VOL. 4 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: FRIDAY, MAY 25,1979 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. NO. 37

11ay 25 ,. 1979 The House met at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): Tape No. 1509 Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS: NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: MR. MORGAN: The hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. Mr. Speaker, as members of the House of Assembly may be aware 1 one of the most frequent subjects of public complaints and criticism of government is the administration of Crown Lands, particularly the length of time it requires to process applications.

Being acutely aware of this fact 1 the Lands branch of the Department of Forestry and Lands, in co-operation with the Department of Justice and the Organization and Management Division of Treasury Board, has recently completed a number of reviews, studies and other related activities in an effort to identify ways and means of improving the system and shortening the time required to get applications for Crown lands processed.

As a result of these investigations it is generally agreed to affect substantial improvements requires a long term effort by government in terms of increased personnel, financial support and new policy direction. While government has already committed itself to the support of these long term objectives 1 I am today pleased to advise the House that Cabinet has now recently approved a number of activities and policy changes that will result in immediate and short term improvements.

I am pleased to inform this House that amendments to the existing lands legislation will be introduced which will substantially reduce the number of routine applications requiring approval of Cabinet, in other words 1 the approvals will be given by the minister. These amendments when affected will reduce a large number of minor but frustrating delays that occur during the latter stages when approving applications for Crown lands. Mr.

Speaker, I am also pleased to announce that effective immediately government will institute a new policy, a policy which will provide the option of applying for a grant pursuant to 38~5

,'J ~lay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1509 !.fM - 2 AA. l10RGAN: a lease for resi dential purposes. As a result of chis change in policy 1the present and future holders of fifty year residential leases for Crown land will now have the opcion of continuing the lease at an annual rental of S25 per year, provided me development: has beeL ;net, or they mAy convert the lease to a grant which prior co now they could not do.

Consideration of such grants will be twenty times the amount of the annual rental fee, of course less any rentals already paid. l~ere the land in some cases would fa ll within an approved municipal plan 1 the grant wi~l be unconditional, and of course where land is outside any approved municipal plan 1 the gra nt will contain a restriction that the land cannot be subdivid ed or used for purposes othe~ than a residence without the prior approval of the minister concerned . . 3866

May 25 , 1979 Tape 1510 PK - 1 Mr. Morgan: Also, Mr. Speaker, effective immediately government has instituted now the option of applying for a grant pursuant to a five year lease for either residential purposes or agricultural purposes, again, of course, provided that the development conditions of the lease have been fulfilled. Such leases were mandatory prior to 1974• Then there was a change made to The Crown Lands Act, and these leases were issued prior to 1976. Consideration for these grants will be $1, plus the balance of any outstanding rentals due.

This change in policy is based on both, in our view as government, a legal and moral obligation to those individual who received a five year lease for any land in the Province under the former legislation prior to 1974. I am also; Mr. Speaker, pleased to announce the following changes in the departmental policy as it relates to those individuals who have built illegally on Crown land for less than twenty years prior to January 1, 1977. There was a deadline placed on these lands of March 31, 1978, whereby submission of applications by these individuals had to be placed with the department.

That deadline is now removed. Individuals who have not already made application to the department are required to submit a Crown land application to the nearest Regional Lands Office and acquire a temporary permit to occupy. Legal action will not be taken against these individuals only in cases where their application is made to the department and then turned down by the department. Then if the individuals refuse to remove their buildings and refuse to carry out activity on that land, and refuse to remove them­ selves from the property 1 only then will they be prosecuted by the law and legal action · taken.

However,in the meantime the department officials will continue to enforce the legislation as it relates to those individuals who initiate legal occupation this case, illegal occupation- after January 1977. What I am sayinq, Mr. Speaker, is that rather than the situation which existed prior to today, rather than having 38o7

May 25, 1979 Tape 1510 PK - 2 Mr. Morcran: legal action taken against those people who built on these lands and were there for a number of years prior to 1977 1 we are now saying to those people we will give you the opportunity to make an application, 380.8

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1511 AH-1 ~R.MORGAN: and only if your application is refused will we take legal action. However 1 if you built on the land since 1977 illegally 1 we have to prosecute you accordingly. I remind the public through the House that individuals found guilty of such action 1 by the way1 of building since 1977 illegally on Crown property 1 the fine is a minimum fine of $200 and it is up to the courts to go from there as regards to the amount of the fine. Mr.

Speaker, in addition to the foregoing policy changes 1 government has also instructed through a Minute-in-council, the Cabinet, instructed the Departments of Health, Mines and Energy, Transportation and Communications, Tourism, Consumer Affairs and the Environment and Municipal Affairs and Housing to immediately prepare guidelines relating to the use and the development of Crown lands in the Province.

When these guidelines are completed 1 they will then be provided to the Lands branch of the Departmant of Forestry and Lands and then be referred to the Regional Lands Offices and will be used by the Regional Lands Offices in processing Crown land applications. The use of these guidelines, coupled with the recent development of and now the introduction of what we call Regional Resource Atlases will enable the regional offices to process the majority, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the majority of applications for Crown land. In ot~er words 1 prior to now the application would have t~ come into St.

John's from the regional offices and be referred to the departments just mentioned - the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transportation and communications, the Department of Tourism, and Municipal Affairs.

Now when these guidelines are established as ordered by a Cabinet Minute-in-Council these department guidelines will enable the application to be processed right at the regional office level in the Province, like in Corner Brook, Gander or in elarenville or any other regional office.' and this will substantially reduce the time required to get an application processed for a piece of Crown land.

May 25 , 1979 Tape No . 1511 MR.MORGAN: Mr. Spe~~r, these are the new p~licies o£ the department and o! the govern~nt but I want to say at the present time the lands branch of the Department of Forestry and Lands faces a temporary backlog of approximately 650 applications and these applications are waitinq title p:reparation. The majority of these applications result !roe policy changes and deadlines that ~re estab.lished over the past two years • As a result for the past two months priority has been plac~ on applications .in the following sequence! ;o.riority number one1 going to applications for residential purposes; ~iority number two1 for applications for

May 25, 1979 Tape 1512 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: for agriculture purposes;and number three ,for commercial reasons. I can thus assure the House of Assembly that the majority of applications in the above categories for which acceptable surveys have now already been submitted to the department, that titles sent to the applicants for signature have all been processed in the last two roonths. To overcome the remaining b-acklog, though, i-lr.

Speaker, the government have to hire a number of temporary personnel and the government have now approved the hiring of a number of temporary personnel for a number of roonths, who will be taken on staff as soon as possible to make sure the total backlog remaining will be processed to the satisfaction of the applicants. Recognizing that the present backlog will result in continued delays for a number of applicants, I have now instructed the regional staff to authorize limited development.

For example, declaring and preparation of land only in the case of people applying for residential and summer cottage applications for which acceptable surveys have been submitted to the department. What I am saying, Mr.

Speaker, is because of the backlog we have, to lessen the time of applicants, when a person applies in the future as of today for a piece of Crown land to build a home, as soon as the application is approved in principle and the person is asked to make a survey of his land, as soon as the land is surveyed, we will then through the ministry issue a permit to occupy the land to clear and develop the land for the purpose of building a home. However, the person will not be allowed to construct a new home because the legal aspect of it cannot allow us to give authority to build.

But we can now and will now as of today, in the future, give authority upon receiving the survey from the applicant the permission to move on the land to clear the land in preparation for building a new home. That is a very significant change in dealing with future applications. We are doing that because we feel that in trying to overcome the backlog of applications we want to make sure the applicant gets fast service, as fast as possible. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of miscellaneous items that affect the present and future operation 3871

liay 25, 1979 Tape 1512 EC - 2 MR. MORGAN: of the Lands branch of the department, and I feel that the House of Assembly and the public should be aware of these, which are outlined briefly as follows: The many application forms used by the department 1 the 38"'~2

:·!ay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1513 SD - l o!R. J. NORGAi.\1: many and numerous application forms used, what we are doing now is looking at condensing these application forms, the different forms now used by department into no more than four, four basic application forms will be used in the future in making application for Crown land. And number two, Mr. Speaker, to better inform the pul::llic 1 the Larui i1anagement Division of the department is now going to prepare a series of brochures, and these brochures will be giving full details to the public with regards to the leasing and granting of land.

And number three, the !-lapping Division of the department is now initiating a new long term mapping programme which will sul::lstantially improve our existing knowledge of land ownership in the Province, ·;:hat is a very big question today in our Province is lana ownership 1 and to determine land ownership this major mapping programme will be carried out so that we can have in our files identified land owners in the Province and throughout the Province. Number four, the efficiency and affectiveness of the four regional land offices have sul::lstantially increased over the past year. And I must say, c1r.

Speaker, the efficiency and affectiveness of the four regional land offices was increased by the work carried out by my predecessor, now the Minister of Industrial Development (Mr. E. Maynard) 1 but the efficiency has increased substantially to the point where now this decentralization of authority has occurred in many areas involving Crown land. And this, of course, has been achieved by in-house training and by getting clearly defined policy and procedural activities through procedural manuals in these regional offices. Mr.

Speaker, while recognizing the need for continuing financial restraints, I am hoping that in the long term it might be possible to have certain additional staff to strengthen the weaknesses in the lands branch both here in the 38'?3

:-Jay 5 , 1979 Tape No . 1513 so - 2 1·i.R. J . MORGAN : headquarters in St. John's, the COnfeder.ation Building 1 and out in the regio_nal offices. I would like to announce, Mr. Speaker, that a recent appointment, Ur. Gordon Thomas, has recently now been appointed as Director of Research with the lands branch and he has been assign~ responsibility also for the Geographic Nan!es Board and also the Public Lands Registry. BOth of these areas b.ave been neglected over the past several. years and as a result of Mr.

Thomas' appointment I expect very rapid improvements in these areas 1particular1y taking into consideration the fact that Mr. ThOlllas was a former empJ.oyee of the lands branch of the departlnent with over twenty years of experience in dealing with land and land matters. So, Mr. Speaker, finally we are presently also developing,which 38{4

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1514 DW - 1 MR. J. MORGAN: is a very important matter for the people who would like to go hunting and fishing in the Province 1 We are now presently developing a new government policy which when instituted will allow the construction of cabins and cottages in remote areas of the Province, areas which are now non-accessible by road. That new policy is now being developed and will he brought forward to the House of Assembly in a matter of weeks. So, Mr.

Speaker, in closing the informa­ tion on this matter,the government is convinced that these changes hereby outlined in this statement will substantially improve the administration of crown lands within the Province and will substantially improve the processing of Crown land applications. In the meantime, the staff of the lands branch of the department is doing everything possible to bring about both short and long-term improvements to the present system.

And government will continue to support the introduction of whatever modifications are feasible in enabling a department of forestry, resources and lands to realize its objectives to providing a better service to the public. SOME HON • MEMBERS : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): Before recognizing the hen. gentleman to my right 1 I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly on behalf of all hen. members fifty-four Grade VII students from Grant Collegiate in Springdale who are accompanied by three of their teachers, Mr. Harold Tremblett, Mrs. Sheila Drover, Mr. Barry Jackman.

There are also sixty students from Beothuck collegiate in Baie Verte accompanied by two teachers 1 Mr. Bill Barkley and Mrs. Peg. Spurrell. I know hen. members join me in welcoming the students from Springdale and Baie Verte. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hen. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on it. Unfortunately, the hon. gentleman did not have the courtesy, Sir, to let us have a copy of his Ministerial Statement before he made it in the House 38'15

l'!ay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1514 OW - 2 MR. S. NEARY: so thae we could study ic and have a few questions ready for the hon. gentleman. This seems co be the style now, the policy of ilie administration to come in every Fr iday and make ~inisterial Statements and expect us off the top of our heads to commenc on major changes in government policy and procedures that we have not even seen. We just heard the statement for the first time. I will try to deal with some aspects of it, Sir. I want to deal with the last part first about the cabins and cottages.

This has caused an awful lot of trouble throughout the Province, people have applied for grants and leases to build Summer cabins and cot tage s. The re has been a freeze on in many parts of the Province, in other areas the applicacion s are still pending, have not been processed, even some of them are : outstanding for four and five and si.}( years. In one case, Sir, and I do not know if this is correct or not1 perhaps the hon . gentleman could tell us, I am told there is a freeze on in the Deer Park down on the Salmoni e r Line and a large number of applications 38'?6

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1515 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: have been made to build Summer cabins, cottages in the Deer Park and they have all been turned down because of the freeze, but I am told that the Cabinet last year overruled the decision of the departments involved and granted a Cabinet Minister approval of an application to build a cottage in the Deer Park and nothings sets the devil in people more, Mr. Speaker, than finding out that there are two laws in the Province, one for Cabinet ministers and one for ordinary Newfoundlanders who make applications to build - MR. YOUNG: Did the same. MR.

NEARY: If the han. gentleman wants me to tell him privately I would be glad to do it. I am also told, Mr. Speaker, that down here in St. John's East Extern another Cabinet Minister wanted to build a house and made an application to the Metro Board 1 which was rejected, appealed it, it was rejected, and now the han. gentleman is going about trying to force a town council on the people in that particular area to try to get his application approved, another Cabinet Minister, down here in Middle Cove or Outer Cove, down in that area. And so, Mr.

Speaker, what we have seen today is the minister knuckling under pressure from the people of this Province and from members of this side of the House. Your Honour will remember that for the last couple of years we have been complaining in this House about the new policy that the government introduced of granting leases instead of grants. So what we have seen now is a reversal of a procedure that this government brought in two, three and four years ago. When the old government changed back in 1972 1 applications then were being processed at a fairly rapid pace even though it was too slow.

And I submit that the policy just outlined by the hon. gentleman will not solve the problems either because there are too many government departments involved. This government, Sir, this government caused the bottleneck and caused the frustration and caused the trouble 38'i7

~!ay 25, 1979 Ta?e No. 1515 !o<"M - 2 :o!R. NEARY: in cne Province chemse1ves. I suppose in tile ::ural areas of t:his Province chere is no oehe.r prob~em t."tat ca\:Ses more heartaches, chat: causes more controversy than Crown land applications and "'e have had petitions that we have present:ed on this side of the Bouse to try to bring about a change. And we are glad to see now chat the new minister is finally listening to the complaints of the people in ~ewfound~and who want to build a home and who have to wait two and t:hree and four years befo r e they get an application approved.

I know in my own district one of the biggest problems I have is •.dth Crown land , and a lot of my constituents were hauled into court last year by 38/-8

May 25, 1979 Tape 1516 Mr. Neary: the hon. gentleman's predecessor 1 convicted in court, and now we find out,lo and behold- we argued at the time that it should never have happened, that these people should never have been prosecuted 1 ~~re should have been leniency, that they should have been given consideration - now we find out that the government is going to reverse its decision even though a lot of PK - 1 my constituents, and I am sure other members' constituents, have been dragged into court by the scruff of the neck convicted, fined, have paid their fines. Now what happens to these people?

Will they be forgiven? Or will it be written from the court record? Or will the fines be refunded? MR. F. ROWE: Not on your life. MR. NEARY: No 1not on your life, Sir; I would submit not . on your life. Now the government has done a complete reversal after they have done the damage. And they removed an expediter from that department, one of the best men that we had in that department 1 Mr. Winsor 1 who was doing a magnificent job, he was whipped out of there. MR. MORGAN: He is coming back. MR.

NEARY: He was whipped out, put over with this foolish Action Group that is costing the taxpayers a small fortune in this Province. The hon. gentleman says now, "He is coming back" . Well I am certainly glad to hear that because at least that gentleman had a little compassion for people in his heart and he did a fairly good job as far as I am concerned and I had a lot of dealings with him as well as other members of the House .

Now as far as the land ownership mapping survey is concerned, Sir, I believe this programme was the subject of an agreement between the Provincial Government and the Government of Canada two or three years ago . And I believe the Government of Canada is paying 100 per cent- if not 1 90 per cent of the cost of that surve y and the hen. gentleman made no refer.ence to that at all. It is the Government of Canada who are the people who are paying for that mapping

~lay 25, 1979 Tape 1516 PI< - 2 Mr. Neary -: survey that is being done here in this Province. As a matter of fact, Sir, they bought an air=aft las-t year, bought a Cessna aircraft, a special type aircraft - MR. !'!ORGAN: MR. NEARY: P-rovince. They gave it to us. Yes,the Government of c~nada gave it to the It was brought up fr-om the United States, · an aircraft that was designed in such a way that you could put a camera - MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible) l.ost. MR.

NEARY: - that you could put a camera -on the bottom of the aircraft, arid the airc -raft cost a fair amount of money, and it was given as a gift to this Province and the GoVerilltlent of Canada is paying for the survey. I think probably the main part of the hon . gentleman' s statement was changing the policy frOII\ leasing to granting. Now that in itself, sir, is a major f~ctor, but it was this government that brought in the lease policy. Does the hon. gentleman realize that? SOME HON. MEMBE&S : Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Now they are changing it. Well 1 that is a good thing.

The people can argue well, you know, you make a mistake and you change it, but you have to realize first of all tha·t the mistake was made on that side of the House by the government, Mr. speaker. You know, we are pleased on this side that they are now changing back to grants instead of leases. I do not know what else I can say about it except that only time will tell. The minister has 38G~J

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1517 AH-1 MR. NEARY: pious hopes apparently from the wording of his statement, but only time will tell whether or not it is going to be effective. It is not the first time,by the way,that a Ministerial Statement was made in this House in connection with the processing of Crown land applications for building homes. It is not the first time and it probably will not be the last. There are so l'lany government departments involved, Mr.

Speaker, that it, is very difficult to get the co-operation of the various departments because of the jealously that exists, because of the low priority that exists in the various depar~ents Health, Transportation and the Environment, Forestry and Agriculture and so· on. So we do hope, Mr.

Speaker, that it will work out for the sake of those people who went to build homes in this Province, who have been held up, hung up now for two or three or four years waiting for their applications even though they have made application for mortgage money at the bank 1 the bank has made the mortgage money available, and they cannot take advantage of the mortgage money until the application is approved by the minister's de~artment. CAPT. WINSOR: clear title to the land. MR. NEARY: They have to have a And so as far as processing it in the regional offices is concerned 1 I believe that is happening now.

It started a couple of years ago. The regional offices process the applications and the final decision is made in the minister's office. MR. MORGAN: to the agency now. MR. NEARY: It is still referred But his Crown land board will still exist 1 you will still have the bottleneck there. Who deals wi~~ them now, the minister direct? MR. MORGAN: Yes, the Crown lands committee. MR. NEARY: But anyway, Sir, we do wish 38G:2.

~ a y 25 1 1979 Tape No. 1517 AH-2 MR. N];ARY: the minister good luck with this new programme. It is a godsend if it works. I have reservations about it myself 1 But let us hope that it does fer the sake of these people who want to build home·s in this Province. ANSWERS TO QUES'l'!ONS TO WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GiVEN MR. SPEAKER: (Mr,Ottenheimer) DR. COLLINS: Ron. M:i.nister of Finance. Mr. Speaker 1 sometilne ago 1 approximately a week ago, the hon. member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr.Simmons) asked me a question concerninq the operations of the LaScie fish plant.

I have reason to believe he is within earshot so I will give the information that I said I would get at that tilne. This referred to a matter that was brouqht up in the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31,1978. itt: was pointed out that Newfoundland Quick Freeze awed the Province $225 ,612, of which $61,506 had been paid and the rest of the illiiOunt was outstanding. I have been infonned by Justice now that the company also has a counterclaim in the amount of $175,206 and 3882

May 25, 1979 Tape 1518 EC - 1 DR. J. COLLINS: tnere has been an agreement reached to exchange cheques which will settle both accounts in full. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) MR. W. N. ROWE: ORAL QUESTIONS The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I wonder is the Premier due in today? Perhaps the House Leader (Mr. Marshall) could indicate. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. MR. MARSHALL: The Premier is downstairs engaged in an important meeting. He expects to be here pretty soon. MR. w. N. ROWE: The Governor, I hope. AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Sir! MR. W. N. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, in that case, in the absence of the Premier - not that I want to belittle the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Doody), but I would have addressed these questions to the Premier since he made a statement yesterday - perhaps the Minister of Mines and Energy can respond to them as well. Yesterday, the Premier mentioned that they are now going to start negotiating the takeover by this Province of lOO per cent ownership of the offshore resources, and the Premier indicated that some committees were going to be set up concerning the administration of the ownership by the Government of Newfoundland.

Now, would the minister indicate to the Province what is envisaged from the Province's point of view with regard to the administration and the control and the surveillance and the patrolling and the general overall protection of our resource on the high seas? Is the government's position that this Province will assume the responsibility and therefore the expenditures necessary to administer controlled patrol exercises, surveillance and so on? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DOODY: There are two very obvious areas of responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

The Government of Canada quite obviously has responsibility for the patrol of the area, for the surveillance of the area, for the protection of the area. They have an environmental concern which we respect and on which we will work closely with them. The actual ownership of 3883

M.ay 25. 1979 'rape 1518 EC - 2 MR. DOODY: the :resource will be ours. We will have control of the licencing of the permittees. We will have c:ont:rol of the rate of production, control of the royalty rates. We will make arrangements with Ottawa to that effect. The actual p~ameters of responsibill ty are only in a general form as yet, and that is why these collllil:i.ttees have :been formed. We hope to get toqether with the appropriate officials in Ottawa as soon as possible. Obviously, we have to wait until the transfer of power takes place.

When the Conservative Government is in office, we will make contact with the appropriate officials and then we will start settinq forth the two areas of responsibility, as I have outlined in qeneral terms. MR. W. N. ?DWE: MR. SP£JU<.ER: (Mr, Ottenheimer) MR. W. N .• ROWE: Mr. Spe;lker, a supplementary question. A supplementary. The Premier indicated yesterday that there were some delays, pexil.aps, envisaged in finally cominq to a conc:lusion 1 decision or an agreement on these areas of responsil:lili ty. Presumal:lly the Premier has :been in touch with the P:rillle Minister Elect and ml.doul:ltedly

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1519 NM - 1 MR. W. ROWE: he has conveyed what information he has to the minister. Can the minister indicate to the House what is the time frame within which we hope to have these two vexatious areas,I would submit, these complicated and complex areas of responsibility resolved? I mean 1 what is the government here looking at in terms of a final conclusion? MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): MR. DOODY: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy.

Well,we are looking at the shortest possible time imaginable, Sir 1 The day after the transition takes place would be admirable and delightful and certainly is what we would aim for. However, the facts of the matter are not quite as simple as that. Until such time as the new government leaves Jasper and moves to Ottawa I would assume that they are going to have to communicate with the officials in Energy, Mines and Resources and with the officials in Transport Canada,~e environment people.

We have been given every indication by the new government that they will give it every priority and put every pressure on to accommodate the commitment that has been made to this Province. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. W. ROWE: on the subject. MR. SPEAKER: MR. W. ROWE: Good government. Good government. Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary Final supplementary.

Could the minister indicate - the Premier mentioned yesterday the setting up of some committees and something to do with the administration and transitional period and so on- can the minister indicate, not to the last cent, naturally, because we will have the budget coming down in two or three weeks but presumably some provincial monies are going to be laid aside for the administration, either the administration during the remainder of this year of whatever responsibility they may have for control, administration, surveillance and so on, can the minister indicate what expenditure is envisaged by the government during this financial year as a result of the responsibilities which the Province 38&5

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1519 NM - 2 HR. W. ROWE: will undoubtedly have to assume as sort of a going along with the responsibilities of ownership of this offshore resource? What amount of money are we looking at from the Province's point of view? HR. SPEAKER (Ot t enh eimer } : HR. DOODY: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. For the rest of this year, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a relatively modest amount of money. I am really not in a position to state what that amount is.

As was pointed out by the Premier in his ministerial statement yesterday, the committee of Cabot Martin and Bill Porter, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy in the Department of Mines and Energy, and Steve Millan, who is the Ex-Assistant Deputy Minister and is now hired on a consultant basis - HR. NEARY: What about poor old Groom? HR.

DOODY: - they are now currently working on the cost estimates of what will be necessary to put the Province's portion of this responsibility into effect.since they were set up only a day or so ago, obviously they would not have had time to establish the exact amount but as I have indicated the amount that will be necessary for this particular year, this current year will be very minimal. HR. STRACHAN: HR. SPEAKER: Eagle River. MR. STRACHAN: A supplementary. A supplementary, the hon. member for Mr.

Speaker, for clarification 1 I believe that what the Province is now obtaining or asking for is ownership of the Continental Shelf 1 which obviously goes beyond the 200 mile limit, as far as oil exploration is concerned,. !~y statement was that what you are claiming then is the ownership of the Continental Shelf as far as oil exploration is concerned which goes far beyond the 200 mile limita Since Canada has only got jurisdiction, or stated jurisdiction to the 200 mile limit 1 and not beyond that because it is international waters then in essence, 3836

~lay 25. !.979 Tape No. 1519 NM - 3 MR. STRACHAN: what .we are stating now is that this Province will own seabed over '<~hich the waters are international and cherefore we have no jurisdiction over it and neither has Canada. Exactly what posicion does this put the Province in when we are claiming the Continen tal Sh.elf without any jurisdiction ~n the waters above it? 11.~. SPEAKER (Ottenh eimer) : !ion . minister. !1R. DOODY: we have always ta.ken the position, Mr.

Speaker, that the Province of Newfoundland owned the minerals in the Continental She1f 1 in the s:ope and in the margin, that whole particular area • Canada ' s manageme .nt control of the fisheries a.>1d the 200 mile limit is an entirely different matter, one which we never have been happy about, one which we think was improperly done in the !irst place, one which should have extended to that same area which we just described.

Indeed,many of the problems in conservation in fisheries right now are caused by that part of the Continental Sheil which is ·not included in that management zone . !lowever, the fishery question is one t hat is not in this area of

!-lay 25, 197 9 Tape No. 1520 OW - 1 MR. DOODY: negotiation. It is an entirely separate problem and one which will have to be dealt with separately. MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): The hon. member for LaPoile followed by the hon. gentleman for Fogo. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, you have to hand it to the hon. gentleman, Sir A He can say all of that with a straight face even thouah he had a little smile there,I noticed. MR. DOODY: It is not easy (inaudible). MR. S. NEARY: No, it is not that easy for the hon. gentleman to give the answers he just gave with a straight face. MR. DOODY: tA.R. S.

NEARY: In the morning I just sit here and smile. This seems to be the day for the Minister - How the hon. gentleman can look at himself in the mirror in the mornings, I do not know, Sir. MR. DOODY: (Inaudible) day before. MR. S. NEARY: - after giving the House that kind of informa- tion, Sir, and that · political fancy footwork that is going on is incredible 1 absolutely incredible! My question fOr the minister is, since it seems to be the minister's day, was the minister aware that Mr.

Charlie Bursey on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was aoing to make a major announcement that we are going to have a mini-hydrc plant in this Province? Is the minister aware of this? Is this a fact?Can "::1e minister confirm that we are going to have a mini-hydro plant built somewhere in the Province as indicated by Mr. Charles Bursey? MR. DOODY: Does the hon. member want the answer to that? MR. S . NEARY: Yes. MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister. MR. DOODY: That is a many parted question and I will try to answer it with a straight face, Your Honour.

Yes, we are aware that we are going to have a mini-hydro plant in the Province; as a matter of fact we have many mini-hydro plants in the Province. Some of the first mini-hydro plants ever constructed in the Western World 3858

'lay 25, 1~79 Tape No. 1520 ow - 2 MR. DOODY: were constructed here in Newfoundland. The hon. member for Fer~land (Mr. Power) is well aware that some of the oldest and most efficient mini-rydro plants in the Western world are located in the hon. member's district. This is certainly nothing new and nothing strange and nothing startling. There is a very efficient mini-hydro plant in Seal cove in · the district of Conception Bay South.

The fact that we are going to have another one built now in another part of the question through a joint agreement with the Government of canada 7 is really not a major policy announcement. MR.S. NEARY: The Liberal Government. MR. DOODY: The ex-Government of Canada. That is a delightful thought,too 1and I cannot say that with a straight face. So, yes, I was aware that Mr. Bursey, the Public Relations Officer with Hydro 1 was going to give some information to the public. It was not a startling 1 major development.As I say1 we have mini-hydro plants in this Province, we have had them for a great many years.

I am surprised that the han. member opposite had not noticed it in his wanderings around the Province, from district to district looking for a place to run. Thank you, Sir. MR. S • NEARY: A supplementary , Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (OTTENHEIMER) MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the only thing that Mr. Bursey did not tell us that he was very cautious about, he did not tell us where this mini-hydro plant was going to be located. Now the han. gentleman is so anxious that the people should have informa­ tion in connection with this mini-hydro plant 1 would the minister, before Mr. Bursey or Mr.

Young upstages him, tell us the site of this mini-hydro plant? MR. SPEAKER: Han. minister. 3839

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1520 OW - 3 MR. DOODY: Mr. Speaker, there are no less than thirteen different sites that are now being considered; some of them are being considered more carefully than others. When that particular sit~ is chosen I am sure that the information will be forthcomin ·-'- If it is felt to be of significant news value, then I will attempt to deliver this astounding revelation myself. If, on the other hand 1it is felt to be a matter of relatively minor interest, I will once again authorize Mr. Bursey to send forth the good tidings. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a couple of years aao when Mr. Crosbie was Minister of Mines and Energy, Sir Edmund de Rothschild came to Newfoundland - MR. DOODY: I thought you called~ 'Eddie'? MR. S. NEARY: 'Eddie', yes. It was the closest time I have ever got, Sir, to big money, AN HON. MEMBER: Since Panama. MR. S. 'lEARY: No, that is not quite - well, probably ---- --- sinc e r·ra:i c; or A.B. Walsh or some of that crowd. But they have since departed,they have gone flip-flop over with the hen. gentleman. But, Sir, since I attended that meeting downstairs with Mr.

Crosbie and saw a slide presentation of what they call a lowhead hydro genera~ o!c - it is underwater and it is the kind of a generator that you can use in the small rivers and streams in Newfoundland, I advocated in the House at that time that we should take a look at a pilot project that was co i ng on in Switzerland in connection with this lowhead ger1erac:or - would the minister tell us now if this is the policy that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is pursuing, the one they laughed at at that particular time, of utilizing the small waters and rivers and streams in this Province? 3830

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1520 DW - 4 MR. SPEAKER (MR. OT'I'ENHEIMER): Hon. minister. )o(_R. DOODY: Some of that deuil I am not all that familiar with,! did not have the advantage of knowing Eddie Rothschild on the same basis as the hon. member,nor was I aware of the fact that the people at Hydro laughed . 3831

Hay 25 , 1979 Tape :-<o. 1521 SD - l AR. \~ • DOODY: I am aware of ~~e fact that the people at Hydro laughed at ~~at particular time, as to the low ;1ead - !~R. NEARY: l1R • W. DOODY : Members of the House laughed. Members of the House laughed~ t~ell, that must have been a delightful day here, you very rarely get tl1at opportunity. The prospect of a low head hydro development in the Province is1 as I have explained a few minutes ago, we have many low head hydro aevelopments in the Province now and we hope to have more.

There will be a pilot programme going ahead on that basis within this agreement with the Government of Canada. In some cases these projects or programmes are quite efficient,particularly in areas that are now serviced by diesel. The capital cost of putting these facilities in place is relatively high but the operating cost in the long-term is relatively low. I would, quite honestly, expect to see quite a few low head hydro sites developed in the Province during the coming years particularly if the one that we are now talking about turns out to be as efficient and as economical as it appears to be. MR. S.

NEARY: :·IR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) LaPoile. i1R. S. NEARY: Final supplementary, Hr. Speaker. Final supplementary, ho'n. member for Would the hen. gentleman indicate to the House if Newfoundland Hydro, if the Hinister has instructed Hydro to take a look at this new process for generating electricity, the one that they have apparently approved in Finland where they are now firino up power plants witil peat fuel. t·:e have a large quanity of peat moss in this Province~ If there is anything we have an abundance of, it is peat moss.

Is the ~inister looking at utilizing peat moss to generate electricity in some of the power plants of the future around Newfoundland and Labrador? ;•!R. SPEAKER: ;1R. W. DOODY: Hen. Minister of ;'l.ines and Energy. well, I could refer the hen. gentleman to last evening's CBC Here and Now show which -

:1ay 25, 1979 ~!R. S. NEARY: do my homework. ~. W. DOODY: Tape No. 1521 so - 2 I do not get time to watch. I have to The hon. gentleman should expose himself to the outside world from ~ime to time rt might broaden his horizons. The fact is that a rather intensive study is being done right now on the possibility of using peat to fuel generating stations. There is an abundance of peat in the Province as the hon. member has stated. There has never been any question about that.

The problem is in Newfoundland the areas that have the highest concentration of peat, the Burin Peninsula, the Avalon Penisnula, the Southern Avalon and so on, are also the dampest parts of the Province. Digging the peat is really not a problem, drying the peat to a level that makes it usable as a commodity in terms of burning for generation of electricity is a major problem the economics are somewhat dubious in that particular regard - and so experiments are now being carried on to see if a way can be found to overcome that major problem.

If that can be done than certainly peat will be used to generate electricity in some of the thermal stations. MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) CAPT E. WINSOR: Hon. member for Fogo. ;~ . Speaker, I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Hr. w. Carter) and my question is this; Since the Federal Department of Fisheries extended the herring fishery along parts of the Northeast coast, herring appear to be in abundance there now and fishermen are having a problem selling their catches.

As late as Wednesday evening or Wednesday night, I believe, fishermen were at the Beothuk Fisheries with line-ups of trucks and boats waiting and the plants could not take the herring. Is the minister aware of this fact and is there anyL~ing that ~e can do to sort of alleviate this problem? 11R. SPEAKER: Ho n . Minister of Fisheries. 3833

Hay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1521 SD - 3 !1R.. W. CARTER: I am aware, of course, of the extension that has been granted on the herring fishery in that area but I am not aware of there being any glut problems at this time. Certainly I will take the question as notice and look into it this afternoon. HR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) Hon. member for Ba:ie Verte - White Bay followed by Stephenville, Terra Nova and Eagle River. HR. T. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hinister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. J.

Dinn) • The minister and the House will recall that last year we passed in this House an occupational Health and Safety Act. ~he main provision of that act was for the consolidation of a number of Government agencies related to occupational health and safety in this Province. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not all that conso1idation has yet taken place and if not,what outstanding agencies have still not moved into his department under the wnbrella of that act? MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) HR. J. DINN: Hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower. Mr.

Speaker, most of the consolidation the hon. member talks about is complete right now. We have one or two areas with respect to personnel that have not been completed. It looks like we are going to be needing some more personnel to look after several particular problems in the Province. I announced only a week or so ago the fact that we were going to hire a mines inspector, for example, and another technician for the Labrador west area.So for all intents

"' May 25 , 1 97 9 Tape 1522 PK - l Mr. Dinn: purposes the transfers have taken place. we have had two seminars to this point in time with all the personnel together, and these personnel have talked about their various areas of responsibility, and we have more or less laid out a plan. We are currently attempting to get space,or we have space designated in the J. E. M. Holdings Building over on the other side of or next to the N.T.A. Building, it is just up behind there, and at that point in time 1 of couree 1 most of the staff will be physically in one place.

So it is moving along very well, and we hope to have it done,just about totally complete,within the next month. MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): A supplementary . MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.

I wonder if the minister could tell me when the Act was passed last year-and up until a few months ago I think there was some disagreement over a timetable for the moving of the Mines Inspection Branch from the Department of Mines and Energy into the minister's department, could the minister tell me whether or not now that,in effect,has taken place and the Mines Inspection Branch is into his department and under the Occpational Health and Safety Authority? MR. SPEAKER: MR. DINN: The hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower . The answer to that question is, yes, Mr.

Speaker, the Mines Inspection Branch has moved into Labour and Manpower. MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, again a question to the same minister. A year or so ago when the Selikoff report was presented to his predecessor there was a tripartite committee set up of government, union and company to study the recommendations of that particular report. Could the minister give the House some sort of status report on that committee now? Is it meeting?

Has it made any recommendations to government yet on the implementation of the recommendations of the Selikoff report? And when the minister is answering , he might be

:-lay 25, 1979 Tape 1522 PK - 2 Mr. Rideout: able to tell me whether or not his department intends to station one of those mines inspection technicians on the Baie Verte Peninsula? MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): The hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, that would require a fairly detailed answer, and I will be willing to get it for the hon. member. With respect to the announcement that I made a couple of weeks ago;inthe Labrador City-Wabush area there was a mine technician up there, and we had sent in mines inspectors from St. John's on an almost monthly basis.

This we found was not adequate at the time and, of course , we have since hired an individual for up there and another technician. I will look into the possibility of sending a permanent technician over to the Baie Verte area. I am not even aware if there is not one over there, but I will certainly check it out for the hon. member and provide him with the information. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Stephenville. MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industrial Development (Mr. Maynard). In November 1978 Mr.

James Corcoran resigned from the chairmanship of the Harmon Corporation, could the minister indicate when this vacant position with the Corporation will be filled? MR. SPEAKER: MR. MAYNARD: The hon. Minister of Industrial Development. I cannot give the hen. member an exact time, Mr. Speaker, but we are in the process now of reviewing the whole role of the Harmon Corporation, and I would think that within the next week or two weeks at the most we will be able to announce or give some indication of the new structure and who is going to be appointed chairman. MR. MCNEIL: MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary.

A supplementary .

May 25, 1979 Tape 1522 PK - 3 MR. MCNEIL: Would the minister indicate if it is government's intention to provide a development officer for the Corporation? And will this new development officerlbe it senior or junior, serve in a dual capacity as a development officer and chairman of the Board of Directors of the Corporation? MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER) : The hon. Minister of Industrial Development. MR. MAYNARD: No, Mr. Speaker, the development officer will be a staff member of the Corporation. There is presently an Acting Chairman, Mr. Don Powell.

We hope that we will be able to appoint a full-time chairman within the next several days. MR. SPEAKER: I had indicated that I would recognize the hon. member for Terra Nova next, followed by the members for Eagle River and Burgee-Bay d'Espoir. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board (Mr. N. Windsor).

Yesterday in response to questions from me respecting the status of contract negotiations with Public Service employees the minister informed the House that the pilots employed by the Department of Forestry, particularly the pilots operating the water bombers in the Province,had yesterday called in sick and the minister indicated his concern over that matter in the House, and indicated that he was going to look into the matter a little further. So I am wondering if the minister has any new information that he can report to the House on that development, as I understand contract negotiations were going on.

So can the minister comment on that situation and what he has found out about it? MR. SPEAKER: The President of Treasury Board. MR. N. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can report that the co-pilots are back on the job this morning, the operation is back to normal, although to this point in time they have not had any call-outs. As understand it, there are no major fires burning that require the water bombers. As far as the negotiations are concerned,nothing has changed from yesterday. We have made an offer to the negotiating

May 25, 1979 Tape 1522 PK - 4 Mr. N. Windsor: committee, they have agreed to take it back to the membership, ballots have been sent out and I understand the committee is recommending acceptance, and this is why we were most surprised yesterday when these people did not show up for work. MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. 3838

Hay 25, 1979 MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) MR. LUSH: Tape 1523 EC - l A supplementary. Yesterday, also, I questioned the minister with respect to the teachers' negotiations in the Province. The minister indicated that the teachers had been ~ade an offer. Now I was not quite clear whether he was talking about the original offer or whether there had been made a second offer since the teachers rejected the first offer. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. N. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, there has been another offer.

The executive are now considering our latest offer and, I think, shall be taking that to the teachers again for a vote. MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. LUSH: I understand that the teachers have also taken a strike vote. This is very serious at this particular time of the year when we are nearing the end of the school year, and I am concerned about how - this was my understanding, so I want the minister to indicate whether this is so.

My understanding was that they have taken a strike vote and I wonder whether the minister can verify this or whether it was simply a rejection of the salary offer. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. minister. MR. 1~. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a strike vote~ this is just a rejection of the offer that was made. They are in a position to take a strike vote if they wish. They have not done so at this time, and a strike vote would be required before the teachers could go on strike, of course.

But I would hope that this latest offer we have made to them will be again considered as an acceptance or a rejection vote. MR. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER: MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. A final supplementary. Within these negotiations, particularly the two that we talked about this 1110rning, the pilots and the teachers, what is the hang-up in these negotiations? Is it purely salary or are there other matters concerned? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. 3839

~ay 25, 1979 Tape 1523 EC - 2 HR. :. • WINDSOR: In the case of the pilots, I am not sure there is a hang-up. As I have already indicated to the House this morning, the negotiating team have indicated they will recommend acceptance. The ballots were sent out two days ago and they are to be returned to the executive by June 5th. So hopefully on June 6th or June 7th, we will have a reply from them and we would hope it will be a positive one, that the contract or proposal has been accepted. As far as the teachers are concerned, salary is one issue - there may be one or two others - salary is the big issue.

But I think the latest offer we made to them was fairly generous and I hope it will be accepted. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) MR. STRACHAN: The hon. the member for Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, there has been a break-up on the Labrador Coast again this year and the Twin Otter service which has been operating all Winter is now being curtailed because the Twin Otters have to come off the skis, off the wheels.

It takes two weeks for conversion to floats. and, of course, in many communi ties there is not sufficient water the ice has not broken up sufficiently to allow the aircraft to land on floats - so many communities are going without mail. We had twenty-four days earlier on without mail, now we are having another period of eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen days without mail and fourteen days without passenger aircraft and so on. I wonder if the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Brett) can indicate to us - because we are deeply concerned that the airstrip programme on the Labrador Coast, which is the only way to permanently solve this problem, is slowing down. We had two airstrips built last year at Nain and Makkovik, this year there is only one at Mary's Harbour and there have not been any 100re indications of any speeding up.

And we suggest that there should be a speeding up of this over a two or three year period because it is uneconomical and the communities which have airstrips cannot now be served by the Twin Otter because most of the other communities do not have airstrips and therefore demand the aircraft must be on floats rather than wheels. I wonder if he can indicate exactly the situation and whether if there is a change in government in Ottawa there will be some pressure from

:-tay 25 , 1979 Tape 1523 EC- 3 MR. STAAC!-li\l'-1: his departme .nc. and whether there can be discussions c.o speed up this construcc .ion? MR. SPEAKER: (Mr . Ott.enheime

r) The hon. the Minister of Transporcation and Communications. MR. BR.E'l"l': Mr. Speaker, t.o the bes c. of rJrf k.no..Uedge, there is no slowing down . There was some problem with land, I think, where the airstr ips were built.

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1524 AH-1 MR. B_RETT: in that the land was not transferred to the provincial government. However,I think that has been overcome and to the best of my knowledge everything is proceeding on schedule. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) A supple_mentary. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, there was supposed to be,this year,two further airstrips constructed, one at Mary's Harbour which is going ahead - tenders are called - and one at, hopefully, Port Hope Simpson - Charlottetown which has been changed to Davis Inlet.

It seems , even at the rate of two per year, that that is still tooslow to make it economical for the operators of the carriers to get in with a twin otter service. So what we are asking here then is can there be an increase.( T!.>JO last year, one this year and maybe two next year and maybe one the year after,because of administrative land problems, is far too slow. On the whole extent of the Labrador coast, 1000 miles, twenty major communities, it is far too slow a programme.can there be possible pressure to speed up the whole thing and squeeze it into a two or three year period of time? MR.

SPEAKER: The hen. minister. MR. BRETT: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for the federal government. But I certainly agree that ~~ a year is rather slow. I think there was an agreement to build something like fourteen. was it thirteen or fourteen? MR. STRACHAN: Fourteen. MR. BRETT: So we are looking at seven years and I agree with the hen. member that that certainly is a long time. I do not know if the new government will make any difference or not ~ut it is reasonable to assume that in our negotiations if it is possible to get them built at a faster rate then certainly we will be putting on some pressure.

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1524 AH-2 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) Before I recognize an hen. member I should point out that th@ Orders of the Day from two to eight indicating third readings should not, in fact, be on the Order Paper, they were completed yesterday. on motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. MR. CHAIR~: (Mr.Cross) Order, please! Bill 15 Clause 3. MR.

SIMMONS: Before we vote on Clause 31 I wonder would the Minister of Finance (Dr.Collins) take the opportunity to answer some of the questions that I have put to himl that the member for Eagle River (Mr.Strachan), the member for LaPoile (Mr.Neary) and the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Twillingate (Mr.W.Rowe) have put to him in committee during the past day or so, some of the financial detail which I fully expect, Mr. Chairman, is readily available to the minister, some of the financial detail on the Labrador Linerboard operation? Perhaps he could take a minute to do so.

Yesterday we had hoped he would stand in his place but we got instead a rather characteristic speech from the member from St. John's East (Mr.Marshall) who managed in a half hour or so to say a lot of things but not too much of substance in terms of the answers we were looking for. And what we need,and this is the place to get it in committee, Mr. Chairman, is some answers to the questions which we four and other members of the Opposition for that matter, have raised in the last day or so in committee. I wonder would the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) address himself to these particular questions before we vote on this particular clause? Certainly this is his opportunity to do so if he would like to do so. I understand he has the information we have been asking for and if there is some particular reason why he cannot 39'~. 3

May 25 ,1979 Tape No. 15 24 AH-3 MR, SIMMONS: give us the information well the:o. the very least he could do as a courtesy is stand in his place and tell us why he cannot give us the infonnation • . I do know he has the info~ation. He h~ not been known in this Hou13e as a man who has been hard to get along with or a man ~o deliberately sits on infon~~ation.

So if he is not giving the in~onnation,as he is not at this point, Mr. ~airman, and he has had a number of opporturUties during the p""t .feW days , if he is not gi vinq the information there may well be a good reason and 1: will be charitable and allow that possibility. B'l¢ if there is a good reason, M'r. Chairman, I believe the minister, in all fairness;, should stand up and tell Ul! what the reason is.

Hay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1525 NM - 1 MR. SIMMONS: Or much better still,I would hope he could stand up now and give us some of the information that I have asked for, my colleaguesfrom Eagle River (Mr. Strachan), from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. Rowe), we four have been asking for during the last few days, since this bill came into Committee stage. I would hope the minister would see fit to provide us with some of the answers or alternately tell us some good reason why he cannot give us the information which he has in his possession right now, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Cross): The han. Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I can add much to what the hon. member, and han. members opposite already know. My understanding of the issue is this, that a considerable amount of money has been expended by the Province over the Labrador Linerboard mill, and that the han. members opposite are wondering that by getting the return we are getting under the present bill that we are considering, whether this is a good return in the circumstances.

And the implication is that some of the money that may have been expended on the mill may have not gone, shall we say,directly into the mill or whatever, and that therefore this would have an impact, this would have an implication for the value we get out. I do not quite follow that argument quite honestly.~ecause if it is said that all the money went into the mill, surely that would mean that our equity in the mill is less and therefore what we got out would be proportionately a better pecentage of that equity.

But anyway that arugument aside, I do not think that one can say that any evidence has been put forward that all the money did not go into the mill. I think in any operation of that size, clearly, and this would not be in any way unusual in my view, clearly not every cent would be the most wisely spent there was. I think in any operation, big or small, there is going to be some expenditures that one person will say, "You did not spend that well.~ Another person will say, "You spent it very well." There could 39''5

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1525 NM - 2 DR. J. COLLINS: well be differences of opinion there and it would not be surprising to me if even,say,the sum of $1 million or whatever out of a total expenditure of $600 million was not to everyone's liking. This I do not think would be surprising. On the other hand I do not know of any solid evidence that has been put forward indicating that even that has occurred. I would be surprised if it did not occur. But I do not think any evidence that has been put forward that one can firmly point to and say that this did occur.

In terms of the information given, my understanding is that all that is available in a readily understandable form, I am quite sure that if an accountant looked at all this information he might say, "Well I need a bit more here, a bit more there," whatever, but all that is available in a readily understandable form that could be put forward has been put forward and that anything that has not been put forward is just minutiae, or it is information that would compromise the legitimate interests of the Abitibi people who are now purchasing the mill.

I would think that if there are any particular matters that need to be gone into on this,that the consideration of clause by clause can go forward as we are doing and we will get this bill passed through the various stages and that those other questions can arise at another time, perhaps in the Throne Speech or in other debate and I am sure that the information that is requested at that time can be researched and brought out. MR. CHAIRMAN (Cross): The han. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: How naive, Sir, does the hon. gentleman think we are?

I will give the han. gentleman credit for one thing, he did have the courage to get up and make some kind of a statement on behalf of the government who have been stonewalling for the last several years on giving the Opposition and the people of this Province any information at all in connection with the operation of Labrador Linerboard at Stephenville from the time the government

~!ay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1525 MR. NEARY: took it over until the time they closed it. At least the minister had the courage to get up on his feet, ~~ybe in NM - 3

May 25, 1979 Tape 1526 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: his simplicity, maybe in his newness as Minister of Finance, but the han. gentleman did say something even though it was wishy-washy. In actual fact, the gentleman said before he took his seat that we could debate this in the Throne Speech. Mr. Chai:rma.n, we have been asking questions since 1973 in connection with the operation of Labrador Linerboard. Three ministers of the Crown were on the board of directors of the Crown company set up by the Newfoundland Government to operate Labrador Linerboard.

They were not always the same ministers, they changed over the years, so over a period of four or five years you probably had eight or nine or ten ministers who served on the board of directors of the Labrador Linerboard mill. And these ministers answer to this House, and these ministers have stonewalled and refused to give the House the annual reports of Labrador Linerboard. They refused to give us Minutes of meetings of Labrador Linerboard that we have asked for. I have asked for them time and time again. They have refused to tell us what the RC!'lP - MR. MARSHALL: You have an audited statement there now. MR.

NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we have an audited statement which tells us nothing. If the hon. gentleman believes in fair play, if the han. gentleman believes that the people of this Province should have information, why does he not send in the Auditor General and a team of accountants from the Auditor General's department? The han. gentleman has always professed that he wanted to see the House get information, the people get a fair deal. Why does not the new Minister of Finance (Dr. J. Collins) send the Auditor General in?

This House can order the Auditor General to go in and check the procedures and to audit the accounts of Labrador Linerboard during the ti.me the government had it under their control. Would the Minister of Finance consider doing that instead of just brushing us off by saying, 'Well, why do you not bring it up in the Throne Speech or some other debate in the House?' So what? We get up then and all we do is make statements, debate back and forth, the government will get up and answer, continue to stonewall. But now, Mr. Chai:rma.n, we have the door open, we have the Minister of Finance up on his feet.

Would the Minister of Finance inform the House now if he has had a thorough review done of the S300 million that was approved by this House and given the Labrador Linerboard?

l1ay 25 , 19 79 Tape 1526 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: He says there is no solid evidence put forward yet that there was any wrongdoing. That is what the minister just said - no solid evidence. Well, I will remind the gentleman in a few moments of a bit of solid evidence, but I want to ask the hon. gentleman first if he would consider - he is such a fair-minded gentleman, t.'le only man so far who had the courage to get up and say anything about thi·s. Will the hen. gentleman send in the Auditor General and have an audit made by the Auditor General and a team of accountants from the Auditor General's department? AN HON.

MEMBER: MR. NEARY: Now, about the solid piece of evidence. There he goes again! No, !rr. Chairman, I am not going again, I am going to talk about an affidavit that I tabled in this House from Mr. Alan Miller, who was a gentieman who was used by Mr. Bobby Kraft, who said that Mr. Ingram was installed as manager of that mill by Mr. Bobby Kraft down in Boston, the man who was given the exclusive right to market the linerboard, and that his taxes were paid from EGRET and from International Forest Products, that they were in collusion, that there was a conspiracy to defraud the Linerboard mill. That evidence is solid.

It has been put on the table of this House. How can the hen. gentleman get up and make a statet~ent that we have no solid evidence before us? We have the Stirling International transaction that to say the least is of a very suspicious nature. That is solid evidence, the documentation laid on the table of the House, the transaction, an internal memo advising the comptroller of t.'le company to pay ~55 a ton to a mysterious company called EGRET in Bermuda. Does the hen. gentleman consider that to be solid evidence? Is that solid evidence? SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. J. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: AN HON. MEMBER: MR.

NEARY: Oh, oh! It depends on your frame of mind. It depends on your frame of mind• Yes. Well,all right,let me ask the hen. gentleman this - the hon. gentleman, I can see, wants to be fair about this - the Linerboard mill got $320 a ton for that shipment of linerboard that went

May 25, 1979 Tape 1526 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: to Ghana. I know somebody who knows the salesman with Stirling International, a man by the name of Shareen. ~. Shareen was the gentleman who sold that particular shipment of linerboard. 39i0

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1527 NM - l MR. NEARY: Okay? Is the han. gentleman following me? Mr. Shareen was the salesman for Sterling International. Mr. Shareen sold that Linerboard for $320 a ton. There was an agreement between the company, the middleman, and Linerboard, that they would get $320 a ton. But International Forest Products who were marketing the product for the Newfoundland Government and for Linerboard said nothing about the $55 a ton that was being skimmed off and put in the account of EGRET, a mysterious dummy offshore company in Bermuda.

Doesthe han. gentleman not think that that is hard evidence of wrongdoing of a possibility of a crime being committed? Is that evidence hard enough for the hon. gentleman?

And if that was a pattern, if International Forest Products who were marketing the product for the Newfoundland Government and for Labrador Linerboard, if that was a pattern, if that was a policy in Europe and in the United States for marketing Linerboard, that $55 a ton over and above the price paid the Linerboard mill in Stephenville had to be put into an offshore account, and another $55 a ton for the middleman, $110, should that $110 have not gone to Labrador Linerboard? MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN (Cross): MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman . A point of order has been raised.

Very weakly on a point of order once again, look we are on clause (3) which relates to the ratification of the principle agreement and I had understood Your Honour to have indicated , even when we were doing clause (

l) where there was a broader debate allowed in Committee stage,that matters pertaining to operations of Labrador Linerboard are not the subject of this bill itself. What we are talking about is ratifying a principle agreement to provide jobs for people in Western Newfoundland and,as I say,we have already passed this in principle. The point of order is that the hon. member is being irrelevant in going into these matters. He is being repetitious. He is repeating them over and over again. One can only 3911

Hay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1527 NM - 2 MR. MARSHALL: wonder whether the purpose of his bringing them up is really for any purpose other than an attempt to filibuster this act because it has been before the Committee now, it has already been determined in the House, and has been before the Committee in three days. Now surely, Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. gentleman is transcending and going beyond the areas that this clause contemplates. MR. NEARY: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I think Your Honour probably realizes that I am in order, that the han. gentleman is merely trying to silence me, trying to muzzle me with a point of order. The han. Minister of Finance (Dr. J. Collins) was giving the House some very valuable information. I believe the hon. Government House Leader should leave him alone. MR. STRACHAN: He was in order. MR. NEARY: The hon.

Minister of Finance was in order, Sir, when he made these statements that I am now answering, looking for additional information, I am sure Your Honour realizes that once we pass this bill we rescind, we automatically rescind the 1972 Labrador Linerboard agreement to take over the mill. Your Honour realizes that. We pass one, we rescind the other. It is automatic. So therefore, Sir, we cannot do one without the other. We have to talk about the past and we have to talk about the future. There is no way we can get around it, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Cross): To that point of order, in Committee certainly the thing that is done is that there is a clause by clause analysis and members may ask for more detail or ask to bring in amendments and so on. Certainly what the han. member was doing a moment ago, it is this particular agreement that we have to deal with here now, Bill 15,"The Ratification And The Sale Of The Linerboard Mill And The Conversion To A Paper Mill." For the past few minutes I realize that the han. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) has been reverting to past agreements that have taken place under the Labrador Linerboard and in that sense he was out of order. He has to stick to the clause by clause 391.2

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1527 NM - 3 MR. CHAIRMAN (Cross): detail in his deliberations. MR. NEARY: So I will just go back to my hon. friend, Sir, the Minister of Finance again, and ask the hon. gentleman if he would consider the very reasonable proposal that I have made, and that has been 391.3

May 25,1978 Tape No. 1528 AH-1 MR. NEARY: made from this side of the House that the minister send in the Auditor General. MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) in this House (inaudible). MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, the Auditor ----- General was not allowed to audit the accounts of the Labrador Linerboard. The han. gentleman knows that. MR. DINN: Auditors were. MR. NEARY: Auditors were but not the Auditor General. The Auditor General is ans<.-Terable to this House. Three hundred million dollars of taxpayer money was spent on that mill.

One hundred million dollars passed through the hands of the Board of Directors of Labrador Linerboard in connection with the sale of the product. Four hundred million dollars handled by the Board of Directors of Labrador Linerboard who are refusing to answer to this House for $400 million. Now let me go back to the ---.... han. gentleman again. The hon. gentleman says that everything seemed to be order. Well has the hen. gentleman taken the trouble to find out why the shipping contract was cancelled and then renegotiated?

Did the hon. gentleman take the trouble to find out why International Forest Products was given the exclusive right to market linerboard and incorporated down in the United States, South of the border? Is the hon. gentleman satisfied that all the equipment purchased for Labrador Linerboard was necessary or was a lot of it purchased through sweetheart deals for political patronage, for reasons of political patronage? And if so 1 has the han. gentleman made -any effort to find out if this is so, if the equipment was purchased and never used, left to rust on the tarmac in Stephenville and Geese Bay?

Is the hen. gentleman satisfied that that did not happen? And is the hon. gentleman satisfied uhat Mr. Ingram and Mr. Kraft, Mr. Ingram being the man~ger of the mill and Mr. Kraft being the man who was marketing the product 1 were not in collusion? And how did 3914

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1528 AH-2 MR. NEARY: they get on the Board of Directors of Labrador Linerboard? Now these are fair and reasonable questions and the hon. gentleman being a fair-minded man I am sur~ ~ill give me some answers that will allay any fears that I may have in my mind that there was an awful lot of skulduggery involved and mismanagement involved with the operation of that mill when the government had it under their control. Is the minister going to answer the questions? Is the minister going to give me some answers? The minister is not going to answer.

The minister is going to take instructions from the Government House Leader who just slipped up and said, "Ignore him. Do not give him the information. StonewalL. The hon. gentleman is now going to become a part of the stonewalling and we are not going to get any information. Well, Mr. Chairman, what else can I say or do? The only thing that I can hope now is that the RCMP will do a thorough job of investigating this whole matter. What about this RCMP investigation that we are told is 99 per cent complete? What about it? What was it all about? People all around ~~e Province are asking questions.

What was this all about and is the report in? At least the minister can tell us that. If the report is in and what action has been taken on that report. Mr. Chairman , I can tell hon. gentlemen that I have no intention of giving up on this, no intention of giving up. They can pull the plug. They can have an election. They can go to the people if they want to. MR. MORGAN: Filibuster. MR. NEARY: There is no filibuster, Sir. I laid this document on the table of the House some time ago and the hon. gentleman did not want it tabled, 3915

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1528 AH-3 MR. NEARY: he had it passed back to me. The bon. gentleman should take it and reac it,if he wants to see the history of the takeover of Labrador Linerboard, evidence, testimony that was accepted by the United States court. MR. MORGAN: Given by whom? MR. NEARY: I do not care who it was given by; it was accepted by the United States court. M..'l.. CHAIRMAN: (Mr.Cross) Order, please! MR. NEARY: And, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman should read it and if it is 50 per cent exaggerated - let us say it is 50 per cent exaggerated, which I doubt because I have proven a lot of it.

Hon, gentleman should be ashamed of themselves by stonewalling and not asking the Auditor General to go in and audit the reports of Labrador Linerboard. Send the police in and send the courts in the United States in to get tile records of International Forest Products and send the FBI into Stirling Internatioaal offices. Instead we are told the investigation is going on in Canada. What are you going to find out in Canada?

The action was south of the border.And that was the whole idea of putting International Forest Products South of the border, so that they could be manipulated, so the rip-off could take place in the West Indies. That was the whole idea of it, Sir. What are you going to 391<3

May 25, 1979 Tape 1529 PK - l Mr. Neary: find out in Canada? My han. friend knows what I am talking about. The biggest scandal in the history of this Province and probably of this country, of this nation. It took ten years for the RCMP to find out about scandal involved in a Linerboard out in Western Canada, and I hope it does not take them as long to find out about this scandal that took place. And the han. gentleman had it sent back to me. He said, "No. we do not want it. '1 Do not want to read it. Do not want to find out the truth. Wants one side of the story. MR. MARSHALL: The Auditor General has (inaudible).

MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, I will put it back on the Table of the House for the benefit of the han. gentleman. And I would suggest that the han. gentleman take it home and read it. Because, Mr. Chairman, seven years of political persecution - a decision was made on seven years of political prosecution in washington, in the United States Court in New York,a couple of weeks ago based on that testimony. And it is not for me to argue whether it is true or not. It was given under oath and it was accepted, the testimony was ordered by the United states Court. I can only veri~ the fact that the testL~ny was given.

But I suggest the hor.. gentleman read it and then see if an investigation is necessary, if a royal commission of enquiry plus a police investigation is not necessary into this whole sorted affair that took place in connection with the takeover of Labrador Linerboard. MR. CHli.IRMAN: (MR.CROSS): Shall Clause (3) carry? MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. MARSHALL: On motion Clause (3) carried. On motion Clause (4) carried. Shall Clause (5) carry? There is an amendment to Clause (5), Mr. Chairman. Clause (5) relates to the agreement entered into with respect to the stumpage charges.

And Clause (17) of that agreement has an omission, a typographical omission, 1::-etween the words "Province" and "As" appearing on the third last line of Clause (17) 1 and I move that the words "And located in the Province of Newfoundland" be inserted.

• t )o!ay 25, 1979 Tape 1529 l?K - 2 On motion amendment carried. On motion Clause ( 51 as amended carried. On motion Clauses 6 and 7, carried. ~lll>cion, chat 'Che Committee report having passed the bill wi th amendment 1 car ried. On motion, that the Committee cise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair . MR. SPEA1<ER (HR. OTTENHEIMER) : The hon. Chairman of Committees. MR. CKAIRMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of the lihole !1ave con sidered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report having pas sed Bill 15 with ame.ndment and ask leave to sit again. second time , On motion report received and adopted . On motion amendments read a first and 11otion, that Bill No 15 be .read a third time now by leave, carried. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Prov ide For The Ratificacion Of The Sale Of Labrador Linerboard Mill And The Conversion Of The Linerboard Mill TO A Newsprint Mill ", r -ead a third time, prdered passed and title be as on the Orde r Paper .

On motion that the House resolve itself L'1to a Committee of the lihol e on Bill No . 33, ~lr . Speaker left the Chair . C0.'1MITTEE ·OF THE WHOLE . 3318

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1530 ow - 1 MR. W. MARSHALL: Order 3, Bill No. 33. MR. CHAIRMAN:(CROSS) Bill No. 33• MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. s. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, since we had second reading of the bill I have had an opportunity to do a little research. I am not going to speak on it I just want to ask the Government House Leader a few questions. My research indicates, Sir, that the House was misled. When the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Hickman) - and I do hope, Sir, that the minister who is presently in hospital is all right and will recover quickly and be back •ith us again. AN HON. MEMBER: He is fine. MR. S. NEARY: Well, I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman is fine. I meant this morning to rise at the opportune time and ask the House to send off a little greeting to the hon. ~entleman, good •.wishes that he recover and be back again with us very soon. Perhaps the hon. Chairman might pass that on to the Speaker of the House . But, Sir, the Minister of Justice, the Premier and to a certain degree the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall}, misled the House 7whether it was deliberate or otherwise, Sir, I do not know~ as far as the Ministerial Association having input into the bill is concerned.! had an opportunity to do some homework, to do some checking on this and some of my colleagues also checked into it and they can speak for themselves, and we discovered Mr. Chairman, to our amazement,even though statements had been made to the contrary in this House by the Government House Leader, by the Minister of Justice and the Premier himself that the Ministerial Association had input into this bill, we find that that is not so.

That is untrue. We do not know how many other misleading statements were ·made in connection with this bill by hon. gentlemen. I would like for the hon. Government House Leader now to indicate whether or not there are going to be any major amendments made to this bill as a result of 3919

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1530 · OW - 2 ~lR. S. NEARY: representation made to the government by the heads of the churches and by the Ministerial Association and others. Will the government now backtrack on some of the things that they said they are going to ram through this House? The hen. Premier told us it did not make difference what we thought about certain clauses of this bill, that the government were going to ram it through anyway.

Now are we going to have any major amendments<' If so, we are going to be into a big debate again, we are going to be into almost a second reading situation because as Your Honour knows amendments are debatable. I would like for the Government Honse Leader to indicate as a result of protests from the church, from the Ministerial Association, f~ other grou~s if we are going to have any major amendments to this bill and if so the hen. gentleman should indicate it now. MR. CHAIRMAN: (CROSS) MR. W. MARSHALL: The hon. Government House Leader. It is quite clear that I did not and I am sure the hon.

Premier or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hickman) did not mislead the House intentionally or otherwise or in any size, shape or form. We are getting off on another great foot when it comes to consideration of this bill, There will be amendments made"but before I get into that I say that the hon. -~member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is just merely, as far as my ears discern whatwassaid,he is just twisting the references that were made to the Ministerial Association.

They ma~ not have been in in the actual drafting of the bill but the Ministerial Association was well aware and had made comments with repapect to the bill itself. we think the bill, as it has been passed by the House, represents a very good balance as this government ~always does, it balances the views of everybodyiin an effort to bring the best and strongest type of legislation to the people of the Province. So perhaps we can put the debate and the considerations of this on a higher plane.

!-lay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1530 ow - 3 !1R. W. !oi.ARSHALL: Yes, there will be amendments. There will be amendments that will be made as a result of remarks that were made during the second reading that we looked at. we thought th@ bill was all right and I still think it could carry without

:.lay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1531 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: risking some of the problems that were brought up. Put in order to make it more clear and to perfectly assure,for instance,that there will be no application retroactively of this bill to settlements that have already been made by virtue of this bill itself with respect to the matrimonial home, we will be bringing those in and I suggest that we will get to those shortly as the clauses are called.

I hope that they will be able to be called and that we can go through them very carefully in the spirit of co-operation instead of in the way in which the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) has entered already into this debate, making allegations of misleading the House intentionally or otherwise. MR. CHAIRMAN (Cross): Shall the

short title carry? MR. W. ROWE: No, Mr. Chairman, not for the moment. Perhaps the hon. the House Leader (Mr. Marshall) might be able to give some general idea now while we are debating whether the very title to the act will pass, what is the general nature of the amendments which he proposes. I realize we will come to them and so on, Mr. Chairman, but there are members who are not here at the moment who have a personal interest inl you know, an interest from the point of view of what they represent in certain of the amendments which may be proposed.

For example 1 I understand that there may be an amendment proposed to this idea of an automatic division of the title between a husband and a wife- Ho matter who the title may be in now the bill itself at the moment,of course,makes that a non- negotiable, non-agreeable part of the legislation, that no matter when a marriage took place the matrimonial home will be deemed to be jointly owned by both spouses. And this,of course,at the present time has two effects.

One,it destroys the legitimate intention of, sa~ a husband and a wife where a husband, as we mentioned earlier without getting into detail, a husband gives title to his wife so that the matrimonial horne can be protected,. ~'hat is one case) no matter what

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1531 NM - 2 MR. W. ROWE: happens to him in business or otherwise. and the other case,of course 1 is a situation where a husband and a wife come to a conclusion that they will take the risk of allowing the matrimonial home to be used for collateral in a business, or with respect to a business and a bank or a financial institution has in good faith stacked up,say,a $60,000 home as part of its collateral in giving a loan of $40,000 or $50,000 to the husband to go into business.

Now what would happen,of course,if the bill stands as it is now in that case 1 a deliberate decision having been made, in that case the bank or the other financial institution in good faith, having made this decision in good faith, would find itself with one half of its collateral divested from it. because the husband who,say,has signed a document guaranteeing personally the repayment of the money that has been borrowed by his business,for example, the bank now finds that they can only go after the husband to the tune of one-half of the value of1 in most cases,the equity in the House.

That is a position,of course, that many bankers would now be startled to find themselves in. I understand from casual conversations with the various members on the other side that the situation now is likely to be that the government will propose,by way of an amendment , that the matrimonial home itself can be subject to agreement just as all other matrimonial property can be subject to agreement. MR. NEARY: It is not compulsory. It is not mandatory. MR. W. ROWE: It is not mandatory. It is not an automatic consequence of marriage. MR. NEARY: I see. Well sure th~t changes the whole bill completely. MR. W.

ROWE: That is right. That is why I asked the hon. House Leader in the spirit of co-operation and in the spirit of efficiency, efficient operations - MR. NEARY: Let us see the amendments in advance.

~ay 25, 1979 MR. \-1. ROWE: have a look at them and see consideration now with respect Tape No. 1531 NM - 3 - let us have an idea so that we can For example, I throw this out for 35:Z4

May 25, 1979 Tape 1532 EC - 1 MR. W. N. PDWE: to the matrimonial home. As th~ hen. the House Leader (Mr. Marshall) knows, being a practicing lawyer, there are situations where one person can be considered to be in a trust position, a fiduciary - I hope the hen. the House Leader is listening now because I think it is of some importance - a situation can be in existence where both parties are considered to be in a fiduciary relationship one to the other, a trust relationship.

For example, I think an example I gave during second reading was where certain people, say, a lawyer who is in a position to unduly influence a client - if a lawyer enters into some kind of an agreement with a client that turns out to adversely affect that client's position, that client can go to court and have that agreement- as the hen. House Leader well knows - in certain circumstances can have that agreement rescinded on the basis that the lawyer in a particular case may have used undue influence to the disadvantage of the client to get him to enter into the agreement. That is a possibility.

The same thing applies to other relationships. Trustee relationship, for example, is also considered to be a fiduciary relationship.

Now, the way that the lawyer or the other person in a trust position or a position of undue influence can have the validity of that agreement upheld in court is to prove, to show by the introduction of evidence that the client or the other person, the person who might have been unduly influenced, that that person had independent advice from a good source when that person, client or otherwise, entered into the agreement with the person who might be considered to have exercised undue influence.

Now, what I am suggesting to the hon. the House Leader is that if we should not - and it may be unduly complicating the issue and so on, but I am thinking that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. MR. NEARY: Right. MR. W. N. ROWE: What I am saying is this, that by allowing the matrimonial home to be subject to agreement as with the other matrimonial property, rou will get a situation where one spouse or the other- and in most cases it will be the husband, we might as well call a spade a spade - 3925

:·lay 25, 1979 Tape 1532 EC - 2 MR. W. N. ROWE: will be in a position, especially at the beginning of a marriage, perhaps, or during the course of a marriage, to unduly influence his wife - it can happen in reverse as well, but I am talking about a normal situation - can unduly influence his wife into giving up a right which she may have.

For example, he comes home with some brilliant business concept and says to his wife after a course of talking to her for a number of weeks, saying, 'We can get this brilliant business concept underway if only I could put up the home as collateral to get the money.' The wife, subject to that kind of undue influence, that kind of persuasion, may be persuaded to agree to the title to the home being in the husband's name and therefore allowing the house to be put up as collateral for some business concept which may turn out to be totally stupid or useless.

She may have had undue influence used on her by the husband, persuasion and so on, in the context of the matrimonial home without any other advice coming from any other source. The same thing could happen with regard to a wife and a husband, but since at the present time most husbands are out into the world of affairs and many wives are at home and are not involved in the world of business and so on - although that is fortunately changing to a great degree - it is usually the husband who may be in a position to do this. Now, what I am saying to the hon. the House Leader (Mr.

Marshall), throwing out for his consideration, is that perhaps we should consider the position of a husband and wife with respect to the matrimonial home as being sort of a fiduciary relationship and that where a wife or a husband is persuaded to give up a right which exists under the Act by way of agreement that it should be considered that the spouse who gets the benefit of that agreement should have to prove, should have to show that the other spouse - in most cases the wife - knew what she was doing at the time, had all the elements, the ramifications

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1533 AH-1 MR.

W.ROWE: and the consequences brought home to her at the time, knew she was giving up a legal right which she would have under the bill, unless an agreement is signed passing title one to the other, and the best way of course to show thatJas in any fiduciary relationship where a trustee may act in a way that may redound to the disadvantage , of the cestui que trust or the client in some cases and so on, the best way of showing that is to show that the wife or the spouse who is giving up the legal right had independent advice and that all the ramifications of his or her act were spelled out to her or him, and then,if he or she wants to do it, sign away her rights,say,to the matrimonial home in order to accomodate a business enterprise of her husband or the reverse, as long as she had the matter spelled out to her, or him, all the ramifications and consequences were spelled out to her or him, and she knowingly gives up what she would have otherwise, half title to the matrimonial home, then she does it with her eyes open and nobody is hurt in any way.

Now I just throw it out and that is why I mentioned to the House Leader that it might be interesting now for the House ~eader to give us an indication of what amendments he proposes so that we can think about it and make sure that this act,which we have already said goes far towards the right direction in equalizing the property and the other rights of the sexes, make sure it is the best possible act which our joint ingenuity and intelligence and experience and wisdom can bring to bear on it here now. The act does not come into effect until January lst. anyway. We have lots of time.

Let us discuss the thing sensibly and sanely, make sure that we do not fall prey to any particular fanatic interest group. What we are trying to do is protect equitable, equal,fair-play arrangements between a husband and a ~rife with regard to the matrimonial home and the matrimonial property and make sure that nobody is adversely or advantageously affected including third parties who hay have 3327

May 25,1979 Tape No. 1533 AH-2 MR. W.ROWE: acted in good faith with regard to matrimonial property. Let us discuss it and perhaps the hon. House Leader can give us an idea as to what other amendments he proposes. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Mr.Cross) The hon. Government House Leader. MR. MARSFJILL: Mr. Chainnan, the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition are well taken and they certainly, all of them, have been considered and some of them he will see in the form of amendments. Now generally speaking, the amendments that are envisaged are-the majorJ there are two major amendments.

One I have already spoken of for the purpose of avoiding any doubt that this act will not apply to existing arrangements, separations agreements that have been entered into or divorces that have been brought into effect. The other major arnendment,as well;will be the deletion of Clause 35(2) of the bill which precludes as it presently stands, which would have precluded the parties from conveying their interest in the matrimonial home. In other words~the act as it there existed had a statutory prohibition against people dealing with their home as they wish, husband and wife.

In that connection, with respect to that we have also considered the matter brought up by the Leader of the Opposition and the point is well taken and is a matter of weighing things again. Really~what 7 in effect,he is talking about is a letter of independent advice. We have not implemented t~is and I would prefer if I could to make these comments as we come to the sections. But those are the major ones and I will certainly deal with the pQints that were brought up by the Leader of the Opposition as we come to them. I think that probably the committee might find that a little bit more efficient. MR. NEARY: MR.

MARSHALL: It depends on the cohabitation. Cohabitation. There will be an amendment on that. There will be deletion of the words. It was

:-lay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1533 J\H-3 just merely a slip of the draftsman's pen I believe. At the end of it when they are talking about a cohabitation agreelilent, ''May adopt the provision of the act and upon such an adoption of this act applies to the man and woman as if they were married." I think this was probably the draftsman attemptin9 to coVer all bases at the time but we sort of feel that the words, 11 As if they were married. 11 were redundant and really have no pla_ce in that particular

section itself. But,of course,that is a matter, I would suggest noW' to the hon. members of the House, that we miqht well debate as we come to th_e sections themselves. MR. E!iAIJlMAN: (Mr.Cross) Eagle River. MR. STRACID\N: The -hen. melilber for ! agree that we could get down to the clauses and when we get to the clause by clause we could debateJ but I am still veey confused by what the House Lea~r has statec:! to us. The Leader of the Opposition has put forward some very valid points concerning ownership 6f the home.

And in trying to 1for instance,sit at: a telephone and expl.ain to my wife at Nain how the ownership of our home is affected by this act and also affected by our btisiness I am still no clearer. I am not in the slightest hit clearer. ~- MARSHALL: In clause by clause the hon. gentleman can ask quest i ons .

:lay 25 , 1979 Tape No. 1534 SD - 1 :•IR. W. l-!ARSHALL: and in my own humble way I will attempt to answer them and if my knowledge is not full e lluugh to answer I know I can get assistance from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W.N. Rowe) or from other members here as we go on. The general principle of the bill is, if I may1I know I am interrupting, the general principle of the bill is that now there is a recognition that where ::;>ersons are married the wife contributes equally with the husband to the matrimonial assets and they will be divided equally between them. That is the general principle of the hill.

There are certain exceptions there as the han. member already knows, gifts or inheritance or personal injury awards or what have you but by and large that is the general principle of the bill. Now, the hon. gentleman or, we will not say the hon. gentleman but any person who happens to be in business and husband and wife,they wish to put the house in the name of one or the other in order to protect against the creditors, to keep it beyond the reach of creditors, they may do so . That is one aspect of the bill that we are now assuring.

We thought they could do it before but we are deleting that particular clause to assure that they will be. They can also deal with their business assets jointly together for the purpose of pledging them for collateral. So really,in effect 1if one weDeadvising one ' s wife or vice versa it is a 50 per cent distribution but, of course, it really does not come into effect to any great degree. It has certain applications throughout matrimony but it has its biggest effect in a separation or dissolution of the marriage itself.

It will have an immediate ~ffect in marriage because when one wishes to mortgage a home now in the future,r~ matter in whose name th~ title is,the ou1er spouse will have to sign. But, really, that is no different than a lot of the practice that has been adopted by financial institutions for a long period of time where they would require the spouse of the borrower to sign as well. The hen. member for Eagle River.

>lay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1534 SD - 2 ~lR. I. STRACHAN : Hr. Chairman, maybe I am thick in the head or something on this matter but I am slowly starting to understand because it seems to me that there are almost two titles to a home. There is a legal, in a sense, business title. What you are saying is, I can transfer my home, for instance. for argument sake, to my wife or my wife if she is getting into business could transfer it legally to me;in a business sense which would, therefore, remove that home arms length from our business if that business goes bankrupt to creditors and so on. That is one aspect of it.

That still stands, we can still do that. This act here states that the home is owned equally,really 1 in the case of separation or divorce or breakdown of the marriage. HR • W. l-IARS HALL: Unless the parties agree. The way it is going to be, a law says that husband and wife will own equally but it is still competent for husband and wife to enter into an agreement as between themselves to the effect that the provisions of this act will not apply to them, in which case, one can own all of the assets or part of the assets or what have you. DR. J. COLLINS: Amended. i-!R. w. MARSHALL: I beg your pardon? DR. J.

COLLINS: The amendment will allow it. J.~!R. w. MARSHALL: That is what we are going to need. 1-iR. CHAIRMAN (;>!R. CROSS): The han. member for Eagle River. i>IR. I. STRACHAN: I do not know if that helped me either because I am really way off beam. Really I am! But I think it is really important because it is something that is very serious, I see i~ as very serious. It gets at the very framework of what marriage is and what homes are all about and I do not mean to belabour the point.

We have belaboured a lot more points in this House with a lot less interest and a lot less importance and so if it is in the wrong clause and so on I hope these points of order do not really matter

:1ay 25 , l979 Tape NO . 1534 Si> - 3 :IR. I STRAC:-iAN: because I chink it J.s funcia.ment:a~~Y import:ant: we understand and not only I understand , if I am slow-witt:ed about ir: 1 t:.l"tat che peop le ou tside in the Province understand e xactly what we are seating hexe . AN liON. Z1EMBER: (Inau d ible) :·IR. I. STRACHAN: It would seem to indicate now cha't what you are stating is ::hat there will be a provision in chi s act: as we get d own to it in the clause in which a husband and wife can ~cem co opt out of ~iis as far as equal sharing of

Hay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1535 NM - 1 M.~. STRACHAN: matrimonial property. In other words in order to make it legal for a business, or legal in such a way that a business cannot be attached to that home in the case of bankruptcy a husband and wife - for instance in my case we own our house equally, if we decide in business arrangements that I have to put up some personal guarantees and securities and so on and I do not want the home included or I do not want my home included in my business then I, in the legal sense, I can transfer my home to my wife. So my wife now becomes total owner of the home.

That is done for a business sense. That in no way to me relieves me of the responsibility in a matrimonial sense, that my home belongs equally to us both. So what I am stating is that in a business sense, in order to satisfy the business sense I can opt out of this but in opting out of this I therefore am opting out of the very purpose of this bill which is to share equally. Now maybe I am still being confused but to me there seems to be two sort of titles and forms of titles here, a legal business title and a - MR. MARSHALL: No, there is not. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. MR.

STRACHAN: No, but the point is if I can opt out of this then what I am doing, either my wife or I opting out,is that we are removing the sense of equality in a marriage. MR. MARSHALL: Well that depends on you and your wife you see. What you are doing is you are removing the statutary imposition that we are now doing. We are saying in all cases where there has not been agreement to the contrary there is going to be this equal distribution. What you are opting out of is the statutary obligation cast upon the married couple to do it.

Now whether or not that is the fact - whether that does pertain - I mean that still does not preclude you afterwards from making agreements as between one or the other,wills or what have you, or indeed giving one's wife everything or taking it back

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1535 NM - 2 MR. MARSHALL: or whatever you do now, whatever one does now. I mean the point of the matter is you can only control a certain amount by legislation, you know, and by statute. And you cannot have it,you know 7for the purpose - for one purpose you convey it and at the same time it is joint title, you know as between both of you. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Yes. MR. MARSHALL: You follow what I mean? Eut you can make your own arrangements with respect to that as between you per se. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Agreed. Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN (Cross): The hon. member for Eagle River. MR.

STRACHAN: That is fine put in that sense, you know, because obviously what you have been giving me is a legal description of exactly where title will rest. My argument basically is that I will understand that as an intelligent, reasonable individual who will sit down and because of business interests and getting into business will analyze it very carefully and because my wife is also reasonably intelligent, probably more intelligent than I am possibly - MR. MARSHALL: Most wives are. MR.

STRACHAN: - that she will go through this, I can guarantee you, with a finetoothed comb, and will understand exactly where her position is. What I am arguing about is that in most cases MR. w. ROWE: You want to know about your position. MR. STRACHAN: - in my cases most people will enter into marriage and will enter into business and enter into situations without understanding or knowing exactly what this does. So I mean it is fine for us who have access to lawyers, I wonder if somebody in Black Tickle can understand - MR. MARSHALL: I realize that. MR.

STRACHAN: - you know, who gets into business, and I wonder if somebody in Baie Verte who gets into business, or I 3834

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1535 MR. STRACHAN: wonder if somebody else in other places who get into business really understand what is occurring: Because for us it is very easy, we have access and we will make the necessary agreements, wills, documents, to protect all interests, or protect our own interests. I am wondering how NM - 3 the people outside will - elsewhere, outside of thi·s House and so on, and outside of the legal profession, will be able to know these kindsof things,that this is a very serious act and a very serious piece of legislation which I totally agree with by the way. I have no argument at all.

MR. MARSHALL: I know that is a difficult - you know that is always a difficult situation in order to make people aware of their rights and their positions without having them have to have recourse to outside advice.

The only thing we can say is the government is going to take every possible means to bring this to the notice of the public by publishing a brochure or what have you, and I think for the present time, once it is put indelibly in the public's mind- I mean you can get messages, as the hon. member knows, through more simpl~ probably. if the message is more concise, if it was borne in mind that now the Legislature says for all intents and purposes husbands and wives own property equally.

Now anyone going into a business and usually when they are going into a business they usually seek some advice somewhere along the line, but they should be well aware that they ought to seek advice when they are going in as they would normally anyway. But really what we are doing is we are making a situation where the general application is of the major benefit·And there are certain specific problems that may come up, where people may want to change or alter the situation and in that case, you know, we will do everything we can,in other words,to make the position known to the public.

But we cannot sit down and force them to understand it. MR. CHAIRMAN (Cross): MR. LUSH: a few concarns about The hon. member for Terra Nova. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1536 DW - 1 MR. T. LUSH: the bill. I also can appreciate the concern of my hon. friend and colleague for Eagle River (Mr. Strachan). I think what he is trying to say is that certainly the public need to be educated about this bill. The government certainly have to do a tremendous amount of work to disseminate the information, the details about this particular bill so that the general public, so that the people out there will know just what their rights are. I know that is rather difficult.

This is a complicated and complex bill and there are a lot of people who do not understand all of the implications and all of the ramifications of this particular bill. So there is certainly going to have to be a tremendous job done of disseminating in simple terms,in language that is understood by the general public,just what the rights and privileges are. I am particularly delighted that the government have agreed to change the aspect of the matrimonial home respecting the transfer of ownership to one spouse or the other. I think that is a good move.

And a question to the minister and it is purely a question.! am just wondering whether or not the minister or the government have received any complaints or any kind of flack respecting the situation where the home and . I was going to say matrimonial ho~ but, I suppose, it is purely in this sense the home was acquired before marriage? I know the act says it does not matter how or when the home was acquired.the minute the marriage is legally processed then if there is an existing hoMe it becomes shared equally between the two partners in the marriage.

So I am just wondering whether the minister has received any kind of complaints about this particular incident. I believe too in Ontario, I am not sure about this but I believe in Ontario that there is provision for this 7 that the matrimonial home is the home that was acquired during the marriage and not before, now I may be wrong on that,but certainly in some jurisidictions. So maybe the minister could comment on that.

~ay 25, 1979 Tape No. 1536 DW - 2 MR. OiAIRMAN (CROSS) : The hon Government House Leader. MR. W. MARSHALL: I am not aware personally and in view of the remarks made by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) today I emphasize that I am not aware personally of any such flack along that nature. As a matter of fact, the bill has been universally, generally accepted and acclaimed by everybody. The point that the hon. member is making is very well taken and certainly merits considera­ tion but in all of these things it comes down to the matter of weighing as one against the other.

And I think really what he is mainly concerned about are situations with respect to second marriages when children are involved. We have considered that aspect of the matter but we feel that it is a practice when a lot of people enter into second marriages 1 particularly when there are children by the first marriage that they usually, very carefully consider their rights at the particular time before entering into the marriage itself.

Now that the act has changed, any people who do not like the consequence of the act with respect to the matrimonial home acquired prior to the marriage now will be perfectly competent to be able to enter into an agreement so that it does not apply and they can do what they wish with the home itself. What we are very concerned about is really the protection of the majority of the people and the protectior. of as many people as possible who are not likely to take the steps to protect themselves.

So for that reason we make the law a general application bearing in mind that these specific situations which occur may not suit the individuals themselves but we are making the machinery in the act there to enable them to avail of it in order to do as they wish with the property. Okay? MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for LaPoile. 39~7

May 25, 1979 Tape No. 1536 DW - 3 ~R. S.NEARY: The hon. gentleman made a statement, Sir, that he personally was not familiar with any protests or any complaints about this bill. That was not the question that my hon. friend put to the Government House Leader. The question put to the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) was .. did the government have any protests or any flack or any complaints about this bill? That was the question. The hon. gentleman skirted around the answer by saying he was not personally but the hon. gentleman is aware of protests. The hon. gentleman is misleading the House again. MR. W.

MARSHALL: No, that is not so. MR. S • NEARY: That is so, Mr. Chairman. MR. W. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman sees ants crawling up the wall down by day - he i s getting par anoid. MR. s. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, let me put a question to themon. gentleman. Did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hickman), the Premier or anybody in the government have any strong protests about certain aspects of this bill and if so would the hon. gentleman indicate what the protests were all about. He does not have to tell us where they came from.

The hon. gentleman is aware of the protests just the same as I am and the hon. gentleman is aware of it. Give us the answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: (CROSS) MR. W. MARSHALL : The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Speaker, there is no change that has been made on this earth but people are going to disagree with it. I was addressing myself t o the hon. member for Terra Nova's (Mr. Lush) specific question of

May 2.5, 1979 Tape 1537 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: whether I was aware whether any protest against the aspect of the Act which included within the ambit of the Act, homes that were acquired prior to marriage, specifically to that. The hon. member, you know, he seems to be concentrating on looking for things that do not exist. Certainly, there are people who make certain representations with respect to the bi~l, and particularly one affecting their own personal relationships from time to time.

I wo~d not call them in the nature of protests, as such, I wo~d call them in the nature of inquiries, particular~y, most of them related to the position with respect to the matrimonial home and the situation where the Act had previously been when it will not, hopef~~y, when it comes out of Committee, if all members agree, that you could not contract out of the matrim:mial home. But I wo~d not want to give the impression that they were protests - they were observations that were heard and that were appreciated and that have been acted on.

For the information of this House, there are few bi~ls that have gone through in the House of Assemb~y - and members know that there are many important bil~s that go through this House that from time to time the public do not even know about - bu~ there are few bills that have gone through the House that have met such publ i c acclaim as this partic~ar bill, itself, as a dramatic and a very real and reasonable piece of reform legislation that is needed. Now that is all I can say. I mean, I am not presuming to say that, you know, 100 per cent of the people were enthusiastically endorsing it.

There obviously are going to be people who for their own reasons do not like the bill, itself, but they certainly were not protests. The doors were not being battered down. As a matter of fact, if anything, in actual fact what happened, as I say, was a matter of great public acclaim. It is a piece of legislation that this government has a great deal of pride in, and will have a great deal of lasting pride in. And I know the members opposite can only join in the acclaim and the praise of

an Act of this nature. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Mr. Cross) The hon. the member for LaPoile.

~lay 25, 1979 Tape 1537 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: Obviously, Sir, the government have knuckled under pressure and they should not be ashamed of it, they should be prepared to admit it. I would say it is a good thing. If the Premier had his way last week, that bill would have been rammed through the House before the House adjourned for the four or five days that we recessed for the federal election.

That bill would have gone through that day, Committee of the Whole and everytiung else, and it was only through the fact that the Opposition were able to prolong Committee of the Whole on the bill that these amendments are now surfacing, and they appear to be major amendments. The government should not be ashamed to admit that they are knuckling under pressure because that is exactly what is happening. And the minister in a shameful way - MR. MARSHALL: No, not at all. MR.

NEARY: - got up and said that it was because of the stroke of a pen of a lawyer down in the Justice Department, a legislative draftsman - a slip of the pen, the han. gentleman said. Well, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hickman) communicated that ll'essage to one of the heads of the churches when he was talking to him. He said, 'We did not know.' How shameful can you get? We did not know because two of our more competent - MR. MARSHALL: Four or five words - MR.

NEARY: - legislative draftsmen - and I do not believe either one is sitting around this table 1 by the way - drafted the bill and we just took it for granted that it was acceptable, that it was a