PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Volume 1 Number 69 4th. Session 34th . General Assembly VERBATIM REPORT MONDAY, MAY 18, 1970 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE GEORGE W. CLARKE

May 18, 1970 Tape 11891 Page I The House met at 10:30 A.M. MR. SPEAKER: Order! RON. W. J. KEOUGH (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaket, I wish to announce that the Government have decided to establish neu minimum wn~e levels as follows: Male Employees: 16 to under 19 years of ago who must up to now be paid not less than 70¢ per hour will be paid at least 85¢ per hour under 18 years of age. 19 years of age and over who must up to now be paid not less than $1.10 per hour will be paid at least $1.25 per hour over 18 years of age.

Female Employees: 16 to under 19 years of age who must up to now he paid not less than 50¢ per hour will be paid at least 65¢ per hour under 18 years of age. 19 years of age and over who must up to now be paid not less than 85¢ per hour will he paid at least $1.00 per hour over 18 years of age. These new minimum rates apply to all employees except domestics in a private home.

Minimum overtime rates of time and a half which up to now must be paid for hours worked in excess of 48 a week to all employees except domestics, farm employees and those employed in fish procesSing, will in future be paid to fish plant workers as well. For the time being farming will be exempted from overtime rates because it is thought that to remove the total exemption farming now enjoys might be going too far too fast.

"Farming" is to be defined as the planting, cultivation and harvestin~ of farm produce and the raising of livestock and poultry but not to include the production of fruit and vegetables in greenhouse and nursery operations~ The age reduction, from 19 years to 18 years indicated, results from {1) A request of the Ne~foundland and Labrador Federation of Labour.

(2) The Director of Minimum Wages reports that field studies lead him to believe there is a tendency to hlre younger employees and lay them ~f.)G3

May 18, 1970 Tape P891 Page 2 off when they become eligible for the higher minimum rate. Lowering the age limit should help to offset this practice. At present there is provision in the Order that applies to the Hotel and Catering Industry that where meals are furnished to an employee a deduction not in excess of 25 cents for each meal may be made from minimum wages. It is now decided that any deductions from the minimum wage on account of meals or board and lodging furnished to an employee in any industry shall not exceed: (

a) For board and lodgine $10.00 a week ~) fur board only $ 7.00 a week (

c) For lodging only $ 3.00 a week (

d) For single meals .40¢ each Provision will be made that minimum rates of wages apply to assistants, as defined in the Hours of Work Act, who are remunerated either wholly or in part on a commission basis. The thought here is that the commission arrangement should not be permitted to become a device for getting around minimum wage rates. There is already before the House for consideration legislation permitting that handicapped employees may be paid less than minimum rates because, without such provision, they may be deprived of the opportunity to work and earn.

The new minimum wage rates and other matters dealt with in this statement will become effective on July 1st, 1970. I may say that copies of it are now being photostated and will be distributed to the House and the press gallery as soon as they are available. MR. A. J. MURPHY (Leader of the Opposition): I wonder would the bon. the Minister permit me just one short question? Temporary work say, during the summer, would that come under this , or is this only for permanent employees? MR. '~OUGH: --------- It covers all employees, Mr. Speaker.

JW May 18, 1970 Tape #891 Page 3 Presenting Petitions: MRj_ ROWE (W.N.): Mr. S~aker, I would like to present a petition received from the people of Fleur-de-Lys in my district of White Bay South, and it is signed by some 200. voters and has the sanction of the Community Council of Fleur-de-Lys.

The relevant parts of the petition read as follows: "On behalf of the - people of Fleur-de-Lys especially those working at Advocate Mines, this Council (it is in the form of a letter from the Council with the names attached) presents the Government with this petition concerning the existing road between Fleur-de-Lys and Baie Verte." The letter goes on to say, "besides the ninety or so people working at Advocate Mines, there are numerous other concerns going on that depend entirely on this road, for example; the men loading fibre boats, the transportation of foods, school buses, oil and fuel trucks together with a number of other things." So on behalf of the people of Fleur-de-Lys, this Council urges the Government to do something with this road as soon as possible hopefully this summer.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this petition received from the Council and the people from Fleur-de-Lys, and I hope that the Minister of Highways is taking due note of the petition and that he will find it possible with the money at his disposal to do something with the road ~his •ummer. I move Sir, that the petition be received by this bon. House and referred to the department to which it relates. MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this petition be received and referred to the department to which it relates. BON. F.W. ROWE (Minister of Education): Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be an ingratitude if I did not stand up and support the petition which the member for White Bay South has "just presented to this House. I had the honour and privilege and the ; pleasure of representing that district for ten years, and no community in the district was more loyal to me than that vas that of Fleur-de-Lys, and I might add its sister community of Coachman's 42G5

May 18, 1970 Tape #891 Page 4 Cove which is served ~y the same highway. The House will be interested Mr. Speaker, to recall that that road to Fleur-de-Lys was one of the first, actually I think it was the first opened under the road to resources program. It was built under that program. Now that program did not permit building roads wide enough to pave the roads - in order to pave them they have to be enlarged. But the point that the residents from Fleur-de-Lys have made is a very valid one.

I did not hear any reference to Coachman's Cove there, but the fact is that a large number of men from Coachman's Cove, also work in Baie Verte, both in the mine and on the wharf, on the great pier there. In fact, Coachman's Cove and Fleur-de-Lys, while they still carry on some fishing, are to a large extent, satellite communities of the great Asbestos mine at Baie Verte. And· it is ~nteresting also to note Mr. Speaker, that that road was one of the most difficult to build in all Newfoundland. It was an entirely granite job.

Some of the oldest rock on earth had to be pierced through, and it is also one of the highest. This is not generally known, but that road also goes up to approximately 1,000 feet, which makes it I think apart frOm two other sections possibly in Newfoundland, It is probably the highest road in Newfoundland~which again accentuates and aggravates the problem, especially during the winter time and t~e spring, the ~roblem of ice and snow and so on. So Mr. Speaker, it gives me very great pleasure to lend my voice in support of that petition, that very reasonable petition - -these people have been very patient.

They had to wait a long time, several hundred years for it is one of the oldest fishing communities down on the French Shore, and they had to wait a long time to get a road of any kind, and they have been very patient with that road •ince they got it. It is a very good gravel road, but it ~s not good enough in this day and age when you have so many hundreds of people commuting over it daily. So I support that petition with all my heart. HR. BARBOUR: I rise to support this petition because I have visited Fleur- de-Lys many times in the p~t. I have been there in the Spring, delivering 4~G6

May 18, 1970 Tape 11891 Page 5 salt to the fishermen. I have been there mid-summer delivering certain merchandi%e cargoe. I have been there several times in the Fall of the year taking fish, salt fish from the fishermen of Fleur-de-Lys. I know the road very, very well. I believe it is a distance of twelve to fifteen mile~. I have a lot of great friends in F1eur-de-Lys, and I am sure that the hon. the minister, who presented the petition, also asked the support, the Liberal support, the Liberal support of Fleur-de-Lys, regardless of who the new leader if of a certain Party, he will not take White Bay South.

He will not take Fleur-de-Lys no more than be will not take Bonavista South. Ninety percent in the last election, the hon. member for White Bay South received from the people of Fleur-de- Lys and Coachman's Cove, so I am very, very pleased to support this petition. MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to support this petition. Over the weekend there was a small gathering of a few supporters of our Party and I spoke to many people from the area, and this was one of the big problems that has been pointed out of course by the minister, and the Minister of Education. This is an industrial area.

The road is very much used and I am sure that we on this side have not the powe~ at this present moment to carry this work out, but I am sure the interim Government will do all in th~ir power to get the works in motion, and we will see that it is completed in a few months. MR. J . C. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot pass up the opportunity to support this petition, everyone else in the House having had a go at supporting it, including the usual fiery speech from tne member of Bonavista South. Mr.

Speaker, it is a great pity that after having such fine members for that district for the last twenty-one years, the road is not already paved. But the case being that it has not . been paved or reconstructed, we certainly support •'we expect to see frantic activity in the direction of reconstructing and paving that road before the next election. And certainly it would be justified whether an e-lection is coming or· •. And it was very heartening Mr.

Speaker, to hear the former member for the district getting up to speak, to support this petition, because obviously it is something he omitted to do while he was a 111ember fo>r the district. 42G7

May 18, 1970 Tape 0891 Page 6 MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this petition be received and referred to the department to which .it relates ·. Those in favour "aye", ,. contrary "nay", Carried. Answers to Questions: BON. J. R. SMALLWOOD (Premier): Mr. Speaker, Question No. (186) in the name of the hon, the member for St. John's West on the Order Paper of March 6, The answer to the first

part is as follows: Partitions and painting;·$55,400. Carpets and drapes; $9,300. Shelving, fixtures etc. etc •• $4.500. Moving costs; $3,900. Total; $73,100. The answer to the second

part is; none. Question No. (272) in the name of the same hon. member, on the Order Paper of April 7, The answer to the first part (

a) is that the purchase price of the land was $20,500. (

b) The cost of the four buildings, there are four buildings, new buildings, is $485,000, for the four new buildings. In addition to the purchase price of the land, there has been extended also on installing a water and sewer seriice, a storage yard security-fenced, security-fenced storage yard; thirteen and a quarter acres. Grading and levelling; a total of $204,150. In answer to the second

part 42G8

May 18th, 1970 Tape 89L HR. SMALLWOOD: In answer to the second part the money spent on warehouse furnishings and office furnishings and equipment for both is $40,350. TI1e answer to the third

part is $120,000. The answer to the fourth

part is that the four buildings have a total of 39,328 square feet and the cost therefore is $12.33 per square foot. Hr. Speaker, these four buildings and the security warehouse yard are of course now the main headquarters in Central Newfoundland for the Power Commission of this Province. MR. ROBERTS: Hr. Speaker, I have here, Sir, the answers to a number of questions each of which I believe stands in the name of the hon. member for St. John's West. The questions are all found on the order paper of April lOth, Sir.

There are questions 363, 364, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 and 373, each of them, Sir, is similar, each of them deals with the rated or normal bed complement of hospitals in this Province and then goes on to ask how many of them were in service during the month of:March 1970? The answers, Sir, are as follows: Question 363, with reference to the hospital at Stephenville, the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, the maximum rated or normal bed complement is one hundred and duri~g the month of March eighty-seven of those beds were in service.

(2) In each case, Sir, is if all of the beds are not in service what is the reason? The reason is that patients demand in the area does not warrant the opening of additional beds and in fact during March the average occupancy in this Roddick Hospital was considerabl~ below the number of beds in use. ~ should add as well, Sir, that the figures I gave for beds do not include bassinets for new borns, they do include beds for children and for adults. · ._, Question 364, with reference to the Western Memorial Hospital at Corner Brook, the ma~um rated or normal bed complement of that hospital, Sir, is 275.

During the month of March 215 of those beds were in service. The reason for the beds not being in service is twofold, partically bud$etary restrictions which have been imposed by the Government. This would account for some of the beds being closed although it is fair to say that my officials have suggested to the hospital a way in which an additional eight beds could be put in operat­ ion within the existing budget limitations that has not been done. The other reason that beds are closed is the inadequac, of some of the supporting services 42G9

May J.Htn, J.~/U MR. ROBERTS: of that hospital particularily the operating theatres ', they are not adequate to handle, and some of the other back-up facilities .are not adequate to handle a · greater number of beds. Question 368. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Grace General Hospital, the maximum rated complement is 373. During March they were all in service and I should add that an additional eleven beds constituting a coronary and intensive care units are under construction.

The Government have stated in letters from my two predecessors that those beds will not be paid for by this Government until budgetary restrictions throughout the Province permit. At the present time we have no intention, regretably we have no intention of paying for those beds. Some of them are in use my bon. friend tells me, they have not been developed with the prior approval of the Government, Sir, accordingly we accept no responsibility for them. AN HON. MEMBER: coronary units. MR. ROBERTS: Coronary care and the ICU, the intensive care unit as well.

I think the intensive care unit is probably justified but I have grave doubts about the coronary care unit in reviewing the papers bequeathed to me by my predecessors. Question 369, Mr. Speaker, deals with St. Clare's MR. HICKMAN: Would.the bon. Minister permit a supplementary question? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course. MR. HICKMAN: In connection with question 368, has there been any recommendation from the St. John's Hospital Advisory Council? MR. ROBERTS: As my hon. friend I think knows there has been such a recommendation.

The recommendation in effect is the council said that the beds s~ould be put into use but they were very careful to add that they had no idea of the priorities throughout the Province. The·question they were asked, Mr. Speaker, and I will gladly table the correspondence if it is needed, was with reference only to the area of St. John's. Mr. Speaker, the Government's concern is with all of the Province and particularily in view of the fact that Corner Brook needs more hospital beds and in our view the priority cannot be given to the Grace General Hospital.

The hospital has been so informed and I think it is quite consiateat 4270

May 18th, 1970 Tape 892 JM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: with the council's recommendation. MR. CROSBIE: This supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, this is a coronary care and -intensive care unit now under construction. There is not one operating there at the moment, that is the picture is it? MR. ROBERTS: The information which I have, Sir, is that these beds are under construction and my hon. friend from ~rinity South, who I believe is on the Board of Management of the hospital, tells me that some of them are presently in use. The ho~pital may have an intensive care unit that is not the new .ICU9 .

CCU, .the new intensive care and coronary care unit. The intensive care unit, Mr. Speaker, is merely beds where patients who either are in severe throm of one sort or another or in a post-operative condition can receive intensive care including monitoring and round the clock nursing service. Question 369, Sir, deals with St. Clare's Hospital ,' the maximum rated or normal bed complement is 204 and during the month of March each of those beds was in service.

Question 370, Sir, deals with the James Paton Hospital at Gander, the maximum rated or normal bed complement of that hospital is 153 and during the month of March 115 beds were in service. Again, Sir, the reason for the beds being closed is similar to Stephenville that patients demand in the area coupled with budgetary restrictions does not warrant additional beds being operated. Question 371 deals with the General Hospital here in St. John's. During the month of March 354 beds were in service and that is the· present normal bed complement of that hospital.

Question 372 deals with the Charles Curtis Hospital at St. Anthony. The maximum rated or normal bed complement is 150 and durfng the month of March 130 were in service. I can add to that that a complete ward is closed, it never has been opened and the area in question is being used by the International Grenfell for staff accomaodation. We hope and we are now working with them to try to provide additional . staff accommodation at which case if budgetary restrictions permit the additional beds will be opened if needed.

Finally question 373, Sir, dealing with the hospital at Grand Falls, the Central Newfoundland Hospital. The maxtaum rated complement is 183 and during 4271

Hay 18th, 1970 Tape 892 .JM - 4 MR. ROBERTS: the month of March 146 beds were in service. The reason I am told, Sir, is that pntient demand in the area does not warrant the additional beds being opened. Hr. Speaker, thora 111 anothar qua•tion 11tandfng in my nnme a11ked by tho hon. memher for St. John's West. Question 4ll,found ~n the order paper of April 14th, with reference to the Town of LaScie.

The answer, Sir, to part (1) how many doctors' clinics are held in LaScie each week and what are the hours?,. the answer is that there are three clinics held each week, I do not have the days but the hours are from 1:00 o'clock to 5:00 P.M. on three afternoons of the week. The second question asked is whether the doctors who attend the doctors' clinic in LaScie are instruc 'ted not to make house calls and, if they are not so instructed, what is the cause of the refusal of some of them to see patients at home?

Glad to lay to rest,a lie or a: misapprehension which is . current in the area, Sir, doctors have no instructions not to make house calls or I will put it another way, Sir, the doctors at the Baie Verte Hospital who provide LaScie with. medical services have instructions to make house calls where in the individual doctors judgement it is necessary. I am told that if a doctor on any occasion has refused to make a house call it is because in his opinion a house call would not have served any medical purpose. Part (3) of the question, Mr.

Speaker, asks whether any protests have been received from the LaScie area in connection with the medical and health services, if so what are the nature of the protests and from whom have they been received .? The answer is that yes protests have been received. Basically these protests consisted of complaints against an individual doctor. These protests have come from a clergyman and members of the official board of the LaScie pastoral charge of the United Church. I have met at considerable leng'th with the clergyman concerned, the Rev. Mr.

Fellows, and in addition I have received strong representations from my colleague, the member from White Bay South which of course includes LaScie, Sir. These representations looked towards improved medical services for the LaScie area. These requests are now receiving active consideration by me and by my officials and by our colleagues. ORDERS OF TilE DAY 4272

May 18th, 1970 Tape 892 JM - 5 MR. IIICKEY: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned the debate on Thursday, Sir, we were dealing with a number of items in connection with the budget, of course, we were dealing with some other items which were not in connection with the budget and maybe I might finish that debate now. I believe there were some questions asked as to who the next Premier will be. I am sure everyone in the Province .;da now aware who that is. Having set that matter aside I should get on to the regular budget debate. Mr.

Speaker, on page 12 of the budget we are told that if there is a profit made by the Government on a commodity this should not be referred to as a tax and some various examples are given to sort of justify this claim.

While one can agree that in the free enterprise system when a profit is made on a commodity it is not looked upon as tax but as the normal profit however, Sir, I do not think that this can be miscons·trued or used to justify that any Government involving themselves to any great extent in business, business being what is normally considered private enterprise, or if the Government are to move to any great extent in that direction then certainly it will destroy the free enterprise system.

I think, Sir, we pride ourselves on the fact that we do have a free enterprise system where ~usiness people are free to make profits " on the commodities which they sell. Mr. Speaker,. I- would like to make a few comments on the DREE program. I think that is appropriate although I am not sticking strictly to the budget debate yet it is very closely related to it and involves the expenditure of hugh sums of money.

I am wondering, Sir, what is meant by the phrase "free access acbo&1sl/f.'" I am wondering if the Minister of Education could sort of clear the air on that phrase as it is one that is foreign to this House as far as I can recall foreign to this Province or at least it is a new phrase to the educational system in Newfoundland, "free . access schools." I am confused as to what is meant by it and I am just wondering if there is any clear cut explanation for it. It could mean a number of things, it could mean a public school system.

As I understand it the Federal Governm~R~/is participating in the DREE program will not make monies available to the denominational school system in as much as the construction of s~hools are concerned. They do however ~273

May lts~-n • .1~ /U .Jr'l - 0 MR. HICKEY: make monies available to the public school system and so we are told that the Federal Government are participating in terms of grants to a number of schools under the DREE program. I would raise the question then obviously, are we now getting into the public scho~l system and if we are why does the Government not come out and make a clear cut statement on it for I believe it is a very controversial matter and I believe that, well it is quite obvious that it affects all of our Province and all of our people?

If there is no clear cut explanation for the term "free access schools" I could only draw the conclusion that this phrase is being used both by the Federal and Provincial Government as a means to smoothen out as it were a rather controversial issue to pave the way as it were for the introduction of the public school system and I think, Sir, if that is so it is a rather unusual, in fact I will ·go so far as to use this longer term, I would say that it is a rather dishonourable way to go about the introduction of such a system in our educational field. 4274

mw May 18th., 1970 Tape no 893 Page 1 ~.Hkkey: If we are going to embark upon a public school system, then surely, all of us should be men enough to express our views on it. The Government should be big enough to make a clear-cut statement of policy on it. They should not, Sir, in my view use such a phrase,which is n . • completely foreign to this Province as the free access school. Mr. Speaker, while on the subject of Education, another matter in connection with the educational system •• MR. ROWE (F.W.): Would the hon. member permit a question?

On a matter so vitally important and also so delicate as Education, he would not want any erroneous ideas to get abroad. The question and I direct it to him.

I say this, as a prelude to the question, is my hon. frtend aware that the modus operandi, shall I say, the procedure ·that is being adopted now, is being adopted with the knowledge and concurrence of the churches acting through their educational bodies1 Is my hon. friend also aware that there is not~ing to prevent the churches from agreeing among themselves, i.e., that if, let us say, the integrated churches are going to build a school or going to have a school in a certain place, whether they build it or whether it is given to them - is he aware that they might very well, among themselves, agree that this school will be open to all students in the area and to that extent then, the school becomes a public school, although it is still controlled by one body.

It may well be, in this case, integrated. The same thing might very well apply and it actually does apply, because of mutual agreement. My hon. friend is aware, i.e., that in Port aux Basques, which is outside DREE - I mean before the DREE program at all. Over there, there· is a mutual arrangement between the Roman Catholic churcnand the Protestant churches which are the predominant churches there and the Roman Catholic church would make a very small part of the population in the community, as your Honour knows. There is an arrangement there whereby Roman catholic children enter certain schools 4275

May 18th., 1970 Tape no 893 Page 2 the not belonginp, to·Roman Catholic church, but it is a mutual arrangement made on their own and to that extent, therefore, the sohool becomes - I do not believe my hon. friend is aware of this thing.

Tee important question is, is my hon. friend aware that the churches themseVves did agree on the modus operandi, on the procedure here that is being followed in respect of this thing~·· It is true, as my hon. friend says, that the Government of Canada will not give money directly to churches and could not do it under any circumstances, but there is nothing to prevent the Government of Canada from building schools for the Governor of Newfoundland which in turn will see that they are parcelled out to the respective churches on the proper basis, on a proportionate basis.

I do not think my hon. friend was aware that these procedures have been adopted and that is why I ask him,.because he would not want, I am sure, to give any wrong impression or create - I am sure he would not want to create any necessary alarm in the minds of our people. There is nothing in this at all, in this DREE arrangement which in any way vitiates or interferes with a system of education that we have established by law in Newfoundland since 1876, not one iota and this is why I ask my bon. friend !f he is aware of this procedure? . MR: HICKEY: Mr.

Speaker, I am certainly not aware of any consultation that might have gone on, obviously, between the Government and the churches in connection with the construction of schools under the DREE p~ogram. I am, however, quite well awa~e of the inroads that have been made, the progress that has been made, insofar as the cot-operation of various .churches and various school boards are concerned in various parts of the Province. I think all of us1as members of this House1welcome this sign, and endorse it 100 per cent.

I do not wish, at this time, to leave the impression that I am expressing a view for or against the public school system. · This is, as I have said before, a controversial item. I will certainly be happy to debate it 4276

May 18th., 1970 MR HICKEY: Tape no 893 Page a when and if it is brought into this House. HOwever, I raised a matter and the minister's explanatton,while clearing up certain aspects of the question,! raised, does not in any way remove the responsibility from the churches in the one hand or the Government on the other hand to clearly define their position as it would apply to the denominational system or the public school system, because in my view, Sir, ~bile all of us adhered to certain denominations and certain churches, we can certainly say that we are servants of those churches.

We are first and foremost,as members of this House, servants of the people and the churches as well as the Government are servants of the people, the entire population of this Province. Therefore, if there is any chan~e in the attitude or policies of the Government or both Governments for that matter, insofar as the school system -is concerned,and I think it should be ~learly stated. I think it should no~ those schools which are going to be constructed; particularly in my own district and this is why I raiaed the.~tter. I feel that there should be a clear-cut statement of policy.

It is either a public school or it is not. A ftee access school, as I have said before, is a complete& foreign phrase. It implies certain commentations and a lot of our people might not even grasp just what is meant by a free access school.

The meaning I could only draw from it is that it is, to all intents and purposes, a public school, and if it is a public school, let us call it that, and I do not think we should be ashamed to call it that, if this is our policy, if it is best for the Province, that we involve ourselves with the program of the Federal Government to construct a number of public schools- then,at least, we should go forward and slate it and state it clearly. Now, Mr. Speaker, I was about to get on to another matter in connection with educational facilities insofar as the DREE pro~ram is concerned. 4277

Hay 18th. , 1970 Tape no 893 Page 4 MR HICKEY: It is my understanding that there is a planning board or there . was supposed to be one or there is to be one set up to co-ordinate the efforts of both Governments insofar as the Dree program is concerned, and I come back to this very point on the construction of schools. I was rather amazed over the weekend to find a gentleman who_:;ls very prominent in Education, indeed, one of the most promin~nt ones I would say in the person of Dr. Phillip Warren, the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Education and Youth.

I was amazed to find, when a question was put to him, as to what the meaning ~f this free access school was, he never beard tell of it. can He did_not know. !~certainly make the assumption- I have not talked to the gentleman yet about it - I will certainly make the assumption that he did not know. I feel, if he did, he would hav~,without a doubt, answered the question. He said that he had not heard of it. He never heard tell of the phrase. This brings me to my original point.

I say that th~re is.or supposed to me a planning committeetbr the purpose of consultation with the various people concerned and involved in the educatioaal system. Can it be that the Government,in co-operation with the Federal Government,have gone ahead and made plans for this kind of system without even consulting the person, such as Dr. Warren who we have great faith in and the Government, obviouily, has great faith in1 If we are, Mr.

Speaker, we are breaking one of the clauses in the agreement which was signed, on behalf of this Government and which was signed on behalf of the Federal Government, because it clearly states in that agreement that this planning committee is supposed to be set up· . arid there are people in the various fields for which we are concerned) on any particular appropriation,to be consulted and to be questioned and to avail of their knowledge and suggestions insofar as this program is concerned. 4278

May 18th., 1970 MR HICKEY: Tape no 893 Page 5 Certainly, it would appear to me that the Government . is again flying by the seat of their pants for they are not doing too much planning insofar as this very important matter is concerned, and as I have said before, if anyone should be involved in any chanr,es to be made in the educational51Stem, surely, Dr. Warren should be high on that list. Mr. Speaker, we are told in the budget of what the Churchill Falls will give us in the way of revenue, under a couple of headings, I believe, the heading of construction and the heading of royalties. Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that the agreement,as far as the development of Churchill Falls is concerned, is more than beneficial to this Province and its people than.the agreement involving the great iron-ore development of Labrador. If it is not, Sir, il we can only hope for the same kind of royalties from the Churchill as we are getting from Wabush, then certainly we have made a grave mistake, and we have lost a lot of revenue. We can all and especially the Government learn a lesson> from our agreements with Mr. Doyle and his various companies so far as the royalties are concerned. Maybe, Mr.

Speaker, if I were to give an example of just what I am getting at,hon. members might have some appreciation why people in this Province are concerned about any agreements which are entered into between the Government and Javelin or any of the other subsidiaries. In 1966, Mr. Speaker, the amount of royalties,as earned by the Newfoundland Government from all mining in Newfoundland and Labrador 1was $2,582,818. The amount earned by Javelin for the same year was $2,705,268 or a difference of $122,390.00 1 that was in 1966. One would assume, Mr.

Speaker that the amount of royalties coming to this Government and to this Province would increase, that the overall : financial picture for,tbe Province and itE people would improve as the project progresses. 4~79

May 18th .• 1970 Tape no 893 Pay,e 6 MR HICKEY: In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the amount of money coming to the Government, in the form of royalties, decreases as the project progresses rather than it increases. In 1967, Javelin received $3,892,270 as compared with that received by the Government of $2,818,348.or a difference of $1,073,922. In other words · the amount of money made by Canadian Javelin or as we know it, John C. Doyle is increasing as the years go on.

A very striking example is the figures for 1968. ·Javelin· received in 1968,$4,247,038 as compared to $3,051,543 received by the Government or a difference of $1,195,495. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it must be clear that this is not the best arrangement that can be made in entering into an agreement wherein such huge amounts of money are spent and where such concessions are given as that given to Mr. Doyle in various forms. It would appear, Sir, and it must be obvious to anyone who looks at those_ figures that Mr.

Doyle and his associates come out way ahead of the Government and the people of Newfoundland in the agreements covering the mining of iron-ore in Labrador. This, Mr. Speaker, would indicate to us that there has to be some drastic changes made in the attitude of the Government, insofar as entering .into such agreements in the future. The theme of "develop or perish" might sound all right, when it is used in a political speech, but Mr. Speaker

May 18, 1970 Tape #894 Page 1 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, when you get down to the cold hard facts, and when you adopt a slogan when entering into agreements with those great financial experts, great salesmen, such as Hr. "Doyle and Mr. Shaheen. When you get down to the cold hard facts and those projects get under way for a few years and you really see the amount of money that they make, as compared to that made, or as compared to that which comes back to our people, the phrase "develop or perish" is not such a catchy phrase after all.

In fact it is a pretty stupid one, and I think it is high time that we forgot that it had ever been uttered. Because Mr. Speaker, whoeve"r wishes to believe it, or whoever does not, there is a bottom to the Treasury in this Province, and no one knows better than a good many of the people in Newfoundland this very day. The unemployed know it, they know it better than anyone else. There i~ also a bottom Mr. Speaker, to the amount of natural resources that this Province is left with.

And when people say that this Province is on a dangerous course, or on a course that can only lead to bankruptcy, it is not just a lot of hot air. There is a lot of common sense behind it. There ·is a lot of sense in ,f it indeed, becauseAwe are to enter into such agreements as we have entered into with John C. Doyle and John Shaheen, the only ones who are going to get rich are those two gentlemen, and whoever the others might be who are associated with them. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly r~fer to the centralization program.

It would seem that with huge sums of money coming from Ottawa under the DREE pro~ram, and according to statements made by the Government from time to time, there are plans by this Government to reduce the number of settlements to somewhere like 200. Sir, we have stated on this side time after time, against odds I might admit, against, or running the risk of our suggestions or our words being misconstrued intentionally, so as to make those people who have moved and who have been successful in moving, believe that our Party, and we as an Opposition are against the centralization program. Mr.

Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth than that. We are ·very much in favour of the centralization 4~81

Hay 18, 1970 Tape 9894 Page 2 program. The fact that we do not agree with every part of it. The fact that we do not agree that it is implemented properly, certainly is quite unfair, and in fact one could call it contemptible for anyone to just brand us as being a~ainst the centralization program. We are in favour Mr. Speaker, of the centralization program where it is absolutely necessary; ~here there is no hope to develop the outport community and make it a viable community and give those people who live there decent services.

We are in favour of the centralization program as it applies to resettle- ments in places such as this. However, our Party has always stood for the development of the rural areas, the outport communities, wherever possible, and we have always said that a good long hard look should be taken at any community, and every effort should be made to thoroughly investigate every facit of the economy-of that community before we earmark it for resettlement. I have personally stated in this hon.

House 1 Sir, and I state ~t again today and I make no apology for it, Jnd I do not care if any bon. gentleman on the other side gets up and categorically denies it, because I will prove it. There have been too many people move from viable communities in this province to communities where they 0~ have gone_.welfare. And I might add gone on welfare against their better judgement and against their wishes. And if somebody wants to make black out of white, and say that is not true. they can do so, but we have living examples of them in various parts of this Province.

And I named one and I will name it again, the area of Placentia is a striking example. When you take people out of communities where they are earning a . livlihood and move them into a community where they can not earn a livili- hood, it is a poor excuse Mr. Speaker, to say that you are doing it so that the younger generation will be better educated. I wonder if bon. gentlemen ever sat down and wondered, understand the effect on people. even whert they are being educated, living in a home, where the head of that home can never become self-reliant, and self-supporting.

Are any of us so naive as to think that it does not have its effect. Why not 4~32

May 18, 1970 Tape 11894 Page 3 too long ago I heard the Premier ask a question; If anyone ever had any figures in terms of one generation to another being dependent on this place for a livlihood - I do not recall that there were any figures given. But Mr. Speaker, I am sure, I am sure that if the Premier wishes to look, he will find various pockets of this throughout the Province. I am sure that he can be easily convincedfif he is not already,of the fact that when a family 7through no fault of their own, having received assistance from the Government for year and years and years.

While even I the previous generation were unfortunate enough to be in the same position. It is not the answer to just take those people and move them for the purpose of educating the young. The young we must educate. No one will disagree with that. Every one is in favour of . greater education for out young people. We all agree too, that the fact that we have so many people unemployed to a great extent is because of the lack of skills and education. No one could be so political as to not to agree to that. But Mr.

Soeaker, to get up and hail the centralization program as being the answer to all the ills, to get up and defend the program which moves people out of communities which are to all intents and purposes viable communities, and move those people to areas where they become unemployed and recipients of the Department of Welfare, ~is can only be classed as bordering on the ridiculous. This can only be classed as a policy of a Government who does not care. It can only be classed as a Government who does not care about people. And Mr.

Speaker, that is not a very good recommendation to give any government, and this Government has alwavs claimed to be the friend of the toiling masses. Then 1 Sir, I will not doubt that the Government are not friends of the toiling masses. I give them the benefit the course of that doubt. But if they are, thep they had better change they have adopted under the centralizat~on program, because the Government or no member of the Government are fooling anyone by banning people on this aide as being against the centralization program. Becauee Mr.

Speaker, we have travelled across this Province, various parts of it,and we have talked to people. And there is nothing better than when 10u get the information right from the horse's mouth. And when you talk to people 4:![)3"

May 18,1970 Tape 1894 Page 4 who have left communities, and who have not been unemployed for years, or who have not drawn a welfare cheque for years, and who are now drawing it for the first time - if you want to hail that as a good program then I think whoever does that should have their head examined for sure. Mr. Speaker, while I am on the subject of centralization, it is very closely related to the Department of Welfare. I am not going to dwell to any degree on that department. I think I have made my contribution in that connection, although I might have failed in what I wanted.

We can see some of the improvements coming now and then, and I am to some extent happy that some of the ideas and some of the suggestions as put forward by this side are being considered and indeed some of them implemented. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say again, that there is one awful habit of bon. gentlemen misconstruing what is said on this side. Again I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that they do not hear, or did not hear·. The only other thing I could say is that they intentionally misinterpreted for political reasons.

And I always like to say something good about somebody rather than something bad. I will say again Sir, as I have said so often. We are not against people on welfare on this side. We are very, very concerned about them, just as co~cerned about them as any member of this Government, just as concerned. Maybe a little more concerned because members of the Government and members of that side of the House believe in the policy that they have with regards to the Department of Welfare. We do not. We do not believe completely in that policy. As I have already said, we are getting there. We are making improvments.

We are making inroads. In my o~inion, we are not making enough. We are not moving fast enough. Wheri we talk about welfare recipients on this side, we. talk about the amount of concern, we talk about the amount of sympathy, because they are unemployed, because they cannot provide for their families the things that they could provide if they were gainfully employed~ When we say we are against some of the department's policies, we m~an, and I am sure every bon. member in this ~·~~ House knows exactly what we mean, that we favour jobsAthan welfare, and 4~04

May 18, 1970 Tape #894 Page 5 surely no member of this House will disagree with that, And it is somewhat unfair to brand anybody as being anti-welfare or as being - as adopting a course to criticize those unfortunate citizens who are on welfare. Recently the departmentjthrough the mlnister,announced a program of paying cash instead of food orders. And Mr. Speaker, I will stick to my guns. I stated then that I did not agree with that. I agreed that it was certainly a wonderful move. It was a good idea. I did not condemri the policy as such. I did not say that it is not the right thing to do. But I did say Mr.

Speaker, that it was the wrong time to do it, because I firmly believe, and I do today, that to use one

section of the Province sweJ.. as a yardstick, insofar as important matters. 4 as this is concerned, is really not enough. I think many of our people are not ready for this kind of an improvement. And I questioned at the time as to whether or not some innocent children might suffer as a result of this improvement. If those chi·ldren did not suffer, then certainly it would cost the Treasury more, ~r there would be a breakdown in the program generally.

My fear was that the monies expended would not be put to the best use by some people who do have problems in managing their homes, and who need help, need real help in managing their homes, and I thought that this was a little premature to adopt this policy. Now Mr. Speaker, we heard this policy ennunciated as being something recall which was revolutionary, and when I commented on it, I · .: one radio_ :. personality, that I was just "lipping off" again. Well Mr. Speaker, af' I know from where I speak. I do not usually "lip off" not knowing-"what I am talking.

I have been accused this Session cp being rather quiet. And I have been rather quiet Sir, but I can assure bon. gentlemen on the other side that it is only because of doctor's orders that I remain quiet to some extent this Session. Please God, before too long, I will be able to open my mouth loud and clear again. But I do not remain quiet on sa.ething that I feel strongly about. 0« the other bandff I do not believe strongly in it, and if I do not have some facts, I would rather ~:!85

May 18, 1970 Tape 0894 Page 6 be accused of keeping my mouth closed, because there is no milea~e in talking about something when someone does not possess the fact. Mr. Speaker, this idea is not revolutionary, certainly not revolutionary. This idea of paying welfare recipients in cash dates way back to 1910. The Premier of the day I believe was Morris. There was an election called on that issue, or at least one of the issues. In 1910 to pay relief in cash and he was to do away with the dole order and I recall or• I belieyed, I recall people saying that he actually implemented that idea. I raised the question Mr.

Speaker, if it is such a good thing. And it was implemented in 1910, why was it done away with? If there are so many advantages to it, why was it not continued? Sir I express the doubt that it is not such a good thing unless the proper amount of planning goes into it and the proper amount of spade work that is done to prepare for this kind of change for this kind of plan. It is fine for us to get all excited about supermarkets, shopping at supermarkets and so on, but Mr. Speaker, we can become too modern, and we can lose a lot in the process.

I said before and I make no apology for this, $ome of our people have become too modern. It is too bad that there are not more people cultivating their gardens. And this Government is trying ~o encourage that right now and rightly so, and I hail it as a darn good move but coming too late. Too bad the hon. gentleman was not'Minister of Welfare a long time ago, He might have come up with that suggestion and maybe we might have been a whole lot better off. I do not hesitate to give credit where credit is due. So Mr.

Speaker, this change (N terms of paying cash I hope for the sake of those who are concerned that it works out. I hope Mr. Speaker, it works out. I hope I am wrong, but I raised a point that it was implemented before and I cannot see why we are getting back to it now,if it failed then, without putting the kind of planning into it that it needs. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk Sir about the linerboard mill at Stephenville, and when we talk of the financial situation of the Province, one cannot but apply, at least in general terms, to su~up the larger 4286

May 18, 1970 Tape /J894 Page 7 projects that we are getting into, such as the linerboard mill. the oil refi~ry, antJ I covered the oil refinery on Thunday afternoon. I would like to eomment briefly on the linerboard mill. But .first of all, I would like to say that the people in Goose Bay·, Happy Valley could not or found it tifficult to understand why there was a change in plan in terms of one part of tha.t project from Lake Melville I believe, that general area to Stephenville. Now Mr. Speaker 4287 .•

Hay 18th. 1970 Tape 895 PK - 1 ~IF : Ji iCK EY: NoH, Hr . Speaker, the r;overnment r:ave a number of reasons as to '1-•hy this was so. nut, Sir, I have to say h:om my m,'fl investir,ation, the Government did not re:tlly say why the change was made. I think they could have given a better explanation than they did. It is my opinion the change was made because of the unemployment situation in the general Stephenville Area and for an economic reason ~nsofar as that project was concerned.

I do not quarrel with the fact that the Government wishes to provide employment to the people of the Stephenville Area, any more than I would with efforts to provide employment or some kind of a permanent industry for the people in the Goose Bay area and that

section of Labrador for all of us realize the great need for jobs throughout the Province. But I do quarrel, ~ !r. Speaker, v1hen the Government hedges on providing the public with the inforii'ation which they have a right to and '1-'hich they demand. It is vmrth\·!hile to look briefly at the areas surrounding the site of the Liner Board ~ill. Humber Hest \vhich is represented by the Prel'lier, from the point of viev: of welfare figures in 1966 there l•Yere 226 families on relief. Now, Hr. Speaker, if my time is up, I ~uess I will confine my ren•arks HR.

SM.ALL\'I'OOD: Provided that the hon. gentleman only takes about: three, four or five minutes. HR. HICKEY: Hr. Speaker, I will not finish up in two or three tr.inutes, it might take ten.· MR. SMALLWOOD: Ten? HR. HICKEY: It might take ten. Hell I will just finish this particular subject, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall pick up the other things I wanted to say in another debate. The District of Humber East, in 1966 the number of people in receipt of assistance was 226 as compared to 1968, at 2398 or a 960 percent increase as a result of the phase out of Harmon.

Humber East, which was represented by the hon. gentleman on this side in 1966 at a 103 compared with 1071 for a . 940 percent increase. Port au Port is represented by the Minister of Hines, Agriculture and Resources in 1966 at 1025, in 1968 at 3533 or an increase in percentage of 245. St. George's represented by the hon. l!inister of Labour in 1966 at 436, in 1968 it had 941 for an increase of 116 percent, the entire fip,ure for the whole Province showed a forty-four 4288

~lay 18th. 1970 Tape 895 PK - 2 HR. \'HICKEY: percent increase. Mr. Speaker, that only applies to able bodied assistance, the figures for a number of people in receipt of cash assistance showed almost not quite similar increases but larpe increases. Sir, I think it is obvious as to why the Government changed their mind on the location of that mill. I think it is obvious as to why they did that, to cor.~bat the great unemployment situation in that area.

And they are not to be condemned for that, because this is their job, This is \.'hat they are in power for, that is what they are expected to do and this is what they should' be trying to do. ·,., What I do condemn, Hr. Speaker,"the Liner Board Hill at Stephenville. Hr. Speaker, this is the reason that was given the people, that the Government did not change. !-IR. S~~LIIOOD: Inaudible. HR. HICKEY: If l-Je had something to do. HR. S~!ALU100D: Orders of the company. MR. HICKEY: The orders of the company. 'Hell, Nr.

Speaker, l-Te lvere told we did not send information again, I can only take the Premier's "1ord, it appears very ironic that the greatest amount of unemployment in the whole Province surrounds that very site. And I submit the reason that it '!fras changed was because of this, and I think this was a fair assumption, but if the Premier says I am wrong, lvell he kno'lfrs the ansl·rer and if he wishes to say it again that I am wrong, of course that is it. ~IR. JONES: The Premier is a hundred percent right, he is a hundred present correct·! think. }!R. HICKEY: He is a hundred percent correct. \·Jell I guess, Hr.

Speaker, we will have to take his word for it and I certainly do not want to create the wrong impression, but I could not help but find this most interesting, and I felt that I should brinr, it to the attention of the House in the e'i7ent that, that was the reason and the Government should not hesitate in saying so, because it is an honourable thing to do, to combat unemployment. Sir, I will not ask for the indulgence of the House any longer another couple of Items I have can be covered in another debate in term 's of the resolution, so I thank the llouse for their indulgences. 4239

!lay 18th. 1970 Tape 895 PK- 3 mt. I!ICY.JIAN: Hr. Speaker the Iludget !ipeech which is nearly eip,hty-eigltt par,es in lenr,th, I think that almost any particular parar,raph or staten:ent in the Speech is open to some question, and obviously iN the limited time at my disposal I cannot obviously deal with all the many issues that are presently facing our people at this time. ~0 I would like though, ltr. Speaker, at the beginning to refer~a statement that is contained in page 39 of the Budret Speech. And the statement refers to, it is the old approach, !-!r.

Speaker, the approach of comparing the past with the present, and then going on and this time the comparsion, I submit Mr. Speaker, contains 'less validity than normally, This time the comparsion is with the amount of monies that are being spent in this Province on education as compared to that of the rich province of British Columbia, wh'teA is spending on education 2.8 percent of its gross provincial products, Ontario is spending 3.8 percent, Newfoundland practically 8 percent of the gross provincial products.

Now, I do not know what that particular paragraph in the Bud~et Speech is suppose to indicate, but I think no matter how you look at it, no matter how you would approach it, the implication that is suppose to be drawn by the people of Newfoundland from this particular part of the Budget Speech is that our efforts, ~hat this Government's efforts in the field of education 1 rank considerably better than that of British Columbia or Ontario. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I taink ·it was ,Bismark said that, statistics can be used to almost justify - what was the phrase, "not all statistics are lies, but all liars can use statistics". But whatever the statement was, the simple fact is that this type of statistic if> left unchallenged might convey, if there is anyone in Newfoundland who still believes that our efforts in the field of education are as good as they , should be, or if our provincial contribution comes anywhere close to meeting the demand, than obviously Hr. Speaker, no bon. member of this House should or can leave that type of statement 42!10

!lay 18th. 1970 Tape 895 PK - 4 !IR. IIICKUA.'il: unchallenged. The simple fact of the matter is, Hr. Speaker, that 1f you want to decide what the contribution or the effort of the Province of Newfoundland or the Government of llewfoundland is in education, that it would not be too fair to go gaDivanting all over the continent lookinp, for info,rmation, but rather Hr. Speaker, I submit that '11e can very justifiably and very fairly limit our inquiry into the amounts being spent by our sister provinces or province in the Atlantic Region.

I have before me statistics prepared,and these are the latest statistics in the hands of the Newfoundland Teachers Association, prepared for the year 1968-69 preliminary statistics on education. And these statistics show that the total expenditure in Newfoundland for the year 1967 on account of teachers salaries and other salaries closely allied with the educational process $35,769,000.00. In 1967 the total expenditure for the Province of Uova Scotia was $70,670,000.00. In Nova Scotia we have approximately 3700 teachers aud in Newfoundland we have approximately 6400.

Since 1967, and it 'I>Tould be noted that in 1967, the II!BOunt being spent on teachers salaries by Nova Scotia was doubled .• ·almost to the cent to that of lJewfoundland. Since that time, on April 1st. 1970 there was~elevm percent increase granted to teachers in Nova Scotia, and on September 1st. 1970, there is an undertaking for another seven per.cent increase. Now, it could very well be,·Hr. Speaker, and I would be the first to admit that '1>1e probably have not got the kind of funds that are necessary to provide all the dollars that are required to spend that same kind of money.

But the point I am makin~, )!r. Speaker, is the implication to be dra'm from the Budget Speech is not a valid one. Again, ?-:r. Speaker, I would draw Your Honour's attention to a survey which was made by the Atlantic Development Board called ,The J1rofiles of Educatioi\ in the Atlantic Provinces': This Pas for the year ending 1965. And the per-pupil expenditure in Canada in the west was $231, and it says the•range a~ongst provinces extended from $216 per pupil in Newfoundland ·to $581 per pupil in British Columbia. 42n1

~~ay 18th. 1970 Tape 895 PK - 5 I'ffi. l!ICK:ti\,'1: Now, Hr. Speaker, the significant thing is this, that for tlw first fetv years following our enter into Canada, at least we were in a position \vhere there "'as one other province behind us on its per-pupil per capita expenditure in education, and that was the Province of Prince Edward Island.

But in 1960 there is a graphilich was prepared by the Atlantic Development Board 1will show Prince Edward Island over-took this on a per pupil basis and by 1965 it Has continuing upward, and the gap was so 'ddened that despite all the assurances and all the blandishment, the fact is that lve now rank last on the totem pole when it comes to our efforts in education. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I was reluctant to get into the debate on education because everytime I do, everytime I su~gest that the Government of the day should stop hiding behind the churches of· this Province, and should come out and1publicly declare that even with the very commendable and very essential and necessary help of the various religious denominations throughout Newfoundland the final responsibility is to whether or not adequate educational faei~tties are provided in this Province rest with the Government and no one else.

Everytime I say this I leave myself wide open to a charge from the hon. the Minister of Education, that if I should ever come to power I will destroy the denominatio.nal system of education. That is a lot of nonsense, Hr. Speaker, for two reasons, number one, it could not be done, if we wanted toi, if we are to accept the

interpretation that is being placed on the Canadian Constitution and on the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. If we are ~oing to accept the

interpretation that is being placed on us by Government, then any integration of forces in the field of education must come by way of voluntary agreement and nothing else, and it is coming. I submit, Ur. Speaker, that if Go,;.ernment Hould keep its ear close to the ground, you would find that it is very much out of step with the thinking of the people in Newfoundland today. There is no political mileage any more, Hr. Speaker, to be point;ing the fingers at the churches and say that the churches 42u2

!lay 18th. 1970 Tape 895 PK - 6 HR. lli CKr IAN : and the churches alone are responsible for education in Ne,;foundland. Not a bit in the world, because ·the church leaders in our Province the parents in our Province and the people generally are more and more inclined toward intep,ration of education facilities, they are not going to stand idly by and see our young children, our youth of this Province, sacrificed on a cross of silly prejudice, that is being kept alive by politicans,but fortunately the churches are not falling for that type pf propapanda any more. ~lr.

Speaker, if any of us have any doubt that all is not rosy in the garden, if any of us should feel or believe that this gap I referred to in another debate 1 which arouse the ire of the hon. the r!inister of Education, between the more affluent centres of Nelvfoundland is not as wide as it ever was, let "me direct the attention of hon. members tP a statement that was made i~ another gathering over the weekend by a young school principal ,.,ho comes fro!:'. Labrador South.

I have to confess that I could not believe my ears, when I heard that gentleman say, that in the District of Labrador South that his purils cannot write their final examinations because the Government will not provide sufficient funds to buy paper and pencils• And _I thought for a minute that," may be this young 1 bright Newfoundland was exagperating in order to brinp to the attention of the people of Newfoundland a desperate nee«Ja, .. which=exists.in the District of Labrador South. But when that same question was put to Dr.

Philip Warren, on a panel 1 he confirmed ~~hat the young gentleman from Labrador South was saying, and went further and said-"I have travelled around this coast - J in the interest of education probably more than any other Newfoundlander:' which I think he has, "and this situation is not peculiar to Labrador South:' Now, Mr.

Speaker, surely the time has come to get away from the philosophy and the approach that when we talk about matters educational we have to keep referring back to the fact that in 1949 there was $4.5 million or $4 million spent and then recite the increase year 'after year and say we fought the good fight and we finisl!.ed the course and \-le just now hold our heads hir,h, educational opportunity is available to all Newfoundlanders. Hr. Speaker, that is not 42!]3

May 18 1970 Tape 896 page 1. that is not so. I repeat what I said in this House earlier that the gap between the affluent sections, the more heavily populated sections of Newfoundland and the smaller areas of Newfoundland the less populated areas is as wide as it was ten years ago. And there is no signs that that gap is closina, indeed the signs are that it is continuing to widen. MR.WORNELL: Mr.

Speaker, would the bon. gentleman advise what denomination administers that school to which he refers~ MR.HICKMAN: I have not the foggiest idea what denomination - MR.WORNELL: I think it is very germane., to your argument. MR.HICKMAN: I do not k9ow, it is not germane ~ to the argument. My argument is this, and my argument will continue to be as long as 1 am a member of this House~that the final responsibility for providing minimum educational standards in Newfoundland rests with the Government.

And you cannot point the finger - wha_t is germane about what denomination>~. is responsible for the administration of the school at Port Hope Simpson?- I believe it is the Integrated School Board. Because the Integrat~d School Board bas its headquarters at Goose Bay or Happy Valley and there was a complaint there is not too Dllch communication between the superintendent and the officials of the board and those who live on the Labrador Coast and Labrador South. But that ·Mr.

Speaker is not germane, what is germane is when are we going to see in this Province a realistic approach . to the problems confronting those who still live in the smaller communities in Newfoundland those who still live on the coast, and those who through no fault of their own they are not being given a half a chance~ Mr. Speaker, if that puts me in the field of a revolutionary I am very happy to plead guilty to any such charge.

But the answer it is simple, jumping to one's feet and saying the bon. member he is against denominational education he will destroy it1 the ls about •• stupidest, silliest statement that could be made in this House of Assembly. To my knowledge Mr. Speaker, there bas only been one bon. member of this House, certainly in my day, as a member of this House who has come out boldly, may be two, the bon. member for Humber East had some rather strong words last year and I do not want to 42&4

May 18 1970 Tape 896 page 2. quote him out of context because I do not recall precisely what he said. But there is only one hon. member I believe since Confederation who has come out -1'1 and very forthrightly,and the report was rather savagely attacked:d~nominational education. I refer to the maiden speech of the hon. minister of Social and Community Development delivered in this Bon. House on the fourteenth d~ of March 1967. It was the type of speech that brought commendation from varioua parts of Newfoundland. It was the type of speech I believe t~at reflected the views of his generation of Newfoundlanders.

The views of the educated young Newfoundlanders who at all cost must want to see and will insist nn improvements being made. I have before me a report of the speech of the Hon. the member for White Bay South and it started off this way.

"The most outspoken attack on the denominational system of education ever made by a member of the House of Assembly came from William Rowe, Liberal White Bay in the Throne Speech Debate Tuesday :•' (quote) "If the Council of Education and its workings are detrimental to the progress of education in the Province then ·it must be abolished, overhauled or any other inhibition inhibiting powers must be removed. If there are matters of duplication or other obstacles to the proper education of our children within the d~nominational system then these matters of duplication . or other obstacles must be tottea rid of.

Any artificial obstacles of educational process we can do without. We just do not aeed them. We have enough real problems to contend with as it is." Mr. Speaker the bon. gentleman from White Bay South recalled his namesake had been elected to this Ron. House in 1834 and to the legislative Council in 1850 and that his n~ake William Rowe had been largely responsible for the establishing of d~nominational education in New- foundland.

Then the bon. gentleman went on to say and 1 quote: "The fundamental system of that structure of that system is still with us. 1 have no intention of following in the footsteps of my namesake. " Now, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge is the only attack that has ever been made in this Bouae of Assembly on the denominational system of education in 42&5

May 18 1970 Tape 896 page 3. Newfoundland. MR.ROWE: What about the bon. member for St. John's North? MR.HteKIYtl: The hon. the leader of the Oppollitlon has made a note, Nath Noel, well I do not recall it but may be he did. And if the hon. gentleman did then again I suspect that what they are trying to expose and what they were /':1 in effect exposing,~that we cannot crucify the young people of this Province in the name of denominational education#if it used as a method 1 a vehicle,to shed ou~ own responsibilities.

And when I hear the bon. the Minister of Education saying I do nQt know where schools are going to be built, that this is not my, none of my business, I say that it is very much the business of Government as to how the educational dollar is going to be spent. And Mr. Speaker, if I draw your attention to the WarTen Commission Report on this business of school construction, on page 152, of Volume 2. and we find this. (quote) "The present method of distributing provincial funds for school> construction is as old as the denominational system itself.

Arising out of a desire on the part of Government to be scrupulously fair to all. denominational groups. It was no doubt a wise and necessary measure one hundred years ago. In a more enlightened age it should}n the opinion of the Commission 7be replaced by~ policy based . on the needs of all children in the Province, regardless of their geographical region or denominational affiliation." And I remind bon. members that that part of the Royal Commisssion' s Report on Education ·_and Youth had the unanimous support of all the members of that Commission.

And I have not heard anywhere in Newfoundland, I have never heard a church leader nor an educator take issue with the statement that I have j.ust read from the Royal Commission!& Report on Education and Youth. ~;!" _ ~: - Mr.' Speaker, whether we like it or not we have to accept the fact that there is a very important function that has to be carried out by the churches in this Province in the field of educatlon. And·that function obviously is to look after the spiritual well-beiag of our children. And you will find within various, that it is their prerogative and their right Rnd my 42!16

May IS 1970 Tape 896 page 4. blessing to them. You will find within various religious denominations different theories, different theology as to where that begins or ends. But no matter who the group or church or body is t~at is responsible for that type of spiritual welfare the simple fact Mr. Speaker is, that in the final analysis the responsibility rests with the Government in Newfoundland and the Government has not, I repeat, has not discharged that responsibility.

It is the Government's responsibility to provide adequate facilities, adequate schools, adequate buildings, adequate teaching aids, qualified teachers, a curriculum that is in keeping with the seventies. That is not the responsibility of anyon~lse. And Mr. Speaker, I say it is

an act of supreme cowardice to hide behind the skirts of the church authorities in Newfoundland and try and to blame them for the inadequacies of our educational system. And there ~s a ~ertain amount of inconsistency Mr. Speaker, ~N the Government philosophy on denominational education. This Hon.

House passed a resolution back on April 24, 1968.{t w~s a unanimous resolution calling on the Government of Canada to amend to take the •ecessary steps to amend the British North America Act to imbed in Term 17 the same right for the Pentecostal denomination in Newfoundland as is conferred on other rel,gious denominations in the Province. That was passed Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 1968. It was unanimously passed, because no one in this House can subscribe to the view that there should be any discrimination at all.

And obviously those of the Pentecostal church were uneasy, very uneasy as to their status in the scheme of things as compared to the others. And properly so, their rights have been granted by Legislative process of this Rouse whilst that of the other churches is imbedded in the constitution. So that was passed on April 24, Mr. Speaker, ~68, Finally in answer to a question, information was then tabled by the Hon. the Pre.ier in this Hause quite recently. Approximately six months later, five months later, six months later, this resolution was sent to the sectetary of the Governor General in Council in Ottawa.

Nothing further was heard fro1o. No follow up, no attempt to 42&7.

May 18 1970 Tape 896 page 5. have the unanimous resolution of this House carried out until October 29, 1969, and that was a fairly significent date, on October 29, 1969 there was a request from the Pentecostal educational committee directed to the Premier ~sking what had happened to this resolution. Now, Mr. Speaker, in January 1970, a follow up procedure started. And on March 4, the deputy minister in the office of the Pre~ier was advised of the resolution regarding the necessary amendments to the Terms of Union had been forwarded to the Department of Justice in Ottawa and was now under consideration.

This again was confirmed on, by letter of to March 24 from the executive assistant/the Minister of Transport in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, that was two years ago. More than two years ago.since this resolution was unanimously passed. I suggest that if there was any real concern on the part of government whether there is concern or not the government's solemn obligatio~.,when once a resolution is unan~mously passed to be transmitted to the Government of Canada,is to hammer at this, follow it up until the final definitive decision is received from Ottawa.

But what have we hadi Wearly six months before it was sent at all, another year goes by then an enquiry and all we now know,it is in the hands of the Department of Justice in Ottawa. Where is the consistency Mr. Speaker? I suggest that : there is no consistency, that there is no consistency in the policy that is being followed insofar:~s the educational processing in the Province of Newfoundland at this time. Mr.

Speaker we cannot expect our people to continue along indefinitely waiting and waiting and being told that whilst there is nothing in this year's budget that it shows any · real improvement in educational facilities and I am very very conscious of the monies that will be spent by the Gove~ent of Canada in St. John's, on the Burin Peninsula, Stephenville and Happy Valley for schools. But outside of the involvement of the Government of Canada there is nothing in this year's budget to indicate that there will be any improvement in structural facilities throughout the Province of Newfoundland during the ensuing year.

Indeed Mr. Speaker, the amount shown in the budget I suggest 4298

May 18 1970 Tape 896 page 6, will do little more than help the denominational authorities meet the commitment that have been given over the years for achools thAt have already been built. Mr. Speaker, let me draw the Hon. House's attention to an jf ., editorial that appeared in the Educator's Gazette of May 1, 1970 dealing with this year's budget speech. And the heading of the editorial is, ''Deceiving appearances." (and I quote) ''Last yezr 's budget speech proclaimed that expenditures for education this year will top the one hundred million mark. ' 1 A remarkable fact indeed.

But there are several facts which the budget speech neglected to mention. First of all the proposed total vote for education 1though perhaps quite accurate 1 is somewhat misleading. It includes such expenditures on post-secondary education as grants to the University , student tuition and salaries 1allocation for the medical school and capital expenditure on vocational education. It also includes mothers' Allowances , and expenditures on physical fitness,the latter of which has just been moved from the department of Provincial Affairs.

All of which makes it difficult to determine just how mtich money will be spent on primary and secondary education this year, though $80 million rather than $103 million would appear to be a fatrly accurate figure. At first glance . the $11 million slated for school construction would seem to represent a dramatic increase in provincial govemm~t's_ spendi~g;.:_· _ over last year's $4.3 million for this purpose. Such however is not the case.

MR.SPEAKER: If the bon. member does not mind, I will draw to his attention the· fact that, and I am reading from page 132 now of Beauchesne. ~t is out of order to read extracts,th•t'is from newspapers and comments! 1f they referred to other debates during the same session or to any other question not under discussion, o~ reflect upon any proceedings or any determination of the Rouse. I think he is sailing very close to the wind there when he is quoting 1 lt is an editorial comment on the proceedings in the House in the present session.

The bon. member knows that the basic principle behind tbis is that he is to give his o~~ opinion and not a quote 1 the 4299

May 18 1970 Tape 896 page 7. op opinions of others about matters which are currently before the House. MR.HICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It .is . my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and my submission that despite the blessings which will accrue to St. John's and the Burin Peninsula, Stephenville and Happy Valley from the DREE programme that this does not do much more than accentuate the disparity which exists in various parts of this Province. And this Mr. Speaker, is hardly the stated objective of the DREE programme.

The DREE programme, as I understand it1 is designed to eliminate or reduce as much as fiscally possible the disparity that exists between this Province and other of the more affluent provinces in Canada. But I submit,~r.

Speaker, that unless there is a startling rethinking of the DREE programme and unless we see on the part of the Minister in Ottawa Fho is responsible for the administration of this,a more sympathetic understanding to the needs of the Province in total,that whilst we may do something to reduce disparity between New­ ..,1-,At fourldland, say, and Ontario but~is equally important and equally significant i~ it may very well accentuate and increase the disparity between various parts of the Province of Newfoundland. Mr.

Speaker, this Province has embarked on a very, over the year~oft a great deal of borrowing on·.! capital account. Before I deal with that I should like to bring to the House's attention my concern when I see) on page seven of the budget speech the items of monies and the headings and the part to be spent by the various departments during the ensuing year. And when I compare and check with the estimates that have been tabled in this Hon. House I think that 4300

May 18th, 1970 Tape 897 JM - 1 MR. HICKMAN: I think that I can be pardoned if as the member for Burin district I express a great deal of disappointment and dismay over the fact that contained in the estimates of spending and contained in the budget speech there is no reference to the report of the Royal Commission on'radiation in St. Lawrence. Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from the fact that it is my responsibility as a member for Burin district to bring this to the attention of the House and to try and urge on Government the implementation of this report?

I think that the report has signifance that extends far beyond the boundries of the Burin Peninsula, far beyond just the widows and dependants of miners in St. Lawrence ~ho have been deprived and unjustly deprived of any workman's compensation or any benefits accruing to the Workman's Compensation Act. Yet I suspect and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the complete and total dis­ regard of this report by Government~which has been in .Government's hands since August or September of 19697is symptomatic, Mr.

Speaker, of the attitude of Government in the discharge of what I believe is Government's first responsibility and that is to try and meet the social needs of the people of Newfoundland. 8ecause here is a crying example, Mr. Speaker, of men who contributed a great deal to the economy of the Province of Newfoundland, whose contribution to the gross provincial producsmeasured in dollars and cents?was considerably higher than that coming from many areas in our Province.

They have left behind them very proud widows and dependants who,despite the ~ blindishments of the bon. the Minister of Welfare 1are not prepared;£ they can avoid it at all~to become a charge on the state;because they should not become a charge on the state. Workman's Compensation payments are not gratuities, they are monies that have been earned by these in industry.

When I raised this in the House, this question some weeks ago and pointed out to this House that the only sign that we have seen at all that the Government is aware of the existence of this report was a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Health on February 26th,when he said that he and several of his colleagues have been considering the St. Lawrence Commission Report, that the recommendations are highly complex and that the problems of implementation are highly techni~al and that consultations are going on in Ottawa to see if it can be implemented. 4301

May ~~tn, J.':I/U .. ape D7t MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there are items in that report that are complex and highly technical but there are other items in that repo~t, there are other recommend- ations in that report, the majority of recommendations are nbt complex, are not technical and if we had a Government that had the milk of human kindness at all toward the widows, dependents and disabledof this Province it would have been implemented weeks and weeks ago. It does not even require legislative amendments to carry out the recommendations concerning disabl~miners who are presently living in St.

Lawrence but who cannot work. The facts are this, Mr. Speaker, the Workman's Compensation Board,in its wisdom or otherwise,rejecte~ the claims of a fair number of miners who are now disableA 1on the grounds that they could not find a "unanimity of opinion amongst the medical specialists who had examinedfhtm and the medical specialists in St. John's insisted that before they would give a final report, make a final diagnosis 1 that these disableJminers would have to undergo a biopsy. These miners in St.

Lawrence,knowing what has happened in the past, knowing that invariably when a miner has undergone that type of ·surgery that his days are numbered and his days on this earth have been shortened.very considerably,have refused to undergo it and they have insisted, Mr. Speaker, that the medical reports furnished from the doctors in St. Lawrence~who are familiar with the area 1plus the diagnosis arrived at and the conclusions arrived at by ordi 0ary medical examinati;ns,should be more t~an enough fo~ the Workman's Compensation Board to accept their claims. But this was not done.

So along comes the Royal Commission, On that commission we have two medical doctors and apart ·· from the personnel of the Commission whose chairman was a native of St. Lawrence and who knows very well the problems that exist with respect to Workman's Compens3tion in that town 7apart altogether from these they had at their disposa~ the evidence of medical specialists in the related fields. ~d they took, Mr.

Speaker, every known case on an individual basis, dealt with them, examined the medical evidence, examined the employment history and having done all of that on an individual _ basis they recommended whether compensation be payable or not. ~ow what more definitive finding ~an we possibly have? What was the point in setting up this Royal Commission if it was not once and for all 4302

J'"li1J .LOLli, L7/V to find out whether or not these miners and their dependents qualified for Workman's Compensation? This does not require any amending legislation with respect to those who are living today, all it needs is a directive from Govern- ment to the Workman's Compensation Board to pay these claims. !ndeed I do not believe it even requires that directive but obviously somebody has to put some pressure on,as the report of the Royal Commission apparently is not enough, the representation of the St.

Lawrence Workers Protective Union apparently is not enough, the recommendations and the efforts of the St. Lawrence Town Council appears to be inadequate because nobody will listen, But, . Mr. Speaker, this part of the report is not technical, is not complex and can be carried out right now and I say that this report is symptomatic of Government's attitude in the discharge of its social responsibilities to the people of this Province. , Mr.

Speaker, this report points out one of the unusual features of our Workman's Compensation laws that if a widow has a large family it is in the interest of that widow to go on 'social assistance rather than to accept Workman's Compensation because more monies are available by way of Workman's Compensation than by way of social assistance. But as . this report points out, Mr. Speaker, there are other benefits as well that accrue to those who through no fault of their own ~ave to receive social assistance.

The payment of school fees, grants for the repair to houses and provisional housing accomodations, that is the sort of thing that these people are not getting and when I raised that in this bon. House in an earlier debate the hon. the Minister of Welfare,as he then wa~ came to his feet and said, "I have discussed this with the St. Lawrence Workers Protective Union, I have made certain suggestions to them which I believe are in the best interest of the dependents and widows of St. Lawrence'/and he tabled - ~;c, in,House or read to this House a

summary of the letter which he had written. He gave it to me and I in tu~n read to this House or stated in the House a

summary of what was in it and more than that ' the President of the Union, Mr. Leo Slaney, has been indicating to his members what the position of Government as stated by the hon. Minister is. Let me advise the hon. Minister that his recommendation that there be a self-help program in St. Lawrence has been unanimously rejected by the St. 4303

May 18th, 1970 MR. HICKMAN: Lawrence Workers Protective Union. Mr. Speaker, the resolution passed by the St. Lawrence Workers Protective Union is~and I quote from their minutes, " To comment very briefly on the letter from Mr. Neary and his su~gestion that we set up a self-help plan similar to the one set up on Bell Island, . the big difference between Bell Island and St. Lawrence is here we have a large majority of widows and this situation does not exist on Bell Island.

It would be most interesting to see if we could recruit a couple of trap crews from among our widows now that the fishing season is upon us." Now, Mr. Speaker, is that the sort of attitude that we are - MR. NEARY: Read the whole.letter. MR. HICKMAN: I certainly will. Mr. Speaker, on the invitation of the hon. the Minister of Rehabilation I take it that it is perfectly in order for me to read this letter. It is dated May 5th, 1970, it is from the St. Lawrence Workers Protective Union of St. Lawrence, it,is signed by the President, Mr. Leo Slaney and it is directed to me. MR. NEARY: No, the letter to them.

My letter to them. MR. HICKMAN: The hon. Minister's letter to the St. Lawrence Union I read and I think I handed it back to him. MR. NEARY: No, no, the hon. member still has it. MR. HICKMAN: Well, I have not got it in front of me now. If I had it I would be very happy to read it. The hon. the Minister can certainly read his letter at any time during this debate. MR. NEARY: The hon. member was quoting from my letter. MR. HICKMAN: I am quoting now from the resolution. Do you want to hear what the St. Lawrence Workers Protective Union thinks of this whole brief? MR.

NFARY: No, but I want to hear what I said before you proceed. MR. HICKMAN: Well if the hon. · Hinister will dig it out while I am reading this one and send it over to me I will be more than happy to read it. MR. NEARY: I gave the hon. member a copy of this letter. MR. HICKMAN: You did but I do not know where it is and I have not got a - Well, Mr. Speaker, and I think the bon. Mintster will·agree that he also suggested to the St. Lawrence Workers Protective Union that they should give serious A ':' rt .i ':oi&JU.t

I •••J ..._ ' • ._II f ._ ~ I ~~ ....... r- ........ • MR. HICKMAN: consideration to submitting a brief to the Review Committee on the Workman's Compensation Act that is presently sitting under . the Chairmanship of Mr. Herman Batten and this to was dealt with. I quote again from the decision of the Union , "I can agree that we could as a union submit a brief to the Workman's Compensation Board and the Minister of Labour.However when the Royal Commission Report has made very little impact on the power~ (h~ be our small union has very little chance of being successful." I submit, Hr.

Speaker, that that is a pretty -valid comment. All the problems of the St. Lawrence miners and their dependents at St. Lawrence had been dulled within them, I knew the detail by this commission, and these recommendations have been made to Government and it would be highly unlikely that another brief could do anything more than simply refer to that Commission and reiterate its approval. MR. CROSBIE: Last October the Government said they were going to act immediately. MR.

SMALLWOOD: If the hon. gentleman would yield I may he able to inform him that the whole matter has been most thoroughly considered by the Government, most thoroughly 1 that the Government have adopted its policy, its decisions, that these have then come before the Government for final consideration, that a special committee of Cabinet has been appointed to put the finishing touches on it and bring it back for a final review by the Government which would be, it will not be today because the Cabinet will not be meeting, we have had one meeting on other matters but we will be meeting tomorrow morning and it is enti~ely likely that the committee of Cabinet will bring it in.

The whole matter vas settled some time ago and it is getting its final polishing. MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, that is good news.· It _does not excuse the delay but it is good news. MR. SMALLWOOD: There has been no delay. MR. HICKMAN: Oh, Hr. Speake~! Delay! The ~ecommendations concerning the payment of Workman's Compensation by the Board to the dependent miners who are still living in St. Lawrence today could have been made in five minutes. MR.

SMALLWOOD: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, he knows that it had to go to a number of departments for each individual sec-tion and each individual concern of the situation to be considered individually by a number of departments 43G5

nay J.otn, ~,,v tape Olrt .... ~ - u MR. SMALLWOOD: back and forth and finally the Workman's Compensation Board, the Department of Labour. the Department of Health, the Department. of Mines and I think one or maybe two others we had -to confer in Ottawa and all these ha'd to be done separately and individually and then brought to the cabinet, the Cabinet to consider them all as a whole, .then the appointment of a Committee of Cabinet which has already made a report and is to make a final one as soon as we can meet for the purpose, no delay whatever. MR. HIClCMAN: But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that position because certain - 4306

May 18, 1970, TApe 898, Page 1 -- apb MR. HICKMAN: Certain recommendations in that repo ·rt need not have taken five minutes for anyone to consider the recommendations of this Royal Commission. MR. SMALLWOOD: Others took a lot more than five minutes MR. HICKMAN: But you do not hold up the payment of Workmen's Compensation while you are trying to decide whether or not ·. silica .~ - tuberculosis shall be accepted as an industrial disease.

You do not have ·to hold up a recommendation that tuberculosis shall be an industrial disease within the meaning of the Act while you are deciding and consulting with the Government of Canada concerning the ~etting up of a fund to take care of those dependents of miners who died prior to the creation of the work~en's Compensation Board. It does not need Cabinet dicision at all. Or even Cabinet's consideration to take the recommendation of the Royal Commissions Report that there is to be a second radiation monitoring technician on the job full time. That has not been done,·indeed, Mr.

Speaker, the gentleman who has been doing a first-class job there during the past three years is still on a temporary basis insofar as the civil service status is-concerned. These recommendations Mr. Speaker, could have been, and should have been carried out by the end of 1969. I repeat what I said at the beginning, that Government's failure to deal with this report is symptomatic of its refusal to carry out its social obligations to the unfortunate people in our Province who cannot work through no fault of their own.

I only hope that when we hear this announcement, that when the Bill is brought in to set up this fund, that we have seen no notice of, no reference of, but it will be absolutely necessary to have a fund. I do hope that we will see an amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act during this -session of the House recognizing silica Tuberculosis as an industrial disease. I would hope that without any legislation at all that this second inspector will be appointed now.

I also hope that when we hear the announcement from this committee, whose names this House have not been made aware of, that we will be told that the Workmen's Compen•ation Board have been instructed to accept the claims of 4307.

~ May 11, 1970, Tape 898, Page 2 -- apb miners who are now disabled and who ordinarily should have come within the scope of that Act Several years ago. If all of that is done Mr. Speaker, then the work of the Royal Commission on Radiation at St. Lawrence will be worth while.

I presume we can look forward to some change in the estimates that have been tabled in this House, I would presume that somewhere the Government will find the necessary monies, I do not know how much we are talking about, but I would suspect something in excess of $100,000. as Government share to the special fund to pay the dependents of miners who cases have been verified, whose claims have been verified.but who come outside the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, because, they died before the Act became law. Nowhere in the estimates can this be found. All we know at this time is that the company in St.

Lawrence has said " ~e will pay our proportion to create this fund." Mr. Speaker, I think I co.uld be pardoned when I look at the estimates, ·If I am a little bit suspicious that this may not be implemented, but I cannot find a dollar in there anywhere. I cannot find it under the Department of Finance vote. The union has checked with the appropriate officials of the various departments and have received a negative answer that there is no money this year available, and this will take money out of the coffers of the Province of Newfoundland. Make no mistake about that.

Some will come form the Workm~n's Compensation Board, but there is a great deal of money that has to come direct out of the Provincial revenue. Nowhere in these estimates, under Labour, Finance, can anyone find one solitary cent to implement the recommendations of the Commission, nor can we find the second salary unit for the second inspector, nor can we find any suggestion that there is going to be a recognition of silica-tuberculosis as an industrial disease. That last one is not a very revolutionary one Mr.

Speaker, you will find it in practically every European country today with this type of mining industry prevailing. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech as it must, particularly at this period in the history of Newfoundland, on page 33, arid page 34, deals with 4308

May 18, 1970, Tape 898, Page 3 -- apb the unemployment situation in Newfoundland today and has been based on figures furnished by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. It says that at this time, that was the day the Budget Speech was delivered, the unemployment figure in Newfoundland was 15.3 per cent of our workers without jobs.

There was a comparison with statistics from years going back to 1955, and I presume that this comparison was made for the purpose of suggesting to the people of Newfoundland that the rate of unemployment in our Province today is something less than it was in 1958 or 59, or 60, or 61 right up to 1965. Mr. Speaker, if that is the name of the game, then I submit to you Sir, that that compar~son cannot stand the light of day. I suggest Hr. Speaker, that in Newfoundland today we are experiencing the worst recession that Newfoundland has experienced since 1949 and there is no sign Mr.

Speaker, there is no signs of improvement. We are now into the middle of Hay, this is the time of the year Hr. Speaker when construction should be picking up. This is the time of the year when jobs should be available. Because, if they are not available in Hay or June they will not be available during this calendar year. What do we find Mr. Speaker? We find that the construction industry is not moving.

We find thatthe Labrador fishermen will not go to Labrador until they get some indication as to what provision will be made for them if they"suffer the grevious losses that they suffered last year and the year before. We find that Come-by-Chance is still as elusive as ever and we cannot find all the jobs, the 17,000 that the bon. the Premier predicted would be made available when he participated in the opening session of this House. Mr. Speaker, I say that the trend that was established last year insofar as the strength of the economy of Newfoundland is still continuing.

L.-t year,1969. was a pretty bad year by no matter what standards you use insofar as the employment picture in Newfoundland is concerned. I have before me the statistics from the organizations used by the Government of Canada to try and decide and ascertain the economic picture tn·any particular Province of Canada 1 and in canada as a whole. It was provided and given by a company called" Canada Data." It breaks down into classifications the various types 4309

May 14, 1970, Page 4, Tape 898, apb of employment and industry in each Canadian Province for each month, and compares them with the Canadian average. The one I have before me,which is the latest ~n(I think the Government of Canada (not the latest one, they had another one since), but which is one that the Government of Canada I know relied on very heavily in trying to arrive at a policy decision for DREE this year in Newfoundland for the month of s,ptember. Mr. Speaker, from June to the end of September I think we can consider the peak months of employment in any part of Canada.

The first classification is what they call total residential. This shows all the apartments and houses that are under construction at the end of September 1969, in comparison with September of the year before. Newfoundland showed a minus twenty-two per cent. Twenty-two per cent from the year before. The Canadian average, and Canada has had a slow down_in housing starts too in 1969, was plus eighteen per cent. Minus twenty-two for Newfoundland plus eighteen for Canada. Then Mr. Speaker, the next is what is called total commercial.

That includes hotels, restaurants, motor vehicle servites, stores, miscellaneous business services, recreational. warehousing. and storage. In Newfoundland it was up twenty-three per cent above September the year before. In Canada, it was up sixty per cent for the same period. Mr. Speaker, the next c~lumn deals with institutions. This shows the number of churches. hospitals, medical service buildings, welfare service buildings, public buildings. Government offices, defence, law enforcement, education, schools and uni¥ersities.

Newfoundland, at the end of Spetember 1969 as compared to the end of Spetember 1968 minus sixty-eight per cent. Minuse sixty-eight per cent Mr. Speaker. Canada generally minus two per cent. Then Mr. Speaker~ we come to building construction. This includes plants, factories, utilities, transportation and other industrials. Newfoundiand minus ninety-seven. Canada as a whole, plus eleven per cent. ~ Mr. Speaker, the last column that is shown is the total of engineering construction. In that Newfoundland showed a plus of eleven per cent. That was due almost exclusively to the construction going on at Churchill 431n

May 18, 1970, Tape 898, Page 5 -- apb Falla. There was some money spent on bridges and overpasses and marine construction, but the very large per-centage was on the construction at Chruchill Falls. We showed a plus of eleven per cent 1 Canada showed a plus of twenty-four. The frightening figure is at the end Mr. Speaker, when you take the overall economic picture of Newfoundland at the end of the peak construction month. peak employment month for 1969 September 30th. The frightening thing is this Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland showed a minus of sixteen per cent. A minus of sixteen per cent.

Canada 1 which itself says it is going through some sort of retrenchment showeJa plus of twenty per cent. Mr. Speaker. I realize it is one of the clock. and I presume Your Honour wants to leave the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: It being now one o'clock I do leave the Chair until 3:00 p.m. 431J.

PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Volume 1 Number70 4th. Session 34th. General Assembly VERBATIM REPORT MONDAY, MAY 18, 1970 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE Gl:ORGE W. CLARKE

May 18th., 1970 Tape no 899 Page 2 Mr • __ _H_!._skman_, of Newfoundland. That, Mr. Speaker, is catastrophic, no matter how you look at it and the enticement and the suggestion on opening day that 17,000 new jobs would be found for Newfoundlanders during 1970, not existing jobs, but if you have 200 men working on the roads or a particular road last year, it will have to be something over and above these 200 to fall in the category of 17,000 new jobs. Now, Hr. Speaker nothing is happening. There is no sign, there is no -indication of a strengthening of the economy of this Province.

Indeed, I would hope that members of Government look with a great deal of concern, when they hear statements from the Prime Minister of Canada that a necessary fallout from anti-inflationary measures that are being taken in Ottawa is unemployment in certain regions in Canada. That is not - in fact it is being said almost with a sense of accomplishment, that something great is being accomplished by contributing to unemployment in the unfavoured areas of Canada, and regretfully, the part of Canada that feels the affect of these anti- inflationary measures more than any other

part is the Province of Newfoundland, and to read the bu4get speech and to learn from the budget speech that all is rosey in the garden, when we are in the depths of the worst recession that Newfoundland has seen since 19491 I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is not correct . and to base the budget speech on this. The personal income payable by our people to the Government of Canada will be, so it is believed, a larger amount this year than in the year passed. Mr. Speaker, who is dreaming. What are the facts? Where is the indication? The construction industry is not moving. Come-by-Chance is not moving.

Churchill Falls will provide a great deal of employment again this year, but Churchill Falls was under construction last year. The Labrador fishery is in the state of chaos and absolute uncertainty. We have pockets of prosperit! on the Burin Peninsula or on the two paper mills and in the mining areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Take that away. Take 43!3 'i

May 18th., Tape no 899 Page 3 the other thirty-five electoral districts, · and you hav~ nothing but dejection and desperation and yet we read in this budget speech that the income from the people of Newfoundland this year will be larger than the past. Mr. Speaker, one has to be awfully careful or, at least, so Government says, when referring to the prosperity and the financial position of ·the Province of Newfoundland.

If you suggest that we are in any difficulty at all, if you suggest that our capacity to borrow is rapidly coming to saturation point, if you suggest in the next two or three years,unless more prudence is shown, social services will have to be~cut back, you are being treacherous to the Province of Newfoundland, But, Mr.

Speaker, we cannot overlook the fact that the financial institutions, the financing institutions~ that the Canadian newspapers, the Canadian to monetary publications, keep referring~.the economy of Newfoundland at recession level, keep referring to the fact, which is true, that the level of unemployment is the highest in Canada, per capita income is the lowest and that industry in 1969 experienced a bleak year and it looks as if it will be bleaker in 1970. Now these are facts.

Unfortunately, these are facts that are spread by knowledgeable people throughout Canada, and are we going to bury our heads in the sand and say, "all of this is not true?" Are we going to write a budget speech that talks in glowing terms about the prosperity of this Province? Are we going to listen to a promise of 17,000 new jobs in 1970, which cannot be fulfilled? Is it any wonder that the people of Newfou~dland are beginning to look with a great deal of suspicion on statements and promises emanating from Government through its ministers. Mr.

Speaker, I say that the Province of Newf6Undland, which is rapidly approaching in guaranteed and direct ~orrowings, $ 1 billion is very, very quickly reaching the saturation point insofar as its ~314

May 18th., 1970 Tape- no 899 - Page 4 Mr. Hickman: ------- capacity to borrow is concerned. Now, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware and as any examination of the accounts will indicate that the moment of truth is pretty well upon J us, that we have a lot of short-term borrowings that will fall due in the next two or three years. We have other longer-term borrowings which will fall due in the next two or three years, and we simply cannot go borrowing _money to repay,monies that are already owing, because eventually, ~rr. Speaker, you will reach the point of no return.

I believe, and I am subject to cor.rectton by my hon. friend on my left that if and when we reach the point where twenty-three per cent of our direct income is going into the funded and repayment of our Provincial debt then it is curtains for this Province, and Hr. SFeaker, twenty-five per cent is the figure and we are twenty-three per cent now. We have v~ little room to maneuver • - Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders do not want to be encouraged by statements that are not factual.

If we are going to have to use a new approach to the financing and governing of this Province, let us tell them and let them make up their minds, but when we read the budget speech, with all its glowing terms, a budget speech, if it is supposed to be a prediction of the economic weather for the Province of Newfoundland for 1970,then I say it has about as much validity as Dr. Chase's Almanac or even less, because, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing in it only the usual statements of what will be spent this year that we see in the estimates and great and glorious predictions of what the future holds in store in 1970; yet here we are into the peak of production or close to it and we have more joos in this Province than we have seen at any- time on a percentage basis, than we have seen at anytime since 1949. Mr. Speaker, it ·is pretty difficult to talk about any budget speech that is coming before this House at this time, without being inevitably d~awn back to Newfoundland's stated intention through its Government A~-"~ ~v .... ~

May 18th., 1970 Tape no 899 ~!- ·_!li~!k~J . Page 5 of embarking upon its most substantial financing and b~rrowing yet, insofar as industrial development is concerned. It is just not possible to consider this budget in the year 1970 without paying very close attention to what commitments have been made or what commitments we believe have been made with respect to the proposed oil refinery at Come-by-Chance. It is now almost one month, Mr. Speaker, ~ince ~e had this rather unusual performance in this hon. House, when the Shaheen group were here before us.

Since then, there has been a great conspiracy of silence insofar as Come-by-Chance is concerned. We have heard nothing publicly about it. We have no idea where the project now stands. We do know that there are certain danger signals, certain warning signals which should indicate to any discerning member of this House that all is not well at Come-by-Chance. Mr. Speaker, may I draw this House's attention to the fact that since or during the past three or four months, there has been a very substantial increase in the involvment of the Treasury and the credit of this Province, insofar as Come-by-Chance is concerned.

We saw an announcement in January, still of this year, still referring to Come-by-chance, as in the vicinity of $100 million and before April 21, of this year, we find that we are up to a target price, a target price of $155 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, your Honour wi~ecall when a question was put to one of the gentleman who represented the Shaheen group here as to why the sudden increase, for the same size plant and the same design. The answer was, ~scalation in the cost of living: That, Mr. Speaker, just cannot hold water in this day and age. The simple fact of the matter, Mr.

Speaker, is that something is gone radically wrong, that there has to be eome good explanation or there should be for this sudden escalation in prices. Why this is relevant now, Mr. Speaker, is this: But Mr. Speaker, as my bon. friend has dra~m to my attention, the Newfoundland Bulletin that was issued the day before the Shaheen group appeared on the 4316

Nay 18th., 1970 Tape no 899 Page 6 floor of this House indicated that the cost of the project was $125 million, yet the next day, the figure of $155 million, as the target price, was given. Mr. Speaker, I attach some significance to the words ··target price.'' These words were very carefully used from time to time on the floor of this House. There is a difference, Mr. Speaker, between target price and fixed price. Sometimes the target price comes out the way it is intended, but anyone will discern that a target price is not a fixed price, and people will recall that when this matter was before this hon.

House, that no explanation was given as to where the 100ney is going to come from to pay for the import duties on all the machinery and equipment which must be brought from outside Canada to Come-by-Chance. Is this going to drive it beyond the target price, Mr. Speaker? Is this going to mean that we are talking about more than $155 million? Because once when we get into this thing, there is no turning back. There has been great talk about the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia, how that started at $20 million or $30 million and kept on going, but at least, it started at $20 million and went to $100 million.

What is going to happen if we get caught in the same bind in this Province, where we start with a target price of $155 million and find that we have to keep going 1and the same~applied to the Doyle enterprise. This, Mr. Speaker, is why, on this side of the House, we can be pardoned if we are somewhat skeptical, if we express some doubt as to whether or not the total involvement of the people of Newfoundland in Come-by-Chance is going to be fixed at $155 million. Mr.

Speaker, in any ne'goti~tions, .if either party to these negotiations,in the middle or after the first round has been completed and after the first documents have been signed, if either party then unilaterally comes along and says that we want substantial changes, and in this case nothing could be more substantial than an escalation from $80 million to ~n11

May 18th •• 1970 Tape no 899 Page 7 . $100 million to $155 million. If that happens, Mt. Speaker, surely this imposes an obligation on the other contracting party; particularly, when the contracting party is the representative of the people of this Province, and to go back to Mr. Shaheen and say, you forced us unilaterally inao making additional concessions. You have forced us to impede and incumber the credit of this Province beyond what had been anticipated.

We,therefore, expect . more concessions, better negotiations and better agreements from you, and we will not insist o~1 whenever it is conceivably and legally possible to renegotiate this agreement. Mr. Speaker, let me draw to your Honour's attention that under the terms of the Newfoundland Refining Act, it is provided that 5(

a) of the agreement has to be complied with within two years from the date that Act became law; otherwise it is within the power of Government to terminate and obviously if you can terminate, you can renegotiate. That Act; Mr. Speaker, became law on May 23, 1968, and this means that come Friday of this week, if

Section 5 (

a) of the agreement with the Shaheen group has not been complied with, it is completely within the power of the Government of Newfoundland to insist on renegotiating any terms that they feel should be renegotiated to the benefit of the Province of Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, we were told during the appearance of these gentlemen before the House, that whilst the $30 million and that is what 5 (

a) provides for; whilst ~he $30 million had not at that time been raised, Government had high hopes, almost absolutely certain hopes that the $30 million would be raised. I say to you right now, Mr. Speaker, tbat .the $30 million has not been raised and that the Government or Mr. Shaheen or any other companr or vb~ever is involved in the negotiatin~ 4:l18

May 18th •• 1970 Tape no 899 Page 8 Mr. Hickman, and raisiny, of the $30 million loan is not close to completipg that work on or before Saturday of this week and that $30 million will not be ra·ised, will not be signed, sealed and eelivered on or before May 23rd. , and that, J.tr. Speaker, operis the door to the Government of this Province to renegotiate and to try and make some better terms for the people of ~ewfoundland in light of the dreadful and awesome escalation in the price at Come-by-Chance. Hr. Speaker, let me dr~w another matter to your attention. Again in the Come-by-Chance agreement, there is a provision in 5 ~

j) that before there c~n be any commitment of the Government of Newfoundland to be bound or to raise or to guarantee the $30 million, that under 5 (j), Government has to be furnished an opinion of an independent· person showing that this project is feasible. Now, Hr. Speaker 4319

t-!ay 18th. 1970 Tape 900 PK - 1 HR. lllCKHAN: Hr. Speaker, again if you will recall all the jeerinr,s in this House there was an assurance given by the hon. the Premier on page 2461, I think it was, of number Volume 44 of Hansard, and that assurance Mr. Speaker was to the effect that it Has in connection with the report of the independent study of a person acceptable to C'-.overnment.

And Your Honour "·ill recall that this House was advised sometime in April that, or we were advised sometime in Harch that Universal Oil Products was not the company doing the independent feasibility study on Come-by-Chance, but rather they were doing this for Hr. Shaheen and that there has been another company, there was another company doing it for Government. I would think, ~!r. Speaker, that this House can attac:h some significane(' to the fact that ~1r.

Brown, or the other gentleman who is here from Jacob's Engineering says that on April 12th. 1970 was when they were first contacted and asked to do the independent feasibili~y study. Now, Hr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier in Hansard of April 21st. said that when the feasibility study is completed by the Jacob's En~ineering, that whilst the entire feasibility study cannot be made public - that when it is completed that that portion of the study which indicates that it is feasible will be made available and known to the public of Newfoundland. Mr.

Speaker, if you bear in mind that the $30 million cannot be committed until that independent study is completed, and if you bear in mind the fact that as of this minute there has been no announcement that the Jacob Engineering study has been completed and their study has indicated that this is now a feasible project and that portion of the study showing that it is feasible has not been tabled in this House ·r then obviously the Saturday deadline of :t-lay 23rd. cannot and will not be met. MR. SHALLlvOOD: (Inaudible) And we will of course table it. HR. HICKMAN: \~ell, ~Tr.

Speaker, tha-t is indeed a r,ood bit of news that T!7e slowly but surely can 'I<.'Orm out of Government if we - - NR. SHALLWOOD: lvorm? It has just arrived. There is no worming, if there is any worm, it is not on this side of the Hot~e. 4320

Mny lA, 1970 Tape 900 PK-2 MR SMALLWOOD: May I inform the hon. gentleman the report has been received and we will, of course, table it. MR HICKMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a good bit of news that we slowly but surely wormed out of the Goyernment. MR SMALLWOOD: Wormed? It has just arrived. There is no worming. If there is any worn it is not on this side of the House. MR. CROSBIE: Force. Hould the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member remember in March, befot"e the P.ouse adjourned the hon.

Hinister of Health saying the the Government then had the independent feasibility study and that all he got would be tabled? MR. SHALLWOOD: No, he does not remember it, it was not said. :HR. CROSBIE: Does the hon. the member remember that? It is in Hansard and we remembered it. HR. SHALLHOOD: There was no such statement. MR. CROSBIE: That the Government had it, and would not table it. HR. SUALLWOOD: He ha~ the feasibility repo}:'t, the Jacob's Report is a report on the feasibility report. HR. HICKMAN: That is right Hr. Speaker, and that Jacob's feasibility report, HR.

SMALL\vOOD: no, the Jacob's report on the feasibility report. MR. HIC~AN: Bot it is a feasibility study · in itself. ~m.. SHALLWOOD: That is right. HR. HICKMAN: Of course it is, NR. 51-ll\LUiOOD: Yes. ~m. HICI~: It will leave,as ~!r. Brown pointed 1 out some essential features that should be in a main feasibility report because they are not taking into consideration the marketin~ of the products• ~m. CROSBIE:.··They are not doing what the agreement rcuires. ~m. HICKMAN: No. But anythinp, that is suppose to be required under this agreement, Jacob's Enr,ineering will not encompass , in its study.

What it is going to do, is decide whethe 'r the other features of the UOP study indicate to Jacob's that this is feasible. And the hon. the PEem.ier has aS?:ain reiterated its undertaking, that th~t report \-lill be tabled in this hon,House 4321 H"

May 18th. 1970 Tape YUU t'K - ..:1 MR CROSBIE: When? l1R. SMALLWOOD: Almost certainly tomorrow, and possibly before this day is over. lffi. CROSBIE: Keep pressing, keep pressing. MR. HIC!Of.A..\1: Well today or tomorrow will be fine,· but I would remind the bon. the Premier that then leaves him three days in which to raise $30 million. }ffi. CROSBIE: That is nothing for the hon. the Premier. }ffi. SMALLWOOD: The money is raised. MR. HICKHAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, that the money? as of today 7 is not raised. Mi.. SMALLWOOD: Does he now? HR. BICIQfAN: Yes. MR. HICKMk\1: He says that