National Bank in New York, when the laws of this Province forbade the Government to do that, when the Lieutenant Governor in Council only had authority to invest parts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in Canadian Banks - Banks to which the Bank Act of Canada applied.

Section 3, is to now make legal an illegal act_of the Government, the investment of public funds of this Province in banks located outside of Canada. We should be very clear on that.- that

section 3 of the Bill which amends

section 19 of the Act, is to cure an illegal act of the Government. in Now, Mr. Chairman, 1any ordinary Parliamentary situation the Government would have to resiFn. The Government has committed an illegal act in dealing with the public funds of this Province, the Consolidated Revenue Funds, by 7602

June 18, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 2 -- apb making a deposit of $1 million in the Franklyn Nation~! Bank in New York, the Premier should tender his resignation immediately to the Lieutenant Governo~, or should ask for a dissolution of the House and go to the people. Now perhaps in Newfoundland the people do not care, perhaps nobody thinks that this is important, but I think it is of the first importance that the Government has now publicly admitted that it has defied, disobeyed and ignored the laws of the Province by depositing money outside Canada when it had no power or authority to do it.

Apart from that point, the other amendments that the minister is introducing - of the Treasury Board, investing sinking fund money in lease­ back bonds and so on, under

section 4, I cannot see anything wrong with that. The other clauses to make it easier to invest in Euro dollars or in different foreign curriencies, I think that flexability is needed. The same thing with temporary loans. The comptroller,now of Finance, is to be paid $25,000. a year which is an increase of I think. $10,000. over the past. It was $15,000. I believe, but the Comptroller .of Finance does not receive any remuneration now except this $25,000. I presume that this is correct.

The previous Deputy Minister of Finance received a salary as Comptroller and Deputy Minister of Finance and also as financial advisor to the Premier. The present Deputy Minister of Finance is not,! believe,the financial advisor to the Premier and he is only receiving one salary. Would that be correct? MR. JONES: I will speak on that when I close the debate. MR. CROSBIE: The minister will deal with it when he speaks • "Speak: _ oh toothless one." The Auditor General's salary has been increased to $25,000. a year also, I think, ' I certainly have no objection to that .- that is reasonable.

The Auditor General must be a first-class man

Section 9 of the Bill is also important. I think the minister said that the Auditor General had approved this - that section. This brings the wording of the auditing

section of the Revenue and Audit Act into modern fo~ and replaces wording that must have originated many, many years ago. So that now the Auditor General will audit the books of the Province in accordance 7603

June 17, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 3 -- apb with modern accounting - public accounting principles. I certainly agree with that. It should be much, much clearer. The only serious, not objection to the Bill, because, obviously Mr. Chairman, the Government has to correct this illegal situation that they have been involved in, ~he Government of this Province,since May 28, 1968, has been committing illegal acts in connection with the public funds of this Province, and it now has to make that - legitimize that. I do not see why really, actually, the Government should want to deposit monies in any bank outside Canada.

I cannot really see any justification for it at all. When the Bill goes through committee, I am going to vote against that part of

section 3. Otherwise, we agree with the Bill. It should be noted Mr. Chairman, that the Government,in accordance with Parliamentary tradition,should now resign, having publicly admitted that it has been engaged in violating the laws of this Province for two years and depositing funds belonging to the people of Newfoundland in Banks outside Canada,which action was illegal under the Revenue and Audit Act. MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few words. I agree 1n the main with what the hon. member for St.

John's West has said but I do want 'to point out, as strongly --as !'can• ~ir, . the seriousness of this situation. To do that, I think we have to stop for a moment and consider just what the Revenue and Audit Act is. The Revenue and Audit Act, is the trustee,if you like, the terms of trust by which the Government are entrusted with the millions of dollars that they take out of the pockets of the people of this Province by way of taxation. To contravene the Revenue and ~udit Act is just about the most serious thing that any Government can do.

I am not making this up, this is not some­ thing that I suddenly dreamed up. This is established and has been established for centuries. Governments are in a position of trust. The funds that they have to manage are funds that belong to the people of this Province and the terms under which they manage those funds are basically the Revenue and Audit Act. In every Parliamentary jurisdiction there is something similar. To contravene that Act, or to do anything outside that Act, is just about the most serious thing that any Government can do. 7604

June 17, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 4 -- apb We may look at this and say that it· is only a technical thing, it is a bank, but it is not a kind of a bank that is referred to in the Revenue and Audit Act. There is more to it than that. It is more than a technical offense that the Government has committed.

The depositing of these funds.in the Franklyn National Bank in New York, was strongly opposed in the first instance by a number of members of this House, not by the majority albeit, but a number of members, The advancing of these funds in any event and then to advance them in this way _ or to proceed with the advance of the funds by borrowing it from the Franklyn National Bank and by borrowing it under conditions whereby they compelled the Government to deposit a certain amount which is apparently what happened, although we have not exactly had a great falling of information on that subject, To do that is to seriously contravene the Revenue and Audit Act.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member for St. John's West when he calls for the resignation of the Government. So they should, ln any other jurisdiction, in any other Province of Canada, in any other Parliamentary jurisdiction, this Government would have had to resign long ago 1by reason of the many things that it has done which it ought not to have done, and this is one of the more serious ones. I cannot say that I agree with the principle of the Bill, I agree with the other things that are in it, but this is one of the basic parts of the principle. I do not see how I can support the Bill.

I have no objection to most of the other things that are contained in it, The only thing that I am concerned with is that I think the committee should make a comparison of clause 10 of this Bill with what it is replacing to make sure that the Auditor General is in no way limited ~n the comments that he can make on what the Government has done.with the funds of the people of this Province. The proposed new subsection 3, of

section 59 of the Revenue and Audit Act, repeals the existing one and substitutes the new one.It sets out the basic terms of reference for the Auditor General's audit of the books of the Province. I think it is essential to make sure that this in no way waters down the right of the Auditor General to express opinions or comment 7605 upon the manner in which the Government has spent money or the manner in which r I

June 17, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 5 -- apb they have managed the funds of the people of this Province. Apart from that I cannot object to any other part of the Bill. I do Sir, want to strongly point out that the Government has done something that in any other jurisdiction would cause the immediate resignation of the Government. It has offended the basic terms of trust by which it has been authorized to take money from the people and spend it in their behalf. It has contravened this, and so Sir, should resign. MR. ABBOTT: Mr.

Chairman, speaking to this Bill, it is rather unfortunate that in spite of the fact we have in Government today six or seven of the legal profession, it took the legal profession on this side of the House to point out the error here or the illegal part of this procedure of depositing in the Franklyn Bank, monies - borrowing then depositing monies,which contravenes the Audit Act. Now, this as already pointed out by my colleagues, the member for St.

John's West and the member for Humber East, that this is very unfortunate and not only unfortunate, but it is a glaring evidence of someone not knowing what is going on. I feel sure that we have honourable men.and men who know the laws of this land,sitting on the other side of the House. T.o.permit this kind of thing! We are the custodians of the people's money. The Government of Newfoundland, they are responsible for the people's money. !or the people's money to be handled in such a careless manner and such an illegal manner is unpardonable.

I certainly agree, and the public of this country if they knew, and no doubt they will know what is going on, then I am sure there will be an evidence of indignation by all right-thinking people. We have to be very, very careful in how,as custodians, I repeat, of the people's money ••••••• MR. CURTIS: Was not the hon. member in the Cabinet at the time that deposit was made? I am sure you were, I am quite sure you were. MR. ABBOTT: I was in the Cabinet prior to July 15th., 1968. MR. CURTIS: You left the Cabinet? MR. ABBOTT: I left the Cabinet. 7606 ' T

June 17, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 6 -- apb ~· CURTIS: This loan was made in May 1968, while you were a member of the Cabinet. ~· ABBOTT:_ Of course, I was considered as being ill then by a good many, and I do not recall it ever coming before Cabinet. MR. CROSBIE: It never came before Cabinet MR. ABBOTT: I do not recall it, There are a lot of things that never come before Cabinet, and a lot of ••••••. MR. CURTIS: You were a member of the Government of the day. MR. ABBOTT: I am partly responsible. But I can see,now that it has been pointed out to me, that this was an illegal act and the Government is responsible.

There are other parts of the BilL Mr. Chairman, that I certainly agree with. I think the Auditor General is entitled to this amount of money. I do not think that they are overpaying him. What I would hope to see is that those who work with the Auditor General too, some of the staff,will be paid sufficient money, or sufficient salaries will be offered so that it will attract people who are highly qualified for that department. MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree with the comments made by the previous speakers concerning this particular Bill.

I believe it is worth mentioning here again that my colleague, the hon. member for Burin, brought this matter up about a month or a month and one-half ago. We saw the squirming and the evasiveness of the Premier and hon. members on the Government side of the House. Whether they were scared that the people in Newfoundland might be made aware of what was happening with their monies, and I suspect that the people of Newfoundland were, because, as I recall it, the press did a reasonably good job of bringing it to the attention of the people.

Certainly the press will do a job of bringing today's debate to the attention of the people. Governments,Mr. Chairman, are saddled with the responsibility of drafting laws, bringing in laws governing the people of the Province, and the fact that we have a Revenue and Audit Act which is meant to dictate certain restrictions in terms of the operation of the Government by Cabinet Ministers 7607

June 17, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 7 -- apb and so on and so forth. Certainly, this does not give the Government the right to break laws. I think it is evident to all bon. members that the Government were guilty of breaking a law which they themselves made. Sir, I would submit that this is a very serious situation to have occurred ', and as the bon. member for St.

John's West indicated a little while ago, were this to happen in any other Province in Canada, or in any country in the western world, I would say that the public would demand and insist on that Government,responsible for breaking the rules such as this one, that that Government would be forced to resign and go to the people in a general election. I would suspect that the people would possibly let the Government know just what they felt aboutbreaki~r laws, especially where the public funds are concerned.

This case is where the Government deposited.$1 million,! think, in a bank in the United States,which was contra~ to the Revenue and Audit Act, ~w we have a new Bill, which is to amend the Revenue and Audit Act, which in effect will make legal an illegal act which the Government committed. I certainly do not like the section,Mr. Chairman,

section 3 (lc) which means now that,if c.that particular

section is passed by this hon. House, the Government can invest monies not only in New York, but in Switzerland, Poland and Russia 1 for that matter any bank outside Canada. There is no stipulation in it that confines investments even in the United States.

We can go to Europe, any bank at al~,and invest the people's funds, C.rtainly 1 Sir, we cannot agree with this because the original Revenue and Audit Act was designed with a purpose in mind, I do not think that this Government or any other Government has the right to take it upon themselves to correct the situation, and make legal an illegal act on the part of the Government, Certainly, I cannot see where the Government should be given authority to invest the people's money in countries outside Canada. With regard to the remainder of the Act,Mr.

Chairman, concerning the Auditor General, certainly there is a great need to improve the situation in terms of the Auditor General's performance. He has a tremendous job to do, He 7608

June 17, 1970, Tape 1286, Page 8 -- apb is the watchdog of the public purse and,while some of his actions might be embarrassing at times to the Government, then in a democratic system that is . his function, his job, C.ertainly we_ would hope that this would go a long way in helping him attract the best staff possible, Certainly we would want to see the Auditor General given every opportunity, every means,to keep a watchful eye on the operations of the Government,especially in terms of finances, also that he be given every means in bringing the result of this I investigation to this han. House, and thus to the people of the Province. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the part dealing with the

section 3, making it legal to invest monies outside the Province, we cannot agree with that but the remainder of the Act seems to be,well- have good intentions,and we would support that particular sectfon. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies, I think that it should certainly be made clear by the minister or by the Acting Premier when this deposit was first made in the Franklyn Nation Bank of New York, In other words, when was the illegal act first committed~ Was it during the year 1969/ Was it during 1970? The Bill wants to make this

section retroactive to May 28, 1968. Now, I can state quite categorically that the member for ~umber East and myself had both resigned from the Cabinet early in May , and were not in the Cabinet on May 28, 1968. Was this deposit first made on May 28,1968? When was it first made? When was this illegal act first committed, because, every member of the Cabinet, if it came before the Cabinet, and I have my doubts as to whether it did, but if it came before the Cabinet, every member of the Cabinet is equally responsible for this illegal act, this violation of the Revenue and Audit Act. AN HON.

ME?-fBER: Including former ministers, MR. CROSBIE: A former minister cannot be responsible for acts that took place after they had resigned from the Cabinet. Let us not be foolish. MR. NEARY: While they were there. MR. CROSBIE: This never went through when we were there. We resigned on May twelfth or fourteenth of ~~Y 1968, 7609

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 1 MR. CROSBIE: -------- and this is to be made retroactive until May 28th, 1968. When was that deposit first made and approved by the Government? The public of Newfoundland deserve that information. When was this illegal act first done? ~ere is a motion on the Order Paper that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the report of the Auditor General and the reply to the Minister of Finance. Mr.

Chairman, that Select Committee should be appointed to sit outside the sitting hours of this House and to investigate this whole matter of the loan to the Franklin National Bank and the Auditor General's report and the Minister of Finance's reply there to , the matter of the Atlantic Brewing situation.

We now have two situations that demand that call for a thorough investigation. (1) the illegal deposit of $1. million in the Franklin National Bank and secondly the illegal failure, the gross negligence, the failure to carry out duty on behalf of the Government and in the Department of · Finance, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission,to collect the commission on beer from Atlantic Brewing Company Limited.

These two situations call out for a public inquir~ If there is no Select Committee,then a Royal Commission or a commissioner under the Public Inquires Act should be appointed to ferret out all the details of this trans- action and certainly this Bill should not be passed by the House until the Minister of Finance or acting Premier explains to this House, When was this deposit first authorized to the Franklin National Bank? On what date? \</as it passed by the Cabinet?

Was there an order in Council authorizing it? 1-lhen did that exactly happen,because from the time that happened every memher of the Government, every member of the Cabinet is responsible collectively for this violation of the laws of the Province of Newfoundland, This matter calls for a full explanation.

I do not think that the House should agree that the Government should have any authority to invest parts of the consolidated revenue fund of Newfoundland by way of deposit in"banks outside Canada,with or without the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, \~y should the Government have that authority? Why should the Government be allowed to put monies belonging to the people of Newfoundland outside the jurisdiction not only of the Province of Newfoundland, outside the jurisdiction 7610

June .18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 2 MR. CROSBIE: of Canada altogether? The whole thing is' ridiculous, Because of the suggestion that the hon. member for Bonavista North is responsible in any way for this matter, we want to know what the date was that this deposit was authorized by the Cabinet~if it ever was ,and when was that deposit made?

The suggestion is that the bon -.-. member for Bonavista North was a member of the Cabinet at the time,: We want to know was he a member of the Cabinet at the time that deposit was made and,if so, did it ever come. before the Cabinet and was it explained to the Cabinet that the whole transaction was illegal? When did the hon. member for ~onavista North leave the CabinPt? AN HON. MEMBER: 15th of July 1968. MR.

CROSBIE: July 15th, 1968 the hon. member for Bonavista North left the Cabinet, I suggest that this deposit was only made in 1969 but only the Government knows that and therefore we want the Government to explain to this House and the people of Newfoundland when the deposit was· first made, when it was authorized by the Cabinet, by order in Council? That is elementary. If the Government will not ~nswer that then there should he a public inquiry, There should be a public inquiry anyway into the Atlantic Brewing situation and into this latest illegal act. Certainly we are not going to a~ree anyway to a passage of

Section 3(c) ~hich will make legal an illegal act of the Government. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. In addition to the questions posed by other bon. members as to when this act was submitted, whether it appears to be illegal and whether or not the Cabinet approved it, there appears to be one very important question that obviously must be raised even before any of those questions which have been raised are brought up. That is,why the mone~ was deposited in the bank to begin with, what is the purpose for it~ ·by was it deposited there? It would appear that someone felt it was necessary.

Surely the House has a right to this information. Surely the people of the Province,through their elected representatives,have a right to know why this money was deposited outside the country and. Mr. Chairman, if there is a good reason for !~Maybe it can be justified. I say maybe but- MR. CROSBIE: You cannot justify an illegal act. 7611

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 3 MR. HICKEY: Well," I am not suggesting we justify an illegal act but I am saying maybe we can justify why the money was deposited. Apparently what should have been done was the House should have been called together , and authority should have been requested. But I think a very important point, Sir, is the reason for which this money has been deposited. I think this is the first question that we need an answer to.Then we can get into the other aspects of it as to the legality of it and as to whether or not the Cabinet approved it and so on and so forth.

But I think the big question and I think surely it is in the public interest, I do not bhink it is possible for the Minister or for any member of the Government to say that it is not in the public interest that we tell you why this money was deposited, when it is illegal to deposit money outside the country, Indeed 1when this has happened, then it is certainly in the interest of the public that the · public be made aware as to why this money was deposited.

So I think,if the Minister would tell us that first of all,possibly this whole matter could be looked upon in an entirely different light than it is now,both by members of the House and indeed by members of the public. MR. CURTIS: I agree, Mr. Chairman, that what my friends have done or are doing on the other side is like brewing a tempest in a teapot. Yqu would think that we were the biggest criminals this side of Hades. As a matter of fact what we did is perfectly simple, perfectly normal, perfectly honest and perfectly proper. There are things you do, Mr.

Chairman, in the course of business,which are not at the time we do them strictly within the rules. That is the object of this House,in ratifying what we have done and,if this House ratifies· ·what we have done,this House puts its stamp of approvalnn what we have done. Now, what are the facts? Under the Refining Act,

Section 6, ·~er Majesty may for the purposes of the interim financing of the engineering lend or cause to bt lent to the building company." MR. WELLS: __ Within the provisions of the Revenue and Audit Act. MR. CURTIS: Within the provisions of this Act. It has nothing to do with the Revenue and Audit Act. We went to the States and we borrowed $5. million 7612

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 4 MR. CURTIS: from the Franklin Bank and we deposited with the same bank $1. million which was in effect the payment on account, a payment we were authorized to make by the Refining Act. The Refining Act says, ''We can lend or cause to be lent" and we lent $1. million and we borrowed the balance. Anything else is pure nonsense and this idea of saying that we should resign, that we have done a terrible thing, it is all pure nonsense. What does the Act say, "That Govern­ ment may lend or cause to be lent;" the Government caused to be lent by the Franklin Bank.

The Government paid the Franklin Bank $1. million on account, in other words they only lent us the difference. What pure unadulterated nonsense! MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let that go through without answering it. That is ludicrous to·state that. Is the Minister of Justice now saying that by any other Act,no matter what,the Government is authorized to borrow money or to lend money to anybody else,they can contravene the terms of the Revenue and Audit Act. MR. CURTIS: Oh, that is nonsense! MR. WELLS: That is what he said. That is what he said, By reason of the fact that

Section 6 of the Shaheen Bill authorizes the Government to loan $5. million to Shaheen or cause to be lent, by ''reason of that the Government is excused from the provisions of the Revenue and Audit Act. They are not excused, not by any stretch of the imagination are they excused from the terms of the Revenue and Audit Act no. matter what any other Act says. lath respect to the handling of monies,the Government must strictly conform to the Revenue and Audit Act. That is fundamental.

Failure to do so is an offense for which there can he no excuse, no excuse whatsoever,and it is an offense whicl!:'·calls, you knm1 ,in any reasonable jurisdiction would call for the immediate resignation of the Government. There is no question about it. They are dealing with funds in a way other than they are authorized by this House to deal with them. If they borrowed money, $5. million,from the Franklin Nntional nank, fine. They can pay them back their million but the Revenue and Audit Act prohibits them from depositing. 7613

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 5 MR. CURTIS: t~e paid them· back a million,. that is what we did. MR. WELLS: The Revenue and Audit Act prohibits them from putting on deposit any funds. If the Franklin National Bank goes bankrupt tomorrow that deposit is_lost and the Government is still liable for $5. million to the Franklin National Bank. MR. CURTIS·: No, it is not. MR. WELLS: It most certainly is so. MR. CURTIS: It is only liable for the $4. million. MR. WELLS: It most certainly is so. MR. CURTIS: No, no, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend is dreaming. MR.

WELLS: Look, ~f the Government has been straight forward with it and I doubt that,They have borrowed $5. million and for that they have signed a note plus the interest,They are going to pay the interest, Now they go and put on deposit $1. million. What happens if the Franklin Natio~~l Bank goes bankrupt or ·goes out of business? It is possible, It has happened to banks before. What happens?

It is a counter claim but we are under the laws of the state of New York not the laws of this Province and that · is the reason for the provision in the Revenue and Audit Act, to ensure that monies belonging to the public of this Province do not go outside of the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, the Supreme Court of Justice. MR. CURTIS: But our courts will have jurisdiction. MR. WELLS: Our own court here and the Supreme Court of Canada to make sure that monies are within our control. If the thing goes,our courts have no ~ontrol over what happens.

The laws of the state of New York will give this Government no preference, It will give our Government no preference. MR~ CURTIS: Might I ask the hon. member how the courts in the United States will collect from us? They will keep the million. MR. WELLS: They will just keep the million and this is the reason for the provision ,- in the Revenue and Audit Act. Suppose we did not have a loan from had the Franklin National Bank and the Government~$!. million on deposit. MR. CURTIS: That would be wrong, I agree with that. MR. WELLS: It most certainly would be wrong. 7614

... June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 6 'MR. CURTIS: If we did not owe them the money. MR. WELLS: It most certainly would be wrong and it is wrong,period. MR. CURTIS: But we owe them the money. MR. 1-IELLS: If it is not wrong,why is it necessary now to amend the Act-if it was proper to be done1 If it was properly done why is it necessary? MR. CURTIS: Would you like me to answer that? MR. WELLS: Because it contravened the Act. That is what it did. MR. CURTIS: Nonsense~ MR. WELLS: t.J'ell, why is it necessary to amend it? MR. CURTIS: It is because we have a Tory Auditor General who will pick · it up. Now actually, Mr.

Chairman, the position is this - MR. WELLS: I say, good for the Auditor General. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the position is this) we are borrowing money every day from European Banks and we want permission to leave so~e of that money with these banks until we need it1 because they pay a higher rate of interest, and for that reason it is imperative that we have the right. I know that one of the loans - MR. COLLINS: We must object to t~e acting-Premier referring to the Auditor General as a Tory MR. CUiTIS: That is what it says in the MR. COLLINS: That should be withdrawn. That should be withdrawn. MR.

HICKEY: Could I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! MR. HICKEY: It is certainly not proper to label an Auditor General or anybody else. I think it is purely incorrect and the hon. Minister should withdraw it right now. MR. CURTIS: I will take it back, I will say he is NDP. I will take it back 1 do not worry. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, that is not a question of withdrawal at all.

It is the fact that,regardless of whether the Auditor General has any political affiliation at all, that is not relevant, the fact is that that sort of comment is a pretty dastardly reflection on the character and the absolute independence

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 7 MR. HICKMAN: of the Auditor General,who is a· servant of this House. AN liON. MEMBER: He is in the "Who 1 s lfuo." MR. WELLS: So what! MR. HICKMAN: It does not make any difference what is in the "Who's Who·;" The simple fact is that the Auditor General is appointed by this House. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on a point of order. I want to answer the Minister of Justice on this nonsensical argument he just gave us about the legality of this thing. Act No. 86 of 1968 is a Government Newfoundland Refining Company Limited Agreement Act and

Section 6 says; the

section that the Minister read, "Her Majesty may for ~he purposes of the interim financing of the engineering design'' and so on, "lend or cause to be lent.'" Now the Minister did not go on, "lend or cause to be lent to the building company such amount or amounts not exceeding $5. million"-not to the Franklin National Bank or any other bank,and this Act certainly does not authorize the Government to enter into illegal Acts. MR. CURTIS: , But is it not just a technical difference? MR. CROSBIE: No, it is not a technical difference. MR. CURTIS: Whether you pay off a loan - MR.

CROSBIE: The Revenue and Audit Act gives specific permission to the Government to lend parts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, to invest that in certain specific investments among which the Act said; "By way of deposit in Of any bank to which the Bank Act._Canada: applies." That is the only banks that this Government could deposit any part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in,and the Government went and deposited $1. million in the American Bhnk in New York, and we are not told the date on which it was done. The hon.

Acting-Premier says~hen he was asked why is this amendment coming before the House, he said; "Because we have a Tory Auditor General who might discover it." Well, that is certainly revealing the attitude of the Government. That is what the hon. the Acting-Premier said. MR. ROWE(F.W.): On a point of order, Hr. Chairman. The hon. member for St. John's West has just misquoted the Acting-Premier. The Actins.Premier did not say.~! listened very intently) he did not say,and I am quite happy to have 7616

June 'lRth, 1970 Tape 1287 JH - 8 MR. RO\oiE: it repeated here, he did not say, "We have a Tory Auditor General who might discover." He did not use the word discover. }ffi. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied to have the recording replayed and checked. If he did not use those exact words that was certainly what the Acting Premier meant~ that we had an Auditor General who would discover it.

We have an Auditor General who is doinp, his jobi We have an Auditor General who is unafraid to be critical of the Government in his comments and,thank God that we have that kind of Auditor General, I do not care if he is Tory, NOP, Communist or what he is, that is his job and it is pretty revealing as to the attitude of this Government. For two years an illegal deposit apparently has been made in the Franklin National Bank in New York. It was illep,al, It was not legal and we want an explanation of \o~hen that deposit was first made.

It was made sometime after Hay 2Rth, 196R,when the member for Humber East and myself were no longer in the Cabinet. We want the hon. member for Bonavista North exonerated in this matter. He resigned or left thr Cabinet on July 14th, 19~R. We want to know was it before then or after and if we do not get this information we are going to keep this House going, if we have to keep her going all summer. We want the information, when was that illegal act first done ? We have the former Hinister of Justice,who left in November in 1969. was it before or after that hon. ~inister left the Cabinet?

The public deserves and we deserve an explanation of when this illegal act ~o~as first carried out. MR. CURTIS: Hell, let the }{inister t.ell you. Stop talking. MR. CROSBIE: Okay! MR. CURTIS: The Minister of Finance is ready to tell you. MR. CROSBIE: This Government Newfoundland Refining Act does not in any way just~fy that illegal deposit. MR. CURTIS: Pure nuts! pure nutst MR. CROSBIE: Well, let us go to court on it. forget the amendment and let ns go to court for a reference. MR. JONES: Mr.

Chairman, my best information is that the deposit to the Franklin Bank was made $100,000. in October or November of 19nR which was after, if it is necessary to clear the name and the reputation of my hon. friend from 7617

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1287 JM - 9 MR. JONES: Bonavista North,and I do not think anybody in this hon. !louse would even suggest that it was necessary for me here to stand in this llouse to clear his name. The other $1. million was deposited through NIDC in October or again it was in the period October or November 1969. MR. ~RTIS: So when we deposited the $100,000. we owed them $5. million. MR. JONES: That is right. I may say for the information of the Committee that the whole deal with the Franklin Bank has been consummated. The money is no longer on deposit there, the money is no longer there.

The reason for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, was not, while it might have been to radify and validate ~hat the Government in the opinion of some did illegally, the reason for this is the borrowing market of the world today is getting smaller and smaller and we endeavour to borrow~hen we can ,to the best advantage of the Province, Sometimes it is necessary,wh~n we borrow money for short terms, that we put it in deposit in a bank outside of Newfoundland. Now I am not too - AN HON. MEMBER: t-lhy , why outs ide? MR. CURTIS: A higher rate of interest. MR.

JONES: You get better interest especial~y when you are moving in the Euro dollar. AN HON. ME~mER: (Inaudible). MR. JONES: No. If you are in the Eurodollar market and it is a matter of watching the market, This amendment, Mr. Chairman, was brought in on the advice of our financial advisors and,in the interest of the Province ,we have to take their advice and I - 7618

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 1. L . ~ there is nothing sinister 1 assure you Mr. Chairman. There is nothing sinister. There is not meant to be anything sinister whatsoever~r any thought of manipulating have been indicated from my friends opposite,that this might be an effort on the part of the government to manipulate public funds. 1 can assure the Committee,Mr. Chairman, that such is not the case.

Now to move on to the other points that were raised, I was asked if the amendment to the, one of the amendments to the Revenue and Audit Act would mean an effo~t on the part of the Government to muzzle the Auditor General or if the Auditor General would be allowed the freedom which his office demands to report on government accounts. MR.WELLS: Mr. Chairman, all I suggested is that the committee look very carefully at Clause 10 of the Bill to make sure that what is in this will in no way impare the Auditor General's complete freedom to express his opinion on the government's handling of the money.

This is all, compare it with the previous one and make sure there - MR.JONES: I can assure this Committee Mr. Chairman, that any amendments to the Revenue and Audit Act which affects the posi~ion of the Auditor General were made with the full knowledge of the Auditor General.

Now the Committee will remember earlier this year that in speaking on the Auditor General's Report I made a very lengthy speech, I think I was something over an hour dealing item by item with the Auditor General's Report. 1 said then that I was doing this regretfully and the .reason wh~ I was doing it was not because of of the Auditor General's Report as such. It was because~the way his report had ~en handled in some sections of the press. The Government at that time took no exception and 1 today take no exception to anything said by the Auditor General. 1 would like to make that clear.

I can assure the Committee,Mr. Chairman,that we have no intention of interfering in any respect with the Auditor General.If we did 1he would no longer be an Auditor General. The Auditor General is the servant of this House. And while he may be attached to the Department of Finance for, I may say, probably pay, only, I was going 7619

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 2. ~.~ to say pay and discipline, but not even discipline, for pay, that is all, he acts as a free agent and there is no intention on the part of this Government, at least as long as I am minister of Finance, be it short of long, to interfere in any way . with the operation of his department or his division. As a matter of fact~! agree with what my hon. friends opposite say,that I would like to be in a position to beef up his department, The Auditor General is well aware of this because he and I have discussed it on different occasions.

Another point raised was if or not this was the final salary for the Controller of the Treasury, Mr. Chairman, in the P_~.D. Report, there was an entire

section dealing with the salaries of Deputy Ministers in the Government. This is one

section of the P.A.D or the P.A.S Report ~hich we have not been able to deal with. At the present time thehfommittee is awa~e we have just finished negotiating with the N.G.E.A., and we have agreed with them the complete classification system is not into effect and it will not be, unfortunately, for another yea~ But at the moment we have not finally dealt with deputj ministers salaries as such. Now, I would like to be able to say this that we will do~very very shortly.

It has not been dealt with a~d until depoty ministers salaries are dealt with as such,I am not in a position to say if this is the salary which will be paid the Controller,who is also the deputy minister of Finance, If thereareany other points raised,Mr. Chairman, I thibk I haye forgotten them. I move second reading. MR.HICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, if I may have a couple of words on this amendment. Most of this Bill,as I read it 1 the requirements are necessary for government borrowing in foreign markets.

Section 4 in particular. But for the life of me I cannot see what relevance there is between

section 3 {1) (c), The deposit one and borrowing in foretgn markets. This is not an answer,Mr. Chairman,at all to that particular clause. The rest of it 1 this House has to recognize that borrowing and borrowing practises varied that there is a great inclination on the part of Provinces and governments, municipal, federal and provincial 7620

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 3. now to go into the European market to borrow in URO dollars and other times to borrow in the currency of the country from which it is borrowing or the i-nstitution in which country it is located. That,Mr. Chairman, can be dealt with and is dealt with and dealt with adequately under

section 4. I think that no one on this side of the House or in the House would hesitate to accept the state~ent by the Minister of Finance that this is, these sections have been requested by the lending institutions. But Mr. Chairman, the real principle that is involved here,and it is a principle,make no mistake about iS this is the question of p~rmitting deposits outside the province,in other banks. In my opinion the financial status of the bank is not important. It could be the bank of New York. It could be the bank of England. It could be the hank of West Germany. None of this is relevant.

The fact is that the Revenue and Audit Act,and I believe I would say this is subject to correction, hut I believe that

section 19 of the Revenue and Audit Act is pretty much uniform legislation, for the provincial Revenue and Audit Acn throughout Canada. And obviously that

section is there for a very good reason. If this House is going to control the purse~trings, if the power of the purse is going to remain in this House,as we are told that it must be• It has been repeated ad nauseam in this House that if we ever give up the power of the purse~then we might as well close shop and get: -out. Ibis is one way to give up some of the power of that purse, to allow · monies to go outside this Province.

Trust monies, monies collect, I believe that regardless of the legal niceties of the situation that monies that are collected from the taxpayers of thia frovince or mGnies that are borrowed on behalf of the taxpaJers of this Province are trust monies that are held by the government to the credit of the people on whose behalf they borrowed. And this obviously is the reason why

section 19 was put in that Aet and why it has stood us in good stead,that nobody, but nobody wants any of these funds ever to get outside the jurisdiction of the Government of Newfoundland andJfar more important 1 o~tside the jurisdiction of this House. 7621

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 :; page 4. Now there has been a lot of talk,! understand,as to ~en this $1 million was deposited in the Franklyn l~atlonal Bank and the $100,000. I believe that the hon. Minister of Finance, I believe in fact I feel reasonably certain is correct on his dates as to the $100,000. And I believe that he will find that as soon as that came to the attention of the department of Justice, in parti­ cular the deputy-minister, that his deputy-minister,Mr. Groo~was advised that that was an illegal act and that the money h~d to be returned to the Province.

Now if it was illegal for $100,000,why is it not illegal for the $1 million1 The million dollars was part of the consolidated revenue fund. It was money borrowed by this Province,as I understand it, or guaranteed by this Province,and we whack it down to the Franklyn National Bank. I do not care if the Franklyn National Bank is sounder than the Bank of Canada,that .is not relevant. The simple principle and it is such a vital principle that I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for St. John's West,if this House has to stay open for a thousand years this should not go through.

Because if we allow this sort of thing to happen, if we allow this unprecedented piece of :legislation and I would like to hear the minister of Finance give an indication as to whether or not there is any precedent for this legislation in any other Canadian ProVince . or even with the Government of Canada,with its massive financial resources 1 whether or not that government has the right to investigate to invest surplus funds, monies from the consolidated revenue funds - MR.JONES: If the bon. member will keep talking I will try and find out for him.- MR.HICKMAN: Keep talking as long as I possibly can - Well Mr.

Chairman, ! think, you know, I would - obviously this

section is to try and validate something that was illegally done in the past. Now the minister of Finance says that this has been rectified, that government has recognized the position that an illegal act was committed and the money has· now been brought back in the Province 7622

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 5. MR.JONES: After it was brought up in the House. MR.HICKMAN: Oh, I realize that. i realize after it was brought up in the House. MR.ROWE: The minister of Finance did not say that. MR.HICKMAN: Titat it has not been brought back. MR.ROWE: He did not say that the government recognizes that illegal - KR,HICKMAH: Well let me put it this way Mr. Chairman: I was the first to raise that in this House and I had to be perfectly frank with this; that is why I am sure that million dollars happened after I resigned from Cabinet.

The first I ever heard of the million dollars being on deposit in the Franklyn National Bank was when the hon. the Premier, not in the budget sp~ech, it was interim supp1y,rnentioned that there was a million dollars on deposit in the Franklyn National Bank. I could not believe my ears when I heard it andi raised the question and ~uggested at that time that it was completely contrary to the revenue and audit act. We have attempted, and there have been questions on the Order Paper since t~en concerning this million dollars.

But, regardless of why it carne back,I think it is more than coincidence that it did come back after this was first raised in the House. But the fact is that it is now back. We have the assurance of the Minister of Finance·that there is no money belonging to the Government of this, to the Province of Newfoundland,presently on deposit in the Franklyn National Bank, I assume that this also applies to any other institution outside of the institution named in

section 19 of the Act,which is the bonds and securities of the Government of Canada. Now if that has been done,what is the necessity and what is the reason for the enactment or the proposed enactment of

section (c)? Is it that the Franklyn National Bank has now become aware of the fact that what they have done did not comply with the ~evenue and Audit Act and that as soon as this 7623

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 6. legislation is passed it is going to go back again because it is then legal. Is this to leaglize a contemplated act? Or is it to legalize future policy decisions or policy decisions for the future that have been made by the Government1 Now, Mr. Chairman, we have been accused in this House and we have been accused even more so outside of this House of being very treacherous, slimy and straight-out-of-hell and everything ·else,if we comment on the financial position of this Province.

And that,if we say that the Province of New- foundland is in difficult financial straits at this time 1 that this is a dreadful act. a ireadful act of treachery to the people of this Province. My opinion is that the greatest act of treachery or anything else that could be,a breach of trust that could be committed to the peopie of Newfoundland today,is lf the Opposition in this House stood idly by and remained quiet when it knows the financial difficulties that this government now is facing. And Mr.

Chairman.if comments on the financial position of the Province or, mo~e important,the financiaJ position of the government,is picked up by the lending institutions abroad,and that is silly because even if it is picked up they themselves have very intensive study done, .they do not simply accept a prospectus of the province of Newfoundland or the Power Commission because it is written up in fine language here.

The SEC in the United States will have their investigation carried out 1 so there is nothing,there is no way of hiding the financial position of the Province of Newfoundland both its direct aRd its indirect liabilities. that cannot be done. But when the Opposition c~nts on it, then it has to face charges that it is being derelict in its duty to the people of Newfoundland •. I say the reverseJMr. Chairman, is the correct situation. Mr.

Chairman,! would . suggest all that has been said during the two hundred and sixty-five sessions of this House.concerning the borrowing policies of the government of the Province and concerning the financial position of . the province ~ill not do any damage or anything like the dama~e 7624

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 7. to the credit of the Province that was caused a few minutes ago by the comment of the hon. the Acting-Premier. When that hits the headlines, when that goes abroad ,that the reason why this

section is coming in~gecause in a w rl Who's Who in some year it shows that the Auditor General was a Tory. That is the thing that can cause damage to the credit of this Province,because the implication is so loud and so clear that there is a resentment on the part of Government over the complete and absolute independence of the servant of this House,namely the Auditor General. If that sort of impression gets abroad then the financial institutions,! would suggest . . . MR,JONES: Is that the impression that I left with my hon. friend? MR.HICKMAN: No, no. not the impression the hon. minister of Finance left. The thing is factual. There is a debate on

section 3 (1) (

c) and the question was asked why this was being put in?. And the answer was because the Auditor General,who is a Tory,discovered it. What other possible implication can you put there? The man could be a ranting,raving anything, before he was appointed Auditor General. But today he is appointed - ~ffi.CURTIS: I made the statement and I made it in a heated debate. All I meant to imply was this, that what we did may be questioned, It may be we made that improperly. I do not think we did.

But when I referred to the Aoditgr General as. being a Tory I am presuming that a Tory would look at it in one light and a Liberal in another light and both would be perfectly sincere. I am just pointing out the fact, Now I maintain that what was done was perfectly proper. Another man who is opposed to this party politically mighe take the opposite position. And all I meant was that. Now I have every confidence in the Auditor General.

The very fact that we are coming here today with a letter from the Governor, a letter from the Lieutenant·Governo~ increasing his salary by $5000, increasing it by $10,000 since his appointment, shows that there is no feeling like that toward the Auditor General. My only suggestion was not that the Auditor General would be improper but that he might 7625

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 8. look at it from the point of view of my hon. friends opposite. That is all. And I think they are wrong. I think they are completely wrong. Now what I want to say is this. And I want to welcome here • We have in attendance in the House today overseas students attending the Co-operative Fisheries Course at the Memorial University. I do not know whether it is the Memorial University or the Fisheries College. The course is sponsored by the Canadian International Development Agency and is under the auspices of the extension service.

The students are from nine countries. including Korea, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kasgania British Honduras, and Canada. This is the fourth year for this course in Newfoundland, Accompanying the students is George Billard of Port aux Basques. I want to say,on behalf of the House,bow much we welcome you young men. We are glad to see you here. We hope you are enjoying your stay in Newfoundland and we hope that when you go back home you will be able to tell your people and your friends how glad we were to see you and how happy we were tbat you were able to spend some time with us.

MR.CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, we would also like to welcome these guests to the House. They are here at a very pertinent time,when we are discussing deposits of money in banks in foreign countries. And who knows.the government may make a deposit in Tanzania or in Korea ot one of these other countries,if we allow this amendment to pass. We are not surprised.Mr. Chairman, at anything the government does with the public funds of this Province. And if they are going to deposit monies in the Franklyn bank of the United States illegally, -no reason why they would not deposit it somewhere else, illegally.

MR.HICKMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me ,on behalf of the official opposition,to join in the words of welcome to these students from abroad, and,following that,to pursue the debate on this resolution. And this I gladly do and concur in the remarks by the hon. the Acting-Premier in welcoming these young people. Mr. Chairman, let us take now the statement that has been made by the 7626

June 18 1970 Tape 1288 page 9. bon. minister,the Acting-Premier. There is a disagreement,he believes, and this is understandable. Nothing unusual about that,as to whether this deposit wa~ legal or illegal. But how can there be a disagreement when you look at

section 19 of the Revenue and Audit Act/ The Revenue and Audit Act says the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may authorize the minister to invest any portion of the consolidated revenue fund not immediately required for expenditure in stocks debentures or securities of . the ~overnment of Canada, or in any debentures or securities . the payment of which is guaranteed by the Government of Canada and may 7whenever it deems necessary for meeting expenditures,require _ the minister t~ dispose of the investment in such manner and on such terms and in which such amount the minister may deem to be in the best interest of the Province.

Nothing could be clearer than that. That if there is surplus funds; be it funds collected by way of taxes_ or be it funds that have been borrowed on the credit of the Province, if that surplus exists then the Government of Newfoundland or•· the Minister of Finance can invest this in stocks or debentures or securities of the Government of Canada. It is obvious that that is the limitation and that. is as far as the Minister of Finance can go. Now, if that is not so, if my

interpretation is not correct,then obviously there would he no need for this amendment. And I suggest 1 Mr. Chairman,that my

interpretation is correct and government is fully aware that this inter­ is correct• pretation/1 Obviously what other good reason could ther 'e be to bring back the $1 million from the Franklyn •National Bank/ And what other good reason can there be for the introduction of this

section at this time? Now the bon. the acting Pre~ier says. that the Auditor General may agree with the

interpretation placed on this

section 19 by members on this side of the House. Supposing\he does. !f that is the reason why this

section is being brought before the House now.it still does not take care of the illegal act that was committed prior to the enactment of this Bill. Because this is not retroactive legislation as I understand it. MR.WELLS: Yes it is. 7627

J~ne 18 1970 tape 1288 page 10. MR.CURTIS: Yes it is. MR.HICKMA.N: Where is the retroactive section? MR.CURTIS: The last clause. MR.WELLS: Come into effect the twentieth eighth of May 1968. MR.HICKMAN: That makes it worse. MR.WELLS: Of course it does. MR.HICKMAN: Apart from the adlll.ission Of the impropriety of the investment my understanding is that only on vary tare occasions, ve~ rare occasions is legislation ever made retroactive. 7628

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 1 Mr. Hickman. It can arise, say, that in a Welfare Bill or a Health Bill that you want to validate something that had been done between sessions of the House of Assembly.that is made retroactive. But I say this subject to cGrrection from my learned friend on my right. I have always understood it to be an infallibl~ principle of legislation that money bills are never, but never.retroactive. If that principle still stands, I am sure that the bon. Minister of Justice will have to agree with me on that - that money bills are never retroactive.

Now, you have a Bill that is retroactive until May, 1968. The significanr thing is that,according to the hon. Minister of Finance,it was sometime in May or June of 1968 that t ~s $100,000 was deposited with the Franklin National Bank. Now, if this departure from an accepted principle of legislation, that money bills are not may retroactive~ if this most unusual and,I say, intolerable departure, does not mean and is not proof positive of what we have been saying for the past two months, then what other proof is necessary?

It is obvious that the Franklin National Bank deposits were contrary to the Revenue and Audit Act. It is obvious that this

section is being passed to validate it. Now -that the money is back, I can see no good reason why it should be validated, The $1,100,000,we were told by the Minister of Finance, is now back in Newfoundland, So, what is the point in trying to validate itl What point is being servedi The money is back. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very good reason for it because that money is going out again. The minute this Act is passed that money is going to be whacked right straight back into the Franklin National Bank. 7629

June 18th., 1970 Tape no. 1289 Page 2 MR. CURTIS: No it is. not. for MR. HICKMAN: Then.what other reason could it be donel It is not necessary for the ordinary borrowing of the Province. Tell me one ••• MR • . WELLS: It got higher interest rates in European banks. MR. CURTIS: You get twelve per cent interest in European banks. MR. HICKMAN: Oh! Mr. Chairman, MR. CURTIS: . Look! Mr. Chairman, •• MR. HICKMAN: No! no! just let me finish, Mr. Chairman.

We pride ourselves or we have been told 1 long before we became part of the Dominion of Canada,that the strongest and best banking system in the world is the banking system that we find in Canada - governed by the Bank of Canada. Our banking system is the envy of jurisdictions all ·over the world because of its security and because of its stability. When Roosevelt had to close the banks, when he became President of the United States, there was no faultering at all of the banks of Canada. They remained firm and strong and secure.

Now, surely, the rate of interest is not that important to this Province, I mean how much money are we talking about1 Is it $1 million? Is it $2 million or $3 million that you are going to put on deposit in the Bank of Frankfurd or the Bank of Liechtenstein or the Bank of Vienna for a short period and that that is going to yield twenty per cent instead of a security - a deposit security certificate that yields eight? Is that the criteria. Of course it is not?

It might be the criteria for a private individual who has got a few thousand dollars hanging around and he says; where am I going to get the best interest in the next six months! He says, I will take a flyer . and I will put it over in the Bank of England or I will put it down in the Franklin National Bank or I will put it over in West Germany or Switzerland or Liechtenstein or Vienna or any of these financial capitals of the province. That is fine. That 7630

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 3 is his own money and if he makes an extra ten per cent during the short period of time, more power to him. But, Mr. Chairman, there is no principle that permits that investment of trust money on a speculated basis. MR. CURTIS: There is nothing speculated. What are you ~alking about? MR. HICKMAN: Of course there is something speculated. MR. CURTIS: No, pure nonsense! MR. HICKMAN: It is speculated, when you take •• MR. CURTIS: Where did you get this speculated idea? MR.

HICKMAN: I ask why this sedlon was put in - if it w~s not being put in to validate something that has been done and brought back~ It is brought back, there is no need to validate it. The money is back. I suggest it can only be done for one reason and that is that it is going to go out again, The answer is no. The reason for it is because of the change in the lending policies of banks and other institutions outside of Canada,that you can get a higher interest rate •.. Is this correct or not? MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I did not mention a higher interest rate.

I said it would tacilitate borrowirt'g it from banks outside of Canada. MR. CURTIS: I had a case where the Government guaranteed loan was left on deposit in Germany and we collected $1 million interest, at the rate of twelve per cent,and if we had transferred the money to the States or to Canada, we would have gotten a lesser amount. MR. HICKMAN: _MR. CURTIS: Does that twelve per cent go to the Government or to the •• ? It went to the investment - the industry. It is that much more to the industry. MR. CROSBIE: Melville. · MR. WEDS: Melville Pulp and Paper. MR. CURTIS: Pure nonsenseJ 7631

June 18th., 1970 Tape no, 1289 Page 4 MR. HICKMAN: MR. CURTIS: It is not pure •• Look here, Mr. Cha!~, if we have a bond issue coming • . . · ".;.:-'l'' .. due on August 1, and we raise the money and that money is due in Germany and we put through a loan in Germany today, a roll-over loan and that money comes in a month, two months before we have to pay it out, only a fool would transfer the money back to Newfoundland, pay the exchang~ then pay it out again and transfer the exchange, when it can be left on deposit in a bank in Germany to pay it. Is that not obvious.

Would not the bon, member do that l>Tith his own money. MR. HICKMAN: I might, if I had it, but I certainly would not •• MR. CURTIS: Well if you had $.50, which I hope you have would you not do that? MR·. HICKMAN: Yes, but I would not., MR. CURTIS: lolould yo~ pay the exchange , bring the money out from Germany, hold it here for a month and then send it back againi It would be much simpler to let it stay there,and that is the true position. MR. WELLS: No. What are you going to send it back again in a month for? MR. CURTIS: Because we owe it. It is a roll-over loan, MR.

WELLS: What do you want to hold it for a month for? MR. CURTIS: We borrow money to pay a loan. They call it a roll-over. We get a month or two before we have to pay it out. What are you going to do; hring it back to Canada just for the fun of itl MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, let us not forget now. The bon. Minister of F~nance says this is necessary to facilitate borrowing by the Province. It is not the situation of leaving it there for a.month, when you roll-over money. It is to facilitate borrowing for the Province. Now, Mr. Chairman •• MR.

JONES: I think my exact words were ~o facilitate doing business with foreign banks. MR. HICKMAN: Well is it borrowing or doing business? Which ls it? 7632

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 5 MR. JONES: I think I said doing business. If you want ~o say borrowing •. We are not lenders, I assure you. MR. WELLS: Oh, yes we are! MR. CROSBIE: Never a lender nor borrower be. MR. CURTIS: You can carry out the rest of the Scripture, too. MR. JONES: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burin has lost his trend of thought. MR. HICKMAN: I have not lost my trend of thought. I was waiting until the hon. member was finished over there. Look! I want to get this thing clear. This

section is not being passed to validate the deposits which were made and which I say were illegally made in the Franklin National Bank. MR. JONES: I have made no comment on that aspect of the debate. MR. HICKMAN: Well, we ~revery happy to yield to the bon. minister •• The hon. the (Acting) Premier, as I recall says that this is not being passed to validate that Act, because he says it was not an not illegal Act. Let us assume that it was an illegal Act and I say it was. Let us assume that it was an illegal Act. What is the purpose of passing this now, when the money is now back in the hands of the Province?

But to make it retroactive - why make it retroactive? There is not going to be retroactive borrowing in the future. Why is it? Obviously, it is because the Government agree, and I would suggest that the Minister of Justice has been obliged to advise them, I do not know., if he has or not, that this was an illegal Act and this legislation has to be retroactive to validate this illegal Act.

Now having done that, if you accept the position that this is water under the bridge and that the money was put down there and should not have been and is back again, I suggest that there is a pretty strong suspicion that that is going back again. Otherwise why is this legislation coming before the House? If on the other hand, it is to facilitate the doing of business with foreign institutions and the bon. Mini~r of Finance has indicated that or the bon. Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources says, what other business can you be

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 6 Mr. Hickman. doing other than borrowing and assuming that the Province is not a lender, then it has to be borrowing. I would hope that this Province has not reached the position where a lending institution or institutions advancing money to the Province require that there be a deposit made with that institution as additional security for the Province, The hon. Minister of Finance shakes his head and says that is not so. So, if that is not be case and if it is not to validate something that was illegally done and is going to be done again, then what is the purpose of this Bill?

MR. CROSBIE: It makes it retroactive. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, MR. CROSBIE: May 28,1968. MR. HICKMAN: Oh! I realize that, MR. CROSBIE: So, it has to be to validate it. MR. HICKMAN: Of course, it has to be to validate it. But apart altogether from the validation, Mr. Chairman, let me get back to the original principle.

The reason why there is this restriction on the investments of Government funds to Canadian Government securities,does not precisely the same principle arise and apply ~ith reference to Government funds, monies collected by way of taxes or borrowings that applies to any trust monetesi A trustee, farinstance, in Newfoundland has endless opportunities to take trust monies, if he wants to take a flyer and invest it in a much higher interest rate. He could go out and buy stocks, you know, in General Motors,which is not that much of a risk,or he could go out and he could a buy it inAozen alleged gil& edged securities.

But the simple fact is that 1 as a trustee . he is restricted to the type of investment he can make. We have restricted, for instance, the Workmen's Compengation Board, because they, too, handled trust monies - monies that are held in trust for workmen. We, too, have restricted them to investing monies under the Trustee Act. This is oily an enlargement of the principle to make it 7634

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 7 Mr. Hickman. apply to Government and this is why governments have this restriction. .hat you never let the money get out of the jurisdiction of the province or country in which the province is located. Because if you ever let it get out, you will never get it back,or you may not. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to be repetitious. MR CURTIS: It is hard to stop a record in the middle. MR. HICKMAN: I consider this a most vital piece of legislation that has come before this House. MR. CURTIS: Yes, terrible. 1-IR. HICKMAN: It certainly is.

It is vital in two ways~ Vital, because we have a retroactive money bill - unprecedented retroactive money bill and vital because we are taking trust monies and putting it outside this country,where we do not have control. There is no good talking about the strength of the Bank of Liechtenstein. But, Mr. Chairman my understand was that in --- MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, he enjoys it. MR. HICKMAN: No, I do not enjoy it, and I do not particularly enjoy the fact that we have reached this stage in this Province where this Bill is even brought in for debate.

Because this is an obvious abrogation of the duties and responsibilities of this Legislature to control the purse. How can you control the purse, if the money is in Liechtenstein or West Berlin or Vienna! You cannot do that. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I for one will not support this Bill. HR. CURTIS: I thought you would. MR. HICKMAN: No so far as Clause (3) is concerned. The rest of it is reasonable. It complies with the requirements,so the Minister of Finance says,and nobody has disagreed with him,of ordinary borrowing in the market. But this one is without precedent. 7635

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 8 MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, before you carry it, there is just one further comment I would like to make before look, it is fundamental. The provision is in the Revenue and Audit Act, as it stands at the moment1 to ensure that there is complete control, that this House at all times has access directly or through the courts to all funds either obtained from the public by taxation or borrowed in the name of the public of this Province and for which the public of this Province are liable. It is fundamental. That is the reason for it.

I am prepared to sacrifice convenience or additional interests or anything else to continue to have that protection. That is far, far more impo~tant than getting an extra $100,000 on interest or making it more convenieni to draw down funds for rolling over loans or anything else. That is fundamental, and I hope the committee is not going to be so blind as not to see that - as not to see that. This has to go; The contravening of fundamental principles. If the bon. Minister of Welfare is not concerned about the public of this .. Province- that has not been changed yet.

It is highly improper · to do that until the Bill has gone the House and receives the Governor's signatu~e. He is still the Minister of Welfare - if he is not concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the people of this Province, I am. I doubt very much if he is, if he goes along with this. I doubt very much if he has any real genuine concern. There is a purpose to that provision 1 as it now exists in the Revenue and Audit Act, and I do not think we should be so blinded by what has gone on to ignore it and allow this amendment to go through. Mi.. CROSBIE: Mr.

Chairman, before the matter goes through a vote, we appeal to the backbenchers on the other side of the House. Gentleman 7636

June 18th., 1970 Tape no 1289 Page 9 Mr. Crosbie. are you going to keep in office a Government that is committing illegal acts - a Government that is depositing the monies owned by the people of this Province and the consolidated revenue fund outside the jurisdiction of the Province and of Canada1 This has to do with the resolutions before the House? This is now the time for the backbenchers to depose the Government,unless they also want to be responsible for these illegal acts, Mr. Chairman. MR. WELLS: This is the general resolution debate.

Motion that the Committee report having passed the Resolution in relation to a measure further to amend the Revenue and Audit Act and recommend that a Bill be introduced to give effect to the same. Carried. On motion that the Committee rise report having passed the Resolution, and as~ leave to sit again. Mr. SpeakPr returned to the Chair. MR. HODDER : Mr.

Speake~, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have passed a Resolution in relation to a measure to amend the Revenue and Audit Act and recommend that a Bill be introduced to give effect to the same,and ask leave to sit again. On motion report received and adopted AN HON. MEMBER: Divide. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. All those in favour of the .Resolution please rise: The han. the President of the Council; the hon. Minister of Highways; the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs; the bon. Minister of Labrador Affairs; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Strickland; the hon.

Minister of Education; the hon. Minister of Finance; the hon. !tlnister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources; the hon. Minister of ProiTinc:la. Affairs; the hem. Minister of Public Welfare; Mr. Canning; Mr. Barbour; the hon. the Minister of Supply. 7637

June ~8th., 1970 Tape no. 1289 Page 10 Hr. Saunders; ~lr. Womell. Those against the resolution please rise: The bon. Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Collins; Mr. Hickman; Mr. Wells; Mr. Crosbie. Resolution carried. On motion, a Bill, "An Ac.t •'Further To Amend The Revenue And Audit Act," read a first time, ordered read a second time now by leave. On motion a Bill, "

An Act Further To Alnend The Revenue And Audit Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Connnittee of the Whole House presently. On motion that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Revenue And Audit Act," Mr. Speaker, left the Chair.- COMMI'ITEE OF THE WHOLE: 7638

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1290 PK- 1 _.t, "!ld 1 1, ''An Act Further To Amend The Revenue And Audit Act." On Motion Clauses 1 to 2 carried. HR. liiCIOIAN: Hr. Chairman, Clause No. 3. l.move that Clause 3 be amended by deleting therefrom Sub-sec 'tion (

c) of 3(1) (c). fiR. WELLS: Of course, deleting everything after the word "applies". HR. HICK1·WI: By deleting everything after the word, "applies," where is that? MR. CROSBIE: In the second line. HR. HICD-!AN: Yes, be amended by deletin~ everything after the word ., applies' · on the ·second line Of Clause 3 (1) (c). On Notion, Clause 3 as amended carried. On Notion, Clause 4 carried. On Hot ion, Clause 5 carried. On ~:at ion, Clause 6 carried. On ~ lotion, Clause 7 carried. liR. CROSBIE: l!r.

Chairman, I !!lay have )!:Otten it wrong, but is the ~'in1ster of Finance saying that although these sections are passed that this salary may not be paid to tile Comptroller of the Treasury or the Auditor General? -HR. JONES: l':o, Mr. Chairman, I did not. I am quite sure that my hon. learned friend opposite knows that I did not. HR. CROSBIE: The hon. member said something about Deputy Ministers had to be reviewed and so on. MR. lfURPHY: Due to the PAD. ----- - MR.

JONES: The han. member's question was, will the Deputy Hinister of Finance and Comptroller of the Treasury be paid $25,000 or will he be paid something more? And in replying, I said, that I was not in a position to say because the

section cf the PAD Report dealing with salaries of 7639

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1290 PK - 2 HR. JOl.:ES_:_ Deputy Hinisters had not been dealt with by Government. Now he asks me if I had said, although this money is voted here, if His going to be paid less? I mean - I am quite sure, you know I am quite sure he knew what I said~ ~ffi.CROSBIE: It is very difficult to know what the minister is saying. MR. JO~ES: I know he is stubborn, but I do not think he is stupid. }ffi. CROSBIE: Thank you, thank you, I will accept that. ~m. CHAI~~: Clause 11? MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairtan, Clause 11, I move that Clause 11 of the Bill be deleted.

Carried: Hotion, that the Committee rise, report having passed the Bill without amendment,.carried. On Motion, that the Committee rise, report having passed the Bill without amendment, report progress and ask leave to sit again, ?-lr. Speaker returned to the Chair. HR. HODDER: Hr. Speaker, The Committee of the \-.'hole have considered the matters to them referred, and has directed me to report having passed _Bill No.S9 without amendments. On motion, Bill read a third time, now by leave. HR. KEOUGH: Hr. Speaker, I move that this Bill be not now read a third time. _ HR.

SPEAKER: Those in favour of the motion made by the hon. member. In my opinion the "nays" have it. On Motion, Bill read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. MR. CURTIS: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we passed the Supply Act. (Bill No. 90) f Fi has discovered Sin ce,without the help of • The Department o nance i t i th f nds 'nd I wonder the Auditor General,that there is am scoun n e u • " if I could move ,.with the permission of the House, that the Bill be recommitted , 7640

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1290 PK- 3 MR. CURTIS: so that the error can be corrected. The third reading being rescinded and the Bill be recommitted. ~~. SPEAYLR: The motion is that the third reading of the Supply Bill be rescinded and that the Bill be recommitted. Carried: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: HR. ClL\IRNAN: Bill 90. liON. E. S. JONES: (HINISTER OF FI~ANCE): Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the committee for this inconvenience. But on the printing of the Bill we noticed this morning two small errors, one in the total under head.X - Health; and Head XI - Social Services.

The total as printed, as the members of the committee .,Till see,is $54,107,000 and this is to be changed to $54,398,300. Head XI- Social Services and Rehabilitation, changed from $34,668,000 to $34,755,000. The reason for this is the figures given in the original printed copy were the net figures for these departments, it did not take in the gross. The tntal for all departments will now read; $297,251,100. This, Hr. Chairman,correction will have to appear in the reading

section of Section(ii) of the Bill and the numerals there will change to $297,251,100. And further down in the third line from the bottom of Section(ii~ will read,instead of $357,395,100 it will read $357,869,100. And in the resolution itself it will change to read $297,251,100. MR. CHAII~HAN: Will Heading X of the said Bill carry? Carried. Will Heading XI as ;8Jl1E!nded carry? Carried. Shall the total as amended carry? Carried. Shall Clause (2) as amended carry? Carried. Shall the Resolution as amended carry? Carried. ~m. JONES: Thank you. 7641

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1290 On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to .sit ar,ain, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair: PK - 4 HR. HODDER: Hr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matter to them referred and instructed me to report having passed Bill No. 90, with some amendments, and ask leave to sit again. On motion report received and adopted. Bill No. 90 ordered read a third time now, by leave: On motion a Bill, ''

An Act Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending The Thirty-First Day Of March One Thousand Nine Hundred And Seventy-One And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Services,"read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On Hotion, Second Reading of a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Ci'y Of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1969." (Bill No. 64). MR. CURTIS: This is Act No. 64, and it is purely

an Act which interprets the word "bonds,. referred to in the principal Act. I can see nothing controversial about it, and I would move second reading. On Hotion A Bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1969," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House nol~, by leave. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: On Motion, that the committee rise, report having passed Bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1969," without amendments, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair. MR. HODDER: Mr.

Speaker, the Co~ittee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have instructed me to report having passed Bill No. 64 without amendment and asked leave to sit again. On motion report received and adopted, Bill ordered read a third time now, by leave. 7642

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1290 PK - S . On ?-lotion a Bill, ''An Act To Amend The City of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1969," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Ot:.der Paper. On Hotion,Second Reading of a Bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Wild Life Act." (Bill No. 14) HO.N. H .. =--R. CALLAIW~: Mr. Speaker, when this Bill came before the House some time ago it got, I think, a bit of a rough ride. I think, perhaps for reason it did not deser:ve, Hr. Speaker, and I will try and show the House why.

The reason,very simply, I think, was some confusion as to what was attempted to be· done . or 1 ho~>.•ever,what we are attempting to do which is,as I explained in introducing the Bill, to provide against what the Government feel are certain injustices in the existing legislation. Now the main attack on the Bill, I think,is with respect to

section ten, which defines all the various things that might be seized or confiscated or whatever, But that section, }!r. Speaker, is exactly as in the 1962 Legislation_ and is virtually word for word w}th the Provisions of the Canada Wild Life Act and the Canada Fisheries Act. It was suggested at the time that the Bill shQuld conform with the Criminal Code of Canada in respect of entry and seizures.

But the Criminal Code of Canada is a code of general application,which, I think, does not get down to the specific problems of dealing with the situation out in the bush or in the open countryside,such as the Canada Wild Life Act or the Canada Fisheries Act or this particular Bill attempts to do and indeed has to do. There is not very much opportunity for a wild life officer in the bush to find a magistrate and get an order and do all the things that are required to be done and that are conveniently done, say in the City of St. John's.

Therefore, Legislation of this type 7 1<1hether Federal or Provincial and across the country,is quite standard in that it permits wild life officers or fisheries officers. I should say, in respect of comments made about confiscating a fishermens rod or his reel or his lines 7643

June 18th. 1970 Tape 1290 PK - 6 ;-rR. CALLAI-lAN: or his nets that this, ~f course, has nothing to do with Fisheries, because we do not have jurisdiction in respect to fisheries. 'lhat is the Federal jurisdiction. But in the case of the present Bill, as the ~!ild Life Act now stands, Mr. Speaker, if a skidoo or a truck or a boat is seized it cannot be returned to the owner, if he is innocent,until the charge is disposed of.

He now propose and this Ilill proposes, as it was introduced, that the item may be returned on application to a ma~istrate in payment of a deposit,so that the owner may have the use of the machine pending the dis- position of the case. ~~e think that is an improvement. Additionally, as the Act now stands, the \Hld Life Act (and '~e want to change it) as it now stands action for prosecution need not be taken for a period up to twelve months.

And \Jhat we want to do by . the amendments which were brought in here some time ago, is reduce the limitation, reduce the time period that is provided,during which action must be taken, to three months. In other words, as it stands now, the depart~ent, the officials are not required to proceed to take action for prosecution for an entire year. In the meantime the materials seized, be it a car or a truck or an airplane or a boat or a skidoo, is held in custody, Hr. Speaker, for that twelve month period or whatever time it takes to get the prosecution underway.

And we feel that that is not just., that it is most unjust. The amendment seeks to reduce the time period during which action must be taken to three months, while at the same time permitting the owner ·to p.o to a magistrate and ,if he can obtain from the magistrate an order returning his vehicle or his seized item in return for making a deposit.

June lRth, 1970 Tape 1291 JM - 1 MR. CALLAHAN~ As the Act now stands, if meat or other perishable goods are seized there is no protection for the owner. It simply may he disposed of and the owner,who may eventually be proved innocent,loses the value of that material seized. The amendment would require that perishables be sold and that the monies received from the sale he paid over to the owner if he is proved innocent. Now in some cases it might be possible to hold these perishable goods hut MR. WELLS: That is the wrong attitude. The owner should not be proved innocent;if the Crown fails to prove him guilty. MR.

CALLAHAN: Well, I agree with the hon. gentleman, ~r. Speaker, but what I am saying is that if the determination of the court is that the man is innocent then he does not have that penalty inflicted upon him.Whereas as the matter is now 7if a perishable material is seized ~here is no means of disposal, in many, many areas there is no means of preserving it,with the result that it simply rots or something. I have seen it happen an~ the man loses the value. So this requires us to make a good sale and to provide the proceed~s to the owner 1if the prosecution is not successful.

The amendment also provides an appeal procedure against forfeitures, Mr. Speaker, something which did not exist before. The amendment now provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court. This ~atter was raised in the debate on second reading and I am quite prepared to change that so that the appeal mav be made to any Magistrate hile I do not have copies, I do have written.in in a photostatic copy,the particular chanRes. I think they are simply ma.-!e and maybe made in Comrnit~ee. So as far as the first part of the Bill is tO .concerned, Mr. Speaker, that

Section 10 one_,which I have referred which out- lines the things that may be seized, this is not changed from the 196~ legi~lation except to delete the last part which automatically required seizures and forfeitures, that is what we principally have changed and the amendments derived from that,in that they provide now a procedure for forfeitures ordered by a Magistrate rather than arbitrarily by a wildlife officer. This section,as it now stands, lO(l),is almost word for word, idential,with other legislation of similar intent.particularily the Canada Fisheries Act and the Canada Wild- life Act,although not as harsh as those and indeed was based upon them. Rather 7645

June 18th, 1970 Tape 1291 JM - 2 MR. CALLAHAN: than destroy British justice, as somebody said, I think this amendin~ Bill puts into the Wildlife Act some real justice,as I said in introducing it. The other thing I want to add, Sir, is this that we have discussed this legislation with the Canadian Wildlife Federation and with the Newfound­ land Wildlife Federation,and.to my surprise,both organizations or the heads of these organizations(both of whom are resident in this Provinc~were critical in the sense that they thought we were weakening the present legislation and they thought it should be made tougher.

But I think ,in very real terms, Mr. Speaker, what this amendment proports to do and will in fact do is introduce some justice and some equity into a situation which for the past seven or eight years,since the present legislation was approved,has contained very serious inequities and serious injustices. we have done in that constructive way. I move second reading. I hope the House will view what MR. MURPHY: Mr.

Speaker, with reference to wildlife, I know there is an obligation on us all to p~otect w!ldlife and to deal with poachers in a manner deserving for ~heir very acts. ' I am very pleased to hear indeed that in addition we have perhaps restored a little of justice to the offender who