VOL. 3 NO. 82 I PRELIMINARY UNED ITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1981

November 16, 1981 Tape 3424 EC - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Sioms): Order, please! Hon. members, I know, would like to join me in welcoming to our galleries today, Councillor James Fagan from the city of St. John's. 0 Welcome. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the ongoing fishery situation in our Province.

The Newfoundland Government has been working with the Lake Group for over a year in an attempt to assist the company in a major restructuring and refinancing of its Newfoimdland and U.S. operations. The government has received a number of proposals from the Lakes over the past year, one of which resulted in a $5 million guarantee by the government. During September of this year the Lake Group Limited, National Sea Products and - H. B. Nickerson and Son Limited presented government with a proposal whereby the three companies would combine their Newfoundland fishing operations and their U.S. marketing companies.

The proposal called for a $40 million provincial government guarantee and a financial restructuring of company debt by the Bank of Nova Scotia. In addition, the merger proposal would have meant the closing of a number of fish plants on the South and Northeast Coasts of the Province. The Department of Fisheries, Department of Finance and Department of Development have 9fl2

November 16, 1981 Tape 3424 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: analysed the details of the proposed consolidation over the past six weeks. After careful consideration, government has decided not to accept the merger proposal and the companies and the I bank have been so advised. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hears PREMIER PECKFORD: The reason for rejection is principally because the restructuring proposal does not provide a comprehensive and satisfactory solution to either the problems of the deep-sea fishery on the South Coast or the seasonal plant problems on the Northeast Coast.

Other concerns were the substantial financial guarantee requested of the Newfoundland Government, the control of a large segment of this Province's fishing industry from outside the Province, the option for one of the companies, National Sea, to opt out of the proposed merger within three years,and the ability of the companies to successfully carry out the merger. Officials of the three departments of Fisheries, Finance and Development will be available in the next few days to meet with the companies to further discuss the reasons for the proposal being rejected. Mr.

Speaker, the government will continue to work with the Lake Group and the bank to seek an acceptable solution to Lake's financial and oper- ational problems. At the same time, we are assessing the overall position of the fishing industry with a view to finding some long-term solutions to the problems being encountered by the industry. We believe these long-term solutions can only be achieved through co-operation between the two levels of 9 02

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3425 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: government and the industry and the union. The Royal Commission into the inshore fishery has given us a new base of information on which to move forward toward comprehensive long-term solutions for both the deep-sea and the inshore fishery. When I met with the Concerned Citizens Committee from the South Coast a few weeks ago, I promised to outline my governinents position on the proposals before us.

Since that time a solution has been found to the problems of John Penney and Sons Limited at Ramea and now the proposal for consolidation of Lakes, National Sea,and Nickersons has been dealt with. I want to assure the concerned citizens of the South Coast that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) and the Newfoundland Government will continue to explore all reasonable alternatives for the revitilization of the fishery.

To this end , government will now assess the recent proposals from the Lake Group and meetings have been arranged by officials of the three departments with the bank and the company for later this week. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition has about two minutes. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable, this is really unbelievable at this day, November 16th, this House of Assembly, that the Premier delivers a statement - MR. NEARY: He would not let the minister make it. MR.

STIRLING: - in which he says this proposal has now been dealt with. But what about the people in Grand Bank? What about the people who have been waiting? This proposal, Mr. Speaker, has been in the Premier's hands since last May. MR. MORGAN: Since September, boy. 9i2

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3425 SD - 2 MR. STIRLING: Since last May the Premier knew about the problems dealing with the troubles that this group was having. As a matter of fact - MR. HODDER: It was on the Order Paper last May (inaudible) money. MR. STIRLING: - there was on the Order Paper p an item that the Premier was not prepared to debate and one of the reasons that we closed the House - MR. HODDER: - off. MR. STIRLING: - one of the reasons that this House closed is that he was not prepared to face up to debating that question which was on the Order Paper. Now, Mr.

Speaker, two years ago this government was warned by everybody involved with the fishery. There is not a single new piece of information, not a single new piece of information that came out in the Royal Commission and now he has the gall to stand up in this House of Assembly and say we have now dealt with it. What is he going to do about the problem? PREMIER PECKFORD: We dealt with the proposal on it. MR. STIRLING: You certainly have not dealt with the fishery.

You are right on; that this government has not dealt with the problems of the fishery and they have now dealt with the proposal, six months after the problem first occurred. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : Order, please MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier would go to meet with the people in Grand Bank, as we met with them over the weekend, he would see the frustration and the hurt and the suffering and he would see the guts being torn out of people, torn out because they do not know and they were depending on this government.And this is their statement, Mr. Speaker?

This is a statement of a complete cop out of a government that either does not care or does not know how to manage this Province, 9,177

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3426 EL - 1 MR. STIRLING: and it is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, It is not good enough for this government that was given a mandate to manage. It is a complete and absolute dereliction of duty. MR. FLIGHT: An abdication. MR. SPEAKER (Simrns) : Order, please MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please The hon. membert s time has ex- pired. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, ho MR. SPEAKER: Order, pleases The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. members of the House of Assembly of a number of in- creases in benefits paid under the Workers'Compensation Act to become effective on January 1, 1982. The increases are in two categories namely,to increase the level of compensable earnings and also to increase the various pen- sions and benefits paid to beneficiaries under the Act.

The last increases were made by Cabinet Order effective January 1981.pecifical1y,these increases are as follows: oaq,an increase in compensable earnings in the compensable earnings level from the present $19,000 to $21,000,which means that these people will get 302B

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3426 EL - 2 MR. DINN: from - they used to get $14,250. It will go up to $15,750, seventy-five per cent of the corn- pensãble earnings. And two, an increase of ten per cent in permanent total disability and permanent partial dis- ability pensions awarded as a result of accidents odcuring before January 1, 1980. Three, an increase of ten per cent in the minimum level of temporary total disability and tem- porary partial disability benefits. Four, an increase of ten per cent in the minimum level of permanent total disability and perm- anent partial disability benefits.

Five, an increase from $750 to $850 for burial expenses. Six, an increase from $370 to $410 for pensions to a widow or invalid widower. Seven, an in- crease from $85 to $95 for dependent children under sixteen years of age. Eight, an increase from $85 to $95 for orphaned children. The increases as outlined above will not cause any increase to industry assessment rates. The extra funds for pension increases are being transferred from the boards recapitilaztion reserve. The ten per cent increase is expected to partially keep pace with the increase in the cost of living.

The increase in compensable earnings level will not cause any increase in rates. However, the actual dollars collected from industry will increase Prortionally by the increase in the maximum compensable earnings level. 902 9

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3426 EL - 3 MR. DINN: In conclusion, I wish to inform the members that the review committee,under Dr. May, current- ly examining the Workers Compensation Board Act,has now nearly completed his work. However,it would not be poss- ible in the time remaining in 1981 for government to give consideration to the recommendations of that committee for I the purpose of guidance for increases in the calendar year 1982 and that is why we are doing it now. This matter will receive further 9 ii 3 0

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3427 DW - 1 MR. J. DINN: consideration once the recommendations of the review committee have been studied. MR. SPEAKER (Simrns): The hon. member for Terra Nova has about one and a half minutes approximately. MR. T. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it is so rare that this government comes up with something of any degree of acceptability and with any degree of posi- tiveness that we on this side certainly have to wel- come this kind of legislation today, these kinds of measures which will give increases to certain cate- gories of people.

And, of course, we certainly wel- come any measures, any steps taken by the government that will give increases to people that will help them to cope with the cost of living. This we welcome. There is one thing,though,I would like to say to the minister and that is we cer- tainly would like to see some measures taken whereby the people sustaining injuries and the people sus- taining industrial accidents do not have to wait so long for their benefits. It is still a long time to pro- cess applications.

People throughout this Province are today going through a tremendous amount of anxiety, a tremendous amount of frustration by just waiting to see this doctor and that doctor, to see this specialist and that specialist to get their applications processed. So though we welcome this measure today, we certainly would hope that the government will take some steps to see to it that people who presently experience industrial accidents, injuries of one kind of another do not have to wait such excessive periods of time before they can get any nompensation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: 3:i31

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3427 DW - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Any further statements? The hon. Minister of Public Works and Services. MR. H. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the situation concerning the new hospital in Port aux Basques. The Department of Public Works and Services was informed today by the solicitors for the Newfoundland Engineering Construction Company Limited that the company would be unable to provide the bonding required for the construction of the hospital at Channel-Port aux Basques.

My department has written Newfoundland Engineering Construction Company Limited and officially informed the company that they are in default of their contract obligations and the contract with them is now terminated.

I further instructed my officials to formally advise the Guardian Insurance Com- pany of Canada, the company which provided the Newfound- land Engineering Construction Company Limited's bid bond, that Newfoundland Engineering Construction Company Limited is in default and has not entered into a formal contract with the department nor given the specified security to secure the performance of the terms and conditions of the contract. The department will inform the next bidder, Seaboard Construction

(1978) Limited,to advise them of my department's acceptance of their tender to construct the hospital. The department has also called upon the Guardian Insurance Company to honour its bond bid and forthwith forward a cheque to the government in the amount of $387,000, representing 9 [I 7

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3428 NM - 1 MR. YOtJNG the difference between the bid by Seabord Construction and the bid by NECCO. My officials have contacted Seabord Construction Limited and the company - -- ared to honour their tender in the amount of $9,813,000. SONE HON. 1BS: Hear, heart MR. SPEAKER (Sioms) The hon. member for LaPoile has about forty-five seconds. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has moved swiftly to correct a situation that developed in connection with the construction of the Port aux Basques Hospital.

I could,I suppose,if I wanted to, ask the hon. gentleman how Newfoundland Engineering got on the site and actually started construction and had people hired and had started work without their performance bond being put up? How did that happen? I mean, somebody obviously must have been negligent. aut in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that there will be no delay as a result of this changing from one contractor to another. I hope that if there is a five or six weeJs delay, as has been indicated by the Minister of Health (Mr.

House) , that they will be able to make it up in the progress of construction of the hospital over the period of the next two or three years. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the questions asked? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. MR. YOUNG: If any construction was started by NECCC on the site of the Port aux Basques-Channel Hospital, it was cn their own with no instructions. I wish to table, Sir, the letter to them of acceptance,and the last sentence. "No work is to commence without the prior approval of the consultant." And they just went out on spec and did the work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh 9031

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3428 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) Further statements? ORAL QUESTIONS: MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, really an opportunity for him to correct his hasty statement that he made in the House of Assembly last Friday in which he said there were going to be severe cutbacks in post- secondary education and health care as set out in the federal budget. Now that the Premier has had an opportunity to examine all of the facts and hear from Mr.

Regan, who is the minister responsible for post-secondary education, would he now like to withdraw those comments and apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the scare and frightening aspect of having health services reduced? Would he now apologize to the people for that distortion? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I have rechecked the figures,as we did on Thursday night and Friday morning, and I have before me pages fifty-four and fifty-five of a document entitled "Fiscal Arrangements in the Eighties, Proposals of the Government of Canada," and if one wants to look on page fifty-four and fifty-five it becomes quite clear that over the next five years the Government of Newfoundland will lose $77 million in - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shaine Shame PREMIER PECKFORD: - established programme funding which we would have received if the old programme up until budget night had been allowed to continue. In addition, 9113 L

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3429 ah-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I said in my prepared statement here in the House, and I also said in a prepared statement later to the press, that this might not mean that health services would be reduced because the Province of Newfoundland would not let it happen. What I went on to say was that we would have to take money ourselves from other programmes to insure that the same level of health care service and post- secondary education service was maintained in this Province that we had before the budget.

And we would find, and scrapp Anq steal and borrow and do whatever we had to do to ensure that these cutbacks that are now being proposed through the federal budget do not mean a lessening of standard that we have now reached over the last number of years. But, you know, the Leader of the Oppositions's argument is not with me, Mr. Speaker. I did not write this document. SOME HON.MEMEERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: This document comes from Mr. Allan MacEachen irt 04-tawa, the Minister of Finance.

He has indicated a half billion dollars in money that is going to be saved by cutbacks to the provinces on various programmes that are now in existence. And Mr. MacEachen himself has indicated - and the figures are not solid,as I indicated to the press. We are going to lose $19.5 million but the federal government are saying that in countervailing savings there is going to be $11.7 million recovered by the Province of Newfoundland leaving a difference of $7.8 milllion.But that $11.7 million is not firm, it depends upon provincial revenues.

And as everybody knows provincial revenues have been declining, so that therefore,that $11.7 million could be less than 9H

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3429 ah-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: that,meaning that the difference would be larger than $7.8 million and could very well get to $10 million. So the argument that the Leader of the Opposition has is not with me at all. He will have to • argue it out with Mr. Regan and Mr. MacEachen and the other people who have produced this document. I am just reading. I did do some basic math, Mr. Speaker, over the years and I have learned that minus seven-point-eight means seven-point-eight less than we would have received if the old programme had been in effect. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms) : A supplementary. The hon.Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, if that gobbledygook was given by somebody other than the Premier of this Province,who has just given a statement on the fishers' in a state of absolute neglect and decline,it might be funny. Now I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker, in assuming that he had been hasty or assuming that he had been so eager to bash Ottawa that he had not checked all the figures. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, ho MR. SPEAKER: Order MR. STIRLING: I would ask the Premier if he did look in those full documents at table six?

And let us not cloud any other issues. Let us el 1.7ith the two that he referred to, this programme dedicated to two areas post-secondary education and health care. Now the budget is very complicated and there is a lot of it in it and it requires 9iL

November 16, 1981, Tape 3430, Page 1 -- apb MR. STIRLING: negotiations and we will not get the opportunity in this House to have a full debate. So the question I want to deal with the Premier on -let him be specific-two areas: post-secondary 1 education and health. Is the Premier aware of table (6) in that documentation, in that same one that he referred to on page 55, in that same piece of material? Let me refer to table (6).

Is the Premier aware that there is a specific table that says: "Estimated federal contributions for health care- specific health care and post-secondary education- specific, post-secondar' education- under established programmes financing arrangements." A very specific table, Mr. Speaker, and it says: "Newfoundland, 1982-83, $221 million, up from this year, $214 million. 1983-84, $250 million, up from $221. 1984-85,$287 million. 1985-86 $326 million, up from $214 million. $366 million Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier did he look at table (6) very specifically setting out what the federal government is going to do?

And now, either he has read that and is ready now to jump up and apologize, or he is guilty of distortion of the highest order. Now, would the Premier please answer that question? MR. SPEAKER(Simms) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have done an assessment, and the Department of Finance has done an assessment on all the tables in thi's booklet, and the totality of the established programme funding arrangements between the Provinces indicates to us that we are going to lose money over what the existing programme was.

That is the story as our officials have been able to assess it, and that is - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order 91 3 7

0 November 16, 1981, Tape 3430, Page 2 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: -the point about it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER(Sirnms): Order, please PREMIER PECKFORD: Now, there are many parts of the established programme funding arrangement, I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Stirling) is aware of that, and this deals with one aspect of EPF which is not covered in the table that he just spoke about. That is why you have to go to pages 54 and 55, beyond table (6). You have to go beyond table (6) in order to get the full impact of it.

And beyond table (6), beyond what the Leader of the Opposition talked about, there is a special provision there for taxation revenue which was supposed to come to the Province of Newfoundland which will not now come,to the extent of at least $7.8 million, which has been targeted all UM

November 16, 1981 Tape 3431 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: over the years. ever since its inception in 1976 and 1972,to post-secondary education and health care. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sims): A supplementary, the hon. the DO Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, we are getting very close to a specific case that can be checked out. The press does not have to wonder which one of us is telling the truth, they can check the facts. Because, Mr.

Speaker, in that same document there are many tables referring to many things, and the Premier with his colleagues - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order please! MR. STIRLING: The Premier with his colleagues made a presentation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, as one of the Premiers who made a presentation to the Task Force, specifically said the opposite of what he just said, that in this established funding programme, Mr.

Speaker, that the other guarantee, the other things that he is talking about, did not apply to these two specific subjects. There is nothing else in the established programming, Mr. Speaker - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. STIRLING: - except the education - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER; Order, please! Order, please!

November 16, 1981 Tape 3431 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simrns): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should put his question now. MR. STIRLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier would have a full-ranging debate we could have a debate on this. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. STIRLING: The question, Mr. Speaker - and you have to put it in baby talk. And I can understand that the Premier will jump up and ask for you to rule' Order the same way he used to have to call the principal of the school. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR.

MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been called to order by Your Honour and asked to put his question and he flagrantly violates Your Honour's ruling and persists in continuing on in the same refrain. I suggest that the hon. member should either comply with the rules of the House or else take his seat and allow some other member to ask a question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: No, Mr.

Speaker, that is not a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Well, with respect to the point of order, the rules are quite clear: When the Speaker directs a member to ask his question he should ask his supplementary without further

preamble. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, the specific question 9 I! fl

November 16, 1981 Tape 3431 EC - 3 MR. STIRLING: is, Did not the Premier participate with the other Premiers in stating that that extra fund that he is talking about did not apply to post-secondary education, has never been spent in this Province on post-secondary education,and the presentation by the Premiers was for these two specific things, that there would be no cutback in post-secondary education and no cutback in health, and do not these tables say in fact that in those two areas the federal government will not be cutting back in post-secondary education and not cutting back in health? SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECEFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can split hairs all he wants. He can try to hang his hat on some figment of his imacination - MR. STIRLING: Deal with the specifics. Deal with the specifics. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: - about presentation of parliamentary task forces and positions that the First Ministers took. - S ti L 1

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3432 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: All I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador- and I would like to think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the Leader of the Opposition for Canada, not somebody to speak for the rest of the provinces but somebody who is supposed to speak for Newfoundland and Labrador - is that we are losing money when we cannot afford to lose money.

We do not have enough money now to spend on education, we do not have enough money now to spend of health and that these kinds of cutbacks,which will amount to $77 million over the next five years,will be a heavy blow on the Province's fiscal capacity to be able to deliver the two basic services that cost us the most money, aducation and health. And that is where the story is, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is we are losing money.

The federal initiatives in this budget last week mean we are going to be worse off than we were before this budget, And that will affect every part and it will most definitely affect those two areas on which we spend three quarters of our budget,just about, health and education.

And the Leader of the Opposition can split hairs about presentations to the First Ministers' Conference, he can split hairs about the Parliamentary Task Force, he can split hairs about tables, the fact of the matter is - and he should be defending the position of the Government of Newfoundland that he does not want to see money lost. • SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. PREMIER PECKFORD: What is wrong with them over there? • What is wrong with the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition? They are supporting cutbacks. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER (Simrns) : Order, please 91] L 9

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3432 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: $77 million, Mr. Speaker. They are supporting cutting back Oh, oh. Order, please Shame, shame. Oh, oh. Order, pleaSe! Hear, hear. Order, pleaSe! Order, Please! Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the hon. Leader of MR. SPEAKER (Simms PREMIER PECKFORD: SOME HON. MEMBERS: I MR. SPEAKER: SOME HON. MEMBER: MR. SPEAKER: the Opposition. MR.

STIRLING: All of that bluff and buffoonery will not get away from the fact that in Table VI the federal government- if you look at the poor old minister over there, if you could get him to read - the federal government will be increasing post-secondary education and health as per Table VI. Now, what the - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. STIRLING: - Premier has said is that he intends to cut back as he cut back last year. Now face the students with that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Ah, now they are against cutbacks1 When the Newfoundland Government cuts back they are against it. When the federal government cuts back in Newfoundlandthey favour it. That is discrimination for you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. PREMIER PECKFORD: Just one statement, Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to speak - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: 9LH n

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3432 SD - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: - without being interrupted. Under the old programme that was in effect up until Thursday night,we were going to be provided with X number of dollars under the EPF programme. 91

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3433 EL - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I asked for silence. MR. SPEAKER (Sirnrns): Order, p1ase MR. STIRLING: Roger Simmons. MR. PEAXER: Order, p1ease PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, may I - MR. SPEAKER: Order, p1ease The hon. member has the right to be heard in silence. Everybody knows that. PREMIER PECKFORD: I cannot respond if the members opposite - they either want me to answer the question or they do not want me to answer the question. Now, I know Mr.

Speaker, they hate for us to get up and answer this way in factual terms,but they just have to put with that. Under the old programme of EPF the increases were X per cent. Under the new programme - MR. STIRLING: What table is that? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please PREMIER PECKFORD: Have you done any algebra? Have you done any math ? Did you know it is for a certain figure? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. STIRLING: That is the question. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, under the old EPF programme, the increases in EPE were i per cent. Under the new programme of EPF, they are X minus Y per cent. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3433 EL - 2 PREMIER PECKFOPD: And that is the point.nd X minus Y equals $7.8 million less than we were going to get under the old programme. That is a fact that the Leader of the Opposition cannot deny, that Mr. MacEachen would not deny. Up until Thursday evening we were going to get so many dollars in EPF. When the new programme came in the next morning,we were going to get so many dollars minus. The amount of money we are going to get now is less than we were going to get. MR. STIRLING: Deal with the facts. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. STIRLING: Deal with the facts. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: They will not let me speak without being interupted, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I will remind hon. members again that a member has the right to be heard in silence if he so requests,and hon. members should respect that particular tradition. The other point I will make is that if hon. members ask questions, presumably they wish to receive an answer.ut if there is a bit of a ruckus and a fuss it is impossible. So they have to decide one way or the other , they either want the answers or they do not.

So if the hon. members would please restrain themselves so we can get the questioo - con- cluded , there are others who wish to ask questions,I am sure. The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the story is that on this established programme funding arrangement with the fed- eral government, they had decided on Thursday evening-when- ever the Budget was brought down-that they were going to reduce the amount of funds that are coming to Newfoundland

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3433 EL - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: under this programme over what they had said they were going to reduce them by in the old programme on Wednesday afternoon. Now that is the story. And we are going to lose as a result. Up until the Budget coming down, we were going to get a certain amount of money under EPF. After the Budget, we are getting $7.8 million II less minimum, and I will just call upon the Opposition to condemn cutbacks from whatever source 9[1L7

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3434 NM - 1 4 PREMIER PECKFORD: they come from. And do not discriminate andbe against cutbacks when we have to do it and be for them when the federal government have to do it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear'. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to say I am very happy. I am happy with the statement the Premier made today in connection with the fisheries. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear'. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, this is Question Period and times goes.

I am happy because the proposal made by the Lake Group Limited did not include the re-opening of the Grand Bank plant and until it does that then t will never, never approve of it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, I understand this statement deals with only one proposal that was made by the Lake Group Limited, I understand that there is more than one proposal before the government. Now when can we expect a decision by government on the other proposals that are before it? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: I thank the hon. member for Grand Bank for his question, and I also thank him for his observation. Obviously there are some members on the opposite side who believe that something we do over here is worthwhile, even when it does not involve cutbacks. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are about - MR. STIRLING: He did not say he agreed With your - (inaixlible) PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please'.

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3434 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: I want to be able to respond to the member for Grand Bank so that he understands and listens to what I am trying to say and his own colleagues are interrupting. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : Order, please'. PREMIER PECKFORD: There are three or four proposals on the table right now besides the merger proposal which we dealt with today.

Over the next three or four days there are meetings arranged with the Lakes and the Bank of Nova Scotia and with other interested parties who might wish to initiate different things as it relates to the problems we are now having in the deep-sea fishery. The question as to when we will be in a position to respond to those proposals, it is very difficult to say, Hopefully within the next two or three weeks we can finalize either an agreement or still no agreement on the various proposals that come before us.

But we are going at it full blast the rest of this week with whosoever will who wants to either put in a new proposal- or who wants to expand or amend existing proposals on the table. And those meetings will be taking place, quite a few of them, starting tonight or tomorrow morning. MR. THOMS: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: One of the problems in Grand Bank, Mr.

Speaker, is the uncertainty that the people have in connection, "What is going to happen to the town of Grand Bank?" And whatever happens to the fish plant is going to determine what happens to the town of Grand Bank. So it is the uncertainty. But would the Premier give an undertaking to the people of Grand Bank that any proposal that does 311 4 ç:

November 16, 1981, Tape 3435, Page 1 -- apb MR. THOMS: not include the re-opening of the Grand Bank plant, they will not accept any proposal that does not include the re-opening of the Grand Bank plant? MR. SPEAKER(Simms) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker - MR. THOMS: That will take a lot of the uncertainty out of it. PREMIER PECEFORD: I am not prepared to make that commitment right now. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECEFORD: I am not prepared to do that. I was asked that by the various groups in the last number of weeks. The Minister of Fisheries(Mr.

Morgan) has been on the phone to a number of the groups in Grand Bank this morning indicating to them that we would be making a statement today, and our interest to continue to meet with them. There are a whole range of different kinds of proposals on the table. I do not know what finally it will end up being. One thing is for certain; we were not prepared, with the elements of this merger proposal that we have now made public, to entertain the kind of proposal which mixed up, in our view, unnecessarily, the fishing industry.

And we wanted to deal specifically with the problems we are now having,%e wanted to focus in on those. As the hon. member is aware, the merger proposal had in it a whole bunch of other elements which had nothing to do with the crises that were facing the Lake Group of companies, nothing to do with them at all and we wanted to deal with that head on. So the only kind of commitment I can make to the hon. member, or to the people of Grand Bank right now-and I understand their uncertainty. Baie \Terte has it, and there are other places around. It does not make it any easier because they can share their pain with jcn

November 16, 1981, Tape 3435, Page 2 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: some other place, I realize, but by the same token we have to tread carefully and walk carefully in this very sensitive area, given that there is a lot of money at stake, there are a lot of people at stake, a lot of communities at stake. MR. THOMS: People are the important thing, to hell with the money. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, I understand that.

There are a lot of problems there with the whole situation in Grand Bank, Fortune, Gaultois and so on, and we have to try to wade our way through a maze of different proposals, and a maze of different things that are happening. We cannot make that kind of commitment right now. We are aware, and will continue to meet with the people of Grand Bank and let them make their case to us.

We feel a strong alliance, if you will, and affection for the part that Grand Bank has played in the past, and has played right up until a fews days or weeks ago, and we are going to be highly sensitive to anything which diminishes, or somehow sees these communities which have contributed much to our past suddenly being phased out by corporations or whatever. I think our sensitivity to the problem is proportionate to the way we handled the merger proposal.

And I would say to the people of Grand Bank now simply this, that I think they have some idea and understanding and appreciation for the way the Government of Newfoundland is going to act, given the way they have acted on the merger proposal, and I would stop there until we have further negotiations. MR. THOMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): A supplementary, the hon. the member for Grand Bank. 9l1

November 16, 1981, Tape 3435, Page 3 -- apb MR. THOMS: Words and platitudes are not what the people of Grand Bank want at this time, We are simply asking for, maybe, some sort of an assurance from the government that they will not permit the plant • and the town of Grand Bank to die. Now, would the Premier go this far?

Would he give them an undertaking that if a proposal, any proposal accepted by the government, if it does include the closing of the Grand Bank plant, then would he at least give a commitment that he will see to it that that ogre, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the plants, will release the assets of the company, will release the plant, will release the trawlers so that they can be obtained by another company and operated by another company, rather than having them retain then in their inventories and refuse to give them up? Can you go that far? MR. SPEAKER(Simms): The hon. the Premier. 9 H F 9

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3436 DW - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think I have tried to respond in as positive and in as full a way as I can to the hon. member's concerns. I know platitudes and words are not good for anyone, neither are they good for Gaultois, by the way, neither are they good for the community of Gaultois who also face a dismal future. So, you know, I just cannot only look at Grand Bank like the hon. member can because he happens to be the member for there, I have to look at Gaultois too. MR. ROBERTS: Englee.

PREMIER PECKFORD: And I have to look at exactly, and many, many others that are there. And so that is difficult because it sets a precedent for other areas and if you can do it for one you can do it for all. That makes it difficult. I only respond to the hon. member by saying we are, we believe, fairly familiar with the problems that are in the hon. member's district right now and especially in Grand Bank.

And I just go 1ack to indicate to him that the way we have responded to the merger proposal should at least provide some comfort to him and to the people he serves that we are going to go about this in a very rational, careful manner and we are not going to jump any guns and we are not going to quickly respond for the sake of responding, and that we will look at anything that comes forward, but that we are committed to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry and we want to ensure that every place gets a good opportunitY to make sure it cannot only survive but can do better in the future than it has done in the past.

And we will do that for Grand Bank. S H

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3436 DW - 2 MR. L. THOMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. L. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to 4 correct one thing in your statement today. you did not meet with the Concerned Citizens Committee last time, you met with the Fishery Crisis Committee ,which is a committee serving the whole South Coast. The Concerned Citizens Committee, the only one set up is the one in Grand Bank. Now I understand that this committee has requested through the deputy minister in the Minister of Fisheries' (Mr. Morgan) department, Mr.

Dean, a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and with the Premier as soon as possible,within the next day or so. And I also understand the same request went through Mr. Hewlett, the Premier's Special Assistant. Would the Premier indicate if he has accepted the request of the Concerned Citizens Committee to meet with them and when this meeting would take place and where? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFflRD: The representatior.swe had this morning were: 'u1d you please arrange to have a meet4 g with us before you make any statement on the merger?

And, of course, we could not do that because it happened at the same time as the statement was ready. We had to move on this as quickly as we could because a lot of people were waiting around for it,in the companies as well. The Minister of Fisheries has been in touch with the various groups who have called into my office and - MR. MORGAN: All of them. 9HL

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3436 DW - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: - called in this morning. And, obviously, we could not meet with them before this, our reaction to the merger proposal was made public. But 4 obviously we will now co-ordinate today, and tomorrow to get back to them and arrange a time for a meeting. So hopefully over the next few days we can arrange a time for that committee in Grand Bank, as opposed to the South Coast Crisis Committee which had people from Gaultois and Ramea and Burgeo as well as from Grand Bank and Fortune on it, and from Burin and Marystown.

So we will be getting back to them over the next day or so, Mr. Speaker, to arrange for a suitable time for a meeting so that they have the opportunity to continue to express their views on their problem in Grand Bank. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Burin - Placentia West. MR. D. HOLLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) ct week he did not have much time,but I am very interested to know what other offers

November 1, 1981 Tape 3437 EC - 1 MR. HOLLETT: are into government in relation to the Lake Group Limited and who they are from. I think we should know that. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker. 4 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in p the House last week - and it was also just mentioned by the Premier - there are a number of proposals before government, as separate from the proposal of merger of three major companies,which are now being dealt with by the government.

There is a proposal from the Lake Group and there is a proposal from another company, a large Newfoundland company, Fishery Productsthat now will be analysed and fully dealt with by the officials of government. MR. HOLLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Burin - Placentia West. MR. HOLLETT: The Fishery Products proposal will be analysed now, you say? Well, that is encouraging to a lot of people, I am sure. Mr.

Speaker, another point here is, you know, there seems to be a lot of outside influence where a lot of pressure is being exerted on companies and the government. I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) would tell us which bank or banks are behind the different companies? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was obvious to all concerned that that kirC, of information, I think, was made public by Mr. Eburne, the new President of the Lake Group, that he has been referring to the Bank of Nova Scotia. That is the banker involved with that company.

Of course, we know that the Canadian Development Corporation,

November 16, 1981 Tape 3437 EC - 2 MR. MORGAN: a major corporation, a semi- Crown corporation, I guess, you would call it, investment in the natural resources and the business sector across the country of Canada is a fairly major investor in 4 Fishery Products and in the National Sea Corporation; I think they deal with possibly two banks, the Bank of Montreal 1 and the Bank of Nova Scotia.

But all I can say in answer to the question is irrespective of what banks are involved, the government through the Department of Finance and Fisheries and Development have been meeting with all bankers concerned as well as the companies concerned. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : There is time for one final question. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

Could the Premier tell us whether or not one of the options being considered is for the government to put in some money in an equity position to reopen not only Grand Bank but the whole Lake operation? And has the government at this point made any proposition to the federal government so that a joint examination of this project can be undertaken? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: We are prepared, as we have indicated to all the principals involved, the bankers and the fish companies we are prepared to look at any kind of proposal coming forward.

There have been ongoing meetings, not only with the fish companies and the bankers, but with the federal government as well, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with Mr. Slade from our shop and with senior people in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They have sort of taken a very strange attitude towards us, B 7

November 16, 1981 Tape 3437 EC - 3 PREMIER PECKEORD: it seems to us, and that is sort of a totally hands off situation as if they do not really have any involvement in it. Now, the merger proposal, for example, on the day that it was given to us, it was in Deer Lake at about 2:30 or 3:00 in the afternoon, fl [I 0 91

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3438 ah-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: and that evening or the next day they were to make the same presentation to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which they did, in Ottawa. They flew right to Ottawa and did it. And the position that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada generally has taken has been sort of a hands-off one and this is a problem for the Newfoundland government and this is a problem for Newfoundlanders that 'we are not going to really get involved'.

We have kept them informed all along the way to the point where this week meetings have already been established to insure that they are kept fully informed on it. But somewhere down the road, I think, they are going to have to take a more active and less passive role in this whole problem. MR STIRLING: Have you taken any initiative? MR. SPEAKER (Simrns) : Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has expired. Hon. members, I know, would like to join me in welcoming to the gallery a former member of this House of Assembly, Mr. Alex Moores. Welcome to the gallery. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if this is a point of privilege or a point of order but in order to set Your Honour's mind at ease I will call it a point of privilege. It is a very delicate matter that I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that it is one that Your Honour would like to take under advisement

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3438 ah-2 MR. NEARY: and report back to the House. It has to do with something that happened in this House on Friday, Mr. Speaker. And it has happened before,but Friday it was very, very obvious and,I believe,because the matter comes under Your Honour's jurisdiction, it 4 should be dealt with and we should have some direction from the Chair as to where we go on this matter. It involves the rights and privileges of the parliamentary press gallery. As members know,the parliamentary press gallery more or less falls under the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

But I want to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that during the sessions of this House the Premier has a habit - and he did it on Friday again - of summoning the members of the parliamentary press gallery to his office for a news conference which more or less leaves the press gallery unmanned. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. NEARY: Now, Mr.

Speaker, we give the parliamentary press gallery, Your Honour does, rights and privileges to cover the proceedings of this House, but with these privileges that we give to these ladies and gentlemen goes a tremendous responsibility and, I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is improper, it is discourteous and it is an insult - MR. MORGAN: Last year you abused them. MR. NEARY: to this House for the Premier - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: - it is an insult to this House, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to call news conferences during the time that the House is in session, during a sitting of this House.

It is another example of the contempt and the arrogance that this hon. gentleman has for this hon. House and for the people of this Province. 91 11

November 16,1981 TApe No. 3438 ah-3 MR. NEARY: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this strategy is designed to surpress debate in this House, to stop information from going out to the people of 9fiAl

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3439 SD - 1 this Province from the people getting the truth as to what goes on in the people's House. The Premier calls these news conferences to make statements that should be made here, that should be made in the House of Assembly - MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of privilege. 4 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! MR. NEARY: - where his statements can be challenged and answered ,and not call news conferences and put out news releases where his statements go unchallenged and unanswered. I ask Your Honour if Your Honour could give the House some direction on this matter.

I do not know whether or not Your Honour has to rule that is a point of privilege - I doubt very much if it is a point of privilege-but certainly I think it incumbent upon the Chair to give the House some direction as to where the House stands on this particular matter. PREMIER PECKFORD: To the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we are allowed equal time on both sides of the House for this. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of privilege, the hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: This is an exampleS Near the end of the hon. member for LaPoile's (Mr.

Neary) address he admitted himself that he doubted whether this a point of privilege. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for LaPoile is saying himself out of his own mouth is that he wishes to use the rules of this House on points of privilege to try to make a point that he cannot make anywhere else on the Order Paper or through the rules. And I just say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must be very cautious that the rules of this House are equal to all.

As it relates to the incident on Friday, the hon. member for LaPoile failed to mention that I came to this House first to make the statement before I met with the press. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. 9flF;7

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3439 SD - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please I will consider the matter and give a ruling at a later time. I ORDERS OF THE DAY Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government And The Government Of Canada Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 106). MR. SPEAKER: On the last day the hon. the President of the Council (Mr. Marshal) was closing debate on the second reading of that bill. The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, it is quite obvious that there was no coverage of the hon. gentleman who rose on a point of privilege a few moments ago and spoke for an hour while the press conference was in course and it is quite obvious that the hon. gentleman said nothing that was really worthwhile reporting, reallyf or that matter worthwhile replying to in closing the debate, it had absolutely nothing to do with the matter he brought up. But there are a few items that I do wish to bring to the attention of the House in closing debate. I do wish to respond to a few of the questions.

The Oppostion, particularly the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling), use the occasion because this is a bill to refresh the minds of members this is a bill to give sanction and ratify an agreement made between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland with respect to the reciprocal imposition of on the one hand sales tax, on the other the collection of excise tax of the federal government.

And to use the occasion instead of in the main, in my view, debating the text of the bill itself to levy an attack upon this government with respect to its so-called confrontation attitude, its inability to enter into agreements and what have you. Now that

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3439 SD - 3 MR. MARSHALL: type of refrain Mr. Speaker, is like a broken record, very much like a broken record,and I suggest to you that the way in which this - it was not true before and in some respects, albeit in a small respect, this particular agreement is an example of it, It is an agreement between the respective departments of the Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and was entered into on Anril 14th, 1981, But I am not citing this agreement as a harbinger of a very important agreement; it is important in a way but it does not relate to other matters as well.

However, it is an indication that agreements were struck before and they continue on in this refrain, Mr. Speaker, after having seen what occurred in the recent constitutional debate, the recent constitutional deliberations where the Government of Newfoundland took a leading part and the Premier of Newfoundland took a leading

part in the suggestion to bringing about a end to the deadlock in the constitutional debate. And I think the hon. gentlemen there opposite just cannot stand that, Mr. Speaker, they U B F

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3440 EL - 1 MR. MARSHALL: just cannot stand this part- icular position of the government. They cannot understand on the one hand that you can be good Canadians and good Newfoundlanders and stand up for Newfoundland at the same time. Their attitude,when the interests of Newfoundland are concerned, have been shown in the past few days by the IL Leader of the Opposition when he has become the great apol- ogia from Mr. MacEachen, the Minister of Finance, in conn- ection with the Budget.

And he has gotten up on his feet and the first thing he did was when he responded, you will noteto the Premier's statement and the Minister of Finance's statement, both of them,on Friday morning the first thing he did he ran to the telephone and he called up Mr. Mac- Eachen's office and asked him. And he has come back in the House and has mouthed it. Well, if that is his bent, that is his bent, but is what he can do. But the point of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly possible to be good Newfound- landers, strong Newfoundlanders and at the same time be strong Canadians.

And I think this government has really shown it and shown it in the past few, particularly so,in the past few weeks. The people of Newfoundland under- stand this type of thing that they are getting on with. They are going to now, Mr. Speaker, have to come up with something positive instead of their usual carping against the government and their cliche expressions about this is, you know, confrontation and we cannot enter into agreements.

The importance which the Opposition attached to the Con- stitution accord, by the way, which was an agreement that entered into by this government and a very significant one, I think was shown in the first words that were reported was 9:3 6

November 16, 1981 Tape NO. 3440 EL -. 2 MR. MARSHALL: from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this. He came in again with a hackneyed type of response that he has,the one that he pulls Out of the cupboard all the time saying, 'Oh, the constitution is not important. Let us get on with economic issues. Well, the constitution in that case, Mr.

Speaker, just happens to involve the Terms of Union of this Province, and we have seen the way the Opposition would react to not only getting into agreements but into - they would also let vested agreements such as the Terms of Union go by the boards if, they had their way. Their reaction to the constitution - MR. FLIGHT: Be relevant, now. MR. MARSHALL: - I am just as relevant as the hon. gentlemen were. I am talking about agreements and this relates to an agreement. And I have just as much latitude as the hon. gentleman had the other day.

Their reaction to the con- stitution when it was stated that the proposed plan of some months ago would affect the Terms of Union of this Province, what was their raction? Their reaction was to deny it. Their reaction was to haul out a few people with legal opinions all over the place saying that it was not so. Government very calmly and dispassionately explained how the Terms of Union could be affected. They would not agree with this because the Federal Liberals told them it was not so, so it just could not be so.

It went to the Supreme Court of Newfound- land.After three judges of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland 4 came down and said, 'yes,our Terms of Union can be unilaterally changed, did they accept it then, Mr. Speaker? No, they did not accept it then. They went again and tried to get a com- fort letter from Mr. Chretien and Mr. Trudeau And because the

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3440 EL - 3 MR. MARSHALL: Federal Liberals had turned about and told them, no that was not so, they said no, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland is wrong. Then came the Constitutional question before the Supreme Court of Canada. All nine judges, I Mr. Speaker, unanimously- MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) MR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr.Flight) has opportunity - had an opportunity to take

part in the debate and we would be interested in seeing whether he would sur- prise us if he had anything intelligent to say but he will have a chance to display his intelligence with respect to other bills. In the meantime I have the floor. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. All nine judges, all nine judges turned around and said that that agreement could be breached unilaterally by the federal government. They would not accept it then, Mr. Speaker. The member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) was content to write to Mr. Trudeau and say, Tell me it is not so.

The fact of the matter is that is what they were prepared to rely on and that is the type of government that we would get in this Province in the event, in the unlikely event that the hon. gentlemen there opposite ever got a chance to form a government. So, they can talk about agreements all they want to. They can talk about confrontation policies but the fact of the matter is it is perfectly competent to be good Canadians and good Newfoundlanders at the same time. Now, the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, despite the warblings on the other side, every member on this side is just as good a Canadian as the members on the other side. It now 9iII7

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3441 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: remains for the members of the Opposition to show that they are just as good Newfoundlanders as the people on this side of the House. Now the people of this Province I are wise to the way they are getting on. They know why they are saying this, because they have not got an iota of substance 4 in their being. They have not got a positive move to make and they have not got a positive suggestion to make. I think - AN HON. MEMBER: Anti-confederate. MR. MARSHALL: The only thing he can do is say "Ant±-onnfederat', you knr. This is the way he sees it.

Anti-confederates, look. MR. FLIGHT: It hurts too. MR. MARSHALL: No, it does not hurt me at all. MR. FLIGHT: Sure it does. MR. MARSHALL: No, indeed it does not. Indeed it does not. Indeed it does not. MR. FLIGHT: Apologize for it. MR. MARSHALL: But the people in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and I will give you an example, the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) when he was on his feet in his eloquent speech on Friday that was not reported in the press, but in his eloquent speech on Friday was talking about the way that members were going to be defeated and what have you.

Now as far as his own district,I think he should be well aWare0f how the people in his own district view this government with respect to its so-called confrontation policy. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) a has in his files some three hundred and fifty-odd letters from members in what district, Mr. Speaker? In the district of LaPoile, from inshore fishermen a And what do these fishermen say to the Minister of Fisheries? This was in connection with the salmon drift net policy of the federal government that the 91 i R

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3441 NM - 2 MR. MARSHALL: Minister of Fisheries protested so greatly about last year. Just about every single letter, Mr. Speaker, was in the refrain of thanking the minister - MR. NEARY: Name them. 4 MR. MARSHALL: - for standing up to Ottawa. MR. NEARY: Name them. MR. MARSHALL: Thanking him very much, concurring with the policies of the provincial government and saying they are so glad the Minister of Fisheries was acting because their own member was not acting. MR. NEARY: Name them. MR. MARSHALL: And their own member was not acting, Mr.

Speaker, because all they can do is when they hear serious things happen to this Province,such as losing over $70 million is run off to the federal minister and say to the federal minister, "Is it so?" And if the federal minister says it is not so they get up and they use the whole Question Period. The same way, Mr. Speaker, they go off and the Supreme Court of Canada says our Terms of Union the Labrador boundary can be changed, they do not think that is serious enough. What do they do? They go off to the federal government and ask the federal government is it so?

When the federal government says no it is not so they feel very good about it so they do not think anything is going to happen. Now, Mr. Speaker, also in this bill,when he was eloquently debating this bill the other day, on Friday, the hon. member mentioned about municipalities. Now municipalities is another subject. It is not related to this particular bill. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh 9 ri q

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3441 NM - 3 MR. MARSHALL: No. While we are on the subject of municipalities, it was mentioned, I think that I should state that as far as the municipalities go and the agreements that are entered into between the Province and the municipalities, they are well satisfied. MR. FLIGHT: You are shafting every municipality in the Province. MR. MARSHALL: I think I should point out, I do think I should because municipalities were talked about,.I would be remiss in my duty if I did not draw to the attention of the House the results of the last municipal elections.

Wherein last year the hon. members will remember how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) was up in Bonavista, and certain other members, trying to propogate their poison and turn people against the property tax and I think that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries can have something to say in the debates which followed as to the results of that particular election.

I think also other members in the Conception Bay area can talk about certain victories which occurred when certain prominent members, the Leader of the Opposition included, were,reportedly anyway, in the various areas urging their favourites on and what happened. I think, Mr.Speaker, it is a good harbinger of what is to come, the people of Newfoundland are not prepared to accept the kind of statements that are being made, getting up. All they could talk about in this whole bill was the fact of confrontation.

What this bill represents is an agreement with the federal government and we are prepared to enter into agreements in every segment with the federal government but we will make those agreements where they fit the best interests of the people of Newfoundland. And we will not go in a mealy-mouthed, lap-doggish fashion to Ottawa and say, "What possibly can you do for we poor disadvantaged down here in the farthest part of Canada" So the 9 p, 7 n

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3442 DW - 1 MR. W. MARSHALL: hon. gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, when they c1osthe debate as can be seenreally said nothing that merits a reply. This particular bill, as I sav,is a bill that exPands for six and a half years, 4 a Canada/Newfoundland Reciprocal Tax Agreement which expired on March 31st., 1981. The hon. gentleman there opposite thought it was ridiculous that it was being brought in after the fact and it did not make any dif- ference. It does make a difference, Mr.

Speaker, Whether or not this agreement has effect in law will depend upon whether this House passes it and we are bringing it before the House for this purpose. He asked the question, one question he asked, was how much money. We have seen that the provincial government will gain revenues of $6.7 million in 1981/82. And he asked how much money will be gained by the federal government. All I can say is that this will be commensurate because the tax base is the same. The tax base is on goods and services and we are talking about excise taxes particularly with respect to it. So, Mr.

Speaker, this is just one other example of the co-operation between the federal govern- ment and the provincial government,particularly the new- found co-operation that exists between them. The poor Opposition can cry and wail in their beer all they want to, but I suggest, Mr.

Sneaker, that they get on a new tact rather than the tack on which they are embarked from time 4 to time ,dusting out a few cliche expressions out of their dusty old cupboard and referring to confrontation on the 4 one hand, running to federal ministers to ask them what is in the best interests of the people of Canada rather than the best interests of Newfoundland and stand up man- fashion, woman-fashion or person-fashion or what have you and stand up for the best interests of Newfoundlanders. I recommend second reading. 9 9 71

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3442 DW -. 2 On motion, a bill, 'An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government And The Government Of Canada Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their I Agencies", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 106) MR. MARSHALL: Order 8, Bill No. 66. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Reorganiza- tion (General And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973." - (Bill No. 66) MR. SPEAIKER(Simins) : The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, one effect of bringing in the Government Reorganization(General And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973 was that two boards were disbanded,that isthe Industrial Development Loan Board and the Co-operative Loan Board. Now these two boards had made loans for various developmental activi- ties throughout the Province and they had taken mortgages in view of those loans. So when these boards were dis- banded in 1973,the Department of Finance was authorized to accept repayment of these loans as the monies were paid.

However, the 1973 Act neglected to give the Minister of Finance the authority to release the mortgages. It gave him the authority to accept monies and to put these against the amounts outstanding on the loans, but once -4 the loan was fully repaid it did not give him - I presume through an oversight at that time - the authority to release the mortgages related to those loans. So what this amendment will do will just correct that fault. It will allow the minister, or a minister authorizing certain officers,to release mortgages once the loans are fully paid. And this amend- 311 7 9

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3442 DW- 3 DR. J. COLLINS: ment to the Act is deemed to come into force as of the first of April 1973. So that means that any loans that had been repaid since the Act came into force, any of those that had been repaid the mortgages related thereto can now be released by the minister if the hon. House does accept this amendment. So with those few explanatory remarks I move second reading. MR. SPEAKER (Butt): The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, that explanation is as clear as mud. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman really knew what he was talking about.

He did not know what he was talking about. DR. COLLINS: I could write you a note. 9 7

I November 16, 1981, Tape 3443, Page 1 -- apb MR. NEARY: Well, the hon. gentleman can write all the notes he likes. MR. HANCOCK: He had better write better than he speaks. Write me one, will you? MR. STIRLING: That is like the invitation to NAPE to come to the table. MR. NEARY: That is right. That is like we have been hearing the hon. gentleman saying - I heard him this morning-saying that the invitation goes out through a conciliation officer every day to NAPE to come to the bargaining table, and that is completely untrue. It is untrue It is false I am not allowed to say it is a lie, Mr.

Speaker, and I am not going to say it. Your Honour can tempt me all he wants. But it is an untruth. MR. STIRLING: And he knows it. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government in 1973 restructured, reorganized, so they say, they restructured and in the process they restructured themselves out of business. Government departments have not been the same since. Your Honour will recall there was a time in this Province when everything worked smoothly. When the Tories took over they did not seem to be satisfied with having things work very smoothly.

They decided that they wanted to confuse us a little bit so they carried out a programme called re-organization, restructuring of government, and in the process they caused so much confusion that they have been ever since trying to straighten it out. Eight years! They have been eight years trying to rectify the blunders that they made in 1973. The Tories took over in this Province on January 18 - AN HON. MEMBER: Do we have a quorum? MR. NEARY: I beg your pardon? AN HON. MEMBER: MR. NEARY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do not 9 n 7 L

November 16, 1981, Tape 3443, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: like talking to a House that does not have a quorum. Could I have a quorum call? MR. SPEAIKER(Butt): Call in the members. QUORUM CALL 1 9,,179

November 16, 1981 Tape 3444 EC 1 MR. SPEAKER (Butt): I would ask the Clerk to count the members. We have a quorum. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to carry on. We are so far outnumbered, there is only my colleague and me on this side of the House. The government members are in their seats and I will wait until some of my colleagues come back before I say what I have to say. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR. STIRLING: That makes (inaudible). MR. NEARY: Right. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not wish debate? MR.

NEARY: Let her go: Let her go: On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Reorganization (General And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee 6f the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 66). MR. MARSHALL: Order 22. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. dare's Mercy Hospital (Incorporation) Act, 1960," (Bill No. 61). MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of. Health. MR. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment. It is a request of the St.

Clare's Mercy Hospital on which we do have one appointment only, and this request is just simple housekeeping to drop one of the ex officio from five members down to four and to add one other member, and that one other member would be the appointee of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. John's. And I think that is basically to give an ex officio member to each one of the dioceses and make it four rather than five and to add equal numbers for the 9fl7

I November 16, 1981 Tape 3444 EC - 2 MR. HOUSE: elected members. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. Clare's Mercy Hospital (Incorporation) Act, 1960," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 61). MR. MARSHALL: Order 15. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Constabulary Act," (Bill No. 46). S 177

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3445 ah-1 MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this bill accomplishes two things , there are two principles. One is,as hon. I members are aware,what used to be called the Newfoundland Constabulary is now the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the necessary documentation , permission, whatever, from Her Majesty's household,or whoeveris all on file and this is to give statutory recognition to what has been a practice for the past two years at least.

So it is that it gives the statutory recognition to the name of the force being the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. It does that. And one other thing it accomplishes and that is - and I think this is very worthwhile- it sets up an appeal, a new, a different appeal procedure whereby a member of the force who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Chief in a disciplinary matter may appeal to a judge of the provincial court.

Hon. members might be aware that up until this becomes operativethe law did in fact set up an arbitrator by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and that in effect was the Minister of Justice, And my own view has been since I have been there that is not appropriate and that where an appeal lies it should lie to a judicial body and certainly the provincial court appears to be the reasonable and appropriate place.

So two things the bill does; one, gives statutory recognition to what has been a fact for some time and that is the name being officially the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. and it establishes that where a member of the force wishes to appeal a decision of his superior that appeal lies to a judge of the provincial court. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, the first part of this particular bill we have no problems with. 9117 q

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3445 ah-2 MR. THOMS: As the minister says it has been the practice, it has been known as the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for two or three years now. But I am interested in the situation now concerning appeals by members of the I police force to the what would the role be of a provincial court judge in such an appeal? Is the minister talking about an normal appeal by the person to because there is no appeal to the Magistrate's Court? The magistrate now becomes an arbitrator of some sort or what? MR.

OTTENHEIMER: Where, let us say, the Chief of Police has made a determination after a hearing-a police constable has been accused of breach of regulations or whatever and there was a hearing and the chief makes a decision - Up until now there has been an appeal to the minister. This will provide an appeal to a provincial court judge. It is not an arbitration. MR. THOMS: No. But the only problem i have with this, Mr. Speaker, is what - MR. OTTENHEIMER: I should say - sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman-but this has been discussed with the Police - Brotherhood.

This is not something sprung on them but something which has been discussed and to the best of my knowledge agreed upon as better procedure. MR. ThOMS: But as I was saying , Mr. Speaker, the only problem that I have with this is that right now in this Province our provincial court judges 9117 q

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3446 SD - 1 MR. L. THOMS: and our district pourt judges and our Supreme Court judges are all overtaxed or overworked. And now they have an additional burden which I believe - nobody has tried to tell me differently - that somebody other than- I agree that it should be taken out of the hands of the minister, that is one of the reasons I agree there should be a Police Commission $ in St. John's is to take politics out of the police force which we have seen over this past year or so in connection with that particular force. Politics should be taken out. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: There is certainly no politics in the police force now. MR. THOMS: Of course there is politics, and the minister is the one person who plays the politics in connection with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary here in St. John's. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Absolutely not, that is ridiculous. MR. THOMS: It should be taken completely out of his hands. MR. OTTENHEIMER: I do not mind it being an insult to me, it is an insult to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. MR.

THOMS: It is not an insult to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary would like to have their affairs taken away from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and put into the hands of a police commission in this city. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. THOMS: And that is where it should be. And now we have another piece of legislation coming before the House which is going to out more work on an already overburdened judiciary Mr.

Speaker, anybody who practices law in this Province today knows the week of December 1st is the day you go down to the court to try to get cases put down for trial. You go down on December 1st and ask for a date for a trial and you are well into 1982. You go down to Provincial Court any day of the week, and look at the docket and there is case after case after case. Let the Minister of Justice go down in Court- 9lPfl

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3446 SD - 2 MR. THOMS: room No. 3 and sweat with the thirty or forty people who are in an eight by ten office that has been converted into a Provincial Court and he will see how busy our provincial judges are, how busy our District Court judges are and a how busy our Supreme Court judges are. There has got to be somebody else other than the judiciary and either than the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) to sit in judgment on appeals from the Chief of Police. - Now this government, the Minister of Justice has continuously refused to set up a police comrnission That would be the proper place to take it, that would be a proper place for a decision to be appealled to. But no1nstead of that what we are having is an added burden on the judiciary And, Mr. Speaker, the judiciary in this Province cannot take any more work, we are already understaffed, We made provision for an additional Supreme Court judge, we need at least two more judges in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.

I question whether we need one in the Appeal Division, but we certainly need two, at least two, in the Trial Division of Court. Justice delayed is justice denied,and justice in this Province is not being well served. When a lawyer has to sit behind his desk and say, Look, settle this matter because 9il1

November 16, 1981, Tape 3447, Page 1 -- apb MR. THOMS: if not you are looking at least three years down the road before you get a decision,' that is not justice and the people deserve better. My friend from Mount I Scio(Mr. Barry), if he is still within hearing distance, if he is not too far in the back seats of this House, 4 can verify that this is so. In October I was in court and the first day of sittings, the very first day of sittings, we had 104 motions to have 104 trials set down. That was only the first of five days. The next day another group of lawyers went in looking for days.

The day after that another group of lawyers would go in looking for trial dates. And when I left, and I was one of the earliest lawyers out of that courtroom because of seniority having spent some sixteOn or seventeen years practicing law in this Province, about twelve noon we were up then to April of 1982. For April,1982,the Chief Justice was setting down cases. I think, if you speak to any of our Provincial Court judges, or any of our District Court judges, to any of our Supreme Court judges, they will tell you that their work load now is impossible, absolutely impossible. So what is happening?

Because of this, because of the delay in justice,people are settling cases and they are settling for a lot less than they normally would. They go into court they take their chances, but because they are looking three years down the road they are losing money and they are losing confidence. What is even worse, they are losing confidence in the administration of justice. I am not saying that this is unique to Newfoundland. This is true right across the nation, probably right across North America. So there is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why the Provincial Court has to be

November 16, 1981, Tape 3447, Page 2 -- apb MR. THOMS: used in this particular situation. Set up an appeal board, put two or three lawyers on it, or put one lawyer on it. Pay him to sit and hear grievances or appeals from decisions, but I please, Mr. Speaker, do not take up the time of our judges, they do not have the time. Every minute that 4 they put in on an appeal in this particular situation delays somebody else from getting a decision. We have to take seriously, Mr.

Speaker, the lack of confidence and the lack of respect that the administration of justice is getting from the public at large and the people at large. I attended a conference recently dealing with victims' rights in North America and it was a real eye-opener. S R

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3448 EL - 1 MR. THOMS: Maybe someday in the House I will give you more on that particular conference. Dealing with such things as a lack of waiting facilities in a courtroom,and this may not only t be true of St. John's but it may be true all over, where the woman who is raped, Mr. Speaker, has to go in and sit directly - either directly opposite or alongside the per- son who is being charged with rape. Now is that right? Is that giving the victim any rights?

We do not have facilities that provide a waiting area for the victim on the one side and the person who is accused of the crime on the other side. Victims rights is a big issue in North America today. I do not know if we are paying that much attention to it. Anyway I did not want to get into a long harangue on that this afternoon, but I would like to say that our judiciary right now is terribly overworked, to the point that justice is not being done, to the point that people are refusing to go to court, to the point that lawyers are saying, look, settle.

I know the injury is worth or it should be worth-that the other person should be paying you $10,000, but accept the $5,000 they dre off- ering because, for one thing, if you take it to court, you are three years down the road before you get a decision. I cannot give my clients in this Province today any guarantee that from the first time he or she comes to me in connection with a personal injuries problem,or any other problem,that they are going to be in court within two years, let alone of having a decision within that period of time.

I can give them no guarantee that they are going to be in court, that they are going to have the date set down for their 90RL

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3448 EL - 2 MR. THOMS: trial. So, who are the first people we look to when we want something of this nature done? We look to the judiciary. I would ask the Minister of Justice a (Mr. Ottenheimer) to reconsider. Appoint a one, two or three man board or something of that nature so that appeals can be made to him. Let us not - it is not a waste of the judiciary time but it is not the function of the judiciary to arbitrate everygrievance in this Province. They are there to hear cases and to render decisions and yes, Mr. Speaker, to give justice and justice that is delayed is justice denied.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Butt): The hon. the member for Windsor- Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to take advantage of this bill and give the Minister of Justice a chance when he is closing the debate,to comment on something that is causing a great deal of concern in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and as the minister knows it has been the subject of lip service for as long as I can remember.

The minister himself has alluded to the concept over the last few years and that is the concept of the Newfoundland Constabulory being truly the Newfoundland Constabulory and the Newfoundland Constabulory being given the responsibility for administering justice in Newfoundland or outside of St. John's. Now, I am not going to take much 91 E 5

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3449 DW - 1 MR. G. FLIGHT: time, Mr. Speaker, but I want to ask the minister, when he stands up to give the House now -what is the status, what is the present status of that concept, that is the concept of the Newfoundland Constabulary being responsible for policing outside of the City of St. John's? As he knowsthe population of the major com- munities, most 4nnrporated communities probably, or certain- ly some, are being taxed twice in this area,where they are paying for their own municipal police.

And it is necessary. tn one town I represent - Windsor, for instance, any town the size of Windsor must have municipal police. And the people of that community - the Government of Newfoundland contributes nothing towards the salaries or the cost of the upkeep of a municipal police force, and every municipality in Newfoundland who requires a municipal police force, must fund that police force itself out of its municipal tax base. At the same time they are doing that, Mr. Speaker, out of their general taxation they are paying for the cost and the operation of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

And I would like to ask the minister just to tell the House now, after the last two or three years and the debate that has gone into this, just what is the status? At what point in time can the people of Newfoundland expect to see a move towards the Newfoundland Constabulary being responsible for policinrT in Newfoundland? Ppr'ie t realize, Mr.

Speaker, it would be the height of scarasm and maybe not appro- priate at this time, but I would say to the minister it would make just as much as sense- we are changing the name of the Newfoundland Constabulary, we are changing it from the Constabulatory Force of Newfoundland to the 9 n

Nov. 16, 1981 Tape No. 3449 DW - 2 a MR. G. FLIGHT: Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Well, Mr. Speaker, inasfar as most people in Newfoundland could see,or would see or do see rioht nov. We might as well be chanqinq it. Maybe it would be more appropriate if we were changing the name from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to the Royal St. John's Constabulary.Because in most people's minds, outside of this city that is all that force is. We are paying for its. It is double taxation in any municipality today that has got to fund its own police force. And I represent one that does.

I represent two that are looking into having to do it. So it is double taxation They are paying for the local municipal police force and indirectly, through their taxesthey are paying for the policing of St. John's and yet we call it the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. So I would like to hear the minister now when he gets up, tell us, tell this House and the people of Newfoundland exactly what is the status with regard to the concept of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary assuming the responsibility for policing this Province. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a concept we will all want to see. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would want to hear the minister comment on that when he rises to close the debate. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : The hon. Minister of Justice. If the hon. Minister of Justice speaks now he closes the debate on the bill, second reading. MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, basically there are two matters that I should refer to , one matter brought up by the hon. member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thorns), the other one by the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight). 9 1 R 7

Nov. 16, 1981 Taoe No. 3449 DW - 3 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thorns) when he was speaking to the bill rather than extraneous matters - that was a short and brief period - but when he was speaking to the bill he was of the opinion that we should not have a provincial Court judge hear the appeals from a Chief of Police, in terms of an internal inquiry or disciplinary matter, because the courts are quite full and this would cause great delays.

Actually the number of such items number one, which are heard are quite, quite small and the number which would be appealed - well, that depends upon the person,obviously. And I am sure that these are not matters which are going to cause any great delay in the work of the Provincial Courts. I certainly do not feel that that is the case. The second matter raised by the hon. gentleman for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight), and really there are two aspects there I would like to comment onr one, he basically asked about how were plans going with respect to the Royal 9 R

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3450 NM - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Newfoundland Constabulary increasing its jurisdiction in other parts of the Province, that,I thinkessentially was it. As hon. members probably recall I during the past year, year and a half, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has expanded into Mount Pearl. There are present plans for expanding into the Metro area. Now this is all still in the same geographic area, I realize that. But I think the hon. gentleman, and most hon. gentlemen, will realize,you know, that an expansion or a development has to be kind of in a planned and gradual phase.

Basically now the policing of the Province is - there are appoximately 550 RCMP, and approximately 250 or 255 Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. The general plan is for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to increase its area of policing and jurisdiction but obviously this has to be done in a planned and gradual manner. Now, I just want to comment briefly on what the hon. gentleman- one other matter that he alluded to, and this is for the sake of clarification because a lot of people do misunderstand this, and I think the hon. gentleman does and he has a lot of company there.

I think basically what he was saying - he was referring to double taxation and I think what is in his mind there is that in some areas - to repeat his phrase - .where there are municipal police forces, people are paying for the municipal police forces - MR. FLIGHT: Out of municipal taxes. MR. OTTENHEIMER: - out of municipal taxes and they are also paying for the general provincial policing. So I want to make it clear there.

Actually for the past year, when- ever it was, I think it was last January so it is not quite a year, ever since the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was relieved of the role of enforcing municipal by-laws like meters, ever since 9flQ

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3450 NM - 2 MR. OTTENHEINER: that has been done then there is a position of total equality across the Province. Let me explain what I am saying. We use the term "municipal police forces"; actually it is not I accurate, it is just a common term. Our own municipal - our new municipal act, or whatever it is called does forbid the creation of a municipal police force. Really what we have- the term is used in a popular sense - really what we have are municipal by-law enforcement officers which the larger towns and cities have. Essentially in St.

John's it is the number of people- I am not sure, I think it is eight or ten or whatever the number is-that the City Council employees to enforce municipal by-laws. There are a few in Corner Brook. I guess there are two or three in Windsor. There are probably two or three in Grand Falls.I do not know how many in Corner Brook, four or five. And a number of communities have them, some maybe one or two, going up to-the largest number is St. John's, and a lot of them around three or four. These people are not policemen in the Criminal Code sense of the term - right? - they are police- men in the popular sense.

Really what they are is municipal by-law enforcement officers. So all of the towns or cities which have them,all have them on the same basis and they are paid by the municipality and they are answerable to the municipality, not to the Department of Justice, Because strictly speaking they are not peace officers in the Criminal Code definition, the official definition of peace officers, they are municipal by-law enforcement officers responsible to the municipality whose by-laws they enforce. MR. FLIGHT: They are protecting the communities. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: Oh yes, I am not arging against them, I just want for the hon. gentleman to understand that all of these people whom he calls muncipal police officers are 9flfl

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3450 NM - 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER: municipal by-law enforcement officer, hired by the municipality and accountable to the municipality. MR. MOORES: And paid for by them. MR. OTTENHEIMER: By the municipality, right. Now in terms of, let us say, the actual policing, and this is t true whether it is, let us say, Corner Brook or Windsor - take Windsor - MR. FLIGHT: The RCMP. MR. OTTENHEIMER: - which is the RCMP, or whether it is St.

John's, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, it is identical in that the entire cost of what we will call provincial policing, whether it is by the RCMP or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, is totally paid for out of the provincial government funds. MR. FLIGHT: Sure. MR. OTTENHEIMER: So there is a total equality of treatment with respect 9 q

November 16, 1981 Tape 3451 EC - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: to provincial policing and also with respect to municipal by-law enforcement. Now up until the Constabulary were relieved of the superintendence of the meters and the municipal by-laws, then there was a I discrepancy, but now that the Constabulary no longer perform those and that is done by municipal by-law enforcement people t in St. John's, there is an equality of treatment across the Province. I just wanted to explain that so that hon. members would understand. MR.FLIGHT: If the minister would permit a question. Are these municipal by-law enforcers in St.

John's under the jurisdiction of the Constabulary and paid for by the Constabulary? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mo.They are hired by the St. John's City Council, appointed by them, accountable to them and paid for by them, the same way as in Windsor the municipal by-law enforcement people are hired by the Town of Windsor and accountable to the Town of Windsor and the same as in Corner Brook and everywhere. It is identical, it is parallel. Those people who enforce the meter operation in St. John's are not under the Newfoundland Constabulary, they are not answerable to them, not hired by them. MR.

STIRLING: They only deal with meters. MR. OTTENHEINER: They deal with meters and I think some other municipal by-laws. MR. STIRLING: They do not deal with the (inaudible) MR. OTTENHEINER: No, they do not deal - because the hon. gentleman was not here. Because strictly speaking, they are not peace officers in the Criminal Code sense. No more are the municipal by-law enforcement officers in Corner Brook or Stephenville or anywhere else. There is a direct parallel throughout the Province in the municipal 91 q

November 16, 1981 Tape 3451 EC - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: by-law enforcement whereby these people are hired by and accountable to the municipality and what we call in the strict sense provincial policing, whether it is RCMP or RNC, whichever it is, which is paid for totally by public funds through a vote in the Department of Justice. All we are trying to say is that there is, you know, not only a similarity but a direct parallel and equality of treatment in those two respects. MR.

FLIGHT: But the by-law enforcement people that you are talking about for Windsor or elsewhere are looked at by the people of those towns as their law enforce- ment - law enforcement, not meters. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, they enforce by-laws. I am not saying they do not do something extremely worthwhile, I am just making the distinction between them and what we call provincial policing. MR. MOORES: How many RCN police officers are there? MR. OTTENHEIMER: How many? MR. MOORES Yes. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Approximately 550, and approximately 250 or 260 Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, very approximate numbers.

I move second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Constabulary Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 46) MR. MARSHALL: Order 17. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Convey Certain Trusts And Properties In The Province To The Montreal Trust Company Of Canada," (Bill No. 52). MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : The hon. the Minister of Justice. 91

NoVember 16, 1981 Tape 3451 EC - 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is a quite straightforward bill and hon. members will recall that we passed one, I believe last year or the year before, with respect to another trust company, that was the Royal Trust Company, I believe. This is done at the request of the trust company, which was originally incorporated in Quebec and now wishes to have a federal incorporation and that its assets and property would be vested in this federally incorporated company. And in order to do that they need

an act of this Legislature, that is what it comes to. There are no. I suppose, advantages or disadvantages to the Province. It has nothing to do with the amount of tax which a province would receive or anything, but it is necessary. What they want to do, as the Royal Trust did - and I believe we introduced a bill to that effect either a year or two ago - is since they are operating as a trust company in this Province, they wish,instead of having a Quebec incorporation, to have a federal - Canada, federal incorporation and in order to do it they need the consent of this House of Assembly.

On motion, a bill, 'An Act To Convey Certain Trusts And Properties In The Province To The Montreal Trust Company Of Canada," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. MR. MARSHALL: Order 18. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Summary Proceedings Act," (Bill No. 64). 91 q 6

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3452 ah-1 MR.SPEAKER (Butt): The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this too is a quite straightforward piece of legislation which amends The

Summary Proceedings Act and essentially it does three things. I think probably the most important thing it does is what I would call and what the notes call as wellThe removal of the area of ministerial discretion in terms of suspended sentences or discharge.

Now, let me explain that: At present under certain pieces of legislation - just to name some of them, the Industrial Standard's Act, the Wildlife Act, the City of Corner Brook Act—under a number of pieces of legislation there is at present, for certain offences,an area whereby the Minister of Justice may use his discretion in terms of giving a discharge or a suspended sentence. I think that that is quite improper, that the judicial function is one thing and that the ministerial role is another thing. And since I have been there I have wished to have this altered.

It is a confusion, I think, of a judicial function and a ministerial function.So this would put an end to that state of affairs whereby the minister by law may exercise discretion in terms of suspended sentences or discharges.And I have not done it since I have been there the past two years and some months. I have not done it but I do not think it should remain. I do not think it is something that a Minister of Justice should do because it is the exercise of a judicial function and that is something quite different. So that, I think, is the most important area covered by this amendment.

It will also permit a judge to reopen a case if he wishes,within a specified time, where the accused has a good defence and although he was summoned by registered or certified mail did not personally 9'l

November 16,1981 Tape No. 3452 ah-2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: get notice of that summons. It allows him to reopen it if he so wishes. That is an area of , I guess you would call it, judicial discretion. And, also,it gives alternative methods of dealing with a case when a person has been sent a traffic ticket summons but does not appear in court. It is a streamlining essentially or permits a streamlining of traffic offences, expired meter, parking in no parking areas kind of thing.

The most important area of it is, I think, whereby it will cancel that provision in various acts which allows ministerial discretion in terms of suspended sentence - or discharge, Whatever its validity was at one time - I do not know what the historic reasons were for its being there in the first place - I certainly do not think it is valid now. That is basically what it does. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) in introducing this bill made it sound like a sirnple,routine, bill.

I think the minister sort of expected no comment, no debate, just approve it and let it go through as if it were routine. But the consequences of this bill, Mr. Speaker, are far-reaching as far as I can see. One thing that the minister is doing that we did not have before, and it is going to come as an awful shc'ck and an awful blow to an awful lot of people is the fact that if my hon. friend, the member for Carbonear (Mr.

Moores) ,for instance,who is familiar with the traffic court, if my hon. friend is issued a ticket in future, after this bill becomes law, and my hon. friend does not respond to the ultimatum or the correspondence sent out by registered mail, then I would assume that the magistrate can issue a summons for the arrest of the hon. member

November 16,1981 TApe No. 3452 ah-3 MR. NEARY: for Carbonear (Mr. Moores) MR. OTTENHEIMER: If he does not pay a fine or something like that you mean? MR. NEARY: If he does not pay a fine or if he - my

interpretation of the bill is if the hon. I gentleman does not appear in court to defend himself after being issued a ticket- MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. MR. NEARY: No? MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. If he does not appear then the judge can, say, you know, fine him, unless he were to write in and ask for a postponement. MR. NEARY: And then if he does not pay the fine? MR. OTTENHEIMER: If he did not pay the fine - of course that can happen - MR. NEARY: A summons will be issued for his arrest. Is that it? 9:1 q 7

November 16, 1981, Tape 3453, Page 1 -- apb MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is possible now. MR. NEARY: Well, what are we doing here? What are we changing? MR. OTTENHEIMER: In this we are giving the provincial judge the possibility of re-opening a case if a person has been fined -he received a summons and did not reply and he has been fined - if the judge is of the opinion that it is appropriate to so do. MR. FLIGHT: After he pays the fine? MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, it would be after his conviction.

A person can be convicted if he does not - a lot of people get, for a minor offence, a ticket and they do not bother to appear, they do not. MR. NEARY: What I am concerned about is what happens if a person who has been found guilty by default, he does not appear, and he does not pay the fine? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, after a certain period of time, without this act, in all instances if a person has a fine imposed by the court and refuses to pay it, then there is no other action can be taken. MR. NEARY: But what are we changing? You know, that is what I said in the beginning. What is it we are changing?

Subsection (2), down at the bottom of page 4 - MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right. MR. NEARY: 'Section 18 of the said Act is amended by adding after subsection (3) the following: '

(4) Where the person to whom a traffic ticket summons is directed fails to appear in court, the judge may dispense with the recording of evidence, notwithstanding that the complaint upon which the summons is based is heard and adjudicated upon.' 9 R

November 16, 1981, Tape 3453, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: The judge may dispense with the recording of evidence, notwithstanding that the complaint upon which the summons is based is heard and adjudicated upon. Now, what does that mean? 4* MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, let us say a person is charged with parking in a no parking zone. He does not turn up so the prosecution goes ahead and the court decides that the person is in breach of

section so-and-so and did, in fact, park in a no parking zone, or an expired meter, and was fined five or ten dollars, it dispenses the necessity of taking court records of a very, very frequent and non-controversial procedure. MR. MOORES: What about more serious offences - MR. OTTENHEIMER: Listen MR. MOORES: - such as speeding more than twenty miles per hour over the limit? MR. NEARY: Well now, does all this have to do with traffic tickets? Does this whole bill have to do with traffic tickets? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, that

section of it does. MR. NEARY: I know that

section does, but what about the

Summary Proceedings Act as amended at following 7: "Where, except with the written consent of the Minister of Justice or Attorney General, in any Act

section 662.1 or 663 of the Criminal Code shall not be applied, in disposing of a prosecution or in imposing punishment for an offence under any Act, the power of the Minister or Attorney General to allow the application is repealed." MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. gentleman will recall that I said that the main thing the bill does is 9 nq q

November 16, 1981, Tape 3453, Page 3 -- apb MR. OTTENHEIMER: take away what used to exist as the discretion of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice under certain acts, like the Wildlife Act, the Dog Act, and this act and that act, had a discretion. In other words, instead of the courts being the final determiners the Minister of Justice could say it should be a suspended sentence here, or should be a discharge there. This will get rid of that. Because I think it is inappropriate. A judicial function is - MR. NEARY: Will that eliminate plea bargaining in this Province? MR.

OTTENHEIMER: It has nothing to do with plea bargaining. MR. NEARY: It has nothing to do with it. The minister could just decide whether or not somebody is going to be put on a suspended sentence. MR. OTTENHEIMER: The courts do not recognize any plea bargaining in this Province. What this does - let us say kinder the Wildlife Act there is a provision now that the minister may order a discharge. It should be the courts which made that determination, the minister should not be able to do it. I have not done it since I have been minister, but I should not be able to. So it does away with that. MR.

NEARY: Are we talking about criminal matters too? MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. We are talking about wildlife offences. MR. NEARY: Provincial regulations - MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right: Right MR. NEARY: Not the Criminal Code of Canada. MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, no, no, no No, because there was never any discretion there. There was never any 9lflfl

November 16, 1981, Tape 3453, Page 4 -- apb M.R. OTTENHEIMER: discretion there. MR. NEARY: Well, could the minister tell us - that is rather interesting because I did not 0 know - I should have, I suppose - that the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice had discretionary powers as far as determining what sentence a person should get for a violation of provincial regulations, whether they be environmental regulations, wildlife regulations. How often 91 1

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3454 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: in the past has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) , the Attorney General used these powers, could the hon. gentleman tell us? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, the hon. gentleman was not z here when I introduced the bill. I stated at the time that when I became Minister of Justice I thought it was inaopropriate that a Minister of Justice should have this discretion - DR. COLLINS: Inappropriate. MR. OTTENHEIMER: - inappropriate that this should exist.

I have never exercised it and have wished to have this amendment brought in so that it will not be possible for me or anybody else to do it, I have never done it because I think it is inappropriate. MR. NEARY: Nell, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I really admire the hon. gentleman for that and I really appreciate it because that brings us now to the crux of the matter. The hon. gentleman may have felt that that was too much power, too much authority to give a Minister of Justice or Attorney General, that that authority could be abused.

That is really what the hon. gentleman is saying and I admire the hon. minister for not using that particular power. Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to start a witch hunt, but we have heard on many occasions in the last ten years in this Province where well-to-do people, well-. heeled people were arrested for impaired driving, refused to take the breathalyzer and, Mr. Speaker, they were never charged. Now we are finding out why. Obviously the minister's predecessors interferred. MR. OTTENHEIMER: There was never discretion, it was never appropriate, it was never legal because that is the Criminal Code matter.

Where there were areas of discretion in some provincial laws, it never existed there. MR. NEARY: That comes under the Highway Traffic Act which is provincial jurisdiction. MR. OTTENHEIMER: It comes under - 91 -9

I November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3454 SD - 2 Under the Highway Traffic Act. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Most of this comes under the Criminal Code. MR. NEARY: Well, what the hon. gentleman is saying then where the Criminal Code is involved the minister did not have the discretionary powers. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Never had, no. MR. NEARY: So we certainly have been hearing - MR. FLIGHT: It comes under the Highway Traffic Act. MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, no. MR. NEARY: Yes, under the Highway Traffic Act he - MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, he does not.

Actually the acts under which he has it are listed there on page 5 - City of Corner Brook Act, The Dog Act, Forest Fires Act, Industrial Standards Act, The Newfoundland Human Rights Code Act, Social Assistance Act and the Wildlife Act. They are the only ones. MR. MOORES: The whole (inaudible) act is subject to the minister. MR. OTTENHEIMER: The enforcement of every act, I suppose, is subject to the minister. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, these are the acts that are listed now but we still do not have the answer from the minister as to how often the hon. gentleman's predecessors interferred with the administration of justice in this Province. MR. FLIGHT: The Wildlife Act (inaudible). MR. NEARY: That is right. Ah, well I am coming to the situation down at Paddy's Pond where a former Premier and a minister and a number of his colleagues - MR. FLIGHT: With an airplane full of Dartridge. MR. NEARY: - landed on Paddy's Pond with a plane full of partridge and moose - MR. FLIGHT: And salmon and (inaudible) Labrador 91

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3454 SD - 3 MR. NEARY: - and salmon and no charges were ever laid. MR. WARREN: That happened awhile ago. It is still happening. MR. NEARY: It is still happening. Well,I cannot say if it is still happening or not, I do not know, perhaps the 4 hon. gentleman may wish to participate in this debate and tell us where it is still happening. I know one thing that is still happening in that they are still using government helicopters and aircraft in Labrador for personal fishing trips, pleasure trips. I know that is still happening. MR. TULK: (Inaudible) MR. NEARY: Pardon. MR.

TULK: (Inaudible) Jack Murray (inaudible) AN HON. MEMBER: Every person who is convicted under the Wildlife Act is (inaudible) probably suffering from political pressures and not judicial. MR. NEARY: Yes, I know. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not know how many times the minister interferred with justice following its natural course. I would say fairly often, Mr. Speaker. I would say the heavy hand of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer), the Attorney General of this Province,

November 15, 1981 Tape No. 3455 EL - 1 MR. NEARY: was used on more than one occasion to let some of their buddies off the hook. AN HON. MEMBER: You should be careful when (inaudible) you have to use - MR.NEARY: Well, I can only take the minister's word for it that he did not, that this particular minister did not interfere. And I do not know if there are any powers left now in the hands of the Minister of Justice (Mr.Ottenheinier) or in the hands of the Attorney General to influence whether or not a case should proceed. I claim, Mr.

Speaker, that it is wrong for the Minister of Justice to have any say at all in whether or not a case should be appealed before the courts, whether or not a case should proceed. I think this should be left to the police and the officials of the Department of Justice and not left to the Minister of Justice, we have seen that abused so often in this Province in the last ten years. We have seen, Mr. Speaker, charges trumped up by the Minister of Justice. We have seen inves- tigations suppressed by the Minister of Justice in this Province.

We have seen a sham made out of the administration of justice in this Province, Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years. I am glad the minister is bringing in this amendment to change some of that but I am afraid it is only a small beginning , Mr. Speaker. All it does is let the minister out from under having the power to use his discretion under the City of Corner Brook Act, the Dog Act, the Forest Fires Act, the Industrial Standards Act, the Newfoundland Human Rights Code, the Social Assistance Act and the Wildlife Act

Noventher 16, 1981 Tape No. 3455 EL - 2 MR. NEARY: it does not really get at the root of the real problem in the administration of justice in this Province. And that is, Mr. Speaker, the real problem. The real problem is whether or not the minister wants an investigation to pro- ceed or not. All reports, whether they are initiated by the Newfoundland Constabulary or by the RCMP, have to go to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheirner) and the Min- ister of Justice then decides whether or not legal action will be taken, or whether or not he will allow an invest- igation.

We have seen cases in this Province where in- vestigations were stoppeft. I suppose the most blatant, Mr. Speaker, example of interference in the administration of justice in this Province was carried out by the hon. gen- tleman's predecessor who thought his job was to keep the Premier and the ministers out of jail. That is what he thought his job was. He spent his whole time - MR. FLIGHT: And he did it too. MR. NEARY: And he managed to keep them out. And the real story, Mr. Speaker - well,maybe someday it will be told.

I always say it is a pity, it is a shame that we do not have the investigative reporting in this Province that they have in the United States. I have to admire the people who put together the ABC News, and the people who put together 60 Minutes, in the United States. If we only had that team in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, if we only had the people who put together 60 Minutes, in the United States, I guarantee you you would see half that crowd sitting over there now going for cover. Some of them are still there. Some of the culprits are still there.

Some of those involved in the skulduggery are still over there. 9106

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3455 EL - 3 AN HON. MEMBER: Name them. MR. NEARY: Yes, I could name them if I wanted to. But the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) , the Attorney General managed successfully to suppress any investigation that might lead to a minister or 1 I 91 ij7

November 16, 1981 Tape No. 3456 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: two losing his political scalp, or the Premier running into serious trouble. I see results every day, Mr. Speaker. I, myself, wrote the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) , launched a couple of investigations into this Province, that should have been routine. It should have been easy for the RCMP commercial fraud

section to investigate, and they were abruptly brought to a halt. And some of the predictions and statements I made at that time are coming true today. We had a Premier who was feathering his own nest - MR. MOORES: (Inaudible) MR. HANCOCK: Yes, like the one you put in St. Josephs. MR. NEARY: - a Premier who was in breach of trust, a Premier who was involved in conspiracy - MR. WARREN: Conflict of interest. MR.

NEARY: - and in conflict of interest, and all kinds of other crimes under the Criminal Code, who waltzed away scot free because the proper investigations were never doric into the affairs of that gentleman and some of his colleagues, some of them who are still senior ministers in the administration. And the feeble and flimsy excuses that were given for not carrying out these investigations, Mr. Speaker, i could not believe it. I could not believe it. All the property and land that exchanged hands, all the pay-off s and under-the-table deals that were made, and all the feathering of their own nests, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WARREN: Yes. I agree. MR. NEARY: The most corrupt administration in the whole history of Newfoundland and with all the resources the RCMP had at their disposal, they just skimmed over the surface. 1 R

November 16, 1981 T