Province of Newfoundland THIRTY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XXXIX Third Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable ]ames Russell Number 62 Friday 7 December 1984

The House met at 10:00 a.m. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Fisheries (Acting). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to announce that the Department of Fisheries has provided a grant of $25,000 to the Canadian Sealers Association. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. GOUDIE: This funding will assist the Sealers Association in a number of their ongoing sealing industry revitalization activities, particularly those activities related to test marketing and craft development projects.

This is the second year that the Department has financially supported the activities of the Sealers Association. We are pleased to be able to do this, because we feel the Sealers Association is playing an important role in both the short-term survival of the industry and efforts aimed at the long-term revitalization. As most are aware, this government is on record as unequivocally supporting our seal fishery and, we will continue to work with those involved to develop it to maximum potential. L5618 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Leader of Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr.

Speaker, until recently, I believe that government was whole-heartedly trying to do what it could for the seal fishery. I fear, however, that it may now be slipping into a form of tokenism and I say this because of the lack of any protest made to the federal government with respect to the - MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is making a speech. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we permitted to respond to Ministerial statements or are we not? MR.

SPEAKER: The rule is, of course, as all hon. members are aware, that the spokesman for the Opposition is permitted one half the time it has taken the minister to make his statement and, I suppose, those comments should be confined to the content of the statement made by the minister. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I am referring specifically to the statement that the government is on record as unequivocally supporting our seal fishery, and I am suggesting and submitting to this House that recent events have indicated that December 7, 1984 R5618

it is not unequivocally supporting the seal fishery because of its lack of protest and representation to the Government of Canada on the way in which the Government of Canada permitted Greenpeace to join the World Wildlife Federation when, if the Canadian government had made representation and pointed out how Greenpeace was attacking a traditional industry in this Province, the Canadian government could have blocked the entry of Greenpeace into that organization. Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I have a couple of question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle).

The minister has had an opportunity now to assess the mess that he inherited from his predecessor, and he has had a chance to take a look at the impact of government restraint programmes and cutbacks in municipal grants and the effect that they are having on municipalities throughout the Province; the Jerseyside Council, as was indicated yesterday, was forced to ['esign because they could not balance their budget, and a number of other counci ls throughout the Province, including the oldest municipality in Newfoundland, Windsor, have stated publicly they cannot make ends meet. How widespread is this problem?

How serious is this problem? The minister has been doing a bit of travelling and meeting with the municipalities, and I am sure now that he must feel the brunt of the criticism L5619 that is being levelled at administration for the way they have treated the that the municipalities. How widespread is the problem? How serious is it? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. DOYLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, over the last two month period I have had the opportunity of meeting with approximately seventy-five municipalities in their own - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

DOYLE: in their own respective communities, and, also, approximate ly another forty or forty-five in my office. So, over the last two months we have met with approximately 100 municipalities and during that time, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to several of these municipalities regarding some of the cutbacks that government had been forced to implement during the last budget. I must say that the municipalities are coping quite well with the problems that they have had, and, Mr.

Speaker, because we have such good, responsible councils and councillors around the Province, they have done a tremendous job in addressing the problems that they are having. I indicated to them at the Federation of Municipalities meeting, approximately two months ago, that hopefully some of these cutbacks that they have been forced to live with will be short-term cutbacks and some measure of relief will be afforded these municipalities in the future. December 7, 1984 R5619

MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A _ _ ~upplementary, the hon. the member for LaPoi!e. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing reports through the media every day now of criticism being levelled at the administration for cutbacks, for imposing hardships, for forcing the municipalities to increase taxes. For instance, today we learned that there had to be a tax increase in Corner Brook as a direct result of the policies of this administration.

Now, would the minister tell the House what action he is going to take to help these municipalities , to save a lot of these municipalities from going bankrupt? The hon. gentleman indicated in his answer to my first question that a lot of them are having problems. What will the minister and the administration there opposite do to save a lot of these councils from going bankrupt? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. DOYLE: Mr.

Speaker, when you consider the fact that we have approximately 310 municipalities in this Province, and sometimes we do have isolated incidents where municipalities are experiencing problems, I think the number that are doing quite well compared to the number that are experiencing problems is very low indeed. This government, Mr. Speaker, can be very proud of what they have done for municipalities over the L5620 last four or five years. It was this government which, back in 1980, brought in the new Municipalities Grants Act.

Prior to that, municipalities had not been able to provide any decent level of service for their people. Now, because of the grants that we have made available through the new Municipal Grants Act, municipalities, for the first time, are beginning to offer a very high level of service to their respective conununi ties and I think this government can be very proud of the contribution that they have made to municipalities. We are continuing, Mr. Speaker, to monitor on a daily basis, through the Federation of Municipalities, all councils around the Province.

Whenever an individual council is experiencing any problems financially, my department is always ready, willing and able to offer advice on budgetary matters, on the preparation of budgets and what have you, that the councils are in the process of doing right now. MR. NEARY: You had better get somebody better than the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) to help them. MR. DOYLE: So, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is fair to say that while some cutbacks have occurred, the municipalities, generally speaking, are doing quite well in this period of restraint in coping with the problems that they are having and, as I said before, my department is always ready to assist in any way in offering advice to the municipalities on how to overcome their problems. And we are working on a daily basis with the Federation of Municipalities in that regard. December 7, 1984 R5620

On Saturday coming, Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the Federation of Municipalities. I have already met with them twice, and we have talked about these problems. We will continue to monitor the situation. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A final supplementary. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The bon. Mr Speaker, the bon. gentleman just admitted, in the last part of that answer, that there are a lot of problems. Now, will the bon. minister indicate to the House how serious these restraints are going to be on the personnel who man the councils?

For instance, will the government cutbacks and increases in payments on loans and guarantees and so forth, discourage people from seeking re-election, or seeking election in next year• s municipal council elections that take place in the Province? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am not anticipating any problems in that regard. I do not believe we have any more problems getting people to serve on town councils than on any other volunteer organization, whether it is a school board or any other organization. I am not anticipating any great problems in that regard.

As I said before, you have to take into consideration the fact that we do have 310 municipalities in the Province, and serving on those 310 councils are over 2000 L5621 councillors. So I am not anticipating any great problems in having people coming forward to serve on councils when elections roll around again in November. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Mr.

Speaker, we now have some statistics on unemployment for the month of November and I am wondering if the Premier could indicate whether what seems to be a steady increase in the unemployment rate is predicted to continue throughout the Winter? Does the government have any indications or any predictions as to what level the unemployment rate is likely to reach during this Winter?

We see that the unadjusted unemployment rate from October to November has gone from 19.7 per cent to 20.9 per cent, an increase of 1.2 per cent, although the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has remained the same, that is up from 19.4 per cent, seasonally adjusted. This year it is 21 per cent, seasonally adjusted, an increase of 1. 7 per cent, and unadjusted it is from 19.6 per cent to 20.9 per cent, an increase of 1.3 per cent. Is this increase likely to continue over the Winter? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, as it relates to the fishing indus try, as we know now, with some of the new management in place and the employees and the employer back at the table, we hope that they will be able to reach a settlement very soon which will assist in relieving some of the unemployment problems in the December 7, 1984 R5621

New Year. We are trying to objectively urge the parties back to the table in the Newfoundland Telephone dispute, as my statement yesterday indicated. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that if the Opposition continue to oppose Bill 37, then we anticipate that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland, even though we will have the fisheries strike ended, and have the telephone strike ended, and have a new operator in Corner Brook, and have a new mine in St.

Lawrence, and all the other things, we would anticipate that these positive steps that the government are taking will be offset by the negative steps taken by the Opposition which will threaten the livelihood of people on the Southern Shore, in all the small plants where there are guaranteed loans, and in Conception Bay and in Trinity Bay where there are guaranteed loans on the fish plants. FPI will have to pay out anywhere from $10, $15, or $20 million which will again affect its viability. It will affect Gaultois, Ramea, Harbour Breton, Grand Bank, Fortune, Karystown and Burin.

You will see the Kruger operation, when it starts in January, being less viable than it is now if the Opposition keep opposing it. So the Opposition will have a lot to do with the creation of unemployment in this Province in the New Year if they continue to oppose Bill 3 7.

So we anticipate that although we are doing all we can to protect the jobs that are now existing in this Province, and will be trying to create more in the New Year through a new road's agreement, through a new offshore agreement, and through trying to get bills like Bill 3 7 through to protect existing jobs, that this could be offset by the Opposition Parties in this House if they do L5622 not allow Bill 3 7. I am afraid that there are certain conspiracies underway in this Province.

About a week ago, I understand, there were a number of meetings held in Newfoundland, and there was a conspiracy cooked up to try to oppose Bill 37, because by opposing Bill 37, the Socialists and the Liberals could say in 1985 , 'There is more unemployment now in Newfoundland and it is the government's f au! t' . So I think they do not want to see Bill 37 go through because then they will be able to accuse the government, in 1985 and 1986, of creating more unemployment. That is the whole conspiracy.

This first line of questioning, I think, gives a lot of credence to it, and I am sure the Socialists and the Liberals are going to try to insure that there is more unemployment in 1985 so that they can attack the government with, 'It is their fault'. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) The bon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary. MR. BARRY: Yes, Kr. Speaker, there is a conspiracy in this Province, there is a conspiracy against the contempt for this House, there is a conspiracy against contempt and against arrogance, Kr. Speaker.

Now, if the government has reached the point where it is throwing up its hands and is prepared to place responsibility on the Opposition, we will gladly accept that responsibility. All the Premier has to do is call an election and that opportunity will be there. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether, because of the fact that he now has his friends in Ottawa instead of the Liberal government, he has now December 7, 1984 R5622

decided to place all the attack and blame for everything that goes on in the Province on the Opposition? And I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the Premier is aware of the Stats Canada statistics which indicate that in addition to the 47,000 that are indicated as unemployed at the present time in Newfoundland there are at least another 13,000 who are not looking for work but who are unemployed, who have given up because they are unable to find jobs, which would indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that the numbers of the unemployed are in the area of 60,000 people at the present time in Newfoundland, an unemployment rate of about 25.4 per cent? Is the Premier aware of these figures? And is he going to continue this ridiculous statement that it is Bill 37, or the failure of this House to pass Bill 37 that has led to these figures? Has Bill 37 led to the 60,000 unemployed in this Province today? HR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, in his first question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) asked me to anticipate how I saw the future in the next few months, into 1985, based upon the statistics that he has now received or gotten from Statistics Canada, which we are all familiar with and which we all get. That was the original question. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Barry) is now trying to change it. Because he is getting scared and knows that Bill 3 7 will help increase the number of jobless in Newfoundland in 1985, now he wants to go to the past to see who is the cause of the existing 4 7 , 000 unemployed and the other 13,000 who are now not looking for jobs.

L5623 Well, the Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If we are going to look ahead to the future, which was his original question, I am saying to the Leader of ·the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, today, that this government is deeply concerned with the unemployment in this Province. We do not want to see it get any worse, but there is a conspiracy by the Socialist forces in this Province, and the Liberal Party, to try to create more unemployment so that they can attack this government in 1985 and 1986. I stand by that and we will defend, we will, Mr.

Speaker, stand against that Liberal/Socialist coalition and we will not let them create more unemployment in Newfoundland in 1985. We will stop them from trying to create more jobless so they then can try to attack the government and try to somehow gain power. But, Mr. Speaker, they will not succeed. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Premier fall to new lows of infantile shallowness in that response. The Premier is bad medicine for this Province, Mr. Speaker.

And I would like to ask the Premier whether he would confirm - the Premier is talking about creating unemployment - that the Government of Canada has put it in the hands of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, as to where the cuts will take place with respect to CN Marine operations, with respect to Gulf ferry · operations, with respect to TerraTransport, with respect to other aspects of marine operation - December 7, 1984 R5623

MR. NEARY: CMHC, excise taxes. MR. BARRY: No, I am not sure whether it has gone as far as CMHC, but Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier will he confirm that the Government of Canada has indicated to the Government of this Province that it must save a certain number of millions of dollars and has left it to the Premier of this Province as to where the cuts will be made, and where the unemployment will be created? Will he confirm that? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: That is a complete fabrication, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) is now trying to change it around, that suddenly - MR. BARRY: Untrue. Untrue. PREMIER PECKFORD: all consultation means that power has been transferred somehow, even where it legitimately belongs in Ottawa, to the provinces and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) is now trying to attack the government for being responsible for this unemployment. Mr. Speaker, we will not allow the Leader of the Opposition and his socialist friends to get away with creating more unemployment in Newfoundland in 1985. And opposition to Bill 37 does that.

Already it threatens the viability of Kruger in Corner Brook, because they will not know whether they will have to pay out another $6.7 mi~lion. MR. BARRY: L5624 It is rubbish. MR. SIMMS: It is not rubbish. PREMIER PECKFORD: FPI is not viable, it is bankrupt, and the Liberals and the Socialists want to grind it right into the ground. They want to grind all the small independent fish plants right into the ground, they want to see Baie Verte Kines close down for good. Because that is what it will mean. They want to ensure that Minworth, that is coming into St. Lawrence, will come in under a cloud. Mr.

Speaker, they have no concern for Gaultois, they have no concern for Ramea, or Harbour Breton. Every worker in this Province who has a job knows that they would sooner have a job and have a secure job into 1985 and 1986 rather than get some retroactive pay under an ambiguous law. Most people want to retain their jobs. And the Opposition are saying, no, take a little bit of money now and forget your job in 1985. And we are not going to allow the Opposition and their Socialists cohorts to get away with this. They are not going to ·Cause that kind of revolutionary undercurrent in our Province.

That is what they are trying to do. There is a conspiracy underway to create more unemployment and then try to blame it on yours truly. I am not going to let them get away with it, Mr. Speaker. I will fight them tooth and nail to retain the number of jobs we have now in FPI. We will not let them create more unemployment in the fishery. We will not let them create more unemployment in the mining industry. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! December 7, 1984 R5624

PREMIER PECKFORD: We will not let them create more unemployment in the forestry industry. They will not get away with this conspiracy. They might have had the press on their side for the last week, but it is starting to turn, Mr. Speaker, it is starting to turn. People can see through the superficial ambition of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), and they know he is in a conspiracy with the socialists. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: We will stand against this undercurrent of social revolution trying to create more unemployment and more unrest. They will not get away with it, Mr.

Speaker, talking about the government throwing money at things, we are going to oppose them. MR. BARRY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A final supplementary, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier has given any consideration to giving up the shallow Bill Bennett approach and taking some lessons from parts of this country where there are people and premiers prepared to accept responsibility for the job for which they are elected? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: And failing that, Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier has decided that he is going to adopt the approach taken L5625 by Premier Bennett in British Columbia, would he live up to that approach rather than exhibiting the shallowness that we see here this morning? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: We take our responsibility seriously, Mr. Speaker, that is why we have introduced Bill 37. We will lead when we have to lead, and we will change laws when they have to changed for the public good.

And they will not get away with the word 'retroactive' when they do not tell the other side of the story, that they out to destroy the existing jobs in the industries in this Province, trying to lay it all at the mantle of retroactivity. How about at the mantle of more unemployment, Mr. Speaker? They will not get away with it. They will not hide behind retroactivity, Mr. Speaker. Let them hide behind more unemployment in this Province. We take our responsibility seriously. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) brought up British Columbia, because British Columbia is in a mess today because the Socialists were allowed to get in for two or three years. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: That is what happened to B.C. The Socialists got in and spent like drunken sailors, and it took Bill Bennett and a group of Conservatives getting into the Government of British Columbia to bring it back to some kind of economic sanity, Mr. Speaker. December 7, 1984 R5625

But unlike what happened in British Columbia, the Socialist/Liberal coalition will not have the opportunity to run Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for a question from the socialist cohort over here. Howard Pawley tells me it is a mark of significance when they start calling you a socialist, because that means you are becoming relevant and they are trying to attack you by labelling you something you may or may not be.

I hate to depart from what is turning out to be quite an entertaining session here, but I want to ask a serious question for a change. The question is to the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey) , and I think to both Ministers of Education (Ms. Verge and Mr. Power), because it is the sort of question that falls between the departments. PREMIER PECKFORD: One minister at a time. MR. FENWICK: Well, it is one question, but the answer may have to come from both departments.

The question is this: Once the children of people who are on social assistance pass the age of seventeen they are no longer considered to be the responsibility of the family and as a result they are either cut off the amount of money that the parents receive or they are asked L5626 to ask for social assistance in their own right. What has happened in St. John's with students of this age, who were going to Memorial University, is that once they reached the age of eighteen their support was cut off the amount of social assistance their parents were receiving. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

FENWICK: This is a question. I pretty serious would like some order, please. HR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRETT: Is that Pawley's question? MR. FENWICK: This is mine if I ever get to it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: If the student goes to University, because they live in St. John's they are not permitted to live anywhere else in the city, they are expected to live with their parents, which I think is a reasonable thing, however, their parents do not receive any social assistance to support them.

They then have to go to student aid in order to receive a loan, but student aid, because they live in St. John's, will not give them the equivalent of board money and as a result they suffer a tremendous amount of hardship. MR. BARRETT: Is there a question there? MR. FENWICK: December 7, 1984 R5626

This is a are a lot position. explain it. serious question. There of people caught in this It takes a while to The situation is such that these individuals going to university, trying to better themselves, are in a position where their parents can no longer support them and student aid, because of the regulations that they have to live under, is not able to support them as well. The situation is quite serious for the individuals involved, not only the people in St. John's but in places like Corner Brook, where they are going to the district vocational school, the Stephenville Community College and so on.

My question to the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey) or to the ministers responsible for Education (Ms Verge and Mr. Power) , could you please look at this situation, investigate it, and assess what kind of support can be allowed for 'these people? Because if this continues, what will happen is we will have individuals who are going to university to better themselves, whose parents are receiving social assistance, who will not be financially able to do so. I think it is important that they receive the attention they deserve. HR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Social Services .. MR.

YOUNG: Answer that now, 'Tom'! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I should give the hon. gentleman a L5627 socialist answer or a sensible one but, as he says, it is a serious matter. Let me say to him that the Social Assistance programme was never introduced, put in place, to educate people or provide an education per se.

It would be grossly unfair if a target group or any particular percentage of the population who could find themselves on social assistance could have their way paid through university at the expense of the taxpayers, while those who were gainfully employed and making the effort to be independent were to be disadvantaged as a consequence. That indeed would be a socialist policy, to say the least. You know, we deal with each case on its own merits.

If the han. gentleman has been told that people are turned away from my department without any care or consideration to the plight of their situation, I can tell the hon. gentleman that it is not true. I personally know of situations where people are going to university and we are providing some assistance. I know of a number of cases which have come to my attention over the last number of years, of single parents who have need for special assistance in order to stay in University because they have young children.

Indeed, we have assisted a number of people almost at that critical point, where they were going to have to drop out of university because of their financial situation and because of the fact they had dependent children. We look most compassionately upon those cases and we do provide assistance where the need is established, where the need is clearly determined. However, Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend says that after a young man December 7, 1984 R5627

or a young woman reaches the age of seventeen or eighteen they are no longer the responsibility of their parents, I would remind him that that is not so. There is a law of on the books of this Province, longstanding, how ever old it might be, called the Maintenance law, and that law says that parents are responsible for their children, no matter what age. I do not believe it even mentions an age. And it also says that children are responsible for their parents. So there is no option of getting out of that if we really want to be sticky about it and apply that law which, in most cases, we do not.

We leave it to the compassion of children on the one hand to look after their parents, and the moral obligation, which I believe most people acknowledge, and we do not necessarily follow the letter of that law. But it is there and, therefore, if the hon. gentleman is told, from some 'cases that might be brought to his attention, that this is the situation, I have to tell him that it is really not. However, the final point, Mr. Speaker, is that each case is looked upon on its own merits. My department and my people are conscious of the need for an education; however, at the same time, we walk that tight line.

We have to be very careful that we do not apply one brand of justice to people who are on social assistance with regard to their education, and yet another to people who are out in the work place, working, or whose parents are working, whose sons and daughters are not on social ' assistance. So it is a very touchy situation. I think we have to deal with it as we are now, deal with it on its own merits, and deal with each case on that basis. L5628 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The time for Question Period has expired.

Before we continue, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the galleries today from the Roncalli High School, Avondale, in the district of Harbour Main - Bell Island, eighty Grade XI students and their teachers, Mr. Moore, Mr. Hickey and Mr. Hunt. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for St. Mary•s - The Capes. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Development (Mr.

Windsor) I would like to table answers to questions No. 55, 56 and 57, placed on the Order Paper of November 15 by the hon. the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan). Presenting Petitions MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to present a petition signed by about 500 of my constituents, the men and women who live in the December 7, 1984 R5628

communities of Julien's, Conche, Eng lee, Main BI"ook, my constituency, the of White Bay. CI"oque, St. Roddickton, that pai"t of Eastern side MI" . Speake I", I have the OI"iginal copy, of coui"se, of the petition; if one of the Pages would do me the kindness to come along, I could put it foi"Wai"d to go to the table of the House.

The pi"ayei" of the petition, Sii", is quite succinctly stated and I"eally says what these people wish, so if I may I"ead it, I will simply say, 'The people of CI"oque ai"e seeking youi" suppoi"t in applying pi"essui"e to the pi"ovincial goveLnrnent foi" the upgi"ading of the CI"oque I"Oad.' That is what the petitionei"s seek, that is the point, that is the I"equest which they make. MI". Speake I", the I"Oad to the community of CI"oque, which also seLVes the community of St . Julien's, sometimes known as GI"andois, is about 22 kilometei"s long. It has to be one of the vei"y worst I"oads in the entii"e PI"ovince.

It was built in pai"t as a woods road by the goveLnrnent and by Bowatei"s in cutting operations, funded through the Department of Foresti"y - my fdend from Feri"yland (MI". Power) was instrumental in some of that - and built in part by the goveLnntent in the I"egulai" Transportation Department constLUction pi"ogramrnes. It is a winding I"Oad, it is indesci"ibably hilly, indescribably curvy and in indescribably bad shape. It would cost a great deal of money to rebuild that road and to pave it, and I think the people of Croque are as aware as am I that the Province does not have that kind of money at this time.

But, Mr. L5629 Speaker - and this is the key point - they do have a right to expect a reasonable amount of public money spent on it. No significant amount of public money has been spent on the Creque road in the last two, three, four or five years, no significant I"esults have been achieved, it just gets worse. It is part of the deliberate decision of the Premier and his colleagues to deny the people of the Strait of Belle Isle district their fair share of the road expenditures.

When we see what is being spent elsewhere in the Province and the priorities of the goveLnrnent, as demonstrated by their projects elsewhere, it is just impossible to see how the Premier, in good faith - if he is acting in bad faith, it is explained, but in good faith, it is impossible to see how he can, with a clear conscience, say to the people of Northern Newfoundland and the people of Croque that they are getting their fair share. It is completely impossible to justify it. The people of Croque, Sir, speak against it, I speak against it.

We ask that the petition be received and be referred to the department to which it relates and that the goveLnrnent respond in a positive way. We are not expecting any miracles, we are not expecting paved roads at this stage, what we are expecting is a reasonable maintenance effort to take out some of the worst potholes, to take out some of the worst curves and to make the road at least tolerable, so that the people of Creque and the people of st. Julien's!

Grandois can get back and forth in some safety and some degree of comfort, so that the fish which they catch, which is transported to the plant at Englee for further processing can be moved and so that the public December 7, 1984 R5629

.:.:..:.:. services services do so and the commercial which use that road can with some degree of convenience. Mr. Speaker, I support the petition wholeheartedly. The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) is not in the House, of course; he is out of the Province, I understand, but I would hope the Premier would address it and I hope he would assure us that he does have a genuine concern and he is prepared to evidence that concern.

When I see what has been done in his own district of Green Bay, compared to callous, partisan neglect for partisan reasons which he is perpetrating deliberately, I at times tend to ask whether he really believes it when he says that he is fighting for all of Newfoundland. I do not think so, Sir, and I think it is up to him now to show the burden of proof and to show it in a positive way by doing something concrete and positive for the people of Croque and St. Julien's and for the other people of the neglected Northern Peninsula of this Island, Sir. I support the petition. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I would like to stand in my place and support the petition just presented by the han. member. As a matter of fact, I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that I have spent more time in Croque than the han. member. As a matter of fact, I do not know what time the road was actually built. I guess it was in the late .1960s or early 1970s that the road was put to Croque. L5630 MR. ROBERTS: No, it was 1979, days. PREMIER PECKFORD: the Bill Doody Exactly. I wanted the hon. the member to say that. The road was built by the Conservative Government. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: Now, the han. member was a member in a Liberal Government for many, many years and never even built the road to Croque. I say to you now, Mr. Speaker, the han. member gets up and tries to talk about partisanship as practiced by the Conservative administration and here the road that he is talking about was built under the PCs and not when he was the member in government and a minister of the Crown. Now, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was in Croque, St.

Julien and Grandois in 1963 or 1964 for four days so I know a little bit about the area that the han. member is talking about, which traditionally has been called by most fishermen going there from Carbonear, Harbour Grace and from the Green Bay area, the French Shore. Of course, we all know that historically the French Shore extended much further than just in the Conche, Croque, Crouse, St. Julien, Grandois, Fischot Island area, but it has now more or less been concentrated in that area by a lot of the fishermen as they go to talk about that area of Newfoundland.

So I am very familiar with it and I am very proud to be able to stand in my place and support this petition, especially when what we are saying here, Kr. Speaker, is that the PC administration built this road in the Liberal member's December 7, 1984 R5630

district and now, of course, after building it we must maintain and improve it, and maintain and improve it we will. Let me just go on to say, though, Mr. Speaker, that whilst the hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) did not build that road, people in glass houses should not throw stones. I remember as a citizen of Green Bay when we could not get one penny in Green Bay even though we had a Liberal government member. They were destitute from 1949 to 1972, nothing was done.

Meanwhile, I did have the opportunity to travel to the hon. member's district when he was Minister of Health, and to some other hon. member's districts who were ministers of the government at that time, and saw the work that was being done on water and sewer in St. Lunaire and Griquet, and the work that was being done in St. Anthony, whilst even though Green Bay had a member on the government side of the House we still were not getting a copper.

So I would remind the hon. member he should not be too quick to criticize about partisanship because he is practicing a little bit of hypocrisy, because during the time the hon. member was a minister in the government he made sure that the money that was allocated went to his district and to the districts of other ministers of the Crown at the time. So, you know, people in glass houses should not throw stones. But I would say to the hon. member in all fairness, nevertheless, we are concerned about the Croque Road. We will try to do something to improve it.

We built it and we will try to improve it for the hon. member. I also want to say to him that I think I know a little bit more about Croque, Grandois and Fischot Islands than L5631 the hon. member does. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SP&AKER ~Russel12: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier may know more about Croque but he sure did not indicate that this morning because the Premier was wrong. He heard a remark by my learned friend and decided to correct himself but he was wrong. You see, Mr. Premier, the fact of the matter is that it was the road between Croque and St.

Julien that was built by Bill Doody and the road to Croque, Mr. Speaker, was built in 1971 by the member. PREMIER PECKFORD: I was going by what he told me. MR. BARRY: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways. Either he relies on information from my learned friend about Croque or St. Julien or he knows about it himself. He got up here to say how much he knew about Croque when he does not even know when the road was built. Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody in Newfoundland saw the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Dawe) go on television and say that he intended to put money into PC districts and not into Liberal districts. Is there anybody here who did not hear him say that? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has a choice. If he wants to show that December 7, 1984 R5631

he is sincere in having taxpayer dollars distributed on a non-partisan basis he should terminate the employment of that minister right fast, he should have that Minister of Transportation fired, he should change ministers, he should get rid of that Minister of Transportation. Also, Mr. Speaker, we and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will watch and see if the Premier is a man of his word. He stands up here in the House and says that he is going to help the people of Croque and St. Julien, and we will be watching and see if that is the case. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would be prepared to table in this House, if he has the guts - sorry - if he has the intestinal fortitude, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier be prepared to table the list of expenditures that have been made in my colleagues district since 1979 as compared to the expenditures made in Green Bay district or any other Tory district? MR. ROBERTS: Go back to 1949. MR. BARRY: Or go back to 1949. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Orders of the Day MR. SPEAKER: Order 19, Bill No. 52. The debate was adjourned last day by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. L5632 SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Hr. Speaker, we have seen the Premier today continue with that shallow, transparent attempt to use the Kruger transaction as an excuse, as a pretence to bulldoze through Bill 3 7. Now, I am not going to spend much time on Bill 37 this morning because that is not part of the Kruger transaction. Hr. Speaker, the Premier has admitted it is not necessary to have the Kruger deal completed, he was forced to admit it, Mr. Speaker. He admitted it in this House and outside of this House. He has admit ted, Hr. Speaker, as he had no choice but to admit.

And despite the pedantic attempts of the Government House Leader (Hr. Marshall) to try and twist things, everybody else has accepted that the Bill 37 passing is not necessary in order to see the completion of the Kruger deal. It has nothing to do with the Kruger deal, and we will debate Bill 37 on its merits. We will ask, Hr. Speaker, whether the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be taken away retroactively six years after those rights have been passed by legislation from this hon. House. Hr.

Speaker, we want more in the way of reasons and explanations than we have gotten so far from members opposite to justify our agreeing to any such retroactive legislation. Hr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to check it yet, but I am informed there is another bill before this House that attempts to bring in laws retroactively. I will be referring to that later, but if that is so, Hr. Speaker, it shows the beginning of a very dangerous trend. Hr. Speaker, we will not December 7, 1984 R5632

have any threats by the Premier. Unemployment in this Province is due primarily to hon. members opposite not doing their jobs. Mr. Speaker, any future increases in unemployment until they are turfed out of office, will be because they are not doing the jobs for which they were elected.

If they want to pass the responsibility over to members on this side, as they have tried to do since 1979, try and pass responsibility over, and blame, to the government in Ottawa - when a Tory government arrived in Ottawa. all of a sudden it is all tranquility, peaches and cream and members opposite are afraid to burp about these cutbacks that Mr. Wilson has engaged in that are hurting Newfoundlanders all around this Province. but Mr. Speaker, if they want to pass responsibility over to members on this side of the House they now how to go about it.

All they have to do is call an election and that responsibility will be transferred by the people of this Province who are sick and tired of hearing those shallow, infantile excuses raised by the Premier here this morning. Mr. Speaker, we now have the Premier of this Province on record as admiring the efforts of Bill Bennett in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker. I would say there is no Canadian who has done more to injure the ordinary man and woman in Canada than Bill Bennett in British Columbia. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. HR.

SPEAKER (Aylward): A point of order the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The bill that we are debating right now is Bill 52, ••An Act To L5633 Ratify, Confirm and Adopt certain Agreements Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province. Kruger Inc. And Other Parties Respecting the Future Operation And Modernization Of The Corner Brook Newsprint Mill... Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is going off into all sorts of irrelevancies and I want to remind him once more. again, that time is not on our side with respect to this.

I mean. can he be relevant to this particular bill, because we would like to hear what he has to say about the agreements. There are two bills that should pass before the closing. HR. BARRY: There is one bill ·that should pass and one bill that will pass. HR. MARSHALL: That is fine. If the hon. gentleman wants to keep on playing with the lives of the people of Western Newfoundland he can go on tha~ refrain, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, this is Bill 52 and I would ask that the han. gentleman be asked to address his remarks to it.

Because I am quite sure there are people on this side of the House who would like to speak to the bill itself, and if the han. gentleman has not got anything of substance to add to the debate. perhaps he could sit down and allow somebody else to take his place. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order I would remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) that we are discussing Bill No. 52. The han. the Leader of the Opposition. · December 7, 1984 R5633

MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your reminder but I am going to debate this bill within the rules of this House and I will say whatever I want to say within the rules. I will not accept directions from the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) , and I would ask him to stop cutting into my time. I have limited time, and what I say, Mr. Speaker, will not be able to be carried on any longer than the hour that has been given me for debate, but I intend to say whatever I want to say on debate of this bill. I thank the Government House leaving the House future interruptions. Leader to avoid for any Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have seen the Premier of this Province engage in the most shallow attempts to excuse his own bad performance and the bad performance of his government here this morning. We have seen him express admiration for a Social Credit premier who has done more to cause division and polarization and hardship to the ordinary man and woman in his province than, I would submit, has been done in any other province.

Now, the Premier is rapidly catching up and the recent Decima poll that was done as of the end of September indicated that it is only British Columbia and Quebec that is lower than Newfoundland in satisfaction rating, and obviously the Premier is trying to get down there with British Columbia. British Columbia is at the bottom of the barrel. The government of that province is despised by the majority, Mr. Speaker, of British Columbians who recognize the way in which, since the last election, that government has created unnecessary division and unnecessary hardship for the ordinary people of that province.

L5634 Now if the Premier is going to try and embark this Province in that direction, notice is given here and now that it will be fought tooth and nail by members on this side of the House.· Mr. Speaker, maybe the reason the Premier has taken that approach is because of the very evident direction that is being given by Mr. Wilson, the federal Finance Minister, that he, too, is very syn~athetic to this type of Draconian conservative measures to try - and it is only try, Mr.

Speaker - to improve the economy because we have seen the economy of British Columbia plummet even since that government decided to engage in those antiquated - MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): A point of order the bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) realizes the importance of this bill that is before the House. He is entering into a wide-ranging debate that could be left for general debate, Mr.

Speaker, talking about British Columbia, his own warped perception of polls and popularity and all the rest, but we are talking about a bill here that has importance to the people of Western Newfoundland. And I think, as I said, there are people on this side of the House who would like to address themselves to it. The time is limited and I would suggest that the bon. gentleman be relevant to the bill itself and not be going off into the realm of debate. MR. BARRY: December 7, 1984 R5634

This is not Committee of the Whole. MR. MARSHALL: We are talking about a bill with respect to the entry of Kruger Inc. into Corner Brook to take over the Corner Brook mill, and what the bon. gentleman is saying is not relevant at all to the bill. MR. NEAAY: To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! Mr. To that point of order the bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, this is a wide-ranging debate because it affects the economy of not only the whole of Western Newfoundland but all of Newfoundland, and my colleague is attempting to compare the policies and the programmes and the negative attitude and the arrogance of this administration to what is happening in British Columbia and other provinces. We are not in Committee of the Whole. If we were in Committee of the Whole we would be held down to a narrow debate. The hon. gentleman is trying to leave the impression that we are in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker.

My bon. colleague is in order and the bon. gentleman should go out and tcy to see that the people on these oil rigs are safe, that their lives are not in danger, and decide what he is going to do about Winter drilling. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order the bon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) suggested that we are in a L5635 wide-ranging debate. We are in second reading, which is to discuss the principle of Bill 52. Most wide-ranging debates take place on financial bills, and since this is not a financial bill I would once again remind the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) that we are discussing the principle of Bill No. 52. The bon. Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Leader of the Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your reminder and I object to the interference by the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) who is determined to try and prevent debate and stifle debate in this House, as any government in trouble starts to do; first they bring in as much secrecy as possible and, secondly, they try to stifle debate. Now, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the Kruger deal I want to, first of all, compliment the people of Corner Brook and surrounding region for the patience that they have shown in what has had to be very troubling times. There has been tremendous anxiety created by the threat of the closure of that mill. The people of Corner Brook, I think, showed great fortitude in adversity, they are to be admired, they showed great tolerance, Mr. Speaker, for what were often very inept approaches by the government opposite. Mr.

Speaker, the people of Corner Brook, Humber Valley, the Bay of Islands and surrounding areas, are disappointed that their economy is going to suffer as a result of the reduction in the work force that will arise once this deal has been completed. We have seen, Mr. Speaker, that what happened here basically was a failure by the existing government December 7, 1984 RS635

to have Bowatei" agi"ee to pei"foi"'ll the things that should be done in OI"dei" to modernize the Cornei" BI"ook mill. Thei"e wei"e attempts made and, in fact, thei"e was a tentative ai"I"angement ai"I"ived at whei"eby thei"e would be, I think, some $38 million put into a modeLnization pi"ogi"amme, but, then, Bowatei" came and infoi"'!!ed goveLnment they wei"e not pi"epai"ed to embai"k upon that pi"Ogi"amme and that they had decided to leave the PI"ovince.

So we got into this situation because of the failui"e of the government of this PI"ovince to pei"suade the opei"atoi" of that mill, Bowatei", to continue its opei"ations and to continue a capital investment pi"Ogi"amme. And monies had been ai"I"anged with the GoveLnment of Canada to put into a modeLnization pi"Ogi"amme, it was $38 million. DR. COLLINS: No, no that is not tLUe. MR. BARRY: It was not total fedei"al money, but money had been ai"I"anged. DR. COLLINS: No, no. I think you ai"e mistaken. MR. BARRY: Oh, I see. I will I"ead the PI"emiei"' s own statement now.

The PI"emiei" is getting up in this House and telling us things, ai"e we not to believe him? The plan was that a $38 million capital pi"Ogi"amme would be financed by the fedei"al and pi"ovincial governments and the company itself, and thei"e is a pulp and papei" modeLnization agi"eement thei"e with the GoveLnment of Canada. And fui"thei" on in his statement it is agi"eed that thei"e was $33 million available undei" that agi"eement. DR. COLLINS: L5636 That was a plan. MR. BARRY: That was not a plan. agi"eement signed PI"ovince and the Canada. DR.

COLLINS: Thei"e was an between the GoveLnment of An ovei"all umbi"ella agi"eement. MR. BARRY: Exactly. MR. NEARY: It was not an ovei"all urnbi"ella agi"eement. Do not be so stunned. Go out and buy a two dollai" pocket size calculatoi" foi" yourself to see if you can get the estimates sti"aightened out. DR. COLLINS: You do not undei"stand the pi"ocess. MR. SPEAKER (Aylwai"d): OI"dei", please! MR. BARRY: MI".

Speakei", we had funds available thei"e under an agi"eement with the Government of Canada for the modeLnization of the Bowater mill, and we had the Province arriving at a tentative ari"angement with Bowater, in consultation with the Government of Canada, whereby this would be done and then Bowater pulled out, Mr. Speaker, again a failure on the part of membei"s opposite to deal with a company then operating in this Province - still opei"ating, I guess, until this deal is completed - a failure on the part of members opposite to see this company continue to operate. And I must say, Mr.

Speaker, it was disgusting to see the Premier on television last night attempting to say that he has no idea of what the reduction in the work force would be. December 7, 1984 R5636

MR. NEARY: He was told, just the same as we were. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we met with the president of the joint mill unions, and the other union members out there have the figures; they have obtained them from the company. I think there were 196 employees that would be laid off directly and, Mr. Speaker, there could be as many as 200 more casuals that will be laid off. And then there were people in the woods, the loggers, Mr. Speaker - MR. NEARY: Over 400. MR. BARRY: I do not know the numbers there. The member for LaPoile says that it is over 400 loggers that are going to be affected. MR.

NEARY: No, not loggers, over 400 in all. MR. BARRY: Over 400, yes, okay. But, Mr. Speaker, those figures are available to the Premier of this Province. We were able to obtain them. Now, it is misleading, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier of this Province to go on television and attempt to minimize when this severe reduction in the work force is going to have a tremendous economic impact upon the city of Corner Brook and the surrounding area. People should be notified. MR. NEARY: That is right. MR.

BARRY: And we have to get this government L5637 away from this lack of disclosure, away from this fanatic attempt to conceal, to keep things secret. One of the aspects of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, which I believe should be criticized, is the fact that there is an indication that the other proposals will be kept confidential. MR. NEARY: One hundred and ninety-eight and one hundred and sixty layoffs. MR. BARRY: Yes, to be more specific, there are 198 employees to be laid off on January 1st and 160 casuals with some other individuals for a total of 406 all told.

The Premier has those figures and it is misleading for him and cynicism at its worst for government to refuse to reveal these figures to the people of Corner Brook. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are told that the other proposals for the purchase of the Bowater mill are going to be kept confidential, they are not going to be revealed to this House. Now, when we get to the committee stage, we are going to be grilling the minister, and he may as well be put on notice.

We are going to want details and we are going to want to know what was in those proposals, because the people of the Province should know what options were open to government. Would it have been possible to have more people kept on under another proposal? Would we see these 400 people being laid off if one of the other proposals had been accepted? Mr. Speaker, we have also seen the cynical approach to government's concealing information from the Opposition as long as possible, December 7, 1984 R5637

where they have had an agreement signed since September 18 and they refused to release that to the Opposition. They dumped it on us yesterday and expected a debate to proceed immediately, before we have had an opportunity to study these agreements. Mr. Speaker, that is not the way in which any government with respect for the democratic process would carry on the business of this House. Mr. Speaker, the government of this Province is accusing the Opposition of playing with the lives of the people of Corner Brook by our attempts to fight that abominable , retroactive legislation, Bill 37. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think we all saw who was playing with people's lives when the Premier came out in the middle of the union negotiations at Corner Brook and threatened the union negotiators with the blame for closing down the Bowater mill if they did not concede to the demands that Kruger were looking for. Mr. Speaker, we have to compliment and commend those workers who were involved in negotiations in the course of arriving at the collective agreement out there.

It is a credit to them that they did not over-react, it is a credit to them that they were prepared to be reasonable, to moderate their addi tiona! demands and, Mr. Speaker, to be fair, it is a credit to Kruger that Kruger was prepared to make concessions and not push the workers as far as they could have been pushed once they had been left defenceless and unprotected by their own government in this Province.

Once the workers had been put completely at the mercy of the Kruger negotiators, Kruger showed wisdom, showed good sense, because it is a company that knows that L5638 good working relations with its employees will be very important to the success of this operation, as it is to the success of any operation.

And Kruger very sensibly knew that even though the Government of this Province was prepared to throw the workers to the wolves and tore away every defence that these workers had to protect the rights which they had built up over decades of bitter and hard negotiation, much sacrifice, the company was sensible enough, Mr. Speaker,to avoid taking undue advantage. I am sure there was some advantage taken, I am sure that the workers are not as well off as they could have been had they not been put under the heel of the Premier and members opposite in the course of the negotiations. Mr.

Speaker, that was not a proud moment in the history of labour relations in this Province, to see the Premier come out as he did and put the boots to the workers at Corner Brook. And they are to be commended for the way in which they showed restraint and moderation and I want to compliment both the company and the union for having arrived at a collective agreement. Now, Mr.

Speaker, one of the provisions in this agreement has to do with the eventual reactivation of No. 7 mill, and that is left sort of as it has to be, understandably enough, undetermined at this time, it will depend upon existing conditions and so forth. But, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that there is a similar provision under the Linerboard agreement, and it should be pointed out that there was a deposit required of Abitibi-Price in the course of arriving at a deal on the Stephenville Linerboard mill where December 7, 1984 R5638

they had to put up a deposit of $1 million as security and as evidence of their intention to undertake an expansion of the Stephenville Linerboard mill before December 31, 1987, provided that a sufficient wood supply could be made available for the operation of a second newsprint machine . Now, we have legislation before us in this session of the House, Bill 57.

I am not quite sure why it is needed, because if the situation is that there is not a sufficient wood supply, then why is legislation needed to permit the money to go back to the company and have government acknowledge that they are off the hook in having to comply with the intent to expand? But the point I want to make fo r now, Mr. Speaker, is that this type of general intent does not mean very much in terms of benefit to the Province or to the workers, the men and women in Corner Brook, because it will depend upon the then existing circumstances.

We see this Bill 57 here to confirm that the expansion at the Stephenville Linerboard mill will not go through, this $1 million to be paid back to Abitibi-Price, and they are to be relieved of their obligation to expand the Stephenville Linerboard mill. Now, one nagging concern that I have, and I do not say this with any intent to be irresponsible, but I want to know and have assurances that the inability of the Stephenville mill to expand is not brought about in any way by virtue of an arrangement with Kruger with respect to wood supply or anything of that nature.

I think that that is something that we will have to have the minister or the Premier or somebody make L5639 clear. Now, I am not saying that it should not be done. If it came down to avoiding an expansion in one place in order to maintain a mill in another place, that is a trade off. Difficult though it may be, it might be something that would have to be considered and would have to be done.

I am not saying that in no circumstances would that be something that should not be considered if it became necessary in order to keep the Bowater mill open, that some expansion be avoided in some other part of the Province, we would have to see whether in the circumstances that might be reasonable. I am not saying that it could never be considered, but I think that we would like to have assurances from the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Sirmns) that that is not what is happening here.

Because the fact of the matter is that the Stephenville Linerboard mill will not be expanded in the near future and this clause in the Kruger deal is, accordingly, of very little value. But there are some other good clauses, Mr. Speaker, in the agreement. The provision with respect to the sharing of downtime is important. There is an interesting paper, prepared by Mr.

John Grey for the 1980 Economic Council of Canada Report on the Newfoundland economy, which discusses the Bowater Corner Brook mill and which points out how this concept of a marginal mill put the Bowater Corner Brook operations in jeopardy in the context of the overall Bowater operations, and when Bowater was put in a position of making a business decision, if it had to close down either mill - the way it had let its operations develop the Bowater mill was the most marginal in the context of December 7, 1984 R5639

the Bowater internal operations, not necessarily, ironically in terms of if you match them directly mill for mill with other mills in the Bowater operation, as I understand, but because of the way Bowater had structured its operation - that would have to be the first to go. And there were a number of factors, not the least of which, I suppose, was that two of the Bowater mills had their production tied to a particular market.

We had specific newspaper publishing groups committed to purchase newsprint from two of the mills in the Bowater operation so that Bowater ended up competing with the mill at Calhoun, Tennessee. And that mill at Calhoun, Tennessee, Bowater proceeded on an expansion of production there and it was pointed out as long ago as 1980, at the time of this report, that the expansion of the Calhoun Tennessee mill would take up a sizeable share of the growth in market demand restricting Corner Brook's expansion until that increased production of Calhoun had been absorbed by the marketplace.

The report said, 'It will also increase the low marginal cost capacity of the Bowater group so that Corner Brook may end up absorbing a larger proportion of future newsprint market decline.' That potential problem for Corner Brook had been identified as long ago as 1980. MR. SIMMS: That was identified back in the 70s. MR. BARRY: And back in the 70s. I do not know to what extent government could have acted earlier than it did to deal with and avert the Bowater crisis, the Bowater shutdown, but Mr.

Speaker, that is L5640 water over the darn now; we are not going to waste our time in these sorts of historic revisionisms, we are going to try and look to the future rather than to the past. But, Mr. Speaker, we do like to see this provision in the existing agreement with respect to the sharing of down- time, where there is a specific requirement. Again we will be looking at this agreement more closely, clause by clause when we get at the Committee stage. I will not have the time in the course of this debate to go into each provision of the agreement paragraph by paragraph.

I am a little disappointed in the sharing of markets clause. That does not seem to provide the same degree of definite assurance that the sharing of downtime provision does. It is a good concept, the sharing of markets is important, but it is a more general provision, dealing with Kruger being asked to utilize its best efforts rather than committing itself to a specific percentage formula as it does with the sharing of downtime.

Another approach in this agreement, which I am not enthused by but which may be the inevitable result of Kruger being a tough bargainer, and maybe that is why they are successful and some of their plants are doing well at times when others are closing down, but they are known to be very shrewd, crafty business people and hard bargainers, and I believe that they drove the government to a hard bargain with respect to the

schedule for environmental compliance, and the clause there makes it clear that the environment will take second place to newsprint quality and December 7, 1984 R5640

production and maybe that is something that goveLnment had no choice on. But, again, it is not a clause or a condition of great rejoicing, that when we have to put that type of clause - MR. RIDEOUT: It is a tough decision. MR. BARRY: Those are the hard decisions and that is the difference between a good goveLnment and a bad goveLnment, how it deals with those hard decisions. Anybody can make the easy decisions, Mr. Speaker. The subtle nuances that are taken when these hard decisions come about, that is what determines whether we have a good goveLnment or a good minister or a good Premier, Mr.

Speaker, the subtle nuances, and I . must say that subtlety is not something that the members opposite are making themselves known for. Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see that this deal has been arrived at. Again we will have to, as I say, look more closely at the fine print, but it would seem that government is not making an unnecessarily large investment. If I understand correctly, the provincial government's exposure now should be $4 million - is it? considering the extra $7 million that was obtained from the Government of Canada.

There is a commitment, however, with respect to another $2 million on forest access roads. I assume that is something that would have been there and would be spent in any event. MR. SIMMS: No, it is something that we had to try to obtain in discussions with the federal government to get shared funding if necessary L5641 extending the initial forestry agreement which concludes in March, we have discussed an extension to that, and we are also discussing with them taking some (inaudible). MR. BARRY: So that is really another $2 million in addition to the $11 million that the agreement refers to. MR.

SIMMS: That is separate. MR. BARRY: That is separate. So that is $13 million less $7 million, so we are talking probably $6 million in exposure at least. And we will have to go through a little more carefully, bec.ause that access road commitment was not made clear in the Premier's statement and, I think, should have been there as an indication of the total amount of funding that MR. SIMMS: It is something that has been discussed within the department as opposed to being - MR. BARRY: Well, it is in the agreement. MR. SIMMS: It is mentioned in the agreement. MR.

BARRY: It is mentioned in the agreement and, as far as I can see, it sets up a commitment on the part of goveLnment to - "Government covenants and agrees to make available to BNL over a ten year period, commencing on the date of completion of the purchase of the shares by Corner Brook Holdings, a total minimum sum or $2 million to be used for construction of access roads approved by the minister. December 7, 1984 R5641

That is an agreement. MR. SIMMS: That is over a ten year period. MR. BARRY: It is over a ten year period. So it is worth less than $2 million, but there is no question that it binds government. There is also, subsidization of rates. This loan made by government MR. NEARY: Mr. the that Speaker, interest is to be What is that going to cost, by the way, subsidizing the interest rates? MR. BARRY: As far as I can see it is one point over 50 per cent of the rate at which the Province borrows. If the interest rate goes up to 20 per cent it could be 10 per cent, if it stays down around - what are they borrowing at now?

MR. NEARY: The yen is around 8 per cent. MR. BARRY: The yen, that is a particular deal. So it may average out to 4 per cent or 5 per cent or 6 per cent over the life of the agreement. And again, I think we should have - MR. NEARY: How much is it a year? MR. BARRY: It depends on how much is taken up under the loan. If it is $6 million it would be 6 per cent of MR. NEARY: Is the Province subsidizing the loan that Kruger is getting from L5642 the bank? MR. BARRY: I am just talking about the Province's loan, but they do have a subsidization of interest here.

Is it just the $11 million that the interest rate is being subsidized on? MR. SIMMS: Yes. MR. BARRY: I was of that read this. MR. SIMMS: impression when I Up to $11 million. MR. BARRY: We have to study this agreement more closely over the weekend to check out these nuances and details, but we do believe the minister should indicate what the Department of Finance, or whoever has been doing the calculations, feels will be the cost to government of this interest subsidization, because that is a real cost as well. The people of this Province are entitled to know.

I do not think people will begrudge assisting the people of Corner Brook and the Humber area, but they will want to know what the tab is. We here should not be giving any form of blank cheque, we should know what it is going to cost the people of the Province. I do not like the way in which government has been attempting to skate over some of these other financial commitments which are contained in the bill, and which were not referred to by the Premier in his statement.

As a matter of fact, I would say that the Premier would have been better off spending more time discussing the total financial commitment of the Province than this garbage he December 7, 1984 R5642

has been going on with about Bill No. 37. He would do more for the people of Corner Brook and for the unemployed of this Province if he talked a little bit about the financial commitments rather than this nonsense on Bill No. 37. Bill No. 37, nothing to do transaction. Mr. Speaker, has with this Kruger The Kruger transaction will go through, and we will deal with Bill No. 37 as a matter of principle to be debated in its own right. MR. NEARY: You would hardly expect him to do that when you have a Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) who is not a little bit out but 100 per cent out in his calculations. DR.

COLLINS: I will explain that to you. MR. NEARY: How can you explain it? There is no explanation for it. DR. COLLINS: I will explain it when I get up. MR. NEARY: You are not a little bit out, you are 100 per cent out. You should go hang your head in shame. DR. COLLINS: I will explain it, but I do not expect you will understand it. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we think it is a useful way to approach the matter and, I am sure, because of the hard bargaining by Kruger government was given very 1i t tle choice if the deal was going to fly.

Kruger was going to get as L5643 much out of the provincial government as it could and was going to drive a hard bargain, so they wanted certain security. Now, I think the government agreeing to purchase the Deer Lake power plant is something that provides security for the bank and is an asset that the government would like to acquire in any event, but I would like to have the minister give us an indication, or the Minister responsible for Energy or somebody, as to what this could mean in terms of the surplus energy, the surplus capacity which might be there.

Assuming the worst case, what would be the surplus capacity? I believe there is also a commitment to purchase excess energy from the Bowater mill at a certain rate. I do not believe Hydro would need that necessarily with Cat Arm onstream, but, again, we do not have recent figures with respect to energy production and demand. For what period of time would government, under this arrangement, have a surplus of energy accumulated? It migh t only be for a few months, but what is the cost to government of taking up that surplus energy? One thing I found being Minister of Energy, Mr.

Speaker, is that a few cents per kilowatt hour can escalate into many millions of dollars when you start getting into your gigawatts. MR. NEARY: They will need more than $38 million worth of yen to pay for it. MR. BARRY: So again, Mr. Speaker, there are hidden costs to this transaction, contained in matters such as the arrangement with respect to the purchase of power. We will want somebody from the other side to be more specific with respect to what December 7, 1984 R5643

this cost is going to be to the taxpayers of this Province. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing which is related to the deal - it has to do with the layoffs, and we have heard very little in the way of comment by members opposite - and that has to do with an early retirement arrangement under MILAP which is now ILAP, is it not? MR. NEARY: No, it is MILAP now. MR. BARRY: This has been very successful in Port aux Basques for encouraging individuals to take early retirement, which means that there is a job there for a younger person for a longer period of time, and, Mr.

Speaker, we have proposed that this be done for the people of Corner Brook. I have yet to see any indication of action or even concern, and I would ask the member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow), because I am sure some of his constituents will be affected - this is a tremendous programme. It sees good benefits - MR. NEARY: 100 per cent federally funded. MR. BARRY: 100 per cent federally funded - it sees good benefits for people who take early retirement, and they are more than willing to get out of the work force.

Their income may be a little less, but they can go take another job or they may be prepared to have the benefit of 75 per cent, 80 per cent or 90 per cent of their income. MR. NEARY: And a lump sum payment. MR. BARRY: L5644 They get a sizeable lump sum payment in some cases. Mr. Speaker, it is a highly desirable programme in this type of situation. I would say the bulk of those 400 people are going to be the younger members of the work force, and what happens is that these people will leave the area and the economy will decline. But if people take early retirement, they are not lost to the area, Mr.

Speaker, they are generally established there with their homes and they will stay there and will continue to put money, their pensions, into the economy and the younger people in the workforce will still be there in the area. Now, we think that government should be making representation to the federal government because something has to be done. And here is what has to be done before employees are eligible: MR. BAIRD: It is already done. MR. BARRY The member for Humber West (Mr. Baird) says it is already done - the representation or the designation? MR. BAIRD: The representation. MR.

BARRY: I am glad to see that that is confirmed, that this government has made representation to the Government of Canada to have the area of Corner Brook designated as, I think, a level 2 MILAP area. It is already level 1, and that gives certain training programmes, mobility payments and so forth, but there has to be a Cabinet decision of the federal government, a political decision taken that the Corner Brook area December 7, 1984 R5644

will be designated a level 2 area for MILAP. And once that is done, Mr. Speaker, tremendous benefits will flow and there will be a tremendous improvement in the situation. Because these hundreds of people who would have been laid off will have jobs assured, and other people will retire and take advantage of federal government payments, there will still be a stream of income to them and that money will be there for the economy of Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, just to go back to the arrangement with respect to the Deer Lake power plant.

While it is, I think, a good way to approach the providing of security by government, I do not think it is something that anybody should jump up and down about, that government is getting such a great opportunity to possibly purchase the Deer Lake power plant; it would only happen if the Corner Brook mill closes down, plus, if the mill closed down what are they going to do, move the power plant out and take the river and go with them?

It is no great concession by the company to make this form of agreement, because if there is a problem, if there is no other buyer for the mill in the future, in the event of future problems the power plant is there and there is legislation in place, Mr. Speaker, that would prevent the arbitrary use of this power facility. MR. NEARY: Every kilowatt of power generated in Newfoundland belongs to the people. MR. BARRY: That is right, it is the people's power. Power to the people! Mr.

Speaker, I think one thing that should be made clear with L5645 respect to Bill 37, without wasting a lot of time on that, is that even if - and this is a big 'if' - the courts accept the

interpretation of the Labour Standards Tribunal, and even if, Mr. Speaker, we see the rights continued in the case of temporary layoffs as well as permanent, it is still up to the employees as to whether they pursue their claims. There is no impairment of Kruger's cash flow unless the employees out there decide that they are going to take advantage of whatever

interpretation might be placed upon the Labour Standards Act. Kruger does not seem to be all that concerned, Mr.Speaker. MR. CARTER: How does Kruger know? MR. BARRY: The member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) asks, How does Kruger know? Kruger did not insist on this as a term of the collective agreement. We heard the union say that they were looking for it in the course of negotiations , but backed off. MR. NEARY: Did you hear what the Premier said this morning on radio? He said the deal would go through. MR. BARRY: The Premier has admit ted the deal will go through.

And we heard the unions say that Kruger backed off from insisting on that provision, presumably in return for getting some other concessions from the union. So Kruger has already gotten an advantage - we do not know what it is - in the course of collective bargaining for not pursuing that, and now government is going to bestow it on them. In addition to what they were able to squeeze out of the workers in the December 7, 1984 R5645

course of collective bargaining, government is going to rip more off the rights of workers; it is going to go in behind the backs of them after they have done a collective agreement and give more to the company than the company itself was prepared to insist upon in the collective agreement. And, Mr. Speaker, it is not irrelevant that this Bill 37 provision is not mentioned in these agreements. Now, Kruger are shrewd, tough, business people and if they were concerned about these retroactive claims it would be spelled out in this agreement, Mr. Speaker.

So the Premier and the members opposite are talking garbage when they say that this Bill 37 has to be passed. Now, Mr. Speaker, to sum up, since I have gotten notice that my time is up, I have to say that we are happy that the uncertainty has finally been lifted from the minds of the people in Corner Brook. We hope that we will see a continued prosperous operation there at Corner Brook. We hope, Mr. Speaker, and we wish the company the very best in its future operations in this Province. If anybody looks at the history of the Corner Brook mill they will see that it has had its ups and downs, Mr. Speaker.

It has gone insolvent before. In the very early days we had a number of companies involved in the operation, some of whom had to give it up and others take it over. Bowater has had a good run at it. We wish the Kruger corporation every success, we wish our best to the employees of the Bowater mill, we express the hope that there will be the sort of amicable labour relations that we saw once the collective agreement had been arrived at, where they got together, they had a drink together and they buried the L5646 hatchet, Mr. Speaker.

There were tough bargaining sessions, tough negotiations, but they were prepared to bury the hatchet. And we hope to see a continuation, Mr. Speaker, of good labour relations. We hope also, Mr. Speaker, to see better consultation between government and Kruger than was evidently the case between government and Bowater. We hope that government will maintain a better line of communication and stay more on top of what is happening in Corner Brook from now on. And, Mr.

Speaker, when it comes time to debate in Committee of the whole I have some other topics I want to address, and maybe if the minister would listen for a second he could explain. The Premier has indicated a commitment by Kruger to have the provisions of that 1930's legislation reviewed. Now, it is not spelled out in the agreement. I do not see it. Is it in the agreement? MR. SIMMS: Yes. MR. BARRY: I missed that going through. It is there. That is alright, I will find it on the weekend. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a very important aspect of this entire arrangement.

OUr forest management approach not just with respect to this mill but with respect to all our mills, what have we learned from the Bowater closure? Is our approach to forest management proper? Did that have a part to play in the closure of the Bowater mill? And should there be any changes, Mr. Speaker, to improve our approach to forest management to ensure that we protect our trees, we get the best possible growth in the future, that we also, however, December 7, 1984 R5646

ensure that we have viable operations? So, Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks I look forward to getting another opportunity during Committee of the Whole to carry on further. MR. SPEAKER (Dr.McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Barry) has made some interesting points, all of which I will not have time to address, but I am sure that some of the specific questions that have been raised will be answered by other people who will speak to the bill, and will certainly be addressed by the Premier when he closes the debate on second reading. And, of course, there will be another opportunity to deal with specifics when the bill goes through the committee stage.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned briefly some of the history and background leading up to what has transpired and to the history of Bowater, I guess, in Newfoundland, and I want to address myself to the point he raises in a few minutes time. I can address myself to a couple of points: The member for Humber West (Kr. Baird) already mentioned in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) that representation had been made on the MILAP programme for Corner Brook. It is accurate. We have made representation and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn) has made representation.

As the Leader of the Opposition points out, there are two levels involved in that programme, and so we also have the Minister of Career Development L5647 (Mr. Power), who has the responsibility for Manpower now, involved in this particular situation. We have made representation and the federal government has indicated they will respond to us when they have made a decision on the request. With respect to Bill 57, which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) addressed, or at least mentioned in passing, that is the Labrador Linerboard Agreement Act which is to be amended with respect to the Stephenville mill operation, he wondered why it was necessary to bring in an amendment at all if there is a provision in there that says that if a wood supply cannot be made available then they can get their funds back. The reason for the amendment is that the clause in the original bill has a specific date there, December 31, 1987.

If we did not make any changes and if they were not looking for their funds now and it ran up to December 31, 1987, then obviously we would not require the amendment, it would then be in effect. But it is a request now, prior to the termination date as outlined in the original legislation, that has to be amended. That is the reason for the amendment on Bill 57. Mr.

Speaker, after listening to some of the opening comments and the debate by the Leader of the Opposition, I sometimes think that the only way you can ever convince a man that he is wrong is to let him have his own way and that may have to come about as time progresses. I have often thought being in Opposition must be one of the easiest jobs in the world. They sit there every day, Hr. Speaker, and they sit down in December 7, 1984 R5647

their little common room or whatever it is they have downstairs on the fifth floor, an hour before every daily sitting, and they say what can we criticize the government for today? MR. STEWART: And they get that Evening Telegram. MR. SIMMS: from The What can we oppose today? We have to oppose, we have to be negative, we have to criticize for the sake of criticism.

And hopefully, they say to themselves, we will be able to win an election one of these days, because of our criticisms, not because of our alternatives or what we propose to offer as an alternative, because we really have none, so we will just have to go up and we will have to continue to criticize and condemn. So it has got to be a relatively easy job. And we see it every day, especially in this session of the House, where the attitude of the Opposition now is so obviously hypocritical, the attitude is hypocritical, their approaches are hypocritical.

In many, many ways we have seen it over and over again in the last few weeks in particular, since this Fall session started. MR. NEARY: 'Hypocritical' is unparliamentary. MR. SIMMS: No, I did not say the bon. members were hypocritical, I say their attitudes and their approaches are. Since the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) became Leader of the Opposition a perfect example is this attack that they make on us every day about how we are too cozy and too friendly with the federal government.

For the last L5648 two and a half years they continuously attacked us because we were too confrontationalist, because we were argumentative and they pleaded with us - I can remember the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) pleading with us - to call the minister in Ottawa, to go up and sit down with the minister and discuss issues with him in a reasonable fashion. For two and a half years they criticized us for that. Now what do we see, Mr. Speaker, in the last two months? Exactly the opposite approach.

Well, I mean, you cannot have it both ways; either you have to stick with the position or you do what you people do, which is an hypocritical approach. And I remember very vividly the day after the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) was elected Leader of the Liberal Party, the new leader, the fifth in five years, I believe, somewhere in that vicinity, they asked him how his leadership was going to differ from that of the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) , and the member for Mount Scio said, 'Well, 'Steve' was too negative, boy, always negative, and I am going to change that approach.' Well, Mr.

Speaker, if they change that approach it certainly is not obvious to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. CALLAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! The han. member for Bellevue on a point of order. MR. CALLAN: The Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) is not here to draw to December 7, 1984 R5648

all members' attention the fact that we are on the Kruger Bill. I draw to the attention of the member speaking and this House that we are on the Kruger Bill and he should confine his comments to that rather than talking about politics. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands, to that point of order. MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the points were raised, similar arguments were raised, I agree, by the Government House Leader when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. But as I recall the Leader of the Opposition was not ruledout of order.

And the comments that I am making now are very relevant to the comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry). And as Your Honour knows, as it is outlined in Beauchesne, 'Relevancy is very, very difficult to define,' I think are the exact words. And in all cases generally the benefit of the doubt is given to the member speaking. And I offer that quote in submission, Mr. Speaker, for you to make your decision. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, I would remind the hon. minister that when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking his attention was drawn to the fact that we are discussing Bill 52, so I would ask the hon. minister to confine his remarks to that. MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. L5649 MR. NEARY: Another point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: order, Mr. the hon. the We are debating, we were told by the Premier, the most important piece of legislation ever to come before this House and we have no quorum. I wonder where are the members, Mr. Speaker? MR.

STEWART: There are fourteen members in the House. MR. NEARY: No, there is not. No. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Call in the members. Quorum There is a quorum present. Is it agreed that the hon. the minister will continue? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. The bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I only have thirty minutes and I do not want to get sidetracked by these sorts of tactics, but I am sure they will continue. As I was saying, in any event, Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) after he was elected, saying that he was going to change December 7, 1984 R5649

the app~oach of the fo~e~ Libe~al of the Opposition, the membe~ fo~ LaPoile (H~. Nea~y), because he was too negative. Now I neve~ once said the membe~ fo~ LaPoile was too negative. I cannot say that anybody he~e doubts that he was much, much mo~e effective. So my point is I am talking about thei~ attitudes, thei~ hypoc~itical attitudes and the diffe~ences that they have. Bill 37 is anothe~ good example, by the way. When the bill was int~oduced last F~iday the Opposition immediately kicked up the biggest kind of a fuss and said that they we~e opposed, totally opposed to Bill 37.

Th~ee days late~. lo and behold, the wo~d got out that they actually ag~eed to Bill 37 fo~ the futu~e. but now the ~et~oactivity pa~t of it was the way they we~e going to get a~ound it. HR. BARRY: On a point of o~de~, ~. Speake~. HR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of o~de~, the hon. the Leade~ of the Opposition. HR. BARRY: Now, M~; Speake~. the Ministe~ of Fo~est Resou~ces and Lands (H~. Simms) is not playing by the ~les he~e. HR. TULK: If he is not delibe~ately misleading, he is misleading. HR. BARRY: He is misleading and, apa~t f~om anything else, he is going to confuse the ladies in Hansard, I am sure.

Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, and it is there if the minister wants to go get a transcript, it was made clear that we would agree with Bill 37 as soon as the retroactive clause was taken out. And if it is not taken L5650 out, Hr. Speaker, then there is a big problem as far as Bill 37 is concerned.That was said on Friday, by the way. MR. SIMMS: A difference of opinion. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, I would remind hon. members that we are debating Bill 52. The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. HR. SIMMS: Thank you, Hr. Speaker. So always, an excellent ~ling.

As I was saying, in any event, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has now confi~ed that initially their approach was that they were opposed to that bill. Then they changed and wate~ed it down and changed it all around. So again another example of confusion and hypocritical attitudes and approaches. And it is evident to everybody in the Province what is happening. They are confused when the Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Barry) stands up to ask questions in Question Period. HR. NEARY: On a point of order, Hr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the han. the member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: ~. Speaker, I have been following the hon. gentleman very closely, Mr. Speaker, and I am amazed as a fo~er Speaker of this House that he should use such unparliamentary and ~de language. The bon. gentleman keeps referring to the December 7, 1984 R5650

Opposition as being hypocritical. Hypocritical this, hypocritical that. Now, Mr. Speaker, the bon. gentleman may be using his experience as Speaker to do it through the backdoor what he is not allowed to do through the front door. And I would ask Your Honour to direct the former Speaker of this House to either be careful, to watch himself, or withdraw what he said and apologize to the members of the House. MR. TULK: Speak to the debate. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, the bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr.

Speaker, in Beauchesne, Fifth Edition, page 110 - and this is one that bon. members opposite use frequently - "Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions" - and you will see then on page 112, it says, "hypocrite", "hypocrites" and "hypocrisy''. Mr. Speaker, I have used none of those, I simply referred to the attitude and approaches of the Opposition as being hypocritical. I would be the last one to accuse an individual member over there of being a hypocrite. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, I see two references, one that the term 'hypocrite' is in order and another that the term 'hypocrite' is not in order, but the bon. the minister has said that he has not used that term, so there is no L5651 point of order. The han. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the assistance from the members opposite. So confusion exists, it is evident every day. When the Leader gets up to ask questions, his followers have no respect for him. They have four or five standing at the same time.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) is having difficulty now getting candidates to run for him in the next election. He is phoning all over the Province. MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! On a point of order, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the hon. gentleman is completely out of order. I think Your Honour should enforce the rule of relevancy. If the minister cannot think of any contribution to make to this bill, I believe Your Honour should direct him to take his seat and not be wasting the time of the House.

The hon. gentleman is completely irrelevant to the bill. He has been making partisan political statements since he started, Mr. Speaker, that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill. You would think, as the minister responsible for the forests of this Province that are so closely aligned with the December 7, 1984 R5651

takeover of that mill, that the bon. gentleman would get up and give us a statement of policy. Instead of that, he is rambling on haphazardly. He does not know what he is talking about, he obviously has not done his homework and is completely irrelevant to the bill, Mr. Speaker. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, the bon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it certainly is not out of order to be partisan or to be political. We are all politicians and we are all members of a party, so we are partisan.

Even the 'Incredible Hulk' is partisan and the member of a party. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! DR. COLLINS: You mean that television character? MR. OTTENHEIMER: The television character, yes. DR. COLLINS: Oh, yes, I see. MR. OTTENHEIMER: With an 'H'. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is quite in order. He is supporting the principle of the bill and he is drawing attention to what he considers to be the consequences or results of the attitude of the Opposition towards the bill. Political debate is certainly not uncommon in the House. L5652 MR. NEARY: He is lowering the level of debate. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! To that point of order, I would remind all bon. members that we are discussing Bill 52 and I would ask them to keep their comments directed to that. MR. SIMMS: I appreciate the ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I, as always, adhere to the ruling and will just say that these are a few preliminary comments that I am making in response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), who made partisan remarks.

I am just saying that there is confusion existing on the other side and that is unfortunate, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they are looking for an alternative government, have to look to those people, and how can they make a decision if all they see is utter confusion? By the way, they are now calling the Leader of the Opposition, the man who is going to lead the Liberal Party to their demise, 'Dr. Death' . 'Dr. Death • is how they are referring to the member for Mount Scio. It is absolutely amazing what is happening in the last few days. It used to be said, Mr.

Speaker, that the best thing we had going for us on this side of the House was the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) . That is no longer true. The best thing we have going for ourselves now on this side of the House is 'Dr. Death' , the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry). The member for Mount Scio talked about Bill 37, by the way, just briefly, and I want to submit an December 7, 1984 R5652

argument. The question was put: Why is not Bill 3 7 in the agreement? Well, Mr. Speaker, why would Bill 37 be in the agreement? The issue at hand is going to be addressed by legislation and covered by legislation. I mean, you would hardly put all the legislation relevant to labour standards or labour relations in the agreement. It does not even make sense. It makes absolutely no sense at all, Mr. Speaker. In any event, what we have before us today, Mr.

Speaker, as everybody knows after those few preliminary remarks in response to the Leader of the Opposition, who provoked me to say it, what we have before us today in this government/Kruger agreements act, in our minds and in the minds of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly people on the West Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, is a very happy ending to what started out to be possibly a very tragic and very frightening story. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SIMMS: This act and everything that it covers is the outcome of a lot of hard work, a lot of time, and I noticed the other day when that was mentioned, the members opposite smiled and smirked because they know it but they do not want to believe it. But it required a lot of around-the-clock hard work by people who were dedicated to the same task and the same objective, and that task and objective was to preserve thousands of jobs and to preserve the economic stability of a large part of Western Newfoundland.

And, as all hon. members know - I L5653 do not need to tell anybody - the newsprint mill at Corner Brook, with its associated logging activities and the power plant activities in Deer Lake, has for almost sixty years been part and parcel of virtually all facets of life in that particular area of the Province. For the last forty-six years, the name of Bowater has been synonymous - MR. NEARY: Longer than that. MR. SIMMS: No, forty-six years for Bowater - the name of Bowater itself has been synonymous with the prosperity of the city of Corner Brook. So, Mr.

Speaker, for year after year and decade after decade, that mill provided a solid economic foundation for hundreds and hundreds of families all over the West Coast and indeed, throughout other parts of Newfoundland. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) referred to when this first broke, when the story or thoughts of Bowater leaving first came out.

I remember during the 1970s, most people, I guess, paid little attention at that time when the rumours started circulating during the 1970s that Bowater might eventually want to leave, and the first solid evidence that this was imminent came in the Fall of 1982 when Bowater announced that it would shut down No. 7 paper machine and 250 jobs at that mill were going to be eliminated. No. 7 stopped running then, Mr. Speaker, in April, 1983, and we all know now, tragically, the total employment loss at that time in the woods and in the mill was about 740 jobs.

Then the news that everybody feared came on August 2, 1983, a little over a December 7, 1984 R5653

year ago, when Bowater informed this government that it had been attempting to sell its assets in Newfoundland but had been unsuccessful. And Bowater _said __ then that if the mill could not be sold as a going concern, it would be closed and they would be leaving the Province. Mr. Speaker, to say that the prospect of a mill closing was staggering or would be devastating would be an understatement.

A closure would have meant the permanent loss and instant loss of at least 1,700 jobs throughout the woods and in the mills; it would have meant the loss of more than $40 million annually in wages and other economic spinoffs, of course, from the value of newsprint shipments which last year, by the way, totalled $111 million. DR. COLLINS: Do not factor. MR. SIMMS: forget the multiplier And the multiplier factor. It would have essentially meant the end of the city of Corner Brook, as we know it.

It would have meant extreme financial hardships for places like Deer Lake and Howley, which was my birthplace, by the way, I am proud to say. And my father was employed with Bowater many, many years ago, thirty-two years ago or whenever it was. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, obviously it was going to mean financial hardship for those kinds of communi ties and many other communities in White B~y and other areas where so many loggers and their families live.

It would have meant that many hard working people would have been forced to accept social assistance because, obviously, their UIC benefits L5654 would run out. It would have meant a massive loss in tax revenues to this Province. And, Mr. Speaker, it would have meant a major reduction in the size of the domestic market for things like farm products from places like Cormack and outlying communi ties, as well as those on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands. So there was no doubt, Mr.

Speaker, in anybody's mind then that we were facing one of the most serious economic threats to this Province in many years because a corporate entity that had been in place, firmly rooted in Western Newfoundland for almost half a century, had decided and was preparing to pull up stakes and leave. Obviously as a government we could not accept that kind of disastrous blow being dealt to our economy, but at the same time we had to dismiss all thoughts of a transfer of the Corner Brook mill from private to public ownership.

Our experience with the Labrador Linerboard mill in Stephenville, although that had successfully worked out in the end through a sale to Abitibi-Price, our experience with that situation was still too memorable, still too vivid in our minds, and of course there was also the inescapable fact that the Province simply would not be able to afford the additional debt that a takeover of Bowater assets would create. And so, Mr. Speaker, we tried at first to persuade Bowater to reconsider. When that did not work, we convinced them to enter into a joint divestiture effort on an international basis.

And meanwhile, as we all recall, we were not able to make a public announcement about the Bowater situation until October 31 of 1983 because that company still had been engaged in negotiations with December 7, 1984 R5654

an unidentified group which had expressed some interest in purchasing the mill. Of course, those negotiations came to naught and early in December the company agreed with the divestiture suggestion. So we retained the services of a very well know consultant, Woods Gordon, to work with Bowater and its consultant to prepare a package to present to potential buyers. A list was compiled and about 150 companies from all over the world were approached to see if they had any interest in buying the mill and the assets.

Detailed face to face presentations were made to thirty different companies and of these ten companies actually visited Corner Brook to examine the physical assets, and ultimately I think it was five companies that submitted a proposal. So all of this process alone, before we reached the stage of negotiations, obviously took an extreme amount of hard work and time and I want to take a moment in passing, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the efforts of a number of people, particularly the han. the Premier, because no matter what you want to say about the Premier - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SIMMS: - no matter what you want to say, one thing you cannot say about him is that he is not a hard worker. He works tirelessly and effortlessly and he has been at it for months and months and months and members opposite even know it. I want to also acknowledge the efforts if I may in passing of my predecessor, the present Minister of Career Development (Mr. Power), the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor), the Minister of L5655 Education served on related to (Ms.

Verge), who all a Cabinet committee that and the team of senior government officials who have worked around the clock and carried out their duties in an exemplary manner. And not to be forgotten is the effort put forth by the two private members, if you wish, from that Corner Brook area, the member for Humber West (Mr. Baird) and the member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow), who, of course, are not aware of everything that goes on in Cabinet discussions so it was a difficult time for them, a very difficult time for them.

They faced a lot of adversity for over a year or even longer than that, and I think that they had some input into it even if they are not aware that they had an input into it. They had a great deal of input into it. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) did, the unions, both the mill unions and the logger unions from the Corner Brook area for the professional way in which they dealt with their negotiations with Kruger. And the Leader of the Opposition agrees. Mr.

Speaker, a major concern then in the divestiture process was to find a way of bringing together, or marrying, I suppose, the differing objectives of Bowater and of the government that would be acceptable to both sides. Obviously the objective of Bowater was to sell its mill and the other assets for a maximum return to its company shareholders. our objective on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, was to attract the best possible long-term operator that would keep that mill going and that would undertake much needed improvements. And we maintained throughout the entire process, Mr. December 7, 1984 R5655

Speaker, that any purchaser had to upgrade and modernize that facility and they had to keep it in operation. So after many months of negotiations, Kruger was selected. In retrospect it can be seen now, I think, that Kruger, from the very beginning, was practically made to order for the Bowater situation. And to quote the leader of the joint mill unions in Corner Brook, Mr. Fudge himself said when they signed their negotiations, "I think we got the best company." I believe those were his exact words, "I think we got the best company. " And I can tell you why Kruger was particularly sui ted.

The company had been very profitable in recent years, so they had the financial resources to take on the raising of capital investment for the modernization required. The company has a history of purchasing older pulp and paper mills that were closed or in need of capital improvement, and in fact turning those operations right around and creating more employment in many cases than was there when they took over.

The company had a reputation of being able to market paper in the best possible markets, especially in the US, and I think we all agree that that is the market that they have to aim for if that mill is going to be profitable in the long run. Finally, Kruger has the kind of management and professional background and expertise that would be required to carry on this operation. So, Mr. Speaker, given the situation we were facing in August of 1983, I think we are fortunate indeed to have a company of the status of Kruger to take it over.

L5656 Now the capital progranune that we and Kruger have, talked about amounts to $198 million over the next five years. At the end of that time, I think it is fair to say we will have a mill in Corner Brook as modern as most in Eastern Canada, and it will be producing more newsprint than ever was produced before. A major part of that capital progranune will be the upgrading in the next three years of the four machines that are now in operation.

And after those four machines have been completed Kruger will undertake and carry out whatever studies are required to establish the feasibility of putting Number 7 paper machine back into operation. And although the agreement says , by the way, that Kruger will begin work on reactivating Number 7, if it is feasible to do so, by 1989, they have indicated themselves publicly, and certainly have told us, that they are anxious to start even much earlier than that if it is possible at all. But this will depend on the other machines and the conditions, of course, in the marketplace at the time.

So this capital progranune then will be accomplished without this Province having to sell its soul, without our having to give away everything as has frequently happened in the past. The financial arrangements include grants of about $40 million representing a contribution of 20 per cent of the capital progranune. In other words, it is the same level of financial assistance that is made available by federal and provincial governments all across Canada under the pulp and paper modernization agreement. The provincial government will also provide a guarantee for $30 December 7, 1984 R5656

million of an $80 million term loan, part of a financial package being arranged by Kruger and its bank and our security, as we all know now is the Deer Lake power plant which has a replacement value far in excess of $30 million, somewhere between $200 million and $400 million. There is also a provision for the company to borrow up to $11 million from this Province if required. That $11 million, or any portion of it, would represent any difference between the total grant level and the 20 per cent of the actual level of capital expenditures. So, Mr.

Speaker, when you consider the significance of this particular enterprise to our economy, to the economy of this Province and to Western Newfoundland in particular, the long term jobs that have now been assured, the construction activity that will be generated by the capital investment programme of almost $200 million, I think it can be seen that approval of the Government/ Kruger Agreements Act by this hon. House will represent one of the best resource development decisions that has ever been made in this Province. For a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to another area.

There has been widespread interest in timber resources held or owned by Bowater in this Province. Much has been written and said about what the government should or should not do. Well, the truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the 4.5 million acres of licenced land and the 1. 5 million acres of freehold land represent~d one of the major assets that Bowater had to offer in the market. So it obviously was not the right time L5657 during the divestiture process to start talking about taking back any assets of a company that we were trying to sell and attract a buyer for. Mr.

Speaker, the agreement we signed in Corner Brook with Kruger contains three key elements on forestry: One, Kruger acknowledges its full forest management responsibility; two, Kruger has agreed to review with us the 1938 Bowater Act with a view to rewriting the legislation particularly as it relates to forest management; and, three, the government offers Kruger the same cost-sharing programme for silviculture as it had with Bowater and has with Abitibi-Price. Mr.

Speaker, it is worth noting as well that in all our discussions with potential buyers the very positive attitude towards forest management in this Province attracted a lot of attention. In particular the focus was on things like joint government/industry silviculture efforts, government's decision to spray and protect the forest from budworm and other insects, the positive joint approach taken by, my department and the companies in assessing the use of herbicides in forest management, and our decision to make capital expenditures to purchase two new CL-125 water bombers.

Another point that attracted much favourable attention, and one that very well may have helped in finalizing the arrangement with Kruger, but one that has been overlooked in certain quarters, was this government's decision to remove the provincial sales tax from purchases of equipment to be used in manufacturing. This, of course, has had a major impact, Mr. Speaker, on the cost of buying December 7, 1984 R5657

parts and machinery for the Corner Brook mill as it has had a significant impact, of course, for the modernization progranune in Grand Falls. Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute left and I want to in closing, as the Minister responsible for Forest Resources and Lands in the Province, say that I welcome this opportunity to support The Goverrunent-Kruger Agreements Act and I also, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), want to extend a warm welcome to Kruger. I look forward to working with them in the future. Indeed I have already had a conversation by telephone with the likely mill manager, Mr.

Birch, who phoned me from Montreal yesterday. I look forward to working with him. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to sit down without mentioning that despite the ups and downs of recent months I think there is some feeling of sadness at the departure of a corporate citizen who has been so much a part of our way of life in Western Newfoundland.

Much has been said over the years about what Bowater has taken from this Province, and I do now intend to dwell on those comments at this time, but it should be pointed out, as I mentioned at the beginning, that many thousands of our people have earned a very good livelihood from Bowater since 1938 when the company took over the Corner Brook mill. I sincerely speak on behalf of members of this side of the House, I am sure when I say that we wish them every success in all their future endeavours. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: L5658 Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The bon. the member for LaPoile.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to shed any crocodile tears as the bon. gentleman did over Bowater's departure. Bowater was a good corporate citizen in this Province for forty-odd years, but, Mr. Speaker, one has to ask the question why is Bowater pulling out? We have not had the answer to that question during this whole controversy. MR. BAIRD: I can tell you after. MR. NEARY : The bon. gentleman is going to tell us after. I could make a guess but the member for Humber West (Mr. Baird) is probably an expert. The question that we have to ask ourselves is why did Bowater suddenly decide to pull out?

Was it because they had a mill that was obsolete? Is that their reason, Mr. Speaker? Is the reason they are pulling out because they have let the mill deteriorate, they did not keep abreast of the new technology and the machines were getting old and productivity was down? Is that the reason, Mr. Speaker? Is it because they wanted to concentrate their efforts in the Southern United States or Venezuela or wherever? Is that the real reason?

You know, I think it would be very worthwhile for some student of Commerce at the university to write his thesis, to do a paper, on the Bowater years in this Province and why they decided to pull out of Newfoundland, because I am December 7, 1984 R5658

convinced that we do not have the real answer as to why Bowater is leaving this Province. MR. MARSHALL: You do not think you have the reason? MR. NEARY: No, I am sure we have not. The han. gentleman has not provided us with the answer. MR. MARSHALL: Are you happy that Kruger is in here? MR. NEARY: I will come to that shortly. just following on with minister who just heaped praise on Bowater - MR. SIMMS: I am the great No, I did not. I wished them well. MR. NEARY: - and wished them well and asks us all to shed crocodile tears over their departure from this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would say they had a good reputation, they were a good corporate citizen, but in recent years, Mr. Speake