VOL. 3 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 2:00 - 6:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, .MAY ~0, ~978 I m. 56

May 10, 1978 Tape 2066 DW - l The House met at 2:00 P.M. Mr.Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would like to welcome to the House · of Assembly on behalf of hon. members a nu111ber of high school students from Holy Cross Central High School in Eastport and they are accompanied by a number of their teachers and parents. I know hon. members join me in welcoming these students, their teachers and parents to the House of Assembly. SOME RON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. T. LUSH: Hear, hear! The hon. member for Terra Noya. Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of a delegation from Eastport. Arrangements were made ~at MR. PECKFORD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Point of order has risen. MR. PECKFORD: As I understand it the - as I assumed the order to go today is that because of the problems yesterday and the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition and our agreement to using today that the normal practice is for the Orders of the Day to be dispensed with and that you get automatically into the question at hand. MR. NEARY: trying to do? MR.

SPEAKER: Would the member ~x~iiin what he is Order, pleasel Order, please! There is no doubt because of the nature of the c: motion before the House today that immediate precedence is given to that motion and the routine orders are not called. The han. member, as I understand, is asking for leave to present a petition. There has to be unanimous consent; if not, we go into the motion. So I need to do that. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Leader of the Opposition. •.

,:.·__. Hay 10, 1978 Tape 2066 DH - 2 HR.. \L ~!. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, ,since I have made the motion and so on,I do not - lV'e can agree on this side,if the· meml:ers on the other side will agree, for· the hon. member to present his petition. As I understand it; Sir, speaking to the hon. member,he made a commitment to a c~rtain group who are here in the building today for the event to Fresent this_petition today which he thought was going to be Private Members' Day.

If any individual member here decides not to allow it, Sir, that is the end of it,but I would not mind five or ten minutes postponement of my particular motion for that pur"Pose. MR. NEARY: A spe~ker on each side. MR. lv.N. ROl-lE: A couple of speakers, Sir, and that will be the end of it;.But_as I say,if any individual member feels aggrievea by that he can always say"no. For our

part I think we are in agreement with it. ~1R.. SPEA.l{ER: What I need to know is whether there unanimous consent. ""1R.. PECKFORl): Fine.I can clear this up very quickly. There is not agreement on this side to allow the hon. member to proceed with the petition. MR. SPEAKER: There is or is not7 MR.. PECKFORD: There is not. MR. SPEAKER: Is not, : ··-- SOME RON • }!EMBERS : Shame! HR. SPEAKEF: Order, please! The motion before the Hous.e is the motion moved last night by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Leader of t~e Opposition. sm'!E RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. w .N. ROTirJ:::: Hr. Sueaker, it is too bad the !-ton. ., 'I

May 10, 1?78 Taoe 201'6 MR. W.N. RailE: member was not able to present his petition for the sake of five or ten minutes since a group apparently had come in for the very purpose,as I explained to the i:!ouse. · SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,oh! :m. w.:r. !Wl·lE: - - - But ··that is as it is, ~~r. Speaker • !_t was not any ini!ividual member because apparently the Acting House Leader is spemcing on behalf of all the memlers on the other side. So that is a shame but there it is. Ali RO~. }<:EMBER: There they are. ~1R. w.:~. ROl-lE: Hr. Speaker, yesterday was what I consider to be a historic• dccasion ·in this House.

The han. Speaker of the House of Assel!'.bly handed down a ruling. The ruling was given in response to my motion or my notice of motion,my point of privilege with a notice of motion to the effect that the hon. the Premier,aided and abetted by a minister or other ministers,had deliberately misled the hon. House in connection with questions asked him over t.'te last three years concerning a government building to be built on behalf of the government by a third party outside the government.

The Speaker, Sir, Your Honour had to decide ~.rhether in your judgement the rights and privileges of the House of Assembly,and each of us here in this Hause as individual MHAs were so involved, if the rights and privileges of the House were so involved. Sir, to justify Your Honour the Speaker in giving this whole matter precedence, priority,over everything else before the House-all orders,all motions,all bills,the Standing Orders,the ordinary routine Orders of the Day, Sir, whether the matter which I had rais~d involved the DW- 3 '. ,..

~ray 10, 1978 Tape 2066 f!R. t'T.n RO~: privileges of this House to such an extent that Your Honour ~yourrjudgement should decide to give . it precedence over ~verything else. And, Sir, Your Honour so decided after several hours of considera- tion and deliberation.y 0 u_,decided that in your judgement this case which _ I had raised,the matter which I had presented in the House with documentary evidence and ar~ntr.,this matter argued on both sides of the House, Sir, this matter of privilege was entitled to precedence,w ·as entitled to priority over everything else before the House of Assembly. ~ · ,.. - I I l

May 10, 1978 Tape 2067 EC - 1 MR. W. N. ROWE: And, ·Sir, I do not know if that decision by Your Honour is unprecedented or not in this hon. House. I believe it may be. Your Honour referred to certain rulings and certain statements made by Speakers elsewhere - in Ottawa - and Your Honour made a ruling which may be unprecedented in this House, a ruling on a poiut of privilege by an Opposition member involving the privileges of the House alleging that the Premier had seriously misled the House and deliberately misled the House.

And Your Honour decided that a prima facie point of privilege existed, that in your judgement the privileges of the House were so involved that we should have this debate- that there was a prima facie case established - and, Sir, I made my motion. And I do not know, Sir, whether it is unprecedented or not. There are rules and there are theories covering it, but this may be the first time in this hon. House that~in actual fact, a ruling to that exact effect was made by a Speaker occupying that Chair. Mr.

Speaker, that in itself is important and noteworthy and should be recognized and realized by all members of this House and by all members of the media and all member~ of the public who are concerned with this matter.

I rose yesterday, Sir, and I submitted that there had been deception and there had been a misleading of the members of this House in a systematic way, in a continuous and deliberate way beginning in the first session of this House following the general election of 1975, the first session of the House which I believe was in the Spring of 1976, and that the misleading and the deliberate deception continued on into the session of 1977 and that it culminated in this present session of the House in remarks made by the Premier two days ago, I believe,

May 10, 1978 Tape 2067 EC - 2 MR. W. N. ROWE: in answer to questions as to whether there were any deals, arrangements or agreements with anybody to build an office building for the government. And, Sir, to substantiate my case, I quoted certain matters from Hansard over the past three years. I went into it in some detail, Sir - I did not quote everything that had been contained in Hansard - I picked out several of the more blatant examples, and, Sir, I then summed it up with, I believe, two or three or three or four examples to which I will refer briefly now.

One of them was on June 3, 1976 where my hon. friend and· colleague, then the Leader of the Opposition, the member for the Straits of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) asked the question of the Minister of Public Works concerning the building of an office building, and the Minister of Public Works then, referred to as Dr. Farrell in the Hansard, stated that "A decision has not been made, and when it is made I will be announcing it to the House." This Sir, some seven or eight months after an agreement had been signed by that same hon. gentleman, witnessed by the Premier according to the documentation I have tabled, and.

Sir, by a Cabinet directive made on August 18, 1975. That, Sir, I submit, misled this hon. House. And I submit, Sir, since the hon. minister involved was the very one who signed the document.that it was a deliberate misleading of this hon.

House, and that is why I have asked that a Committee of the Whole of the House be set up in order t~ inquire into the serious dllegations that I am making, and these allegations which I believe sincerely and in all honesty are borne out by the Hansard references and by the agreement and the Order in Council - or the Cabinet directive, I should say - which was tabled here yesterday.

'•lay 10, 1978 Tape 2067 EC - 3 MR. W. N. ROWE: ~other example, Sir, on March 28, 1977 when my frieud., the member for LaPoile district asked a minister, a new minister of Public Works then, referred to in the Hansard as Mr. Rousseau - MR. NEARY: Rear, hear!

llay 10,1978 Tape No. 2068 AH-1 HR.W.Rm>'E: Hr. Neary, the member for LaPoile,asked the minister a question regarding the task force report on the building of office space for the government, And .he went on to say, tliis II is on Harch 28,1977, 9<!.~ the minister assure the House then that in the interim period while the minister is waiting for this report that if office space is required that public tenders will be called for such office space and that the award will go to the lowest bidder?

Can the minister assure the House that that will be the procedure?" And the minister said "Yes, the minister can assure the hon. member~· Maybe they are weasel words, I do not know; maybe the words are to be taken absolutely literally, "Yes,I can assure him" without meaning what was being said behind the words.

Well, Sir, I take that to be if this minister knew, if he knew of the existence of this agreement and the Cabinet directive which I tabled yesterday, and I submit, Sir, he knew orr should have known- if he did not know then there are some more serious questions to be asked by this Committee of the Whole House -if he did not know that is a serious enough situation in itself. But if he knew, Sir, then I would submit that he deliberately misl. ~d my hon. colleague the member for LaPoile 01r. Neary) district in answer to that question.

On June 2,1977 a question was asked by my friend,the member for LaPoile (:·Ir.Neary) district~refe=ed to in Hansard as Mr. Neary.

"Could the hon. the Premier " he asked, "assure the House that no deals, no commitments have been made to private developers to rent office space either on a s~1ort-te:rm hasis or a long-term basis until the government nas the report in its hands and decides what t.l"le future is going to be as far as government uew buildings or office space is concerned7" And the Premier of the Province, Sir, in answer to that question, in the light of the knowledge which he had to have having signed or witnessed a document signed a year and a l1alf or so i>efore that, with no proof of that document ever }

7 i·.iay 10' 1978 Tape No. 2068 Ali-2 HR.ll.:::tOWE: having been rescinded by a deed,for example,fro~ ti•e third party concerned,and no evidence that the Cabinet itself ever rescinded it, formally or otherwise, the Premier answered tllat question of my hon. friend, "Can th~ Premier assure the House that no deals, no commitments have been made to private developers to rent office space" etc. The Premier said "I most certainly can, Hr.

Speaker, T.het:.a have absolutely not been any commitments made to any developer with office space or without." ~ow, Sir, if we are taking a reasonable view of this whole situation, reasonable men cannot differ on that fact situation. It was calculated,I submit, Sir, calculated to deceive ~y han. member and members of this hon. House.

There was no word of explanation. nothing to the effect that.yes,my han. colleague the Hinister of Public Works signed an agreement ':lad: in August 18,1975 9 a week before the general election,which I witnessed but that has since been rescinded by another agreement from the third party concerned :. and the Cabinet have all approved it and rescinded the Order-in-council which was granted at that time,,_~~ word of explanation like that, Sir, because, Sir, I would submit no word of explanation could have been given in all truth and honesty.

And the fact is that that answer to that question deliberately mi s 1,~-d "this hon. House of Assembly, a deliberate misleading of the member of the House of Assembly, the highest legislative forum in this Province. On ~~y 8th, Sir, finally on this matter, the question was asked by the member for Trinity-Bay de Verde 01r.F.Rowe) regarding the building of office space. A supplementarY; was asked by the member for LaPoile (ar. l~eary) district if there was any agreement, arrangements or deals made, "Is there an arrangement or an agreement to put up a new building',that is all?" asked the member for LaPoile (~lr.

Neary). "Will the Premier just tell me, yes or no· is there an arrangement or an agreement to put up a new building1" An arrangement ~ no talk then, in this particular question,about legal agreements or something approved by the Court and considered to be legally valid,

I llil y 10,1978 Tape i o. 2068 AH-3 MR.W.ROWE: A:r~angeJ!tent or agreement or deal, the word 'deal' was Qften \l&ed, intention was used i11- some of the questions which were asked of the bon. the Premier . 7

May 10,1978 Tape No. 2069 NM- 1 MR. W. ROl-lE: and ministers opposite, and in each ~ase, Sir, the answer came back, no, a bald-faced no; and in this particular case the Premier says~ ''Mr. Speaker, I have already answered once. _Maybe if one of the pages could come I could _spell it out for the hon. member. It is just n-o, Sir.'' And the Premier just wrote on a bit of paper, signed, initialed for my hon. friend- . the word •no•- in answer to that question. And if that, Sir, is not misleading this House, I do not care 1~hat kind of an

interpretation are put on the words, if that is not ;:uisleading this House lvithin the spirit and the letter of an

interpretation of the word "misleading" and deliberately misleading, then, Sir, there is no cvay that one human being can mislead another human being. It is not possible.

And the fact is that it was calculated to mislead and it was calculated to conceal an agreement which had been signed, which had been passed over to the third party concerned, I would submit, which was accompanied by a Cabinet directive, and which that third party considered to be, I would submit, Sir, I certainly have not discussed it with him, I would submit because if I were the third oarty I would believe it to be a legally binding document, an agreement, an Order-in-Council or Cabinet directive, enforcible in the courts, and not only legally binding but a moral commitment made, a moral commitment made by this government to a third party to go ahead with a proposal contained in the agreement and in the Cabinet document.

And if that is not a deal or an arrangment, or an agreement, or an intention, and if anyone in this House can get up and say there have absolutely not been, abolutely not been, not present tense, but a tense of the English language which covers the present and the past, Mr. Speaker, there have absolutely net been any agreements with anybody, any developer, to build an office building or to rent office space. Sir, if that is not calculated to deceive and mislead, Sir, nothing uttered by the mouth of man can ever deceive another person. And if that is not obvious to hon. members, Sir,

May 10,1978 Tape No. 2069 NU - 2 ~!R. W. ROWE: then I fear for the future of the Legislature of this Province. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled two documents. OJ!.e document was v1hat pu%l)orted to 'b-e an agreement between Her ~~jesty the Queen in Right of_Ne!foudland, represented by the Minister of Public Works, and by a third party outside of this hon. House. The agreement was dated; 1975. There was no, as I mentioned yesterday, there was no date,day and there was no month attached to the agreement.

The amount of space to be rented in the agreement was 408,000 square feet and the length of the term of the lease to be executed in pursuance of the agreement was twenty years, at which time the government could buy it back at $1.00, the le_aseb_ack scheme in other words, Sir, concerning which I will have a word or two to say later in my remarks. The minimum rent, minimum, Sir, the word is chosen and used deliberately, I would submit, the minimum rent is expressed to be $8.35 per square foot.

As I mentioned yesterday, all expenses of any kind whatsoever were to be paid for by the government, the lessee, and the future owner of the building. They were not to be the responsihlity of the developer. As I mentioned yesterday, Sir, that meant that the developer would make a net revenue, not a net profit, a net revenue of $3,406,800 to be exact, per year, somewhere around $3.5 million a year for twenty years. And over the t\~enty years of the lease

May 10, 1978 Tape No. 2070 NM- 1 MR. W. ROWE: which would be executed pursuant to the agreement, the developer would ~eceive $68 million and some odd dollars as well, nearly $70 million of public funds.

Just to put it in prospective, Sir, if this buildin~ were to be valued at $20 million for example, or built for $20 million, and that was the amount that had to be borrowed and invested in order to construct that building, and if you.,take over the twenty year period $1 million per year out to pay back the capital and if you take out another $1 million to $1.5 million, $1.5 million would certainly be the outside limit, to pay the intere.st payable on the capital, then you have total expenses of $2.5 million involving the repayment of capital and interest in respect of. that lease, $2.5 million per year, at the outside, which means, Sir, that the owner of that_buildin2 and the owner of that lease, whether it was the original developer or s_omebody taking title to the documents under him, would have a net profit every year before taxes of $1 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have to draw to the attention of people that notes may not be taken in the galleries. The press gallery are the only people who may do that. The hon. member for Twillin2ate. MR. W. ROWE: Which would mean, Sir, that a developer owning the building, or somebody buying or getting the building from him, or having the rights to it, would make $20 million over the twenty year period in net profits. That is what it means, Sir, reduced to its simplest possible basics. Now remember, Sir, that these are referred to in the agreement as minimum rental figures.

Now, Sir, let me say a note, let me make l . '

May 10,1978 Tape 2071 PK -·1 I Mr. W. Rowe: a note, or have a note in passing concerning l II " ! the third party concerned in this agreement. I would not like to see, Sir, for one moment anybody trying_·to drag a red herring over these proceedings, and try to attempt or attempt to persuade people publicly or privately that I am in any way criticizing the developer or the third party concerned in this matter.

I am not, Sir. t~~s gentleman and other gentlemen like him in this Province, we all know their names-Lundrigan's and Andrew Crosbie and perhaps Brown there with SeabQrft and others like them, Sir, developers and construction men, men involved in building up this Province,are a part of the life's blood of the industry of this Province. And, Sir, they continuously put in proposals to governments,Provincial and Federal and Municipal, and they are trying to make a buck, and the bigger dollar they make the happier they are •. I wish sometimes I was in their position, Mr.

Speaker; sometimes I do . not,when they lose money as is often the case- it is a very risky business. They are entitled to make proposals to governments, ~nd I am not criticizing them for making proposals to governments. My criticisms,Sir, are not directed toward that gentlema~ · or any other gentlemen involved in this. The criticisms involved in this particular case, Sir, should not be diluted. They should be concentrated and directed.

And they are in my case concentrated and directed, and they are directed at the bon. the Premier of this Province and any ministers who aided and abetted him in this particular scheme. Because, Sir, they are the ones- not the developer -the Premier and his colleagues, and members of this Rouse are the ones who are elected by the people of this Province to protect the people's interest, not developers• interests or their own interes_t.s--;-·eh·~-peo-~les interest. And that is who I am criticizing, Sir.

And when I spell out in detail the nature of this agreement which was entered into by the Minister of Industrial Development, signed, witnessed by the Premier -'which in itself, I would suggest, Sir, is unprecedented in the annals of agreements signed between the government and any outside third party when I criticize this agreement I am criticizing the government of this Province for allowing such

May 10, 1978 Tape 2071 PK- 2 Mr. w. Rowe: a lucrative deal to take place to begin with and, once having signed the deal, once havf.ng signed the agreement to cover it up, to keep it secret, to ref.t~se to answer truthfully questions directed to the Premier and his colleagues on the matter. That is what I am talking about. That is the criticism. This whole case we are involved in now, Sir, revolves around not how much money necessarily a developer is going to make, although that is an interesting point peripherally in it.

The point is that there was a misleading statement or a series of misleading statements and a deliberate attempt to mislead for three years continuously this hon. House on an agreement, an arrangement, a deal· call it what you will-that the Premier knew existed and deli~erately misled this hon . House about. The other document I tabled yesterday, Mr. Speaker, purports to be a Cabinet directive and I have seen many of those in my time, and I would say that it is a true copy as expressed in the document, it is a true copy of a Cabinet directive.

The only problem with a Cabinet d irective ora Cabinet, Sir, is that Cabinet directives can in fact be made, Cabinet meetings can be held- and there is no particular quorum of Cabinet required. It is possible for two or three members of an administration to get in and hold a Cabinet meeting and have a directive signed, and for other members of the Cabinet to be kept in the dark about it at that particular time, and unless the document is circulated, a Cabinet directive and unless the ministers themselves make direct enquiries about i t they can in -fact be kept in the dark.

And that may be the case in this particular instance, I do not know, We will probabl y find out particul,rly if we have this Committee, Sir, which I hope members will vote for; - so we can get to the root of this, that may have been the case in this particular instance. There may have been an effort made to dupe , colleagues in a government . AN RON. MEMBER: Two or three could make the decision? MR. W • . ROWE Two or three could make that decision, yes, and they could have a Cabinet d-irecti v e s i gned and then the only recourse, of I l l I .,

May 10, 1978 Tape 2071 PK- 3 Mr. w~ ·RoWe: course, is the outrage, the morale outrage of the colleagues who were so deceived or sa duped • Now, Mr. Speaker, - AN 'RON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: You will not keep him. quiet,'F:tank'. MR~ W; ROWE: Now, Mr. S.peaker, the record will shaw as I indicated yeste:td.ay that the Cabinet'meeting so-called was held -I I

May 10, 1978, Tape 2072, Page 1 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: one week before the general election was called on August 25, 1975. One week before the general election was called 1 which may strike some as a coincidence. It strikes me as again, once more a part of the general scheme of events taking place at that particular time. And, Sir, it seems to me to be an integral part of the whole cover-up scheme and the whole misleading attempt made to keep it secret and not to let it be exposed to the light of day because of its embarrassment.

And I will deal with that particular matter in a little while, as to why it would exist in the first place. The Cabinet directive, Sir, which says, as I mentioned yesterday, ordered that the following proposals submitted by Mr. Craig L. Dobbin, St.

John's, with regard to the construction of an office complex for the government situate immediately West of Confederation Building, "Be and they are hereby approved in principle subject to the suomission to Cabinet of satisfactory plans and specifications based upon analysis of the project by the Department of Public Works," a department, by the way, Sir, headed up by the same minister who signed the agreement, apparently, in secrecy.

And that, Sir, I would submit as a for.mer member of a Cabinet and as a lawye~ is a binding commitment unless recinded, and certainly a binding commitment if based on a proposal or an agreement already signed by the government, which is the case in this particular instance. That, Sir, is a binding commitment. And the fact that something may have to be referred back to Cabinet - we have already discussed what Cabinet can consist of in any particular instance. The fact that plans and specifications based upon analysis of the project by the Department of Public Works l •. ,..

May 10, 1978, Tape 2072, Page 2 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: headed by the very minister who has already signed the agr~ement - the fact that plans had to be referred back to C~net for formal approval, Sir, is totally irrelevant. The commitment is there, a commitment in principle, a commitment based upon proposals contained in an agr~ement. Because the Cabinet directive then goes on to approve all the points, Mr.

Speaker - Your Honour has had -an opportunity to read that document that I tabled yesterday, a copy of the agreement and the directive - the directive approves all the points in substance, and in detail in some cases, all the points which are found to be in the agreement itself. And as I said yesterday, the copy of the Cabinet directive is signed by the - or the Cabinet directive of which I have a copy is signed by Mr. J.G.Channing, Secretary of the Cabinet, a signature, Sir, which I have $een hundreds of times on similar, or on Cabinet documents.

And, Sir, it is possible it is a forgery but I am certainly not presuming that, I assume that it is a valid signature. Somebody, I suppose, could have for.ged it in an expert way but I doubt that very much. I would assume that it is a valid signature on a valid Cabinet document attached to a valid agreement which affected the rights · of third parties who were parties to that agreement. And I had the documents checked out myself, Sir.

I have had some lawyers look at it, friends of mine, nobody closely associated with me, and I have looked at it myself, and the legal advice which I have received and which I believe myself to be the correct case is that these documents, the agreement backed by the Cabinet directive are legally binding and . -') are _enforceable against the government in court. Now, Sir, that is not to say that I can say with 100 per cent assurance, or 80 per cent assurance, or 70 per cent assurance J

May 10, 1978, Tape 2072, Page 3 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: that the court would, in fact, . rule that they are bind~?g. Nobody knows when he goes to court, as any person who has gone to court knows, what kind of a decision you are going to get, you can only go by the best legal advice available. But it is my feeling that the~e documents are legally binding.

In O'ther words, they are very valuable documents worth, as I said yesterday, millions of dollars, not in public money as somebody said - or the Premier said yesterday that I was talking about public money having been wasted or spent, what I am talking about is that these documents are worth millions of dollars in the hands of the developer or anyone purchasing his rights from him, millions of dollars to the extent that these rights could be enforced legally against the government.

And if the Premier thinks that any third party, a developer unilaterally recinded, or he thinks he is going to persuade me or members of this House that any third party unilaterally, without a quid pro quo, without some good consideration, without something else in return 1 unilaterally recinded that agreement, that binding document well, Sir, then he is going to have to take his specious arguments elsewhere. Because I say here now that nobody interested in making a profit with valuable documents, especially anybody who has maybe spent money '. _ I

May 8, 1978 Tape No. 2073 NM - 1 MR. W. ROWE: on the basis of them, either trying to raise money or trying to get together pro~sals and trying to get together specs and architec~ural_ designs, pr6pably to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, based on these documents, nobody, Sir, would unilaterally give up his legal rights without some quid pro quo or some good and valuable consideration in return. The point has been raised by the Premier that the documents are not valid,legal documents because they do not contain a seal, and there is no date on the document, and therefore they are not legally binding.

Sir, if a client came to me when I was practicing law and said to me, "I signed this document but I was really cute and tricky, there was no _seal on it. My signature is there but there is no seal on it and there is no date at the top of the agreement, therefore I am so cute and tricky I am off the hook, right?" I ~.rould look at him, Sir, and I 'muld say,"Wrongi .In i your cuteness and your trickiness you did not get out of legal responsibility under that document~' The fact of the matter is that this agreement, t{r.

Speaker, is either a valuable, legally enforceable agreement in itself or is a memorandum of agreement under the statute of frauds, the legislation of this Province, which anyone could bring to court and have the court themselves do what is called ''specifically enforce" the agreement. And that is the advice I would give anyone, Sir, who brought this to me as a lawyer. I would also tell him that"there is a chance if you were sued in court, there is a chance the court would throw it out for some reason.

But I would not bet on it and I certainly would not ask you to put good money after bad in an effort to try to . weasl~out of an agreement, especially in a court action, because the chances are you \lere Oll. the hook legally and you would be bound by it." Now the Premier may come into the House of Assembly for all I know and tell me he has got legal advice to - the contrary, if somebody tells him the document is not legally binding, that there is j I • I

Uay 8, 1978 Tape No. 2073 NM - 2 HR. l-1. ROWE: only a sixty ~ forty chance of being made liable under this agreement if you ~rent to court, or maybe an eighty- twenty chance or something like that. He might do that. He might bring in a legal opinion and table it in the House. He might get the Chief Justice of Cana4~ to give a legal opinion that :he can lay on the table of the House. He could go to that extent.

But, Sir, that would be totally irrelevant,because the very least you can say about this document is that it was . intended to be an arrangement, or a deal, or an agreement of some sort 0 Jt was intended by the parties concerned, namely the Minister of Industrial Development r~presenting the government, witnessed by the Premier of the Province, anc the third party, it was intended to be an arrangement or a deal or an agreement of some sort wh~ther :it turns out twenty years down the road to be legally binding in a court or not is irrelevant.I _t was intended to be an agreement or an arrangement, or a deal, or an intention on the part of the govenm.ent and this third party to erect an office 1 building in return for the payments referred to in the agreement.

And the Premier of this Province, Sir, denied in this House to members of the House of Assembly,when questions were asked of him, 11e denied the existence of any agreement, any arrangement, any deal, any intention of putting up an office building.by entering into a deal or an arrangement with a third party.~nd to try to come into this House and to drag a red herring over it to the extent that,.; _Oh, there is no seal on this document! I would like to see sone leases entered into by the Government of Newfoundland with other people J:o see if they all have seals on them.

I would like to see some agreements entered into by the govenm.ent· which the government has considered binding and see if there is any seal on them, or if in every case there is a date on them. Sure you can go down to the Registry of Deeds and every second deed you come across has no date on it; the day is left out or the day 2nd month is left out. If I thought for one moment, f i i ·I j I I 1 1 - ~ ·.I • 0 ,..~ -fl ,j ~ ,,

May 8, 1978 Tape No. 2073 NM - 3 MR. W. ROT~: or if people ~ho owm millions of dollars worth of prop~l:'tY t~oughout this city thought for one· moment that ';i.. their deeds were not legally enforc~able or valuable because of that defect, · purely formal defeet, Sir, if they thought that there would be an uprising in the Provin~~ It is just a specious red herring signifying nothing. •. ,_ , -I I r l l ~ I - l . I

May 10, 1978 Tape 2074 EC - 1 MR. W. N. ROWE: ~d the fact that it may or may not be legally binding after it goes to three or four courts in the land up to the-Supreme Court of Canada is irrelevant.

And the fact that the Premier might be able to find a legal opinion fromcsome lawyer somewhere that he did not think that on the~balance of probabilities it is binding, or even if he came out and said it is not binding, the fact that that opinion may or may not be tabled in this House or given by the Premier is totally irrelevant, Sir, because the Premier knows and his colleagues know and the developer knows and everyone who acted on behalf of the developer, I would submit, financially anywhere in this Province or up on the Mainland of Canada or the United States, they all know and I know and every member of this House knows that the intention was to enter into a deal or an arrangement or an agreement between the government and this developer to put up an office building and that is whatw~s denied and that is where this House -. . was deliberately deceived and misled by the Premier of this Province in a continuous, systematic, calculated way over the past three years.

I know that, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour knows it and everyone in this House knows it. Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of the Province got up and made a statement. It was the usual type of statement which we have grown to expect from the Premier in answer to legitimate allegations and statements made in this House, When I said that I had been sick at heart at having to bring up this matter at all to begin with, we had the Premier reply in a statesmanlike fashion, "I notice the hon. member is sick and I hope he does not throw up over the member for LaPoile." ' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

May 10, 1978 Tape 2074 EC - 2 MR. W. N. ROWE: ~~ that not great stuff, Sir1 It i ·s great stuff. I hope there were no school children in the gallery at the time • . That is the witty, statesman- like Premier of the Province · we have here, Sir. AN RON. MEMBER: Shame! (Inaudible) MR. W. N.

ROWE: And then he went on to say he ha~ never heard such unadulterated nonsense or half-truths and he continued on with a ranting type of statement, very difficult to read in Hansard, but the substance of it does emerge after close study -"the Opposition are using the art of innuendo and smear through half-truths, in my i i i op n_ on aga_ n. They seem these days, Sir, to be the mouthpiece either a fu~itive from justice"which seems to be the bete noire MR. NEARY: The whipping boy. MR. W. N. ROWE: - the bee in the bonnet ~ the Premier these days, Sir. Ask the Premier is he suggesting that Mr.

Doyle, the so-called futitive from justice, is involved somehow in this cas-e? Is that what the Premier is alleging? Is he alleging that the third party involved in the case has a connection, unsavoury or otherwise, with this Mr. Doyle down in Panama? Nobody suggested it yesterday. The Premier dragged the great red herring across the piece again, Sir, where he goes on to say, "In this case I would suspect a thief or someone close to it, because, Sir, how could they get an O~der in Council unless some despicable character broke his Oath of Secrecy, which is obviously the case1" Mr.

Speaker, I would submit, Sir - AN HON. HEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. W. N. ROWE: Well, I mean, if in his desperation he is accusing his own colleagues of somehow leaking out this Cabinet directive, Sir, then so be it. But let the Premier make a statement to that effect. I would like to see if he believes that his colleagues cannot keep things

May 10, 1978 Tape 2074 EC - 3 ., MR. W. N. ROWE: ~ecret in the government. But; Sir, I would submit that that is not the case. I am not going to accuse his colleagues of anything like that~ breaking their Oath of Secrecy. I would suggest, Sir, that there are at least four to a half dozen or more of these Orders-in-Council or Cabinet directives and agreements scattered around in Newfoundland or outside this Province for various purposes~ I would submit, Sir, the developer who is involved in this particular case probably carries one around with him in his own hip pocket - MR.

NEARY: See the reference I made there a few days ago. MR. W. N. ROWE: - as my friend from LaPoile said. I would say, SLr, that if~nyone was involved in getting legal opinions on the Mainland or raising money on the Mainland or here or anywhere like that, there were copies of that available, otherwise, Sir, what is the purpose of them? And for the Premier to stand up, Sir, and to allege something scurrilous on behalf of his own colleagues, is not in keeping, I would ,not suggest, with leadership of a government.

And he goes on to say, Sir, "Secondly, how could the agreements be passed on of this nature unless the same thing occurred or unless a lawyer broke his lawyer/cl .ient relationship or unless a partner of that lawyer went next-door and dipped into the files o-f that particular person or ,. I

Uay 10,1978 Tape No. 2075 AH-1 HR. W .ROllE: unless a thief stole it? Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the "· Premier_ was getting at btit I wish hewould say what he is getting at, this hon. gentleman who deplore~ innuendos and half-truths. ~Jr. Speaker, the despicable display _on the part of a statesman ' or a purported statesman in this Province - and let me say this, Sir, no lawyer in this Province, no lawyer in this Province save me any information in connection with this or any document in connection with this.

The Premier goes on , Sir, to say:'I have had a little forwarning on this because there are members in the Opposition who are more concerned about the truth and presenting the facts than just publicity in this House. ax.d we are very thankful for tbose people at this time." Now, Mr. Speaker, the great defender against innuendo and half-truths and so onl I know, Sir, that nobody in the caucus that I have the honour to belong to leaked about this matter. MR.NEARY: Or tipped him off. HR. W.ROWE: Or tipped the Premier off. I do not know, Sir.

If the Premier knows something different I wish he would name some names, A dastardly accusation! SOliE liON. HE:1BERS : Hear, hear! MR.NEARY: Another misleading statement. <JR. W .ROWE: Coming into this House, Sir, and trying to smear twenty members in this han. ilouse with dishonesty or breaking secrets of caucus or disloyalty to their own colleagues and so on~ a great defender of truth, the great fighter against innuendo. I know, Sir, that 'there is no leak in my caucus if only from the fact that it was the Premier himself who said there was.

That is evidence enough to me that there is no leak, Sir, in the Liberal caucus of this Province. Further, Sir, I would suggest that the Premier who, if he is known for anything he is known for being - how would I say - '.

:~ i'iay 10,1973 Tape i~o. 2075 All-2 rm..w.mmE: cute, cunning is a word that perhaps ~aybe throwu in ~here, slippery, a little bit slippery when it comes to politics. If the Premier had any lea'k in my caucus, Hr. Speaker, i1e would not be coming in and d.ivulgj.ng it to this hon. House.. He would be protecting it as a sacreti source of information. The fact of the matter is, Sir, and let there be no mistake about this, I discussed this matlter far and wide before raising it in this House. MR. SIMMONS: No better than - the sources op. Randy Simms 1 ticket. l·!RW.

ROWE: I discussed it with many people- yes, the sources nn Randy Simms' tickets .ware about probably the sources of the Premier's information, where he had to get up and apologize to this House for slandering a member of the : press. I discussed this matter with many people, Sir, before raising it in this House. I discussed it with people before I came into possession of the document, I even called up a number of the Premier's former colleagues to mention facts to them. I mentioned it indirectly to a couple of members of the press, I had no desire whatsoever, Ur.

Speaker, to hide this question or the fact that I was digging into it. My hon. friends had raised the matter the day before in the House,and I had indicated to a graat number of people that I thought documents existed and that I thought that the documents might come to me from a source outside the Province in due course,and they did come, Sir. I had no desire to catch the Premier of the Province unprepared.

I was only interested, Sir, in getting the matter out on the table of the House, getting the truth of the matter out that the Premier had concealed and covered up for three years, no interest, Sir, in trying to score cheap political points by trickery. If the Premier had some logical, sensible, rational explanation of why he would cover up this situation for three solid years and deceive members of this House,then I am interested in hearing that. If . he is prepared and can knock me down on the matter, I am interested in that as <Tell. No desire to be in this House or to gain

._ Hay 10,1978 Tape No. 2075 AR-3 MR..W.ROWE: the government with my colleagues by trickery or by something close to trickery, Mr. Speaker.

May 10, 1978 Tape 2076 Dt-J - 1 MR. 1-7 .N. ROriE: ' ~- So le~ us give rid of this notion about caucus leaks and the Premie~ being prepared and the Premier pulling a good stunt znd all that kind of thing, ~-•r. Speaker. I could not care less because it is only the truth of the matter which should be of any interest to us or the members of the Press,and I am sure that that :ls being and has been establised. The Premier, Mr.

Speaker, carried on with his remarks and mentioned about some deals or some proposals 'mich have been made in a similar vein by other people;I think he mentioned Atlantic Place or the owners thereof,he mentioned Trizec and so on, and he ta~led on the table of this House a n~ber of proposals and documents which he used . in my opinion honestly expressed here today, which he used to try to cover up the kernel, the genuine nature of the documents which I had tabled here.

He tabled in this House, Sir, as a reading of Hansard ~~ill show,a number•of documents and if Your Honour has had the opportunity to go through these documents he ~nll see that not one of the documents tabled by the Premier bears the signature of anybody connected ~rith the government. SOME HON. MEMBEP.S ; Hear, hear! MR. vT.N.

Rm!E: And tO come into this Rouse and try to pretend to me and the other members of this P.ouse that this document which I signed bearing the signature · - which I tabled b"earing the .s:ignatut:e .s of ·a third party,the Premier,a Minister· of Public Works at t~e time is in some way similar to a few proposals flung in at the government by some developers is in itself, Sir, a misleading of this hon. House. SOHE non. ~!El'BERS: Hear, hear!

c!ay liJ, 1978 l!R. VI.~!. ROHE: .· Tape 2')76 The 'lih.ole thing is of the same ":7 piece, Mr. Speaker•T!J.ere is a des'ire,an incredibly desperate desire to ·conceal,to cover this up,to try to otifuE-cate-as ar. Crosby would say if he we~ he_re,I am sure-to try to by design to try to muddle this matter up and try to conceal from the people of this Province and the members of this House on both sides the true nature of t3e arrangement and the agreement whic.IJ. ~1as signed by the government and the outside party. On this Trizec thing, ~-!r. Speaker, by the way, I was not in the Rouse at the time, !1r.

Speaker, and 1 have not done any research in the Uansards but if I remember correctly were there not questions asked of the Premier - HR. S. ~R.Y: That is exactly right, That is right. MR. \LN. ROWE: - if there was anything - l-lR. S. NEARY: Trizec. "\ny proposals. NR. W.N. ROWE: - any proposals or agreements or intentions or deals or arrangements made with Trizec - l='lR. S • 1lEARY: He kept denying it. erR. H .N. 'P.OWE: ~ and the Premier,if I remember correctly-! will have to check ITansard on it, Sir MR . S. -NEARY: ~!o,you are right. DW- 2 }lR. ~v .N. RO~lE: - the Premier denied that as well.

And yesterday,in an effort to show he did not mislead the House with regard to the Dobbin deal,!tabl _esin the House documents which he says are similar which show that he was misleading the House of Assembly when ha asked questions about Trizec over the past t~o or three years. Now, Mr. Speaker, what woulr' you call that? MR. S. NEARY: ~lhat would you call that? I

l~y 10, 1978 Tape 2076 DW - 3 MR. W.t1. ROt-.'E: "o\n a~reement to rent. It is not signe _d,it is a draft agreement. HR.. S • NEARY: We as~ed if th~re were anv ?ro~osals. ~1R. W.N. ROWE: There is, . I believe, an OrdPr in Council,if I looked through the documents very carefully,which covers this Which says· that the minister has authority. But the Premier den,ied !:his time and t-ime again.! have never heard the like, Ur.

Speaker, the brazenness of it to try to defend against allegations that he misled the House in on2 deal by coming in and tabling documents relating to another deal, which he has already misled the Rouse on,as evidence that he did not mislead the House on the first deal. Hho ever heard the like of it? MR. S. NE!u"tY: AN HON. MEMBER: with big lies. MR. SPFAKER (DR. COLLINS): Sotmds like a Nixon type of affair • It is· called covering up the small lies Order, please! Order, please! I should point out to hon. menbers t~at if an hon. member wishes Co speak he should rise and be recognized by the Chair.

In a serious matter such as is before the House,I am sure hon. members would wish to obey the Standing Orders very precisely. (Hon. member. MR. lL~1. ROl\TE: Is this the deal,by the "way,that causedthehon. member of~St~ John's East- A..'f HOl-T. MEMBER: HR. W.N. ROWE: AN P.:ON. MEMBER: 1-'R.. ~1.N. RotJE: said - MR. NEARY: ~. t.r.N. ROWE: ~To. The D().bbin deal. Oh! Another deal. Torbay Road Dobbin deal. Right,the one that the government Wedgewood Park. some people , well we talked it over. and we thought that maybe 70,000 or 80,001') square feet,or whatever it was,was not enough and we should not be getting

}l'ay 10 • 1<!78 !ape 2 76 ~. W.N •• 'P..m•'E: into .~his 1·.inct of a deal l:!eeausP- we needed tfno.ooo and therefore ~·7e ··changed our minds. nus is what he ·was talking about,was it 1 The thing that caused the resignation of one of the best minister's this gove=ment has ever had. AN RON. ~-lEHBER: Mit. !4 .N. RmJE: ~!R. W.li. r..QWE: :AN RON. liEMBEll : UR. W.lf. ROWE: (Inaudible) Tll.at is the sa111e deal. Wedgewood Park. The Wedgewood Park deal. 75,000 square feet. 75,ooq square feet,that is right. Hr. 3peaker, if anything h45 ever been calculated to deceive this hon.

House,these particular matters and the matters of the Premier's negotiations or shenanigans with third parties outside of this House regarding l)TiT - 4

'• ·Z May 9,1978 Tape 2077 PK - 1 Mr. w. Rowe: office space at very lucrative rents, leaseback proposals, if anything is calculated, , Sir, to deceive and to bring the gove~nment of this Province,into disrepute, because they are not acting in · the best interest of the people of this Province, these deals are, and this whole cover-up, this whole effort to keep the lid on these unsavoury activities 1qu!ck ,_;.hushed-up deals taking place a week before a General Election is called.

I have heard speculation and theory as to why the deal never went through afterwards.The deal was never consummated, you might say, up to this point in time, although I can assure the bon. Speaker that it is no lack of desire to consummate this particular deal by putting up the building. I have heard theories about it. One gentleman who I would think has some knowledge in this, a man who has been closely associated with politics himself,mentioned to me that what the Premier was hoping for was a slightly larger majority than he got in 1975.

They expected the Liberal Party to get ten or eleven seats in that particular time; instead ,~e got seventeen and Mr. Smallwood's Party got three, so there was not a very - there were only ten members which after all was only five back and forth 9 separating the Goverument from the opposition parties. And that if the bon. the Premier had gotten elected with the majority which he thought he was going to get, thirty-six, thirty- seven, thirty-eaght seats - MR. NEARY: What a ripoff! MR. w; ROWE: - instead of the thirty which he did get - AN 'HON. MEMBER: Look out! then, Mr.

Speaker, that building would be built now • MR; NEARY: And a helicopter pad on the roof. 'MR. W. ROWE: There may have been a helicopter pad on the roof~as my. bon. friend points out . MR; SIMMONS: And a coupl~ of cash bank accounts in Switzerland. MR; w; ROWE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. No want ofdesire,I would suggest, Sir, to consummate this particular matrimony. No lack of desire, just a lack of being able to find the means, the place, the time, the appropriate

May 9, 1978 Tape 2077 PK - 2 Mt. W. Rowe: opportunity. Let me say one word,_Sir, about leaseback. Mr. Speaker, the sickening part of thi s whole episode is the rank hypocrisy involved by members of that ~dministration, and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) knows whereof I speak. I sat over there, Sir, for three or four years, and I heard him, and I heard the hon. member for St. John's Centre (Mr. Murphy), and I heard other hon. members presently in the House, the hon. member for St. John's East Extern (Mr.

Hickey) castigate the former administration for their dastardly deeds in entering into leaseback arrangements, ripping off the people of this Province.

I heard the Premier of the Province and his colleagues make reference to this kind of a situation, what had gone on for twenty-three years,these kinds of deals, leaseback arrangements, as the worst., thing that ever happened,lacking,as they do or as they did public tendering, fostering,as they do, cosy,unhealthy relationships between the government and the developer, with the developer bound to make a tremendous profit, with,of course, tlie suspicion hanging over everyone that a portion of that profit will perhaps find itself into a government party's coffers.

There is always the suspicion whether it takes place or not. And people despise the whole idea of leaseback arrangements. And to see this government coming into office like a White Knight in shining ·armour,galloping out of the West like Lochinvar, Mr. Speaker, to clean up corruption, clean up politics in this Province, make it decent again- this hon.

Premier, and this government, t~t is how they got elected, that is how they got elected nearly in 1971, and that is how they got elected, Sir, certainly in 1972 with this pledge to the Newfoundland people that the old days of leaseback arrangements and similar activities were gone, and to see the Premier and his colleagues 1

May 9, 1978 Tape No. 2078 ~. W.

ROWE: stand up in this House now and defend those kinds of proposals, not only ~e one that I tabled here ; NM- 1 but to table other similar arrangeme~ts, proposals, considered and given approval up to a certain point by the government of this Province, Sir, is a sickening hypocrisy and it stinks to high heavens,And members of this-House, Sir, should know that this ~overnment has gone back on its word and its pledge . ~ to their own colleagues in the backb ~nches, and to the members of the public who are interested in cleaning up, getting rid of these unholy matrimonies, these unholy marriages between government and developers.that if they are not consummated, are only unconsummated because the r~ght opportunity did not arise, The ~right place was not found, th~ right time had not yet come- ~he only thing that saved the situation in this particular case, Mr.

Speaker. And the Premier cc;1ming into this House and saying,"! would suggest to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have adequate proof that no agreement is presently in existence," and talking about the agreement having been rescinded. I did not see any rescission document·tabled in this House, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman, you went through it? HR. NEARY: No. ~!R. W. ROWE: Was there anything rescinding itt MR. NEARY: It is not there. HR. W. ROWE: A Cabinet document, maybe there is one now. Maybe there is one now, Sir, in existence all of a sudden tl1at the Premier may table today.

I notice he has got a backload of more snow jobbery to lay on the table of the House. No rescission of the agreement, no rescission of the Cabinet document, the Cabinet directive documents, Sir, which existed up to the time that I exposed them to the sunlight yesterday. And, Sir, if that deal does not now go ahead and if no legal action is ever taken on it, Sir, the people of this Province have to thank the fact that it was exposed for what it T.~as in this House of Assembly and no other reason - :MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! I . ~ ~ I I

Hay 9, 1978 Tape No. 2073 NM- 2 MR. W. ROWE: - and not because the Premier did not desire it to go ahead or one or two of his'close colleagues there did not des-ire it to go ahead. The Premier of the Province stands up in the House yesterday and snows the House with all these documents and the only one, Sir, I repeat in case anyone has missed it, the only one bearing any signature or having any semblance of legal validity at all was the one th~t we tabled in this han. House and which the Premier apparently did not table when he tabled his documents yesterday.

Not another one was signed by a member of the government purporting to represent the government itself. And the Premier stands up ~d says, "All the Opposition Leader had to do, Mr. Speaker, was come and see if this \ofas a fact - 11 MR. NEARY: Yes. Sure. MR. ~v. ROWE: " - not take hours of the H~mse 1 s time, come and see what the story was and if it ~~as wrong of course bring it up in the House." Well, Sir, you do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to see it is wrong. You do not have to be Chief Justice Learned Hand to see that there is hanky panky involved here.

If there is any decency in doing that sort of thing I suggest, Sir, there is not, another cheap shot. I ask my colleague uho is now running out of the House, Mr. Speaker ,' what success did he have, ~·rhen he had private meetings with the Premier of this Province - MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. W. ROWE: - and ~nth the -ba~n for the PC Party, and with other members of the administration over there - MR. NEARY: Right. Right. HR. W. ROWE: - in an effort to get to the foul bo~tom, if that is possible, of the Scrivener affair? What success did he haye? No success, Mr.

Speaker, until he took the bull by the horns and laid the matter on the table of this House. _Then. ~~e see the police investigation, then ~~e see it, Sir. The Premier • Sir, owes a little bit more to the intelligence of members of this House than to think he is going to . ~ ~

:!ay 9, 1973 Tape :To. 2078 convince them-, that all tve had to do, the Leader of the Opposition,trundle over to see him and say, "Look ,F.ranlde Baby I have these documents here showing that you entered into a deal ~rlth Craig, you know. What about that?" ~Oh,that is all right,Bill,boy. Thare is no problem. There is no building outside. You can see there is no building out there." 1-Ul..

NEARY: into that." MR. tL ROWE: '~e will set up an internal commi~tee to look '~es, we will get someone down in the Department of Public 1-Torks~' Sir, people '"ho tvent before a board of enquiry, a public enquiry here in this Province and said to the commissioner publicly, "Oh, we do not dispute anything with a minister. What the minister says goes, Mr. Speaker. If the minister says 'Jump', we jump. If he says, 'Do not jump,' we do not jump." "!'low let us set up," the minister would suggest to me, as he did to my hon. colleague·- HR. NEARY: ~iR. W. ROWE: That is right. .

"Let us set up an internal task force to make sure that there is no hanky panky going on here in this matter, as we did with the Scrivener affa:f:r," and sure enough two or three months later on it would come. "That is all right, Bill, boy, no problems there," would say the Premier, "we have had that looked at. No problems." MR. NEARY: Audited. MR. W. ROWE: "Yes. 'We have had it looked at. We had somebody run over the figures. The figures are okay. Two and two equals four, we discovered that." }iR. NEARY: We got our invoices and they were paid. l

' 1 May 10, 1978 Tape 2079 EC - 1 AN HON.MEMBER: That is right. MR. W. N. ROWE: What nonsense, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to try to pawn that off on this House and the people of this Province! M~ . Speaker, there are a lot of things to be said on this matter and I will have another opportunit~ when the debate closes up on this to win~ up the debate and to make a few more novel statements, I hope, and to summarize what has been said here today and will be said in the future. There are one or two matters I would like now to bring up publicly in the House.

I would like the Premier of this Province when he gets up to speak - and I hope he speaks after me now - I would like him to table the document which exists in the office of the Clerk of the Council, Mr. Channing, the Secretary of the Cabinet, indicating who was present at the Cabinet meeting on August 18, 1975 when this agreement and proposal was approved. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. N. ROWE: I have too much respect for most of the members opposite, Sir, to believe that there were more than a handful - a corporal's guard, I would submit .

Most of the hon. members who were in the Cabinet at that time,or are in the Cabinet now and were then, - most of them, I would think, Sir, were probably out on the hustings, either trying to get nominated or mending a few fences i~ their districts, because the election was about to be called, was called one week later. The election was in the air, and I would suggest, Sir, most of the hon. ministers were not at that Cabinet meeting. And I would like to hear from them. I do not have a list in front of me now of members who were in the Cabinet. Perhaps one of my colleagues when

Hay 10, 1978 Tape 2079 EC - 2 HR. W. N. ROWE : h::e gets up to speak can mention who ·the ministers were at that time. I would like to hear each of them presently in this House today get up and tell us were they at that Cabinet - meeting- l1:R. NEARY: Hear, hear! MR. W. N. ROWE: -which took place on August 18, 1975, that approved this rot~en deal. Let them stand up, Sir, and tell whether they were there or not. Number two, Mr. Speaker, I would like ministers opposite to stand up when they speak and tell this hon.

House whether they knew of the existence of these two documents, the agreement and the Cabinet directive or not~ A simple question, Sir, and a simple answer - either they knew of the existence of the documents or they did not. And I know that there are members opposite who had no more knowledge, Sir, than a two-year-old child playing in a back yard that these documents were in existence from the time they were made up to the time I mentioned them yesterday.

I saw the Premier lean over to one and say, "Oh, he is talking about the Dobbin agreement." And to see the startled look on the face of the minister concerned! There are other ministers here who had no notion that this document existed. And if there are ministers here who did know about it, I would like to hear their explanation, Mr.

Speaker, as to why ~hey condoned the deliberate misleading of this House by the Premier of this Province 9 why they allowed that to happen, why they did not go to the Premier at least after the first or second time and say, 'Do not tell lies to the House of Assembly - tell the truth: If ministers knew about this, I would like to hear why they did not do that. Maybe they had some logical, sensible reason. I would like to know who in the caucus opposite knew about the existence of this agreement. I would submit, Sir, that nobody in the P.C.

May 10. 1978 Tape 2079 EC - 3 MR. w. N. ROWE: c~ucus - and I give them a ehanc~ to pr.qve ae wrong wheu they stand up to speak - nobody besides the ' Premier aud one or two others ·-

May 10,1978 Tape 2080 PK - 1 Mr. w. Rawe: who were present at this so-called Cabinet meeting had any idea whatsoever -. about the existence of this document. ; The Minister of Municipal Affairs is over there with his usual pleasant smile on his face. I will ask him, did you know about the document? MR. F. ROWE: He was not even elect~d then. AN HON. MEMBER: He just froze. : MR. W. ROWE: Did he know about the document afterwards? MR.. RIDEOUT: His smile is gone. MR. SIMMONS: He knew about it yesterday. MR; W. ROWE: Sir, that wipe~ the smile off his face. MR. STRACHAN: Speak up (inaudible) MR. W.

ROWE: The smile is gone all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, He knew nothing about that document, .- 1 MR. F. ROWE: (Inaudible) document. MR. W. ROWE: - that the Premier considers to be such an innocuous, harmless piece of paper with no legal validity or anything like that. He knew nothing about it, it was kept from him, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier .maybe had the suspicion that the Minister of Municipal Affairs might have been a little bit to_o;, what shall we say - what is ~ synonym for honest · that is not going to get me flung out of the House -a little bit too scrupulous, say, to live with it, Mr.

Speaker, in secrecy. He will get up now perhaps and with mouthful after mouthful of bravado and say, "Oh, no! There is nothing to this, this is okay." Because, Sir, as we found out from the young fellow Dean who was part of the Watergate affai~ ' the group dynamics, the loyalities to the group, the desire to be thought well of by your peers in the group, stick to it,to be loyal, to fight it out, brazen it out, stonewall it out, that desire, Sir, is often stronger than the inner feelin~ or conscience of a person who knows what the true situation is and would love to see the public know the true situation.

But this feeling that

~ay 10, 1978 Tape 2080 PK - 2 Mr. w. ROwe: he has to stick with the group, brazen it out, is often too strong a feeling for all but the strongest individual, Sir, to overcome. J:· Brazen it out, Mr~ Speaker, our only hope of saving our face and saving our hides, and perhaps getting a half a dozen of us elected and keep the party together iu the next election is to brazen it out, and pretend that we still are ,,together and that there is nothing wrong here. MR. NEARY: They forget governments change. MR. W. ROWE: Yes. And hon. members should not forget that governments do change. They should not forget that, Sir.

MR; NEARY: And then the documents will be brought up to the light of day. MR. W. ROWE: And I hoye we do not ' see the moving vans shipping out the documents, Mr. Speaker, because I would not mind having a look at some of the documents that were executed over the p~st six ye~rs. AN HON. MEMBER: Well you could always do what he did to the former premier. MR; w; ROWE: Well, no,I would not do that. I make this guarantee to the former Premier now, or the present Premier• I am talking about his future when I said 'former Premier'. I will make this guarantee to him now that there will be no witch hunts, Mr, Speaker.

There will be no RCMP raids on his·house or any of his colleagues'. There will not be. No witch hunts. Not the least bit interested in it. I am interested in what I wish more members on the other side were interested in,staying away from these ripoff situation~- and just try to grapple with the problems of the Province. SOME HON; MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. w; ROWE: The 20 per cent unemployment. SOME ·RoN. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. w; ROWE: The increase in electrical rates again now by the Government owned Corporation, a little while ago, and now by the privately owned one, which is going to be a desperate, a desperate situation for many of the people on fixed incomes in this Province, Wny do they not

May 10, 1978 Tape 2080 PK - 3 Mr. W; R6we: grapple with that, Mr. Speaker instead of spending their caucuses and their Cabinet meetings trying to shore up, trying to .. · prop up ~hemselves as a government and as a party, as I said earlier, desperately clinging to the shreds of _power and authority which they have left to them. There are one or two other things, Sir, which I will just mention.

When I made t~ese disclosures yesterday and laid these documents on the Table yesterday,! did it, Sir, in all sincerity and in full knowledge of the fact that I was running tremendous political risks ,.. and running tremendous personal risks.

For example, Sir, and I want to make this point , clear to clear the air because the matter was raised indirectly by the Premier yesterday, one of the best friend • s I have in this world, and a law partner of mine happened to have done some work for the third party involved in this case · on a legal basis over the last number of years 0 JU1d.I realize, Sir, that by laying this document on the Table of the House concerning ~hich I have not even had a discussion with that gentleman ·- talk about had a look at any documents, I doubt if he knows whether they existt-

May 10, 1978 Tape No. 2081 m-1- 1 HR. W. ROWE: but, Sir, I realize that I ran the risk of this gentleman being the subject_ f f a smear as well­ ; _ MR. NEARY: Slander and l~~ble. MR. W. ROWE: which .came, was nearly hatched yesterday. I realize, Sir, I myself, who have done legal work for the third party involved in this particular case, the developer, ran the risk of myself being slandered with some violation of the solicitor/. client relationship. I realize thac that risk was inevitable, ~r. Speaker.

I realize, Sir, that another one of my very best friends in this world, a gentleman not now in the Province, teaching at la<,T school, a former colleague of the hon. the Premier · until ~he last el~ction, I ran the risk by doing this of implicating hfm in some way with these nefarious goings on, either by virtue of the fact that he may have gotten documents to me, which I doubt even if he knew existed, I doubt very much if he knew they existed. I doubt very much if he was at the Cabinet meeting which approved these documents.

But I knew I ran the risk of implicating him either by way of leaking documents or information or that he was involved in the activity. I knew, Sir, when I laid these documents on the table of the House yesterday, because I had been told, I knew that the Premier had considered himself to be tipped off as to what I was up to and that I ran the serious political risk of having a snow job done on this House, a snow job done on this government, and that I could be put in the position of having committed an elemenary political blunder and so on and so forth, That is another risk I ran.

I knet-7, Sir, that there was a grave and distinct possibility that you, yourself, might not consider my· point of privilege to be well sustained. I talked with some so-called experts in Ottawa and they had told me that it ~ras a very dicey case, that perhaps they ~rould advise the Speaker in the House of Commons to say there was no point ,._

May 10, 1978 Tape No. 2081 NM- 2 MR. W. ROWE: of privilege, merely ~ dispu~e as to facts between two bon. members of the House and that therefore I would look a little bit like a fool again-when Your Honour came in and said, ·~o point of privilege, prima facie point of privilege, next question please." And I am left here with the press and the public and the members of the House all saying, "Well,Rowe leaped into the dark there without ~vin~ done his homework." -~ That !dnd of a situation, Sir.

Fortunately it did not turn out that uay because Your Honour took a courageous and unprecedented position,I do believe,and found that_ there was a point of privilege raised which could be sustained by a : debate in this House and referred to this House for debate. And therefore, Sir, to that extent at least my position is vindicated and I am happy that that is so. But these risks existed, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that they did exist made th~ whole situation very .trying on me and my close colleagues.

But we considered it and we thought that they were risks well worth running if we could expose to the light of day these shady dealings, these seedy goings~on, these secret cover·ups, these deals being made behind closed doors that never see the light of day until they are fait accompli and nobody can do anything about them, deals which are not subjec to public tender, which have so outraged my friend from St.

John's East (Hr. ~{arshall) from time to time, which made him bring in the Public Tendering Act, which is now in the process of being circumvented, not because the act is no good necessarily but because his former colleagues are too devious.

Expose it to the light of day and let the Premier come in with a rescinding document, or anything else he may have there, a document saying - even signed by the developer, I do not know, sayin~~;, "That I hereby renounce all my rights to the document," or "I did not consider the document to be legally binding," or some such thing, or come in with a legal opinion, Let him do it, ~r. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this matter was I

May 10, 1971l ~ape No. 2081 NM - 3 MR. W. ROWE: eovered up for three years. The fact .;. of the matter is that if anyone gaviup rights under this agreement they "got something in re~. Of that I am definitely certain·_-: not by having seen or beatd from anyone directly involved in it1 but by the operatio1Ji;of a little common ' • - l ·-

May 10, 1978, Tape 2082, Page 1 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: sense, a little bit of an enquiring mind into what goes .:; on in these situations. :If there is a recinding document, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province did not benefit from any such recinding document, let me put it that way. And if there is a recinding document there is quid pro quo. MR. NEARY: been tabled yesterday? MR. W.N.ROWE: been tabled _yesterday? MR. F.B.ROWE: tabled yesterday? MR. W.N.ROWE: Why would it not have .

Yes, why would it not have Why was not the agreement No agreement tabled yesterday, no recinding documents tabled.yesterday, no recinding Cabinet directives tabled yesterday. Maybe they are all in the Premier's possession now. But, Sir, it is too late because the people of this Provincenow know that the jig is up, they know, Sir, what is going on and they know they are not going to put up with it. And I am certainly not going ' to put up with it.

And I do hope, Sir, that the members of this House on both sides or a majority --I do not expect everybody because I expect there to be an attempt by some to keep the matter out of public scrutiny- ·but I do hope that a majority on both sides can vote for the setting up of this committee of the Whole House so that we can examine witnesses and examine documents in connection with this matter. And how far or how wide that web will weave itself, Sir, I do not know.

But I will say this, that if I remember my Beauchesne correctly, I have not looked it up for this purpose, .:but witnesses before a Committee of this House have absolute immunity. My friend, the Chairman of •.

May 2082, Page 2 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: the Public Accounts Committee would know the answer to that. Witnesses,! do understand, have immunity and can speak, S~r, and know that whatever they say cannot be made a subject matter of criminal or civil prosecution. And that is the kind of enquiry we should have on this· kind of a matter and let us get to ·the bottom of this and other similar nefarious dealings by this government, using the privileges of this House to do so. That is why this House has its privileges of immunity and so on which can be extended to witnesses before it in grave public matters.

Let us set up the connnittee because, ·Mr. Speaker, I do not care what the cost is to myself in political matters, or to even my colleagues in political matters, but I do want the Premier to know this, and I want·his colleagues to know this, that I am detennined, absolutely detennined, Mr. Speaker, to clean up the political corruption in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: MR. W.N.ROWE: Hear, hear! God guard thee Newfoundland. And I am detennined, Mr.

Speaker, to wipe off the face of Newfoundland's political map the type of goings-on, the chicanery, the skulduggery, the corruption I have referred to, the hanky-panky, call it what you will, matters in which a government is looking after its own interests first · and its friends' interests, and is not looking after the interests, or the best interests of the people of this Province. Sir, I am detennined and I believe that my colleagues with me are detennined to change that situation, Sir, at no matter what cost to ourselves and at no matter what cost to members on the other side of this House.

We are detennined, Sir, to wipe the political map of this Province clean. 1

May 10, 1978 1 Tape 2082, Page 3 -- apb SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. John's East. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: -Mr. Speaker, before I get into the debate I would like tC alert Your Honour to the fact that there are things I shall be saying in the course of the debate that may ~ot necessarily meet the approbation of members on this ; side or that side of the House.

There are certain things I may say that may not be - they may wish to interject but.! have only forty-five minutes, which is a short period of time, Your Honour, and I inform Your Honour that I wish to speak in silence - or be heard in silence. Mr. Speaker, the issue in this case, and the sole issue in this case is whether or not the hon. the Premier has deliberately misled the House of Assembly. This is the allegation which has been made by the Leader of the Opposition. i 1 '-

May 10, 1978 Tape 2083 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: ~w on your ruling the hon . ....=:-; the "Leader of the Opposition~~ in his introductory remarks made a few comments that I t-~ ink need to be clarified. The impression that I got wh~n listening to him - although I do not think he intended to convey it - but the .. impression that probably has~abounded is that by making the ruling yesterday tha~ Yo ~ r Honour was in effect saying there was a suspicion, a reasonable suspicion that the privileges of this House were infringed and that the hon. the Premier had deliberately misled the House.

Now, Your Honour cannot speak, I know, but I refer back to Your ~onour's ruling yesterday and I would gainsay and I would suggest to Your Honour that had not the hon. the Leader ~f the Opposition ass~rted the words that the hon. the Premier had deliberately misled the House there would have been no point of privilege, it would have just been a difference of opinion between two hon. members, but because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition got up and directly made this allegation himself, then it becomes a point of privilege. "That is my understanding.

When Your Honour in his ruling yesterday referred to the former Speaker and the former Governor General, Mr. Michener, the first words he used in referring to that precedent was that the member there involved had, on his authority, said that the other member had misled the House. And because he had made this allegation and he was sticking to it and using it to ground his point of privilege, then there was a prima facie case. Now that is all Your Honour said. And I think it is very important to draw this matter to the attention of the Legislature, because this is really the only issue.

No more grave or serious allegation can be made against any member of this House than that he ' .

May 10, 1978 Tape 2083 EC - 2 .- MR. MARSHALL: d~liberately misled the House. In effect it is saying that the hon. the member lied to the House; in effect it is s~ying the hon. member is not an hon. member, and that is ~ matter of privilege and concern to everybody in this:House. It would be so if any member on thi$ side or ~y side of the House got up and said to any member, sue~ as the hon. the member for LaPoile or the hon. the member for Terra Nova or the hon. the member for Placentia,that they had deliberately misled the House.

T~e principle on which this House is governed is the fact that members are referred to as hon. members. Nobody has a monopoly on honour · but each member has it, and each member has to jealously guard the other members' ~ights to this. So this is the situation, I think, where we are now and this is wh.y the matter at issue is so·very, very important. Accusations have from time to time been hurled at ~andom across the House, back and forth across the House. And it is having a grave effect upon this House, I would suggest, and its esteem and its regard in the public and we have to come to issue with it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, then, has made this allegation. He has made it clear that the hon., the Premier has deliberately misled the House. And I would suggest to Your Honour that if that is a fact - the hon. the Premier is just a member of this House - the obvious course of action has to follow. But I would also submit - before there is an imputation on the honour of any person in this House there has to be clear and convincing evidence of that fact before this House can take the drastic step of saying that a person deliberately misled the House. And I do not think any member in this

: May 10, 1978 Tape 2083 EC - 3 k MR. MARSHALL: H_~se would disagree with this pr~position. ·. B~ore I get to that issue, which is the main one, I am going to talk about a subsidiary issue. I want to refer for -a: few moments to the mode of construction of public build~gs in this Province. Again, i-• no member has a monopoly on issues whether they be motherhood issues or what have you, but· I would suggest that perhaps I, at least as much as any member of thi~ House, have been invo.lve-d in -: issues of this nature. Indeed, one such agreement l~d to my resignation from the Cabinet in February, 1975.

Subsequent to my resignation there was a statement made in this House of Assembly which apparently :has been overlooked as from time · i

,, Hay 10,1978 Tape No. 2084 AH-1 HR.aARSHALL: to time things are overlooked. On February 27,1975 by the hon. the Premier "It is a statement in this House whi~ I regard as being commitment, .setting forth"- I will riot read it in detail but it does say"'::'he government have decided to issue a public call for tender proposals vith reference to space needs so that every possible interested party should have the right to submit proposals.

And in the i1ope that better terms and conditions lllai.oe received government will decide when tender proposals are received in response to a tender call waether to proceed to rent or to build to meet its additonal space requirements." In other words, <rr. Speaker, my resignation was tendered, there were at that time relevant Orders-in-Council which gave to the developer - in this instance it happened to be Hr. Craig Dobbin- the right to build the building for the government, to lease it, the goveroment was to pay for it and the circtimstances,I think, are well known.

Subsequent to · this there was this commitment and I say here and now that this is the only basis upon which I am prepared to live with any government _at all at any time and in any place,and I do not pretend to be alone in that area. SOME ROlli ~!E~!BERS: Hear, hear! HR.l~ .IIARSHALL: Subsequently, Hr. Speaker, the tenders were called. I was not pleased, which is to put it 1llildly,with the mode and manner of the tender call.

It was not,in my view,a matter of a tender call,what I would view as being under the Public Tenders Act because it called for proposals and when proposals are made people can have different varying proposals put up and their mode of what they are bicding on as in ::a tender system is not set up. I did not say anything about that then, I said I will wait and see ~fhat happens because you would wait and see whether the matter is carried out but I had no intention of remaining silent and most definitely would have been heard again

May 10,1978 Tape No. 2084 A.I:I-2 HR. W .}IARSHALL: from if that particular tender had been pleased. Furthermore, Hr. Speaker, to say that I was not amused is to put it mildly._~en we come to the position·""£ the instant contract between the govermn.~t and Hr. Dobbin on H~gins Line I regard it as all part,probably 7 of the same transaction in August. But, Mr. Speaker, ·. it was not executed at that time, i~ has not been executed now, when and if it is executed the governmen~ will hear from me in technicolor as well as other people in technicolor.

I think that perhaps these . factors should be brought in mind; on the one hand we did not go ahead in ~edgewood Park, then came Higgins Line, the hon. Premier said on television last night, he indicated words to the effect that - now this is the hon. Premier's prerogative, he can have his opinions, I can have my opinions and hopefull~we can live together, but the hon. the Premier said on television last night that he had made this deal - aot this deal but that these negotiations were being entered into and he perhaps does not see - ~ HON. HE!·1BER: (Inaudible) MR.W.MARSHALL: I do not wish to be interrupted, Hr.

Speaker. The hon. members can speak. HR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. gentleman has stated at the very beginning his wish not to be interrupted and I will require that strict observance. MR. W .MARSHALL: The hon •. Premier indicated yesterday that these were in the process of negotiations or words to that effect. But if my ears did not deceive me he indicated on television that the caucus and the Cabinet did not particularly agree with the situation and this is really, I feel anyway, what really happened. So the question comes down really, Hr.

Speaker - I sit with the government on the government side of the House, I hope in a healthy atmosphere, if the Premier of this Province has an idea that he wants to carry out and the majority of the people here say to him "No. We do not think it is a good idea 11 then it is cancelled. Now the people in Newfoundland

May 10,1978 Tape No. 2084 MR. W .MARSHALL: have got to decide whether or not they want that particular type of government or whether they wish to _,. go back to another fom of governm~t itself. Sm!E RON. MEl>1BERS: Hear, hear! _ HR. W. HARSHALL: Hr. Speaker, the thi.D.g that I want to emphasize and what I am saying here is that this contract has not been executed, it has not been carried out. When iind if a public

Nay 10, 1978 Tape 2085 HR. W. ~.ARSHAI.L: building is built in this f'rovince·be it 1_f?r t~ government to house the government 7 be _it fo:r: a hospital, or be it for whatever purpose the Public Tend~rs Act requires that there be full public tendering. This al~eged contract that has been tabled,or the offer to enter into ~ agreement,whatever one may wish to picture it1 comes under~the ?ublic ~endering Act. And,I will not get in·- I will try to avoid as much as possible legalese ··because I do not thinlt that that really gets to the gist of the matter except in~one item that I will come to in a few monents.

But I want to make this perfectly clear so my remarks will not be misinterpreted that be it Hr. Dobbin, DH - 1 l>o. it ~..r. ,C~osbie, be it Trizec Corpora.tion or Mr. Lundri2an, be it Hr. Arthur Lundrigan,be it Investment De~lopers or be it any company in this Province that is carrying out and constructing business that if they build in this Province for the government they will do so and they will execute their works under open Public Tender - SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. H. 1-'.ARSHALL: - and under no other means or mode of construction. SOME RON • MEMBERS : near , hear! ~lR.

H. !'.".RSHALL : Now,if they do not,not that it may be of interest I do not know about one member,but if they do not, and I know there will be others, what will happen happens to be hypothetical but I think I need not dwell on that. Nm~1 let us come back,having said these words,to the question at issue. The question at issue is a grave one.It ·is a most serious one,it is one that is really eating at the roots of this Assembly and the confidence of this Assembly in the Province of ~!etJfouncland. ; '.

•• !1ay 10, 1978 Tape 2085 MR.. l-1. 11ARSF-ALL: And L do not make this · by way 4.-- of any- to the Leader of the Opporltion for whom I l:lave a measure of. respect,as for every me~er in this House~ but the fact of the matter is,as a member of this House he has made an allegation and his allegation is that the hon. the Premier deliberately misled the Ho~se. A grave issue,one that has been in the past taken l~htly but I would submit to this Rouse can no longer be taken lightly lest this Assembly crumble down around their ears.

The &ituation is if it is proven,as far as I am concarned,the obvious course has to happen. A Member, whoever that member is, who has obviously misled the Rouse has to take the ultimate action of putting himself in a position of not being able to mislead the House again. It is as simple as that. But there is a corollary to that~ Mr.

Speaker, and one that I do not think that we can afford to let loose in this particular instance: . _and the, corollary is this; that if somebo~y has accused another of misleading the House and it ~urns out to be not susta~nable then,and in that event, there are gzave and serious confiequences ~•hich that particular person has to consider. SOME RON • ME!IDERS : Hear, hear! ~1R. H. 1-fARSRALL : The question in issue,the immediate question is whether the Premier misled the House by saying that there was no contract existing for the construction of a building.

Now I have no doubt after reading the transcript that there have been,where the hon. gentleman has referred us, instances where the hon. Premier and other ministers have !JP - 2 since August of 1975 and • September 1975 and 1976 and 1977 and 1973~a few days ago as indicated,said there was no contract existing. I think we have to take that as given,at least if you can take the record that h~ppens to be my

interpretation ·. j f I

~ ~ -.- -- .~- Hay 1 , 1978 Tape 2085 ;rn.. ~ . HARSIIALL: of t~ record,m&ybe others would agree. But the next question then we have to ask is was there a contract? }fy~first point is there obviously cannot be a contract now at this p!esent time. This is a contract Public Works, I can say that, where lfa wa.S an agreement, the ~per agreement that was signed in -1975 for 400,000 square fee.t of off~ space for the government of this Province• Uow that contract - the~biggest po~t of all is that contract . ; has not been executed. Thl!re has _been in · fact no building. built on the Higg-ins Line adjacent-: r I I l ·- ~ · I ~~ ' I

Hay _l,_Q, 1978 Tape No. 2086 NH- 1 MR. MARSHALL: to these premfses. It does not exist. The contract has not been carried throu~. The question comes, Can the· contract now be carried through? Certainly ~·Then we are talking of large construction matters such as this, much more than a reasonable time has elap~ed for the commencement of construction so I would suggest that in the event . that there was an attempt to enforce the contratt now by the developer if he choose, t.hat more than a reasonable time has expired and there is not now a contract. Had there ever been a contract?

Had there not ever been a contract? .We have heard words given around that this offer that has been -placed before us, or contract, whichever ~~ay you want to view it, is worth $70 million. I certainly would assume, I have no; knowledge of the contractor involved or any of the contractors but I think it is a fair assumption to presume that he is not a philanthro~ist in the sense o~ giving out .lj1ings to the government, that he "to70uld have a right to, and I would assume that if he did have a right that he would have long ago sought ' his remedies in the court.

The next point that I want to bring up, which is the main thing,and I want to avoid getting into legal questions because I think sometimes they can be confused, I think the basic issue here is three years ago this alleged offer was signed and there is nm.r no building in existence. But, Mr. Speaker, this alleged offer, which was sip,ned, or this document which is purported to be a contract, now how does the government- I think it was unwise for the Minister of Public Works, I have to say, at the time to have signed this obviously but how does government become bound?

Government acts through the Cabinet, throug~ the Orders-in-Council, Any contract that is binding on the government has to be supported by an Order-in-Council authorizing the minister to sign. This paticular Order-in-Council reads, "Ordered that the following proposal, submitted by ::fr. Craig L. Dobbin, of St. John's, with . - "my copy is not that ~ · ,·. '.

~~ay 10, 1978 Tape No • 2086 i~- 2 MR. MARSHALL: clear or my eyes ~re 2etting weaker, I do not know. " - with regard to the construction of an office compl~ for the ~overnment, situate immediately West of Confederation Building, be and are h~reby approved in -principle," I note those words, Mr. Speaker, "sub1ect to the submission to Cabinet of satisfactory plans and specifications based upon an aiLal.ysis of the project." Then it goes through the various terms • Now the hon. gentleman has a legal opinion, and he gave his le11:al opinion free gratis to the Houae himself today and yesterday.

But the fact of the matter is, ' Mr. Speaker, legal opinions are legal opinions. they are opillions as such, there is no great liUigic in them. They are trained opillions by people trained in a certain area just as well as an opinion on the engine ··of a car can be given by a mechanic. They are opinions and they can certainly differ.

But I can say this,if it is worth anything of any weU:ht, that as far as I am concerned, if I were advising a client as to whether or not to rely on this particular agreement . as being a:binding contract, and to take action accordingly to bind himself, I would strongly indicate that he would be very unwise to, that I would not consider the agreement to have been binding in itself because of · two reasons: Firat of all it is only agreement in principle and we know, it is a matter of public knowledge here, that there was an issue here,for instance,before the Municipal Council of the City of St.

John's, not too recently, where residents attempted to enforce a permit that they had been given and it was ruled that even though the council had approved it in principle, approval in principle was not binding. I suggest it is no different from this particular situation. But furth~~re, this goes on even further to say, "Subject to the submission " to Cabinet of satisfactory plana and specifications." I would suggest that any lawyer who would •.

' v (j : ' ' .. . -_ Hay 10, 1978 Tape No, 2086 MR. MARSHALL: suggest or iD.!ficate to his client that be haa a billdiDg agreement before bi; gets the plans· and .;J NM- 3 apecif!catiou.s ac:tu.al.ly approvecl by~the Cabinet itself, would be very UDWise indeed. Now the hon. pntlBIIWl said that he had legal. opinion; and so he may bav• ~ I do not. fault it, but legal opinion differs froa. time to ~· I remember the bon • . : gentlemen opposite last year were touting a legal opinion on the Upper ~rch1.11 and why we did not tax the :. , r

-. ay 10, 1978 Tape 2087 Mr. Marshall: revenue from the Upper Churchill going into Quebec. We were told they had a lega~.opinion and it -~ was reported in the press, and this ~s a great issue, and then what happened, no less a body than the Supr.,.eme Court of Canada came out and indicated that such could not be done. So that is so much for legal opinions. Now as for the ~tter of, if somebody acted upon it, and if funds were advanced, ill I say is, well that is unfortunate.

If people were unwise enough on the basis of these Orders-in-council and opinions to advance funds on the basis of these agreements, I say, you know, their lack of wisdom is the cause of their loss. I am not in the slightest bit concerned whether any bank or finance company or Mr. Dobbin or Mr. Anybody lost any money, what I am concerned about is whether the people of this Province lost any money.

I am informed that there was- and I have enquired about this,that there is no quid pro quo, there has been no quid pro quo to cancel! it , and until that is proven to the contrary I shall certainly acceot . it as one is bound to accept a word that is given to you on such serious matters. I cannot conceive how anyone could even assume that there was an agreement. If,"the government has ._ gone off negotiating with Mr.

Crosbie for space in Atlantic Place, as has been alleged, and has been state~ I mean you can say the government has misled the House, .but I mean the governmen~ hopefully anyway,is not so cra:z:y that it is going to enter into a binding agreement to put up 400,000 square feet of space here, another agreement down at Atlantic Place, and rent probably every place around the Province. I mean it just does not make sense. I say, by the way, that my remarks pertain to Mr. Crosbie as well as Mr. Dobbin and all the rest of them.

There will be1 as far as I am concerned,no agreement on Atlantic Place or no agreement on any place unless open public tenders are called which was a commitment that this gove~ent and this party made to the people of this Province, and I am sure that other members here will insist they keep. '.

·. May 10, 1978 Tape 2087 PK - 2 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: No, Mr. Speaker~ if I were to get back to the ~.

"" legalese _ of the thing, if I were advising a client in connection with an agreement of substance of that nature, and I need hardly add that the person concerned did not consult me, but if I were advising a clieut I would say that you are uuwise to consider yourself bound unless that agreement is accompanied by an Order-in-Council which says, words to the effect,~Be it ordered tnat the attached agreement be approved by the government in total, identified by the initials of the Clerk of the Executive Council, and that the minister, whoever he may be, is hereby authorized to sign on his behalf." Then and only then would I consider any agreement to be binding.

So then and only then I would assume that the han. the Premier, and ;the bon. ministers concerned, because there is more than the bon. the Premier involved in this, I would assume that they operated on the same basis.

Now anyone else who wants to take a contrary view can, and if you want to take the view that every person in elected life, and this is what it is coming to, is a crook, is an extortionist or what have you, ~ell, you can take that view, But unless we get in this House of Assembly the same rules and regulations that apply in other areas,thst an hon. member's word is to be taken, unless there is clear and convincing proof to the contrary, as I say1 what we are going to have is utter . and complete chaos. And I prefer, Mr. Speaker, to opt to the other situation.

Tbe bon. the Premier did as he said., Tbere was no agreement. As far as I am concerned, and, you know, the ' ' hon. the Premier and myself have been known from time to time to disagree, and to differ, and I would have no hesitation in _disagreeing or differing with the Premier I guarantee you in this particular case.

But if the hon. the Premier indicates that this was his intention , which I believe is the situation,or his impression that there was no agreement on this basis, well certainly I am going to believe him, particularly in view of the fact there is no building out there, and there cannot be a building now

May 10, 1978 Tape 2087 PK- 3 MR. MARSHALL: under this agr~ent. So what agre~t is there? Now this issue, Mr. Speaker, affects the whole House. It is more serious than members, I think, realize. The general public is, I .t:hi.I)k, I am not talking about w~t is going back, I am talldDg what is ·going back and forth, ::. the general public is fed up .., ~ with the bickering that is going back ~d forth across this Assembly. I myself feel that the Opposition, whith is the Opposition's function, its

Uay 10, 1978 Tape 2088 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: overall plan is to create scandal after scandal and thus attempt to show lack of confidence in the government. But at the same time, it has.· to be done, I .would submit, Mr. Speaker, responsibly. I, myself, am sick of sitting here day after day and listening to this type of thing,_ seeing the House of Assembly throughout Canada styled as a house of crooks rather than the hon. House that it is this affects the people of Newfoundland - see it regarded as a circus, and my own personal opinion is that we have to come to grips~it~ it.

I think the Opposition in its mad desire for power has developed a certain paranoia. I think yesterday somebody indicated to me that I was seen talking to the Premier,.so because I made a certain motion there it was cooked up between myself and the Premier. Well, obviously the hon. gentleman does not know that myself and the Premier have not in previous years been in the habit of cooking up anything. So it is absolute paranoia as far as I am concerned. Now the position in this House, too, Mr. Speaker, and its regard in the public concerns me to a great degree.

I look.for instance.at remarks made 1ustyesterday. which substantiateR it.bY ~he Minister o~ .the Board of Trade which presumed to give us a great, broad brush and paint us all black, which has a great effect and it is the easy thing for a person to do. As far as I am concerned it is a very shallow and easy mode of criticism. There are members on both sides of this House, by far the· majority of the members of this hon. House who are very interested in conducting government and in bringing the views of their constituents to the public. They are not carrying on pretend games of government and what have vou.

And it is very i I

May 10, 1978 Tape 2088 EC - 2 MR. MARSHALL: e~sy for somebody to get the public media to get up from time to time and paint the whole of us black. I think the person would be much better and the public would be much better if they tried to pinpoint those individuals maybe, if you wish, on '. both sides of the House who ~re causing this rather than, as they sometimes do, put them up on pedestals and start making them heroes.

In other words, what I suggest the public might do is inquire ss to the modus operandi of individual members of this House and draw their own conclusions from it, and not _attempt as the President of the Board of Trade attempted, to paint the whole of this Assembly black. But the fact that it is painted entirely - I black, Mr. Speaker, I would say, is the fault of this Assembly itself, in a way, and one of the cardinal reasons for it is the issue that we are now discussing. And I would hope that this issue could be taken and could be dealt with as soon as possible.

I do not see any need for protracted debates on the issue itself. ' We have been meeting here, and look at the items of concern · We have about 30 per cent, I understand, unemployment in this Province; we have a financial condition which is the worst in North America which is threatening to put this Province down in the mire where it will never get up again; we have the Nordsee proposal; we have the federal government and their fishing licences and their effect on the people of this Province; we have Gull Island; we have the problem of produc~ivity in this Province with labour; we have the problems of attracting industrial development and getting the merchants of this Province to realize that they have to be a little bit more than .· manufacturers' agents for Central Canada as they were for jolly old England prior to Confederation.

All of these

May 10, 1978 MR. MARSHALL: Tape 2088 EC - 3 i~ues are burning issues ~- that · affect this Province, a~d the longer we take, Mr. Speaker, on issues of th~s nature, the longer it is going · to be that this Hou~e is going to come down in the repute that it has with the publi~, the less it is ~· going to be able to deal with the issues, and the people of Newfoundland in the long-tun are going to be the losers. Now I say, let us get at it. We are mired right now in a most critical situation .

I do not think we can afford to see the dissent of the House of Assembly any more - that is mired down as well, and we end up not having any effective vehicle at all, whatever effect the House of Assembly can have to deal with the problems of all of our constituents. Now I say this, Mr. Speaker, and I say it having reviewed ·the documents last evening and gone over them today, that before any member of this bon. House, . be he the bon. the Premier or any other member, is to be adjudged to have deliberately misled the House, to have lied in this House, thera has to be clear and compelling evidence involved.

In this particular case, in my own opinion, as I have reviewed the situation, the bon. the Premier has said there was no agreement - there is no doubt about that - but I am not prepared to say that the bon. the Premier has deliberately misled the House, because at the time it was quite reasonable to have said ·

·. May 10, 1978, Tape 2089, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: there was, in fact, no contract. All there were were negotiations, all there could have been were negotiatidns. There was more of a contract in the papers that I saw with Trizec Enterprises Limited than there was with the Dobbin concern. The very fact that the agreement has not been executed speaks for itself, that there was no agreement. :Now, I make this plea, Mr.

Speaker, before the House because I think it goes much more deeply, that if we keep on debating in this way, if we keep on showing the pbulic where we stand on these issues, throwing charges back and forth across the ~ouse, that this particular House of Assembly is going to descend in shambles. There are major issues that confront the people of this Province. We have been meeting now for two months, hardly anything has been discussed of any real benefit to the people of this Province, instead we are down to the laying of charges and countercharges.

Now, I must say at this particular time that I am rather sad that it was the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have a regard, who was the person who led in this particular motion.· But the Leader of the Opposition is certainly a mature parliamentarian, he understands the consequences of the charge which he has made- and the fact that he must back up this charge, and I think it is a sad day in Newfoundland that really on such flimsy evidence as this, and I think he was very poorly advised, this is my opinion, to have indicated that the hon. Premier misled the House.

Any person looking through that contract, I challenge any person looking through that contract to say that it was a contract itself and it was of a binding nature. ., '.

May 10, 1~78, Tape 2089, Page 2 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman when he was speaking said, "This is a binding commitment. I submit it as a former minister •'and a lawyer.'' Well, that is fine! That is grand! As I ~-· say, there is no magic in that as an opinion is an opinion. If you are a lawyer and you give an opinion , it is no different within your expertise than a mechanic or a plumber or what have you. And I say as a ~ former minister and a lawyer, I say myself that I do not believe it is a binding commitment. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker in all conscience, Mr.

Speaker, if I were advising a client I would turn around and say, Yes, you go off and you borrow $20 million. I would not borrow twenty cents on an agreement like that unless it was solidified with an Order in Council, unless the plans and the specifications were put in and they were approved by Cabinet. God in heaven! Are they so stunned that they are going to agree to pay out money for a building for which the plans and specifications have not been submitted to them? They could find themselves buying an outhouse or something like that, something as ridiculous as that.

So how could anyone in their right mind turn around and say that there was a binding agreement in this? He says it was checked out by lawyers and the opinion was that it was legally binding and forceable in court. But as I mentioned before legal opinions are legal opinions and you can take them for what they are worth. The hon. ·gentT-einen there opposite may not - that is their prerogative - take mine for what they are worth, but I jolly well, provided the retainer was big enough, would love to contest them in court and take the side that I am taking, and we would see where we would come out on it.

I think the hon. member realizes that because he started somewhat, I got a hint I I ,._

May 10, 1978, Tape 2089, Page 3 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: of vacilating. He would not be 100 per cent sure maybe 70 per cent or maybe 80 per cent, there is a chance, h~ said, the court would throw it out. There is a jolli good chance the court would throw it out because as ~ say with a great deal of confidence, and other people can disagree with me, but as far as I am concerned I wouid not view this document upon which the hen. member has ~relied as being a binding agreement.

And I think it is quite reasonable for a man in the Premier's case to look at it in the same light, and -the- other ministers. so where are we left now? We are left with a charge that pas been hurled across this House that a member has lied. I do not care whether it is the Premier or whether it is the member for St. John's East, or the ,_good member for Harl:tour Grace on the other end or members on the other side, we have a very grave and serious accusation and,Mr. Speaker, I think that the House has to deal with it, it has to deal with itself.

For my part, I just make the plea that this type of unnecessary attempt to propagate themselves in power should cease forever for the sake of this Assembly and let us hear . instead from the Opposition the alternative government, let us see them try to propel themselves in power with a few positive policies and alternative modes of government that they are going to give the people of this Province and maybe they can be a little more enthusiastically received. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! J '.

May 10, 1978 MR. SPEAKER: MR. SIMMONS: Tape 2090 The hon. the member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ,_ ~· PK - 1 The motion before the House although you would not know it from what the member for St. John's . East (Mr, Marsahll) just had to say, the motion before the House is that the House resolve itself into a Committee. The motion is not that we judge here today, to decide today whether the Leader of the Opposi ; ion has done a wise or an unwise thing, whether the Premier has deliberately misled the House,as I happen to believe he has,or not. That is not the issue, Mr.

Speaker, the issue is whether we want to resolve ourselves into a Committee. Now,Mr. Speaker, I would stop talking right now and every other member of this House, on this side of the House would agree not to speak to this i£ we had an indication right now that the government will vote for this, and when I say the government, a majority of the members of the House will vote for it, and we can have a Committee of the House and we can go through the procedure of establishing what the motion proposes that we establish. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS : That is the issue, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not we want a committee. And then speaking out of both sides of his mouth at one time as he is so capable of doing - MR. MARASHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has come up, please. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, look - MR. SIMMONS: He is going to obfuscate now is he? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the bon. gentleman,really, but that is contrary to the rules of this House to say that the bon. membe~ you know, that imputes my motives.

I got up and gave my position as sincerely as I could and I do not intend to sit here in the House and hear the hon. gentleman or any hon. gentleman impugn or impute my motives. '.

·- May 10, 1978 Tape 2090 PK - 2 MR. SIMMONS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On that point of ord_er. -1 MR. SIMMONS: ·-u my saying speaking ~t of both sides of the mouth is wtiat offended the member then I can say it :4uite another way. On the one hand I hear him lecturing to us not t ~ _prolong the t~e of the House in this matter, and then I see~him prolonging the time of the House. I have an expression for that ;-, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! :an the point of order, in my opinion, the allegation toward a member that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth is an allegation of untruth or deceit or falsity or hypocrisy or some amalgam of these attributes. And I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it. MR. SIMMONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw and I would also appeal to the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) to extend to me the same courtesy we extended to him, although we had to bite our lips to do so.

We had to bite our lip and hold our seats, but he i~ now going to use the old business, the old trick of the point of order every four seconds? One of our ·problems on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is we are far too courteous,particularly to that hon. member. SOME RON; "MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's East asked first of all, is it a contract? Is this agreement between Her Majesty in right of Newfoundland, on the one hand, and Mr. Craig L. Dobbin on the other hand, is it an agreement? Is it a binding agreement?

And he tells us, well now,he does not want to get into legalese - well I do not know what that word means, so I will be pardoned if I show my lack of knowledge on that particular point in a moment. But after saying he does not want to get into legalese he then proceeds to give us his legal opinion on a number of issues, most of them unsolicited opinions. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, without getting into detail about it that what I heard from the member was at the very best awfully weak law, awfully weak law, Mr. Speaker.

May 10, 1978 Tape 2090 PK - 3 Mr. S iliBilons : AB a matter of fact, his best case, his best reason the agTeement bas not been exeeuted, whatever that means in his context today, whatever it means, the~. best reason is the building is not there. The building is not there. MR. SIMMONS: Now I do not think the building is there, I am pretty well sure the building is not there, Mr. Speaker, but that alone, Mr. Speaker, does not constitute an IU:gUDle1lt that the agTeement is not binding.

We are talking about a fairly monstrous sum of money here, we are talking about a long•term undertaking going into twenty years plus, and as I read the agreement there is no c~itment as to a beginning date, except •as soon as possible'type of stuff, and we are talking

Hay 10,1978 Tape No, 2091 AH-1 i·.L.'l.. S Il:l!·ID:~ S : a couple of years. If I were in government I would l~ve expected that oy now the developer w~uld have begun ;. some physical visible activity but cin the other hand, if I were on t:1e side of the developer and had good reason as to why I did not physically oegin the building 1 then I do not think I w~uld have forfeited my rights under tne agreement because I had perhaps been a bit tardy and, in my own view,perhaps with good reason had been tardy or had been ·. two or three years putting the ~uilding in place.

I do not think that alone would constitute default ander the agreement. i'!R,W,ROWE: Like the Premier asking you to hold off, hold off, holcl off something like that. HR. SU.IHONS: I will come to that. Now, Mr. Speaker, what the member for St. John's East (~1r. Marshall) gives us is at l>est,to put it in its kindest context,,very weak law. To put it, Mr. Speaker, perhaps less kindly,but I still think in a parliamentary fashion, if I am ever, Hr. Speaker, in a court of law I hope. that member is there too acting for the opposing case, being the counsel for the opposing case, lir.

Speaker, because my chances will be multiplied many fold. As long as that member - if he uses the kind of specious argument in that court'' of law I talk about as he has done this afternoon, Hr. Speaker, I hope he is there but I hope he is representing the other side of the argument to which I am on. Now, Hr. Speaker, he argues that it is not a binding contract because we do not have the supporting Order-in-Council. \/ell, l1r. Speaker, I am going to leave that particular argument to people who are either in Cabinet or have been in Cabinet because I have not been.

There are people on both sides of the House who are or have been in Cabinet and I do not understand fully or I am not fully aware of what the details are in terms of supporting documentations for these agreements and I wnuld rather hear from somebody who is more conversant on the particular subject. llut I am going to raise, ~~. Speaker, what I think is a related question.because the member for St. John's East

i·iay 10,1978 Tape No. 2091 Al:I-2 NR. SlllHDNS: (Hr. Marshall) has not addressed himself to this one at all. Here is the agreement, }1r. Speaker. It is signed and in .: the interest of brevity, }fr, Speake~, I am going to assume that the signatures are genuine. Perhaps somebody might want to get off on the argument that they are forgeries or that they are not true .

I signatures or that they were signed under duress and that kind of thing, Lut I have seen the signatures of three of the four individuals '. ,.. involved here on a number of occasiOn&, that of the Premier, that o£ the present Minister of Industrial Development and that of Hr. Dobbin, I cannot decipher who the fourth signature is but that is not completely relevant to the point that I want to make here. I am going to assume that the three signatures that I just mentioned are bona fide signatures made freely. Hr. Speaker, that being the case what does the member for St. Johu' s East (Hr.

Uarshall) have to say about the fact that the present tlinister of Industrial Development signed a document~ ~-las he trying to hoodwink Mr, Dobbin? Is that the gaEe that they were playing? Was he trying to hoodwink him? Did he think he was that stunned that a fellow on the one hand who could put together a package which tVould accrue him in gross $70 million over the twenty year period? Did he think on the other hand that he was so stunneu that he would riot ask the very basic question ,·"Does TC Farrell have the authority to sign this document?

You know the document ~s either worth something or it is not worth something. Now if it is worth nothing how stunned is i'lr, Dobbin? How ;;;tunned is he that he would take this ~ieee of paper? How naive? How stunned? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, he is not nearly as stunned as · is being suggested by other people i.a tllis douse today. Because that is what the member for St. John's East (ar. Harshall) is saying really, that Mr. Dobbin was duped, that he was duned by one TC Farrell and one FD Hoores who sat ;;here, or stood there or kneeled there as the case may be • MR. LUSH: i~~eeled probably.

<-Iay 10,1978 Tape No . 2091 AH-3 l·m. SI:l:!HONS: Sat, stood or kneeled there and with pen in l.and affixed their signatures and now t;e are told that they were worthless signatures, they were worthless.mot!:Ons, that the paper was not worth anythin€;, that they never had the autho.rity to put those signatures on paper. Is that .anyway to treat a· friend, Hr. Speaker? '.

·. Uay 10, 1978 Tape 2092 EC - l MR. SIMMONS: 'r_, ~ke him for an April Fool's joke when it is not even Apiil Fool's Day? Is that any way to treat a good friend ;. ~ o pull an April Fool's stunt on him in the middle o~ August? Is that any way to treat a good friend? How stunned, Mr. Speaker, how stunned does the member ~or St. John's East (Mr. Mars6all) think we are? ~ Now look, Mr. fpeaker, I am not going to get into the te ~ hnicalities of whether this is a binding agreement or not.

I am told by people who know much more about this than I do, who know more law on the subject than I do, I am told it is a binding agreement. If the Leader of the Opposition thought for one second that it was a mere fabrication, a piece of paper trumped up to hoodwink one, Mr. Dobbin~ if he felt that is all it was, some private game between one, T. C. Farrell, one, F. D. Moores and one, C. L. Dobbin, do you think for one second h-e would have made it the subject of a matter of privilege in this House of Assembly? Now, Mr.

Speaker, whether it is a binding agreement or not at the time it was signed, I would submit to you - and I would invite the Premier to deny this if he thinks fit to do so - I would submit to you that it was purported to Mr. Dobbin to be a binding agreement. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: It was purported to be a binding agreement, Mr. Speaker, or else the fellow who signs himself c. L . Dobbin is awfully stunned. They cannot have it both ways , Mr. Speaker, either it is a binding agreement or it was pedalled - and pedalled is a very good word for it, Mr.

Speaker - it was pedalled as a binding agreement at the · •I . '

Hay 10, 1978 Tape 2092 EC - 2 MR. SIMMONS: ~me, either that or they were taking one who is known . to be a very good personal friend o"f the Premier's - and there is nothing wrong in that, Mr. Speaker, we all have our good personal friends, our loyal friends who stand py us - either it was a binding agreement, Sir, on the one hand or it was pedalled as a binding agreem -ent on the one hand, or they were taking their friend for one awful ride, they were pulling one awful April Fool's joke on him. DR. KITCHEN: Sumehow or other I have my doubts whether he was taken for a ride. MR. SIMMONS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I let the House judge on that particular subject. My colleague t