-· VOL. 3 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1981 NO. 58

June 11, 1981 Tape 2360 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Recreation, Culture and Youth. EC - 1 MR~ ANDREWS: Mr. Speaker, as the han. House is aware, the 1982 Winter Games Committee resigned last week o"er a dispute with the Province regarding planning and costing of the Games. This action naturally upset many people in the Labrador region and some people in the provincial government, of course.

I am pleased to announce today that the Town Council of Labrador City - Wabush has agreed to strike a new Winter Games Committee. This process will be completed eit.her today,or at the latest, tomorrow. I am also pleased to announce that an additional sum of $100,000 has been approved by government for the 1982 Games. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. ANDREWS: I look forward to working with the community officials in Labrador West and with the new Winter Games Committee. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Torngat Mountains has about thirty seconds. MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. S9eaker.

Again we see an example of h01-1 a minister in such a short period of time can drag his feet and also drag a lot of people along with him. Here we have an example, Mr. Speaker, of a minister not replying to the originall Winter Games requestfor getting additional funding and all of a sudden, for some reason,they are just disbanded,the old committee. Why not keep 6377

June 11, 1981 Tape 2360 EC - 2 .MR. WARREN: the old committee in place? Because all they were asking for was more funding from the government. So if there is more funding coming in from the government, why do you not keep the old committee in place? Because they were doing a good job. Maybe it is because of political interference and there are probably P.C. fellows in place up there now. I hope that the minister could see reason and keep the old committee in place, because all they were asking for was an additional $100,000 as the minister has agreed. Shame! MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please!

I would like to welcome to the galleries today on behalf of all hon. members, the Deputy Mayor of the Town of Botwood, Mrs. Jean Elliott, along with Mr. Clarence Emberley, the Town Manager for the Town of Botwood. Welcome to the galleries. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD: Hear, hear! Further statements? r1r. Speaker. The hon. the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I have a statement here that I would like to make at this time. Mr.

Speaker, several times over the past few months, statements have been made to the effect that Newfoundland receives each year a great deal more from the rest of Canada than it contributes. The implication of these statements is two-fold, one, that Newfoundland is somehow unique and that Canadians living in other provinces are not getting similar benefits, and, two, that Newfoundland should be grateful for the amounts it does receive and not speak out against policies and programmes initiated by the federal government with which it does not agree. 6378

June 11, 1981 Tape 2360 EC - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: The general conclusion reached is that we should accept our role in the nation as the most 'have not' Province and live off the generosity of the rest of the nation 63/9

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2361 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: and particularly the federal government. But, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my statement today is to - MR. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STRILING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The first three or four paragraphs of that Ministerial Statement are provocative, encouraging debate and ~re making the assumption that nobody by the Premier agrees with, nobody has made the assumptions that he is starting off with.

It is a Ministerial Statement that is only to provoke debate, it is not a Ministerial Statement in giving us any new information, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Hear, hear. To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. To the point of order, the han. It is quite evident that the han. gentleman is trying to out -Lapoile, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary} , the other Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, he is continually getting up in this House on spurious points of order.

A Ministerial Statement, there is wide latitude given on a Ministerial Statement, a Ministerial Statement is given to inform the public about matters pertaining to public affairs. The hon. gentleman has heard one or two sentences and has taken exception to those one or two sentences because he presumes something else is coming. The hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is constantly interrupting the proceedings of this House by spurious points of order and there is, Mr. Speaker, an obvious proceeding to deal with the hon. gentleman which we will have to take reluctantly SOME . HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. 6380

Jun3 ll, 1981 MR. MARSHALL: proceedings in this House. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : 'Tape No. 2361 . so - 2 - if he continues to disrupt the Order, please! With respect to the point of order, the purpose of a Ministerial Statement is to convey information, I have n?t yet heard the Ministerial Statement, I presume that is what the hon. the Premier is doing. In any event, the hon. to my right will have the right to respond for approximately half the time as is the rule. SOME HON.MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD: Hear, hear. The hon. the Premier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of :my statement today is to set the record straight regarding the contribution which Canadians living in Newfoundland are making to the federal government and the rest of the nation. As wilJ h<::-· seen, Newfoundland is making a very significant contribution to the rest of the nation and there is absolutely no reason for us to feel we are living off the rest of Canada and hence that we cannot assert our views on major issues. To start with 1 let me clearly state that my comments today are not anti-Canadian or anti­ federal government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

PREMIER PE:CKFORD: I fully acknowledge that Newfoundland receives a great many benefits,both financial and otherwise, from being a part of our great nation, Canada. AN HON ME]ffiER: Hear, hear. PREMIER PECKFORD: In particular, we receive very extensive financial assistance from the federal government both as a Province and as individuals- in fact, we could not as a government Jperate the many services we do without various transfer payments such as equalization, established programme 6381

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2361 SD - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: financing and the like. Hon. members should note, however, that we are by no means unique in this respect. Seven of the ten provinces receive equalization payments, all ten provinces ·receive 6382

June 11, 1981 Tape No.2362 EL- 1 PREMrER P:Ea<FORD: ~federal funding for health, Medicare, post secondary education and social assistance. All Canadians can receive unemployment insurance if they are without work and have the requisite em­ ployment record. All senior citizens in Canada are eligible for pensions and the like. Even DREE,which was created to help overcome regional disparities,spends money in all prov­ inces, including the three'have'provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, because we are a 'have no~ province we receive proportionately more under certain programmes than might be the case in the richer parts of the cQuntry. Because our unemployment rate is almost double the national average,we certainly get more unemployment insurance than if ou~ unemployment rate was lower. Because we have many low income citizens, we receive substantial amounts through the Canada Assistance Plan and, because of our low incomes, we receive a very considerable amount of equalization. The same would apply to any other province or its citizens in like circumstances.

If Ontario's unemployment rate was double the national averag~ it would receive proportionately more unemployment insurance and Canada Assistance Plan • benefits. If Alberta was a'have not'province,it would receive equalization payments.There is nothing unique or special in any of these. They are all benefits we receive if we need them because we are all a part of the same nation. That is as it should be and,were it any different, we would have great cause for concern. Mr.

Speaker, for the information of the han. members, I would like to review the most recent com­ parative statistics,which happen to be for 1979,to show how much Newfoundland received from and what it contributes to the rest of the nation. First of all 1it should be noted that in 6383

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2362 EL - 2 ' PREMIER ~ECKFORD: financial terms at least, most of the benefits Newfoundland receives comes from the Federal Government directly. This is different from, say,Qntario and Quebec which also receive very large indirect financial benefits because of their central location and the effects of the Can­ adian tariff wall. Newfoundland, as we all know, does not bene­ fit from the tariff wall because we do not manufacture consumer goods in any great amount and all our major industries are export oriented.

I will have more to say about the indirect benefi~which some provinces receive in a few minutes. In l979 1 the Federal Government spent a total. of 1.6 billion dollars in Newfoundland. Of this amount 1 about $600 million were transferred to the Province, $500 million were transfers to persons,and the remaining $500 million was spent on goods and services, subsidies, etc. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that these expenditures are large and the benefits accruing to citizens . very substantial.

The question is :lre they larger than citizens of this E'rovince should expect as Canadians and what is the impact of these expenditures on the Province? In 1979, the Federal Government - 63 84

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2363 DW - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! A point of order -has been raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. L. STIRLING: I hope that by this time, Mr. Speaker, you have heard enough to hear that what we are talking about is.a most provocativ~ debate on federal/ provincial relations which should be much more appropriately done in debate and not in the form of a Ministerial Statement. There has been nothing in the information, Mr. Speal~er. It is an abuse of the rules of the House because we are confined to one half the time and we cannot enter into debate, wnereas, Mr.

Speaker, everything that has been said to this point has been a recitation of information that is n~eded in debate. It encourages debate and so far has been nothing but a provocative,anti-Canada statement. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. W. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: MR. W. MARSHALL: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker. The hon. President of the Council. Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour has indicated,a Ministerial Statement is for the purpose of giving information on matters of public affairs. It is not, Mr.

Speaker, a matter as, Your Honour, will see in May - and I have do not have the quotation immediately handy but I know it is in May - that when a minister rises to give a statement there is no basis whatsoever for another member of the House to get up on a point of order to object to the contents of the statement itself. The procedure, Mr. Speaker, is that the Ministerial Statement is given, there is an opportunity given to the other side to reply.

As to the matter of debate that the hon. gentleman is referring to 1 there is no matter surely of public policy that can be given in a Ministerial Statement which does not contain elements, Mr. Speaker, that are subject to debate. It would be a rather dead statement of public policy indeed if it were, in fact, 6385

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2363 ow - 2 MR. W. MARSHALL: not a matter of comment. Mr. Spea!rer, I suggest the hon. gentleman .should possess himself in oatience, listen politely to the staternent,and see if he can attempt and surprise us by this time . making an intelligent comment in reply. SOME HON. · MEMBERS: Hear , hear! MR. SPEAKER (Simms): With respect to the point of order, the purpose - as I indicated a few moments ago in a quote from Beauchesne - of a Ministerial Statement is to provide information. As far as the Chair can gather,infor ­ mation is being provided and there is no point of order .

The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To continue, in 1979 1 the federal government nationally spent about $52 billion. Newfoundland has a®ut 2.5 per c.ent of the Canadian population . If federal spending were exactly the same throughout the nation, one 1.,rould expect that spending in Newfoundland would be 2. :5 per cent of $52 billion or $1.3 billion. By this measure , then,we received about $300 \Tlillion. 63!:16

June 11, 19.81 Tape No. 2364 NM - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: more in 1979 than 0ne might have expected. At first glance, it appeared we gained substantially. However, it is the impact that spending has on the economy which is the critical factor rather than the actual level of expenditures and, when the-federal expenditure. in Newfoundland is analyzed on the basis of the direct and indirect impact,some startling facts emerged.

When the federal government, or the Newfoundland Government for that matter, spends money on transfers to persons­ for example,family allowances, pensions, social assistance and the lik~ -Ne obviously get the benefit of the first round of spending. However, when the money is spent the Newfoundland economy only retains thirty-eight per cent of the total Canadian impact, and sixty-two per cent ends up in other provinces. In fact,fifty per cent ends up in Ontario and Quebec. As indicated earlier, in 1979 the federal government spent about - MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the hon. Leader of the Oppositio~. AN HON. MEMBER: Abusing the rules of the House. MR. FLIGHT: We have to listen to that. We have to listen to the like of that. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing with the debate and the last reference in which the Premier quotes what he calls a fact, Mr. Speaker, is not backed up in any way as a fact and provokes debate. It is not brief and it is not factual.

And I quote, "The Newfoundland economy retains thirty per cent of the total Canadian impact, and sixty-two per cent ends up in other provinces." There is nothing to back up that fact, a fact which is a debatable point and which encourages debate, Mr. Speaker. We on this side cannot accept that as a straight statement of fact and it provokes 6367

June 11, 19.81 Tape No. 2364 NM - 2 MR. STIRLING: debate and therefore, Mr. Speaker, is out of order. MR. SPEAKER (Simrns l: Order, please! I would have to draw the hon. Leader of the Opposition's attention at least to the reference :in Beauchesne that I have already used twice, and it is the same reference, "The purpose of a Ministerial Statement is to provide information." H.on. members to my right may not agree with what is in the statement, but certainly that is their right to say wlien they respond to the statement. But there certainly is no point of order as far as I can gather. The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to give my statement in this fashion but obviously the Leader of the Opposition so wants it. This staterrent, Mr. Speaker, as I was going to say when I got near the end of it, is the result ofan extensive study that was done by this government into the various economics of transfer payments and so on.

This has resulted from almost a five, six month study and this statement comes out of that, from economists and people who work for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador~ As indicated earlier, in 1979 the federal government spent about $500 million in transfer payments to persons in Newfoundland. While tnis spending was very beneficial to residents of this Province,it was also indirectly very beneficial to other provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec becau ·se they are the producers of a large 6368

June 11,1981 Tape No. 2365 AH-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: percentage of the goods bought by these funds. A similar situation occurs when other components of federal spending are analyz.ed. While we receive the full benefit of the first round of spending,we only retain fifty-two per cent of the total Canadian impact of construction expenditures and the other provinces gain forty-eight per cent of the benef"it. MR. STIRLING: A point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A point of order has been raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, reference Beauchesne, page 87, 262.

"Statements by Ministers have now been given a recognized place in Routine Proceedings. The Speaker has emphasized that both the government and Opposition contributions should be brie~'- this is a ten page statement- ~·tand factual!' Mr. Speaker, that is subject to debate. The purpose of the Ministerial Statement is to convey information not to encourage debate and,Mr. Speaker, every statement that has been made to this point has been to encourage debate because it is not factual, Mr. Speaker. So as I quote as a reference - SOME HON.MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. STIRLING: MR. MARSHALL: MR.

SPEAKER: Oh, oh~ Order, please! -

Section 262, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman conveniently left a passage out. It also said that the Speaker is left to set limits on the participants,and considerable latitude has been left to the Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is occuring here is that Your Honour has made a ruling - your Honour has made a second ruling and a third ruling-~nd 6JEi9

June 11,1981 Tape No. 2365 AH-2 MR. MARSHALL: the hon. the Leader of the Opposition unfortunately is persisting in getting up and when he is getting up , Mr. Speaker, he is in effect challenging Your Honour's ruling. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that this House can operate if Your Honour is to give a ruling and .two or three minutes later the same point arises again and somebody is up in the HousP­ disrupting debate.

There is one obvious, I suggest, Your Honour, one obvious alternative to be taken; that is the hon. gentleman has to be directed to take his seat, and if the hon. gentleman does not take his seat and continues to flaunt Your Honour's rulinq ,there is an obvious course of action which regrettably will have to be taken by the House. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): With respect to the point of order,I believe the point of order at this time had to do with the length of the statement.

It was a little different than the others as I see it, and while the reference that the hon. member quoted from Beauchesne is certainly accurate and is there for everybody to read,I will point out to him also that the traditions and practices of the House supercede whatever is in that reference book. And certainly the practices in this House in the past have been to provide for lengthy statements on many occasions.And I remind the hon. members again that as soon as the statement is completed they will have the right to reply and will have half the time as the rules permit. So there is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will try again. So, Mr. Speaker, I had completed hu saying when components of federal spending are analyz@d,while we receive the full benefit of the first round of spending we only retain fifty-two per cent of the total Canadian impact of construction expenditures and forty-eight per cent go to other provinces. 6.390

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2366 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: On goods and services , we do somewhat better. After the initial roundt we retain about 70 per cent of the expenditure in our economy. However, on machinery and equipment expenditures,the leakage form our economy is extremely great. After the first round, we only retain 11 per .cent while Ontario alone obtains 51 per cent and Quebec alone obtains 27 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, it is clear that while Newfoundland and its citizens receive very significant benefits from federal spending in the Province,and these should, in no wav, be downgraded or ignored, it is a fact that ~anadians living in other provinces also obtain very significant benefits because of the impact of these expenditures. In the case of expenditures on machinery and equipment, after the initial round, Newfoundland retains only 11 per cent and other Canadians obtain 89 per cent. In the case of expenditures on transfers to persons, Newfoundland retains 38 per cent of the benefit and other Canadians 62 per cent.

In the case of expenditures on construction, Newfoundland retains 52 per cent and other Canadians 48 per cent. Finally, on expenditures on goods and services, Newfoundland retains 70 per cent of the - benefits and other Canadians 30 per cent. The conclusion reached by this analysis is clear and simp~ MR. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAJ.<ER (Simms) : Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised a further point of order. MR. STRILING: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate in your other rulings that you said that you had to listen and that the Speaker has to make the final judgernen~.

Sut, Mr. Speaker, this statement continues to be a S.l?eech which 6381

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2366 SD - 2 MR. STIRLING: is debatable on every point- ~ore have now heard four or five . I refer to the same reference in Beauchesne - MR. WARREN: From the schoolbov from Springdale. MR. STIRLING: - and I appreciate what the Speaker has said . in the past ·but, Mr~ Speaker, this is the most long- winded, deliberate abuse of the rules of this House by a Ministerial Statement and therefore I have to bring it to the attention of the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! This is the fifth point of order that has been raised by the han. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Stirling} following this particul~r statement. I believe it is fair to say that I have ruled consistentl~ even though the points raised by the han. Leader of the Opposition may, on occasion, have been somewhat different 1but I would suggest also to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is no place in the House for spurious points of order and if they continue to be raised 1 then the Chair will have to take other action. I have given a consistent ruling and the ruling is that there is no point of order and the han. Leader of the Opposition 1 or whomever on my right 1 will have ~n opportunity to reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: T~nk you; Mr. Speaker. ~e conclusion reach .ed by this analysis is clear and simple; residents of Newfoundland receive significant benefits from the federal government spending in the Province. At first glance, it appears we receive more than we might expect as Canadians. However, when the impact of these expenditures is traced throughout the economy, it is evident that a significant percentage of the subsequent benefit of these expenditures is received by other Canadians, particularly those in OntaF.1>.-a,J;ld Quebec.

Therefore, we do not need 0 ·- j;.:

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2367 EL - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: to feel ashamed when we hear about how much ve receive. Other Canadians benefit as well and 1in some cases,other Canadians receive the bulk of the benefit after the initial transfers are spent in Newfoundland. Again, I stress the point that my purpose is not to belittle the federal effort in this Prov±nce. It is substantial and very,very beneficial.· However, it must be viewed in the proper perspective or the wrong conclusion will be reached.

Mr.Speaker, I have spent some time analfzing what Newfoundland residents receive from the Federal Government and what the impact is on our economy and the economy of the rest of the country. I am sure that han. members will also be anxious to have knowledge about what Newfoundland Canadians contribute directly to the Federal Government and other provinces. There often seems to be the impression given that New­ foundland only receives but does not contribute. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Newfoundland residents pay federal personal and corporate income taxes, federal excise taxes and Canadian Pension P1an contributions, unemployment insurance premiums, federal gasoline and liquor taxes, federal imports duties, tariffs,and a host of other federal levies and charges for licenses, Crown corporation services and the like . . In 1979 1 the total amount which residents of this Province paid to the Federal Government for all these various federal taxes, duties, licenses and fees amounted to $600 million.

In addition, and again as I mentioned earlier, Newfoundland receive most of the financial benefits of being part of Canada direc~ly from the Federal Government

whereas we do not receive indirect or hidden benefits as do other provinces. To make a true comparison ,therefore, both the direct and the indirect benefits and contrihntions must be taken into account. When these indirect factors are taken into account, 6333

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2367 EL - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: the picture which emerges is entirely different and the relative position of Newfoundland changes dramatically. As I stated, in 1979 Newfoundland res­ idents paid about $600 million into the Federal Treasury and it is this figure which is normally used to indicate our con­ tribution .to the nation : Mr. Speaker, this $600 million is only what Newfoundland residents pay directly to the Fed- eral Government. It does not measure what we contribute dir­ ectly or indirectly to o~her Provinces.

The classic example, of course,is the massive amount of economic rent we are con­ tributing to the Province of Quebec through the sale of virtually the entire output of the Upper Churchill hydro project at less than ten per cent of its value. As hon. members know, Quebec is receiving all this energy at about three mils . per kilowatt hour. At a conservative estimate, this power was worth at least thirty mils per Nilowatt hour in 1979.

Each mil on the Upper Churchill is worth about $30 million a year and so in 1979 the lost economic rent and the contribution which New­ foundland made to Canadians in Quebec amounted to about $810 million. 6334

June 11, 1981 Tape 2368 EC - 1 PREMIER PECF:FORD: In addition to the massive contribution we are making to Quebec residents, Newfoundland is also making a very signifi·cant contribution largely to the residents of Ontario and Quebec as consumers of goods produced in these provinces behind -a very high and,at times,pr.ohibitive tariff wall. The protection afforded by a tariff does not show up in any government books. There is no item in the federal spending called 'expenditur~ on tariffs'. Tariffs keep out less expensive foreign goods and permit domestic producers to charge higher prices.

It is consumers who pay the cost of the tariff, and,for most goods, Newfoundland residents are the consumers, not the producers. Bence, we pay the cost of the tariff, But it is the residents of Ontario and Quebec who reap most of the benefits. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that all tariffs are bad or that the residents of Ontario and Quebec should not benefit from such policies. What I am saying is that these benefits to some Canadians and the cos~ to other Canadians must be included in any assessment of overall benefit and contributions.

It is extremely difficult to estimate the cost of the tariff policy but it is clear it is expensive to consumers, particularly those who do not receive the direct benefits of the tariff. It is roughly estimated, however, from our study that has been done over the last several months, that the cost of the tariff to Newfoundland residents is in the $200 million to $300 million range per year. AN RON. MEMBER: There now, boys! PREMIER PECF:FORD: Mr. Speaker, if we look at all the facts it quickly becomes evident that Newfoundland is not a drain on the rest of Canada.

It is clear from these examples that Newfoundland in real terms is 6 3 :j 5

June 11, 1981 Tape 2368 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: contributing just as much to the nation as we are receiving. There is no doubt we receive significant benefits from being a Province of Canada- in 1979 we received about $1.6 billion from the federal government, but we did not receive it free.

We paid about $600 million directly back to the federal government in taxes and the like; we paid another $800 million to the residents of .,.uebec in economic, rent through the Upper Churchill contract; and we paid another $200 million plus to Canadian manufacturers producing behind the Canadian tariff wall, few 1if any,of which are located in Newfoundland. MR. STIRLING: MR '. SPEAKER (Sirmns): If you take the $600 million - On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr.

Speaker, I realize the risk that I am taking in bringing this to your attention, but as this has progressed, Mr. Speaker, I have to appeal to you and ask you to look at that last statement to see if that does not encourage debate and if that is not a flagrant abuse of the rules of this House. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I rule there is no point of order and I would ask the hon. the Premier to continue. PREMIER PECKFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you take, Mr. Speaker, the $600 million in federal taxes paid directly, the $800 million- which is a conservative estimate - contribution to the 6386

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2369 DW - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: residents of Quebec,and the $200 million plus that we contributed mainly to Central Canadian producers because of the tariff wall 1 overall in 1979 we contributed just as much, if not more ,to the rest of Canada as we received thereby; namely, $1.6 billion - $800 million, $600 million and $200 million. I am sure that when the figures are available for 1980 and 198l,that they will show the same result. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for Newfoundland residents to be ashamed or to feel subservient because we receive substantial benefits from'the federal government.

All Canadians receive such benefits, Some are direct, some are indirect, Some individuals receive more than others because their needs are greater, some Provinces receive more than others at any particular time because of their circumstances. As Canadians,we all pay our share of the costs based on our ability to pay. That is how it should be. I am concerned, however, when I hear some groups state that Newfoundland is somehow obtaining greater benefits than it deserves or that it is not contribu­ ting its share.

I become particularly concerned when it is stated that we should not stand up for our rights or speak out clearly on issues such as the constitution because we receive equalization or DREE grants. That is not what Canada is all about, Mr. Speaker, and those who make such sta~ts do a disservice to us all. I am proud, very proud 1 that as Canadians living in Newfoundland we contribute very substan­ tially to the nation. I am very proud and pleased that we receive substantial benefits back. I am hopeful that we can both contribute and receive more in the future. I believe 6337

Jun,e 11, 1981 Tape No . 2369 PR$MIER PECKFORD: this is the way a federation should operate and .I trust that it will always be this way. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. L. STlRLING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. 0\V - 2 MR. S.PEAKER (Simms) : The han. Leader of the Opposi - tion has about fourteen minutes. SOME HON . MEMBERS: Hear, hear ! MR. L. STIRLING : Mr. Speaker, I have to be very careful with my choice of language so that I do not get ruled out of order or have to withdraw SO!ething, because Mr.

Spea)ter, the rules of the Rouse are such that I cannot enter into debate and I have half the time that the Premier used in is prepared statement . ~~. Speaker, on this side of the House we have always been proud of being Canadian and we have been proud of being Newfoundlanders. 63 80

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2370 NM - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: That is more than the Premier can say. That is more than the Premier can say. MR. LUSH: We are ashamed. of nothing. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, we have never felt that we had to stand up in this House of Assembly, or anywhere else, and apologize for demanding our equal rights in Canada. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLrNG: We have gotten fair treatment from Canada, Mr. Speaker. We have gotten our equal rights in Canada.And of course we contribute, and we are proud of the fact that we contrifiute, Mr. Speaker. MR.

FLIGHT: And we have never doubted that we did. MR. STIRLING: We have never had any doubts about the fact that we were proud Newfoundlanders and proud Canadians. And let us look at this attempt by a government who is getting the message from all over this Province, Mr. Speaker, from all over this Province, including a young man 1for example, who is working in the offshore. I talked to two people, Mr. Speaker, working in the offshore, ashamed, absolutely ashamed by specific; they are ashamed of the Premier's statement, ashamed of the attitude that he has taken. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

STIRLING: Ashamed that a Nova Scotian can look at them and say, "Newf, I cannot get a job on your offshore" and Mr. Speaker - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Whose offshore? MR. SPEAKER: MR. STIRLING: our offshore. SOME HON . MEMBERS: Order, please! Our offshore. Our offshore. It is Hear, hear! 63J9

June 11, 1981 MR. STIRLING: poniness on t~e other side. SOME .H'ON. MEMBERS: MR. FLIGHT: SOME RON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (Simntst: ~. ST!RLING: Tape No. 2370 NM - 2 Let there be no doubt from the Oh, oh: po not be so silly. Oh, oh! Order! Order ~ Now let me, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about another young man - SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. LUSH: MR .. SPEAKER: MR. STIRLING: Grow up. Order, please! - Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about another young man ~ho is working on the - SOME RON. MEMBERS: MR, SPEAKER: MR. STIRLING: MR . LOSH: MR . SPEAKER: MR . STIRLING: intrusion . MR . SPEAXER: SOME HON • MEMBERS : MR .

SPE.Z\KER: MR. STIRLING: Oh, oh: Order, please: Order, please! - offshore off Aberdeen. What a bunch of era~. Order, please! Mr. Speaker, I never asked for your Qrqer ., please! Order, please! Oh, oh! Order, please~ The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr . Speaker, I do not mind the cat."':alls from the other side. It shows the bunch of children that they are. MR . WARREN: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: And, Mr . Speaker, I do not need any protection from the Chair because our cause is right, Mr . Speaker . They cannot drown out our cause. Because, Mr.

Speaker, another young man who just came back off the offshore 61r0 0

June 11, 19 _81 Tape No. 2370 MR. STIRLING: off Aberdeen, twenty-two Newfoundlanders working on that oil rig offshore out of 100, and he .said, "We can compete. We can get the jobs. But in Newfoundland we do not have a training school,"· Mr. Speaker, the governrnen t makes all kinds of noises NM - 3 but they do not have a training school for Newfoundlanders in the offshore. They are paying lip service, Mr. Speakerput it is a phoney bunch of arguments. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. LUSH:: Get up on a point of order, boy. Get up on a point of order. MR. STIRLING : the garbage included Now, Mr.

Speaker, let us deal with and the abuse of the rules of this House by the Premier. He has come up with some phoney figures which he has not had the nerve to table, just like the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Barry) has not had the nerve to table anything to talk about the Lower Churchill and the transmission of electricty. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is a con job of the worst order perpetrated by this government. They say something which everybody can understand, "We want the right to transfer across Quebec." MR. BARRY: a question? SOME KON. MEMBER: MR. WARREN : Would the hon. member permit No. Sit down, boy!

Sit down ! 6 It 0 'I

June 11, 1981 Tape 2371 EC - l MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, they talk in terms of the political type of thing about Quebec, the same kind of anti-Canada rhetoric, exactly the same statement made by Rene Levesque, almost word for word the Rene I Levesque comment, the MR. WARREN: ' SoME HoN. MEMBERS : MR. STIRLING: same statement before the referendum. A separatist, a separatist! Hear, hear! The source of information carne from the Referendum Debate, exactly the same kind of anti- Canada. He does not have the guts to admit that he is a reparatist, Mr.

Speaker, does not have the guts to admit it and he comes out with this kind of garbage 1 anti-canadian garbage. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I challenge - MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word 'guts'. I think I have ruled many times. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. STIRLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader withdraws? MR. STIRLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw the word 'guts'. As a matter of fact, the Premier - let me change it the other way around. The Premier is full of guts.

It is about the only thing he is full of, Mr. Speaker, no brain,but guts, he has lots of guts. Anybody who wants to fight with him, he will stand up and fight. And that was great for three weeks, Mr. Speaker. For three weeks that was great. But what about performance, Mr. Speaker? The reason that we get this kind of . snow job today, Mr. Speaker, is the word is coming out all around the Province - like the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgan) who went to the Cabinet and said, 'If you do not bring in some legislation to protect people in this Province, I am resigning from the Cabinet.' That is the word that they are getting. That is the 6 ~~ G 2

June 11, 1981 Tape 2371 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: message that they are getting. They are getting the message from the West Coast, Mr. Speaker, from Central Newfoundland where they are allowing a museum to close down in Grand Falls. This is why we are getting the rhetoric. They want to close off . the inforrnati·on from the people of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of the fact that we are Canadians and these so-called facts, Mr. Speaker, have come from Rene Levesque, that is where they carne from. I challenge the Premier to show this study.

I challenge him to bring it in in a form in which it can be debated, because, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House will not allow us to debate a Ministerial Statement. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, he was asked to go on a television debate with me on Canadian unity and he refused. He was asked by C.B.C. to go on a television debate and he refused. The man hides away behind Ministerial Statements and the rules of this House. He does not have the intestinal fortitude to go on television. He will not allow the radio stations or the television stations to record in this House.

He will not show up the ministers who change their stories, Mr. Speaker, from the time questions are asked in this House until they are then into a controlled atmosphere in front of a television carneFa and they changed their statements. MR. MARSHALL : SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Oh, oh! A point of order has been raised by the han. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I rise on a point of order in deference to the han. the Leader of the Opposition's blood pressure as much as anything else. But the han. 64J3

June 11,1981 Tape No. 2372 AH-l MR. MARSHALL: Leader of the Opposition is getting off into ~reas far extraneous, Mr. Speaker, to the it~s of the Ministerial Statement which pertain to federal-provincial relationships really. MR. ROBERT ·s : Mr. Speaker. ' MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle to the point of order, MR. ROBERTS: I would simply say that the point of order is as spurious as the Premier's statement. The Premier's sta~t touched upon a wide variety and all my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition 1is doing , is simply responding to it in kind.

Now, Your Honour, has ruled-and we do not question that the Premier's statement is in order in the House, an half an hour, a thirty-five minute statement. surely ~y hon. friend is doing exactly what he is suppose to do in responding to it briefly - heatedly, yes, because we think the Premier's statement is a very offensive one,as my friend the Leader of the Opposition is saying very ably. MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the point of order, relevancy is difficult to define and in all questions of relevancy when they are raised the benefit of the doubt is given to the hon. member speaking.

If I might-and I hate to take the time of the hon. Leader of the Opposition- but we have a number of senior citizens from St. Luke's Home in the district of Waterford-Kenmount who have been with us in the gallery but now have to leave,unfortunately. We would like to welcome them anyway, SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, it is just for such senior citizens-and I wish that they had been able to stayr it is just for such citizens that we are fighting for a 61+ u 4

June 11,19 81 · Tape No. 2372 AH-2 MR. STIRLING: united and a continued Canada, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: It is just for such senior citizens who are receiving the benefits, who are given a chance to live in dignity in this Province, in this great country of Canada; And, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons they may have to leave is it is very difficult for them to sit and listen to an anti-Canadian 1 separatist statement. Mr. Speaker, you cannot rule the truth out of order and as many times as the member for St.

John's East would like to get up,he will not change the truth,and the truth is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are no longer going to take this kind of high publicity,media zeroed in in one and a half minute statements giving absolute garbage, absolute con-artistry at its worst. Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are beginning to see that this Province is being led by a government that does not know how to manage. Every group of employees in this Province has called for th7 resignation of the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr.

Dinn) who interfered with the judicial process,and this government will not accept the facts of life as they are . The minister gets up and says - the Premier says that he has the greatest ~ster of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) he has ever had, the greatest · Minister of Fisheries he has ever had who publicly contravened the Public Tendering Act, found guilty by his own colleagues, four on that side. Unemployment, Mr.

Speaker, running rampant, young people in this Province being cut back so that only the elite can go to university, the people in this Province who have to live on dirt roads, these people do not even have a 61t G 5

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2373 SD - 1 MR. STIRLING: government that can manage far enough in advance to get calcium chloride ready for this season. They are beginning to find out all over this Province! The Minister of Health (Mr. House) who stands up in this House and says, 'There is no nursing shortage', 'and then gets dumped on by everybody of aut~ority across the Province,and then said, 'Tney do not have to report to us'. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the whole condition contained in that garbage statement, which has been ruled in orde~ which deals with our involvement in Canada. _And, Mr.

Speaker, if we did not get the kinds of contributions referred to in this statement there would be no Department of Health, there would be no roads programme, there would be no education programme, Mr. Speaker. But the Premier has accomplished what he set out to do~ This piece of prepared statement fed to the media 1 he will now get on and give a statement giving the kind of information that is not true and is not complete and I challenge him to document any of those assumptions other than the same documentation that was done by Rene Levesque in the separatist ·fight in Quebec MR. WARREN: Hear, hear. MR.

STIRLING: Now why does he not admit it? His government is separatist, his government does not want to exist in Canada - MR. WARREN: That is right. Right on. MR. STRILING: - they are ashamed of the fact that they have to take money from Canada and that is why we get this feeble attempt, Mr. Speaker, to justify their anti-Canadian attitude. MR. WARREN: Hear, hear. MR. STIRLI.NG: Well, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are never going to have any part of it. We 64Li6

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2373 so - 2 MR. STIRI.ING: are proud to be Canadians, we will take the. battle all over this Province, and when the Premier can work himself up to a frenzy to do the kind of thing he did in the mi.d.d,le of the last election when he said to the J?Oeple i:n.

Bellevue 1 I There will not be an election for a year and a half or two years and if you want anything done you will have to get it done from me 1 , And now he goes out West where he does not think he is being reported and says, 1Well, I can call an election any·tirne I • If you want an excuse to call an election 1 call it on y·our Mi,ni.sterial Statement. SO~ HON, MEMBERS: Heax;1 hear, MR.. STIRLING: I challenge you to call an election on that statement 1 Mr. Speaker. SOME HON, MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER. (Si~s.l : Order, please!

I would like to welcome t.o the gallery today a delegation representing the Royal Canadian Leqion, Mr. and Mrs., George Osmond and Mr. and Mrs. Art Tavenor, Wi1.0 recently attended a convention from Port aux :Sasques. SOME HON. MEMBER,S : MR. SPEAKER: MR.. BA,RRY: Hear, hear. Any further statements.; The han. Minister of Mines. and En~gy. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thomsl if nobody else will. Mr.

Speaker, I wish to advise mernb~s of the House that individuals and groups interested in demonstrating alternative energy technologies andinnovative energy conserving measures.,can now receive technical and fina.ncial assistance under a small scale energy demonstration progra~e. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh, MR, BAF,RY: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources of me federal goyernrnent and our own Depart.'llent 61~ D 7

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2373 SD - 3 MR. BARRY: of Mines and Energy are funding the programme under the Canada/Newfoundland energy conservation and renewable energy demonstration programme. 51, LiB

June 11, 1981 Tape No 2374 EL - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: And however much the lapdogs opposite of the Federal Government do not want to recognize that this .government is ' doinc;r ·""-'' excellent job in many areas, includin~ energy development. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : MR. BARRY: M.r. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh! Order, please! Those are the realities of life, Hear, hear! Order, please! While I cannot find an exact re­ ference, I suggest that the term'lapdogs' is probably unparlia- mentary.

I would askthe boo. the Minister to withdraw it in any event so that there is no confusion. I would ask the han. minister to withdraw. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that in favour of sycophants, sycophants opposite, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I do not even know if sycophants is acceptable. I will review Hansard on it. MR. BARRY: And I will be glad to spell it for bon. members opposite if they have difficulty in checking that in Beauchesne. Mr. Speaker, the total amount of funding available will depend upon the number of applications received. That is what I like to see, an open-ended programme.

The federal and Provincial departments are offering the pro­ gramme for one year to promote demonstrations of a variety of small-scale,renewable and conservation technologies. Financial contributions of up to $10,000 are available under the programme to cover up to 75 per cent of a project's eligible cost. Some technical help to prepare proposals will also be available on request from the provincial Department of Mines and Energy. 64G9

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2374 EL - 2 MR. BARRY: The programme will respond to the need of small investors for government assistance in carry­ ing out such projects in Newfoundland and Labardor. I am con­ fident that once our public has the opportunity to see these energy-saving technologies at work, many people will then want to adopt them for their own use. ·Proposals·can come from in­ dividuals, local non-profit organizations and institutions, small business and municipal governments.

Technologies which may be demonstrated under the programme include windmills, solar greenhouses, small scale hydro power, solar domestic hot water systems, waste heat recovery, energy management systems for buildings and car or van pooling. The proposals will be selected on the basis of their suitability to Newfound­ land's resource base as well as other criteria and will be given formal approval by a management committee composed of federal and provincial representatives.

We believe that energy saving measures and the efficient use of our wood, wind, solar and water resources are an integral part of this Province's energy future. The Department of Mines and Energy is managing the programme and will be monitoring each project to give the public information on the technical and economic aspects of building and maintaining a variety of systems. The deadline for submitting proposals is September 7, 1981 and a booklet on the programme 1 complete with an application form,is available from the Department of Mines and Energy. I must apologize.

I do not have the booklet but I will see that the hon. members get a copy of that booklet. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. FLIGHT: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. 6 1-r 1 0

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2375 DW - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Windsor - Buchans has about two and a half minutes. MR. G. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For this side, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this federal programme, this innovative federal programme · funded by the federal government, envisioned by the federal government. We welcome it, Mr.· Speaker, and I might say that we are going to need a lot of these pro- grammes as long as this provincial government, this govern- ment forces - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. G.

FLIGHT: - forces the kind of electrical increases - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. G. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as long as this govern- ment continues to force on Newfoundlanders the kind of increases, the unconscionable, disgraceful kind of electrical increases we have seen this past few years 1 we had better hope that these pro- grammes are successful or some of our people in this Province on fixed incomes, the lower income scale,will freeze to death if they cannot find a substitute for electricity,. J:or elec- tricity is being forced up by the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr.

Barry) - SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. G. FEIGHT: Oh, oh! Order, please! Order, please! So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to need a lot of these programmes and we had - SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. R. MOORES: MR. T. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh! Peter Lougheed increases crude oil prices in Canada, and home heating oil. Yes, Peter Lougheed. Order, please! Order, please! 6 411

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2375 DW - 2 ~· SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. G. FLIGHT: We only pray, Mr. Speaker, that this and other programmes like this,envisioned by the federal government out of a desire to help people survive in this country 1 recognizing the pr~vincia~ government's intentiqn to force electrical rates,_throuqh the sky,to force electrical rates to a point where the average Newfoundlander cannot afford to heat his home anymore. These programmes had better succeed. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in as far as the programme being available to Newfoundland,these type of programmes have .a way of finding themselves being utilized in St. John's. I have no argument with that, but I remember the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. :Barrv) at the committee when this programme was discussed at the Resource Estimates Committee indicating that he was going to find a way to make that programme available to rural Newfoundland.

And he suggested at the end of his programme,•a booklet on the pro­ gramme complete with application form is available from the Department of Mines and Energy.' I would hope that the Depart­ ment of Mines and Energy would go further than that and put them in the post office, put them in the liquor stores, the way they are doing with the propaganda on offshore oil - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. G. FLIGHT: and the propaganda on the consti- tution.

Newfoundlanders would rather be able to pick up a book­ let that would show them this kind of a programme than they would to have to listen to the propaganda that is being pumped out into every household and every public outlet in this Pro­ vince. So let us distribute those books that way! SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! 6 41 2

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2375 DW - · 3 . ' MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Ord.er, please! The hon . member ' s time has expired. Any further statements? ORAL .QOESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. L. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Housel. The Minister of Health, I believe,is now aware that he has a nursing shortage in the Provinee . Some time ago the minfster reported to this Elouse that he had sent letters to all of the hospital boards asking them to cut back.

Would the minister indicate what kind of response he has had from the hospital boards in connection with his request to cut back? MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Health . 6413

June 11, 19 _81 Tape No. 2376 NM - 1 MR. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I have had information back from all hospital boards and they have given me t~e in­ formation I requested and I am currently in the process of responding to that information. MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER (S imrns 1 : of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hon.

Leader I wonder if the Minister of Health would now li~e to correct the information that he gave to this House,at the time that question was asked, in which he said there would be no cutback in existing services as a result of his cutback of four per cent that he requested? Would the Minister of Health now like to correct that information 1 that in fact he has been told by hospital boards that if they are forced to cut back to the budget approved by the Minister of Health that they in fact will have to cut back on services? Would he now like to correct that information? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health.

MR. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, when I sent the letter to the hospital boards and the administrators, I asked them to - I pointed out what the budget was and asked them how they were going, if they could - and the letter is available 1 I guess -if they could come back to me and tell me how they are going to be able to continue the services and what measures they will take to live within the budget. I am responding to that now.

I have their information back and I am responding to it and I do not have to retract any statement that I made because I said at that time we are not anticipating any closures apart from the kind, and this is not related to the budget, the closures that we got today are not related to budget, it is related to nursing shortages and - MR. STIRLING: Well, you admit there is a nursing shortage? You now admit there is a nursing shortage. 61+ 1 4

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2376 NM - 2 MR. HOUSE: - we still stick to that. We still stick to that. Mr. Speaker, I never said that there was no shortage at tfie current time. I said yesterday and the day before that there is a shortage and this short­ age was expected. MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER: of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hen.

Leader Would the Minister of Health table the information, not only the letter he sent out but the responses from the hospital boards that indicated that, unlike the information that the minister gaye this House, that the minister has been told that services will have to be cut back? The ministe-r has Eleen told that the services will be cut back.

Is it possible that one of the ways that the boards are going to save money - is it possible that one of the ways the boards are going to save money is by working with this nursing shortage in closing beds and cutting back on the number of units open, that that is the only way that they can live with the budget that the minister has given them? In other words, they cannot operate year round~ they can only operate at full capacity, for full service 1for seven to eight months of the year. 6 4 1 5

June 11, 1981 Tape 2377 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Minister of Health. MR. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, there is in every budget a vacancy factor and this is the normal expectation of the ·summer employment in the hospitals. The fact of the matter is if during the Summer you could fully keep everything open, keep fully staffed, I would suggest there would be an over-supply of nurses generally. Normally the situation is every year as it pertains this year. The fact is some crucial shortages in the ICU units - that has been demonstrated, I said that yesterday -but not to any dangerous level. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, the information that I received back from hospital boards I am not tabling because we are still in the process of dealing with it and I am still in the process of dealing with the hospital boards on the matter. And I will say now, and say categorically, that anything that has eventuated in the closure of some beds in the last few days has nothing to do with the budgetary process. It has to do with the shortage of nurses that was expected this year and that some shortage is more than was anticipated. But generally speaking, it is pretty well what was anticipated. MR. STIRLING: MR. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER: MR.

LUSH: You now admit it! Mr. Speaker. The hon. the member for Terra Nova. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. Goudie). I wonder if the minister is aware of the financial plight in which the hog and swine producing industry of this Province finds itself? Mr. Speaker, if action is not taken very quickly, it is my understanding that several producers will plunge into 6 lf 1 6 .

June 11, 1981 Tape 2377 EC - 2 MR. LUSH: bankruptcy. So I want to know if the minister is aware of this situation and .if so, what action he is going to t.ak.e to solve this problem and to keep this a viable industry. MR . SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon . the Minister of Rur~l, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am completely aware of a number of difficulties which have been encountered by the bog industry, not only in this Province but all across Canada and,to a certain extent, parts of the United States of America . It ba s to do with a glut situation which developed approximately a year ago and still exists 6 i, 1 7

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2378 so - 1 MR. GOUDIE: at a certain level although not as high a level as it did a year ago. The turnaround which had been projected by federal specialists 1 and provincial specialists . in our case here 1 did not occur as quickly as they had projected it would. They are projecting now that the gl~t situation will relieve itself a ·little later in the overall projections than had originally been projected to occur.

Also in relation to that, there is another difficulty in the Province itself having to do with the hog industry,and that relates to the time period involved in issuing payments by Newfoundland Farm Products to hog producers in the Province. That particular situation was addressed in the budget which we are presently in the process of having approved through the House,and within a matter of a few days, a week and a half at the most, that particular problem will be rectified as it relates to finances. MR. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, the hon. member Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated to the House that he is aware that the hog and swine producing industry in the Province is in severe financial trouble but he has not indicated too much what his department plans to do, Could the minister agai.n indicate to the House whether he has received any correspondence or any requests from the hog and swine pr~ducers industry requesting some kind of government assistance, and again, if so, what he has done about it? MR. MOORES: Nothing, nothing. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR.

GOUDIE: Yes, l-1r. Speaker, we have, since I have become responsible, I, as minister for the agricultural industry in the Province, received , I do not remember the 6 4 1 8

June 11, 198 1 Tape No . 2378 SD - 2 MR. GOUDIE: number 1 but there could have been, I would say, half a dozen requests in the last two and a half years ~hat I have been associated with that portfolio.

We have responded in every c.ase to the requests that hog producers in the Pr.ovince have presented to us for financial assistance and the .crowning response, if I can use that term, to requests by hog producers in the Province for financial assistance 1which will shorten the time period involved in the issuing of money to these producers by Newfoundland Farm Products,is being dealt with, as I mentioned, in the budget and as soon as the budg~t is approved the finances wi.ll be there to resolve that short term dilemma that producers find themselves in at the moment. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms): Tl\e hon. member for LaPoile . MR. NEARY ': Mr. Speaker 1 r have a question for the Minister of Justice (Mr . Ottenheimer) in connection with a statement made a couple of days ago by the Minister responsible for the Environment (Mr . Andrews) and I do not kno~r in what capacity he made the statement, but he made a statement encouraging people of this · Province - and we realize, of cou .rse 1 that the government nas gone to the dogs - encouraging the people of Newfoundland to use twelve gauge shotguns to shoot roaming dogs. 6419

June 11, 1981, Tape 2379, Page 1 --· apb MR. NEARY: Will the hon. gentleman indicate to the House whether or not that is legal or whether it is the policy of the government to encourage residents of this Province to arm themselves with sawed-off shotguns, or twelve gauge shotguns to shoot ·roaming dogs? Is this a policy of this government? MR. OTTENHE IMER: Mr. Speaker, no , I am not ~ware that it is a policy. MR. NEARY: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (.Silmns). : hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: A supplementary.

The Then surely the hon. gentleman must be . aware that his · colleague made a statement to that regard a couple of days ago. MR. STIRLING: Read it. MR. NEARY: Yes, I will read it. 'Only twelve gauge shotguns permitted within municipal boundaries ~ Andrews. r )iF.. STIRLING: MR. FLIGHT: PC paper. MR. NEARY: ~ich paper is that from? The Evening Telegram, a And it is quoting the minister: 'People who might have occasion to shoot raoming wild dogs that could pose a tfireat to their livestock, should make sure tfie only type of firearm used within municipal ooundaries is a twelve gauge shot­ gun{.

Now, would the Minister of Justice(Mr. Ottenheimer) care to tell the House whether or not this is legal, for people to go out indiscriminately with twelve gauge shotgunS: everyt:llre they see a dog, and take a shot at a dog and have some drunk in this Province go out with a twelve gauge shotgun and probably inadvertently kill some innocent child that may wander into the path'? 6420

..... June 11, 19.8.1, Tape 2379., Page 2 - apb MR. HANCOCK: ffow do you know a roaming dog, by a s~gn on him, or what? MR. NEARY: Well, that is right. Would the non. gentleman I mean, this is a pretty serious matter. I am sure the hon. gentleman would care to set the· record straight as to whether or not this is the policy of this government, to encourage people of the Province to get twelve gauge shotguns, especially if ttiey l~ve within municipal boundaries,for shooting dogs. MR. SPEti.KER (STrmus L : Tlie llon. the Minister of Jus:tice. MR. OTTEBNEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, it would be my opinion that the indis.crfminate use of twelve gauge shotguns would not be. a wise idea and obviously there would be other means of containing dogs or other animals wb£ch wander around. MR. NEARY: .MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The hen. the member for LaPo.ile on a final supplementary. MR.NEARY Mr. Speaker, surely this government can come up wit!i. a :more hmnane way to deal with the. dog problem than encouraging every person .in Newfoundland who owns l~ves:tock. to go out and buy a twelve gauge shotgun to shoot the dogs. Would the hon. Mi.ni.ster of Justice(Mr.

Ottenlieimeri - and I oeli:eve the S.P.C.A.,if they need assistance, tfiey go to the hon. gentleman would the, hon. gentleman care to tell the House if, in hi.s· opinion, there: is a more fumtane way to deal with this problem than the government encouraging people who ovm - .. 6'+ 21

June 11,1981 Tape No. 2380 AH-1 MR. NEARY: livestock,animals and so forth,to go out and buy twelve gauge shotguns to shoot roaming dogs? SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please: I am not sure if it really comes under the purview of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) to tell the hon. member whether there is a more humane process for shooting dogs. It is a bit unusual. If the minister wishes to answer it, perhaps, but it is a little bit unusual. The hon. Minister of Justice. MR.

OTTENHEI.MER: Mr.Speaker, I would say that certainly i~my experience the vast majority of people who do have problems with roaming animals usually either . get in touch with the municipality or with the law enforcement authorities. MR. SPEAKER: Mountains. MR. WARREN: The hon. member for Torngat Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor). MR. STIRLING: Get the Minister of Development back to his seat. MR. WARREN : Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Development and the question is, is .Anaconda Aluminum interested in establishing an aluminxm smelting plant in this Province? SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. WINDSOR: Yes or no. The hon. Minister of Development. Mr. Speaker, there are at least half a dozen companies who are interested , Anaconda, yes, is· one of them. 6422

June 11,1981 MR. FLIGHT: MR. SPEAKER (Simms): for Torngat Mountains. Tape No. 2380 AH-2 Name the other five. Supplementary. The hon. member MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if they are interested, have they specif.ically advised His Honour or the minister in which areas they are interested in locating? MR. SPEAKER: MR. WINDSOR: The hon. Minister of Development. There is more than one area we are looking at, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of areas in the Province,bo.th on the Island and in Labrador,that we are looking at as possible sites for the establishement of an aluminium smelting plant. MR.

SPEAKER: A final supplementary. The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, l understand this company can use between 300 and 600 megawatts of power and the minister in the committee stages has said that some of that 600: megawatts of power would come from the Muskrat Falls. Taking this into consideration, would the minister encourage this company or some other company to establish in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area so that Muskrat Falls could come on stream as fast as possible? MR. SPEAKER: MR. WINDSOR: The hon. Minister of Development. Mr.

Speaker, that is a major decision that government would have to make but I ,.,ould suggest that we would be hesitant at least'to dedicate the total capacity of one of the Province's greatest resources to one industrial development. ·MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. Barbe. MR.BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prerrier. The local preference pclicy was brought in by the Premier a couple of years ago for offshore employment opportunity for jobs . At this 6423

June 11,1981 Tape No. 2380 AH -3 MR. BENNETT: time we have another job opportunity, namely, :at Arm and I am wondering now if the Premier and his government would consider giving local preference for job opportunities on the Northern Peninsula to blend in with the similar situation that is being created for the Avalon Peninsula for offshore jobs? 6424

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2381 EL - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I have great difficulty answering that question because it comes from the hon. the Liberal member for St. Barbe (T. Bennett) who just sat in his seat quietly and listened to his leader attack the local preference policy of this government. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. BENNETT: MR. SPEAKER: MR. BENNETT: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for St. Barbe. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that I am for or against the Premier's local - SOME HON. MEMBERS: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. BENNETT: Oh, oh! Hear, hear!

I am not suggesting that I am for or against the Premier on local preference - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. BENNETT: - but I am interested, Mr. Speaker, in people acquiring jobs. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that offshore oil now contributes possibly 600 or 700 jobs, primarily to the Avalon Peninsula. I also understand from information from the hon. the Minister of Manpower and Labour (J. Dinn), Mr. Speaker, that we have a waiting list of about 8,000 people who want jobs in the offshore. And I am wondering, Mr.

Speaker, now if the hon. the Premier of the Province will tell us if these people who are on this list in St. John's with your government and your office, will they get preference and go out and take the jobs at Cat Arm away from the people who live in that area of the Northern Peninsula? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. 642.5

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2381 EL - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have great diff­ iculty in answering the bon. member. We do not know where he personally stands. We know where his party stands 1so I guess the bon. member is soon going to have to take a chair a.ll by himself in one of the other parts of the Assembly because ·how can the hon. member .keep his seat right there and ask about local preference for the Cat Arm development when his o~ party and his own leader are attacking every day what we are doing?

We have now over 650 people today working offshore, two come By Chances in operation offshore right now 1 with the great probab­ ility that it will go to 1,000 jobs by August when PetroCanada starts off Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! FREMIER PECKFORD: Our policy on local preference for the offshore, our policy on local preference for projects within the Island is well-known 1and in Labrador is well-known, It has been established on Hinds Lake 1 it has been established on the Upper Salmon 1and it will be established on other major projects. I am sorry that the member from St.

Barbe (T.Bennett) has not listened carefully enough to know what the local pre­ ference policy of this government is on all projects where we try to do oui: best to ensure that that unemployment ra.te coltles down­ quickly. Come on over, boy! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BENNETT: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : member for St. Barbe. MR. BENNETT: A final supplementary, Mr.Speaker. A final supplementary, the hon. Mr. Speaker, it should be recog- nized that under the present method of local preference hiring, discrimination is very evident against the rest of the Province.

You have to live on the Avalon Peninsula to be able to go rap on the door of Manpower and Labour in order to qualify 1 and if you bug long enough for a job, you might very well get a job, but we have 8,000 people rapping on that door. 61t 2 6

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2381 EL - 3 MR. BENNETT: And if the Premier wants to be fair about it,will he set up offices in other parts of the Prov­ ince? It is his brainchild, it is his policy; he believes in it , he believes in local preference Will he be fair to the rest of Newfoundland, indeed Newfoundland and Lab­ rador,and . set up offices, Mr. Speaker, so the people can 6427

June 11, 1981 Tape 2382 EC - 1 MR. BENNETT: themselves go and apply to these offices and get employment rather than to have to drive all the way across here to St. John's and rap on the door looking for jobs? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD:· Mr. Speaker, in response to that question, I invite the han. member seriously - next week, if he would agree, I would invite him to go visit the Zepata Ugland platform. Okay?

And ~£ the han. member will take me up on that I will ensure that transportation is arranged for him to go to the platform, because he will find out if he goes and interviews the Newfoundlanders who are on that platform that it is not St. John's or the Avalon Peninsula dominating. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. PECKFORD: I had a great chat with a young man from Campbellton, I had a great chat with a man from the West Coast, the Bay of Islands area,and from Embree. They are from all over this Province.

So to say - and the hon. member is not being fair, because unless he has visited these platforms and interviewed these people - the residency requirements are for the Province and there are a lot of Newfoundlanders all over this Province getting a lot of employment from this policy which the hon. member disagrees with. SOME HON'. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER PECKFORD: All parts of the Province are getting a lot of benefit from this policy which his party- and I can only take him, because if he stays there he must go along with it, otherwise he has to get out, as I understand it, under the British parliamentary system. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! PRE!-UER PECKFORD: So I would say to the hon. member, the preface to his question, number one, is wrong, is erroneous, and 6428

June ll, 1981 Tape 2382 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: I would invite him to visit the rigs and see for himself 1 secondly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: I have great difficulty answering it when it is inconsistent with the policy over there just articulated again by the number two Leader of the Liberal Party, the man who sits right opposite me there. So, Mr.

Speaker, when and if the hon. member wants to support this government and its very, very progressive policy to help the people of this Province, we will be only too happy to accommodate all questions and inquiries that the hon. member has. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Bellevue_ MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Within the municipal boundary of Norman's Cove - Long Cove there 'exists a barite mine purported to be, I think, one of the richest barite deposits possibly in the Province. Now, for more than a year, J.

Tyler Mining carried on an operation within the municipality of Norman's Cove - Long Cove in that barite mine. I want to ask the minister how much in the way of royalty did J. Tyler Mining pay to the provincial government for the operation of this mine? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member says it is purported to be the richest. Well, it must be purported to be the richest barite deposit by hon. members opposite, because it is not so purported 61+ z 9

June 11, 1981 Tape'2382 EC - 3 MR. SARRY: by this government or by the Department of Mines . Secondly, Mr . Speaker, the royalties that were · obtained from the operation of tllis barite mine, I suspect were very small, if any, because the mine is located on a so-called fee simple grant which,through the policy of early 6430

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2383 NM - 1 MR. BARRY: administrations, including an administration to which the hon. member and all his party paid allegiance· 7 administrations in the past made the mistake of alienating these resources forever without proper provision for obtaining proper royalties. So, Mr.

Speaker, if I remember correctly I believe- we do have an entitlement to a certain amount under the Mineral Lands Taxation system,which this administration brought in, but' in terms of royalties under the Minerals Act itself they do not apply because the land had, in a short­ sighted fashion, been given away freehold forever many years ago. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER (SirnrnS l : for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hon. member Mr. Speaker, I think it is common knowledge now, perhaps the minister can either let us know whether this is true or not, but it seems as though J.

Tyler and Company have departed. MR. NEARY: They skipped out. MR. CALLAN: Can the minister inform us whether there will be any further development of this mine, say 1 during this Summer or this season and who will be doing the developing? MR. NEARY: MR. FLIGHT: MR. BARRY: Or anything for the creditors. (Inaudible) . Mr. Speaker, the member should deal with, or I guess if he is a friend of Mr. Flight's, he should deal with the shareholder of this corporation directly, Mr. Speaker. Government is not running the mine. It is a private business operation. It is under a freehold - MR.

CALLAN: Are youthe Minister of Mines? 6431

June 11, 1981 MR. BARRY: grant. MR. NEARY: Newfoundland Government? MR. BARRY: Tape No. 2383 NM - 2 - it is under a freehold How much did he get from the Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we believe ·in a free enterprise economy whatever members opposite might believe in. We believe in a private sector having an input into the economy of this Province, Mr. Speaker. MP... CALLAN: Fly-l;ly-night. MR. BARRY: And if members opposite might recall, during the course of my estimates, when this matter was raised, I attempted to put people on notice that there were mining operations or attempted operations in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, that were run on a wing and a prayer and, Mr. Speaker, if there are people going into deals with mining developers they should go in with their eyes open and make sure that they protect themselves. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER: member for Bellevua. MR. CALLAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hon. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook) a supplementary. I am quoting here from a letter that was addressed on April 21st., to the ministe~'s office. "Within our boundaries," this is from the council,of course,of Norman's Cove, it says, "J.

Tyler Mining are mining barite. We know that 10,000 tons of barite has been shipped out of the municipality so far and we figure that", they figure that J. Tyler Mining owes about $20,000 in business tax, Would the minister confirm or deny that that is owed by J. Tyler Mining as a result of their exploration and their development there? And if it is not true,then is there any protection for 6432

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2383 NM - 3 MR. CALLAN: the town council there in the event that some other developer moves in say this Summer? MR. SPEAKER CSimmsi: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. 61t3 3

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2384 DW - 1 MRS . NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I recall that letter. What time did you say it carne into my office? MR. W. CALLAN: April 21st. MRS . NEWHOOK: Oh, I see. And that was from the town council, was it? MR. W. CALLAN: Following the minister's visit there during the by-election campaign . MR. L. STIRLING: Did you make any promises? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,oh! MRS. NEWHOOK: No, I did not make any promises, I would like to tell you. I met with the councils out there and I listened to their concerns. It was not a political .visit.

But I think I do recall that the council did mention that there were some taxes owed by J. Tyler ~oore - J . Tyler and Compan y ,is it ? MR. CALLAN: Yes. MRS. NEWHOOK: Yes. But there is not anything my department can do about, you know, the collection of those taxes. It is something that the council would have to pur­ sue and I do not know of any way that we can help them really. MR. G. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : tains. MR. W. CALLAN: MR. G. WARREN: MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Torngat Moun- A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will yeild, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Torngat Mountains yields to the hon. member for Bellevue for a supplementary. 6434

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2384 DW - 2 MR. W. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a supplementary question in this connection. Apparently it seems that both ministers, the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Barry) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook), are saying that a company moved into the municipality, they moved out, the Province got nothing and neither did the municipality get anything in the way of property taxes or business tax or anything.

Let me ask the Prernier,then,if there is no legislation in place to protect, say, the municipality of Norman's Cove and the residents there or to protect the government,would the Premier consider introducing some sort of legislation which would protect at least the municipality2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The han. the Premier. We have about fifteen seconds remaining. PREMIER PECKFORD: I think there was a problem there that the municipality agreed to allow or turned a blind eye or whatever when the development started in that area. I looked at where the - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, it is true.

I have talked to the council and they took a very unaggressive, I guess,is the best word, approach to the development until suddenly something went wrong, and then the municipality started to become more involved. Now as I understand it 1 the munici- pality that the han. member refers to 1 which is in his own constituency 1does not have property tax. The hen. member mentioned property tax in his question. SOME HON . MEMBERS : Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: Oh, they have property tax in! MR. CALLAN: Yes, they do. 6 1. ·- 5 ,. j'

June 11, 1981 Tape No . 2384 DW - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: Oh, it is in n0w and everybody is paying property tax in Narman' s cove - Long Cove? I am sorry . SOME HON . MEMBERS: Oh, oh ! MR . SPE.ZU<ER ( S.imms) : Order, please ! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer ·th.e question but I cannot . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please ! Order, plea s.e! PREMI ER PECKFORD: 'l!he hon . .member for Torngat M0untains (Mr. Warren) and the han. mernbe~ for Windsor - Buchans (Mr . Flight)are interrupting me . MR . SPEAKER : ·Order, please! Order, pl,ease! PREMIER PECFORD: I am sorry 1 Mr .

Speaker 1 but you are interrupting me to . MR . SPEAKER: I a l so have to advise the hon. Premie r expired. that the time for Oral Questions has now 643 6

June 11, 19 81 Tape No . 23 85 so - 1 !4&. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEA."'<E!'t . (Simms) : A point of order, the hon.·member for LaPoile. MR. Nl::ARY : Mr. Speaker, here it is the 12th of June and about seventy-five or eighty questions on the Order Paper unanswered. Could the hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) tell u~ when we are going to get the answers to these different questions? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You. cannot raise a point of order to a.sk a question 1 that must be done during Question Period. That is not a point of order, the hon. member is well aware of it. MR.

NEARY: misunderstood the rules. SOME H.ON. MEMBERS: MR . SPEAKER: I apologize to the Chair. I Oh, oh! ORDERS OF THE DAY Second reading of a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Landlord And Tenant (Residential Tenancies) Act, 1973,(No. 2}". BillNo. 88. 'rhe last day d7bate was adjourned by the hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts} who h.as about twenty-six minutes remaining. AN H.ON. MEMBER : Rear, hear. MR . ROBERTS: Thank you , Mr • Spe aker .

The fir s t point I wanted to a s k ~;a s how long I had to addre ss ttii s and secondly, having said that , may I say for the be nefit of any who choo s e t o rema in in the House, including the pep talk being held out in the h.all, that I have some serious concern s I wi s h to raise which I am sure the minister will treat · ~lith whatever weight they G437

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2385 SD - 2 MR. ROBERTS: may be worth. I would say to any of his colleagues without naming any of them ,who may feel inclined to play their usual heckle and jeckle game which normally I enjoy 1 that I <vould be grateful if they would do me the honour of observing the rules of the House and let me say what I have to ·say , because I do not have a lot of time, I have only the time that is allowed me by the rules.

And, you know, I enjoy jousting with those who come armed or half armed to the battle of wits, but on this occasion the matter, I think, is sufficiently technical and I would like to see if hon. gentlemen opposite would do me the courtesy of allowing me to get through a speech without heckling. I realize I am :t-1R. CARTER: Talk sense and talk (inaudible) . SOME HON. MEHBERS : MR. HANCOCK: had enough. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, oh! Boy, you do not know when you Well, Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: 'If the cap fits, wear it', and the hon. member for St. John's North (Mr.

Carter) is the only person I know who could not even be the second teacher in a one room school. MR. ROBERTS: Now,I would be grateful if he would allow me - if he does not want to speak on this, that is f±ne but I would be grateful to him-and I am not going to appeal to the Chair to give me the protection of the ru"!es, I think I know a little about the rules and I am quite prepared to take my chances on the rulings the Chair makes. But my hon. friend from St. John's North, vou know, on this one,I do not know if he is a landload or a tenant.

If we were dealing with the Incompetency Act :12 might well and we could bring the former Premier as the chief witness to the competency or otherwise of the gentleman from St. John's North. In fact, we could bring two former Premiers, all of the former 61+3 s

June 11, 1281 Tape No. 238.5 so - 3 I-1R . ROBERTS : Premiers and presumably the present Premier. Anyway . I ~ant to address a couple of points about this act and let me begin, Mr. Speaker, b:t dealing with. th.e. reason, which I accept, given to us by the. Minister of Justice. tM.r. Otte.nh.ei,mer) for tne. s.ome.what unusual process that this act h.as t.a..l(_en. Because, of course., we. have. two orders on the.

Order Paper now of bills, acts to amend the Landlord And Tenant Act, and the first one presumably will die and this one presumably will be given second re.adi .ng and so on through. th.e. process and become law. The first one is be.ing wi:thdrawn in part because of a recent judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada 6438

' " June 11, 1~81, Tape 2386, Pagal -- apo MR. ROBERTS: .:Cn a case called in a matter of a reference to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Constitutional Questions Act of th.e Revised Statutes of Ontario, respecting the Residential Tenancies Act, 197~. But, of course, tlie Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) · is man enough to admit that the earlier bill is being withdrawn oecause my friend from Grand Bank (Mr.

Thoms) pointed out 1 wi. th. unarguable logic, and I believe impeccable courtesy in doing it privately, that the bill as it came oefore the House would have ach.i.eved an effect well o.eyond any which, I submit1the minister had in mind when lie gave instructions to have . it drafted. I think that U; a fair statement. But in any event, whether my statement is correct or not - I believe it to be correct - the fact remains that the Supreme Court of Canada very recently gave a najor decision - I do not know if there is a date on this.

Yes, on May 28, l98l so less than three weeks ago, less than a fortnight ago, in fact, gave a judgement on an Ontario Supreme Court reference, a reference. by the Ontario Cabinet to th.eir Court of Appeal. And thei.r Cou17t of Appeal made a judgement whi.ch. was then take-n to the. Supreme Court of Canada, not unlike the. procass which we followed here in referring certain aspects of the proposed constitution changea to our Court of Appeal and that, of course,has gone on to the Supreme Court and we. are awaiting that judgement.

Now, the minister has said to us, and the head note in the bill before the House says to us, that certain of the clauses in this bill, Ul, (2 )_, {_4), (5) and (.6) , which effectively is everything in the bi,ll except clause (.3) 6440

. June 11, 1981, Tape 2386., Page 2 - apli MR. OTTENHEIMER: And en. MR. ROBERTS: And (7f. Tfie (71 is a transitional clause:. Yes, (3 [ and (.71 . - I thank the mini.s:ter - is to deal wi.th.. the situation whlc.li has come about as a result of the declaration of the law embodi.ed in that Supreme court of Canada judgement. And what the Su~reme Court of Canada sai.d, very briefly, was that certain matters are referred to what are known as

Section 9. 6 Courts. In thls Province that includes the Di.strict court and the Supreme Court and, I think, the Provincial Courts would qualify. We could vest this jurisdi.cti.on in the Provinci.al Courtsi I think, wliether we do or not, the Distri.ct Courts - certainly the federally appointed courts, tlie

Section 96 Courts, the District Court and the Supreme Court, its two divisions here in this Province. And the Supreme Court of Canada has said that certain matters cannot be dealt with by a board, they can only be dealt with by these courts. And L think the minister will agree that i.s the effect of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. And although that ruling did not grow out of a case that came from Newfoundland, Canada, as much as the Premier will not admit it, is still one . nation, has one general legal system, one Supreme Court,and that ruling is law in Newfoundland.

Wliat I would say to the mini.s.ter is that I am not sure that the bill now Iiefore us embodies fully and completely the clianges in the law expounded by the Supreme Court in th .e Resident.ial Tenancies decision. Now, this is not the place, nor do I have the time, to expound on that in detai.l. L will raise it very briefly and leave it with the minister so that he . can consult ~tli his law offi.cers. 6 i+ 4 1

June ~. 1~8~, Tape 238~, Page . 3 -- apo 'MR. ROBERTS: I tfi.i.nk. it is purely a legal question. The an~er to it could nave immense consequences, as I shall point out. But it is purely a legar question. The head note to the bill says we are ta.Jdng away, in th.i.s bill, from the Residential Tenancies Board and putting into tlie hands of a court, a

Section ~6 Court - it happens to be the District Court, it could have been the Supreme Court. If in due course the two are married it will be THE court, the federal cou .rt or the federally appointed court in Newfoundland - not the federal court itself, of course the power to make compliance 6442

June 11, 1981 Tape No.2387 EL - 1 MR. ROBERTS: orders and conviction orders. Now, I will very briefly refer the minister to the decision of Mr. Justice Dickson in the Su­ preme and that,of course,was the only decision rendered because six of his colleagues concurred and there were no dissents. So, this is the unanimo~s decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. It happens to be in the words of Mr. Justice Dickson, Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, formerly a New Brunswick practicion­ er and judge. On page 2, there are set forth the two questions which the Ontario Cabinet referred to their Court of Appeal.

And these two questions are, number one,"is it within the legislative authority of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to empower the ~esidential Tenancy Commission to make an order evicting a tenant as proyided in the Residential Ten­ ancies Act, 1979?". The answer to that ,as found on page 33 of Mr. Justice .Dickson's decision which is the concluding page,is no, it is not within the legislative competence to make the power to issue the eviction order lie with the board as opposed to a court.

Secondly, 'is it within the legis­ lative authority of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as pro­ vided in the Residential Tenancies Act to empower the Residential Tenancy Commission to make order requiring landlords and tenants to comply with obligations imposed under that act? And the ans­ wer to that question by the Supreme Court in Ottawa was exactly as that given by the Court of Appeal in Ontario, no, it was not within the ~· Both levels, I should point out, as the minister will recall, answered each question in the negative.

So, I mean,we have had heaven · knows how many judges, twelve or thirteen judges and if you want to do a head count each of them,I gather,has ruled the same way on this situation. 6441

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2387 EL - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Well, that effectively guts the Ontario Act, I would think. Now, I have not looked at the Ontario Act but I want to ask the minister is this, and I know my friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is most concerned because it addresses a concern which he raised and expressed very forcefully. I have not looked at the Ontario legislation in any detail and it may be that the power to make orders requiring landlords and tenants to comply with obligations imposed under that act de~~ not extend to rent set orders. MR. OTTENHEIMER: MR. ROBERTS: MR. OTTENHEIMER: MR.

ROBERTS: (Inaudible) . It is correct? It does extend. It does not extend. Well, I mean, that raises a question I want to raise with the minister and he may have the answer. Our board has the power to make eviction orders and to make rent set orders and essentially, if one was capsulizing the powers of our board, that is probably not too far off a

summary of what it may do. MR. NEARY: (Inaudible) to stop eviction - MR. ROBERTS: Well, eviction orders by definition would mean stopping evictions. I mean, it can deal with tenancy and the length of the tenancy and the terms of it and it can also deal with rent set orders. Now, I want to know whether the answer 'no' given by the Supreme Court of Canada and by L~ Ontario Court of Appeal to that second question deals with our rent set situation, because if it does then the minister will agree with me, I am sure - I have respect for the minister's legal ability - it effectively deguts, castrates our board. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: MR. ROBERTS: MR. OTTENHEIMER: is suggesting is (Inaudible) . I am sorry. Yes, probably what the hon. member 6114 4

June 11, 1981 Tape 2388 EC - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: that we have been careful so that the board can still set rents, that that rests with them. MR. ROB·ERTS: Yes, this is the point and I appreciate the minister's intervention because it is helpful and I think the minister shares my concern. We have a Tenancies Board that is a very important body indeed. It affects a great number of people. We have been told by the Supreme Court of Canada ~hat a board in Ontario may not make eviction orders, only the courts can make them.

So we are saying, 'Alright, our board will take either way.' We have also been told by the Supreme Court of Canada that the board in Ontario may not make orders requiring landlords and tenants to comply with obligations imposed under that act. Now, I do not know whether rent set is an obligation imposed under that act, I know it is an obligation imposed under our act. Our act clearly s~ys the board may set rents and the board may require landlords and tenants to comply with it.

And what I say to the minister quite simply - and I am sure he has gathered this by now - is that our board effectively could be degutted, castrated in the legal sense, neutered, to use a perhaps more polite word - AN HON. MEMBER: An eunuch. MR. ROBERTS : - made an eunuch in the legal sense, not able to procreate - possibly to enjoy but not to procreate, the definition of eunuchry, I would think. Is that correct, my friend from St. John's South (Dr. Collins)? Would he agree that- DR. COLLI NS: Is it procreate or procreate? MR. ROBERTS: Well, perpetuate. DR. COLLINS: Perpetuate. 6 i+ 4 5

June 11, 1981 Tape 2388 EC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: But would my friend from St. John's South (Dr. Collins) agree that the definition of eunuchry is that one may possibly enjoy but one may not perpetuate? Is that correct? I know he does pediatrics but - DR. COLLINS: I do not know if you enjoy eunuchry, you enjoy possibly the results of it. MR. ROBERTS: Well, I will take the hon. gentleman's word for it, obviously, but however - DR. COLLINS: You brought up the subject, I am only confirming your experience. SOME HON. MEMBERS: DR. COLLINS: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : MR. ROBERTS: Oh, oh!

Mine was a conf·irmatory statement. Oh, oh! Order, please! Your Honour may wonder, Sir, what this has got to do with the Landlord and Tenant Act and I will tell you, Your Honour, that a rent set case, boy, is right in there. The point, though, as the minister will agree, is a very important one. And perhaps the minister when he speaks to close second reading can tell us whether our act is sufficiently different·. If our act is the same as the Ontario act, then our act no longer has an effective power vested in our board to set rents, because the bill does not change that. The bill takes out of

Section 20, which is the board's powers, the

section setting forth the board's powers, several of the powers, but not the power to set rents, and if our act is comparable to the Ontario act it is only a matter of time before somebody goes to the Supreme Court and gets an action put before them in one way or another and strikes down the rent set powers of our act. MR. NEARY: I thought the Legislature was a sovereign court. 6446

June 11, 1981 Tape 2388 EC - 3 MR. ROBERT S: Well, my fri end from LaPoile (Mr . Neary) says he thought the Legislature was a sovereign court - it is, but within the Constitution. And what the Ontario court found was that certain aspects of the legislation were unconstitutional in that the matter could not be placed with a board, it had to be placed with a court . The tenant still has his protection but he must go to a court instead of to a board . Tha t is the effect of the Ontario thing and that is the effect of our bill. So when I can get the minister's attention again - I realize he has other concerns. But I simply want to leave that point 644 7

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2389 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: with him because he will agree. And if the Ontario act is the same as ours then I say to hirn,as a matter of law our board no longer possesses the right to set rents. If the Ontario act has in it a power to set rents,then I would suggest to the minister· that our board no longer bas the power to set rents as a result of the residential tenancies case, which is a reference. and thus not binding,but gives us the view of the Supreme Court and would become binding,I am sure,if an action on an adversary matter were to come before them.

And that being so, if that is so, before this bill goes through Committee we ought to amend it fu~ther to put the rent set powers in the district court so at least they are somewhere. If they cannot be in the bo .ard they should be in the court. But that is one of the point~ - MR. NEARY: It would be chaos tf they (inaudible) . MR. ROBERTS: Well , I agree with my friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary), if the rent set power is effectively out of the hands of the board and not in the courts then we have chaos. So that is why I want to raise the matter here now.

It is perhaps a technical point but a very important technical point. Obviously it is preferable in many ways to have these in the hands of a :E:lOard as opposed to in the hands of the courts. But the Supreme Court has said, and this is the law- when we get the constitution horne we can start changing the constitution and straightening out these things, but for the time be£ng certain matters can only be dealt with by the

Section 96 Courts. And I want to know from the minister whether rent set is one of those because the wording of the Supreme Court of Canada- wording of the questions the Ontario Cabinet put to it dealt with- I read it Your Honour but I will read it again, "To make orders requiring landlords and tenants 6448

June 11, 19 .81 Tape No. 2389. PK ... 2 MR. ROBERTS: to comply with obligations imposed under the act. " And while I ~ye not had an opportuni:ty to look up the Ontario legislation I would suspect that tne rent set feature is an obligation under the Ontario act as it is under ours. Now have I got my point to the minister? MR. QTTENHE:IMER: Yes. MR. ROBERTS: So I will go on to another point I want to make and we can then hear what he has to say.

And,you know,obviously if my concern turns out to be valid, and I admit I have not done all of the research on it, then I would say to the minister that it can be amended in Committee and I am sure we on this side would be quite amenable to that. But the present bill does not achieve that, the present bill leaves the rent set powers with the Board. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Purposely. MR. ROBERTS: Purposely. But correctly? MR. OTTENHEIMER: To the best of our (inaudible) . MR.

ROBERTS: Well I mean the minister could I only give us the assurance and we are not going to hold him personally responsible we will hold him politically responsible. But, you know, when he has the opportunity he will have to explain it a little more because the questions before the Supreme Court dealt, well I read them, they dealt very broadly and not simply with evictions orders. Now I want to turn,if I might - Mr. Speaker, if I go a few minutes beyond I would -well, when I come to the time I will ask for leave, but I will be as brief as I can.

But there is another point, one which I mentioned to the minister outside the House. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : The hon. member has ten minutes left. 6 1f 4 9

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2389 PK- 3 MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? MR. SPEAKER (Baird ·) : You still have ten minutes. MR. ROBERTS: Oh.,well,I can destroy the-government in five minutes and rebuild it in. five more, you know, with. this hon. crowd as th.e government. MR. STIRLING: Never mind rebuilding it. MR. ROBERTS: Rebuilding with this hon. crowd. The Queen's government goes on, It is simply the ministry that is repl~~ed, and what a relief that would be to the people of this Province. MR. WARREN: Wasteful, Wasteful. MR. NEARY: There would be a different administration of the Queen's government. MR.

ROBERTS: Yes, as my friend for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) says it would be a different - DR. COLLINS: There are only a few of us left over here to hear but - MR. ROBERTS: DR. COLLINS: over here to hear MR. ROBERTS: DR. COLLINS: I am sorry? There are only a ·few of us left All the important ones are here. - but any small points that you have to make ,we can easily accommodate them. MR. ROBERTS: Well , I agree with the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) he .can deal with small points, that is what he does deal with. Important points we know how'to deal with them,because we deal with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan).

He has made it clear now that whatever he wants he gets. And,therefore,anything that anybody in Newfoundland wants 1 and it should go forth from this time and Place- MR. WARREN: L~ke the Winter Games in Labrador City. MR. ROBERTS: Let me be the one to formulate it but it is a common thought, Sir, a very widely held and w2dely applauded thought 1 that anything that anybody in this Province 61+50

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2389 PK - 4 MR. ROBERTS: wants, if the Minister of Fisheries 01r. Morgan) wants it he can get it, and ' if they do not get it it is all his fault . He has single-handily wrestled his colleagues to the ground on this property tax issue 1 6 ;+51

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2390 MR. E. ROBERTS: wrestled them to the ground, kicked them, bit, fought, argued and convinced them to bring in certain legis~ lation. We are assured by no less a personage than ow ~ 1 the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.s. Newhook). So that is easy now ~ if we want something in Labrador City the hon. gentleman for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) can do it and if it is not done it is his fault. Now, Sir, let me come back.

I want to talk about some of the words in section (3) of this bill, Your Honour ~ I will just turn it up here ~ and in particular sub~section (8) • Well, I am sorry, there is only section (3) but it adds a 15.1 and I want to speak of sub.~section (8) of 15.1 which gives us the definition of what a group eviction will be. Now,as a number of my colleagues have made quite clea~ and as I whole-heartedly agree,group evictions ought not to be tolerated. They ought not to be tolerated~. I do not know what was done at the Regency Towers Building here in St. John's.

I know what was reported to have been done and if what was done,i~ f~ct 1 was the same as what was reported to be done 1 then this legisla­ tion is fully justified. It was unconscionable and cruel and improper and in every way wrong. It may have been lawful but, of course, that has been taken care of by this bill because what is lawful can be declared unlawful by this House and that is what we are now doing. But it was certainly wrong and cruel and unconscionable and altogether improper. Now,the question comes what is a group eviction?

And this legislation sets up in this sub-section (8) of the new 15.1 of the Act,as it will be embodied by clause (3) of the bill 1 two separate tests; 6 I ;:: ') {f U L

June 11 , 19 81 Tape No. 2390 DW - 2 MR. E. ROBERTS: one is the circumstance where SO per cent' or more of the tenants of a 19-ndlord receive notices to quit their residential premises. And we for our side,, Sir, accept that. In fact, my friend for Carhonear (Mr. Moores) made, I thought, a very sound point,SO per cent is too large. It ought to be less than SO per cent 1 it ought to be 40 per cent, 30 per cent, 20 per cent - I mean, I would not even p~t in - I would leave it to the judges to decide what a group eviction is. A group eviction will be anything out of the normal course of evictions.

You know, if two are put out,that in my view could be a group eviction in certain circumstances. What we are trying to do is to stop a landlord putting p~ople out other than in the normal course by which he ought to put . . - them out. MR. J. CARTER: What about if a landlord sells · an apartment house? MR. E. ROBERTS: My friend for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) asks a very good question: What if a landlord sells? And, you know, that is a good question. MR. J. CARTER: You as a buyer have a right to vacant possession. MR. E.

ROBERTS: I think that a buyer would have the right to have vacant possession and I will deal with that by coming to the second part of the definition. But that is not a group eviction,as I would v~ew it,because the second part of this definition-and they appear in sub­ paragraph A and they re-appear in sub-paragraph B~ 'The landlord refuses to renew their leases at or about the same time'. Now,here I would say to the minister that I think perhaps we are going in the wrong direction. The Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr.

Barry), in one of his impassioned flights of rhetoric a few months ago, said that this government, the present ministry - what did he say? - is a free enterprise 61f 53

.June 11, 1981 Tape No.2391 SD - 1 MR. ROBERTS: private enterprise - a Tory government. And that is their choice. I am surprised to see this kind of policy enunciated by a Tory government. In trying to point out what these words could do, I will say to my friend for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) to answer his question , there is no way to get vacant possession of a building when you sell it unless you change the use of it, ~hange it from being a rented residential premise to being, I do not know, a store, a shop, an office building. MR.

CARTER: As the member knows this is a loophole where a person could sell an apartment building - MR. ROBERTS: He can sell it to himself too. MR. CARTER: and than back again. MR. ROBERTS: to himself, to his brother Oh sure. But he can do that for an office building too. I mean, you cannot draw a law, Mr. Speaker, that somebody cannot find a way around. The best evidence of that is the Income Tax Act which started originally as a statute of - I do not know - 50 of 100 sections and is now up to several hundred sections each, some. of which run on for ten or fifteen pages.

The Income Tax Act in Canada is now about 1,000 pages thick of small print and every year there is an amemdment to it, and the purpose of the a~endment is to plug another .~oophole that some clever solicitor or clever accountant or clever businessm:m somewhere has found. You cannot draw

an act. You think this is bad, Mr. Speaker, you watch what is going to happen to th.e Matrimonial Property Act, you know, where we are going to see some fancy dancey stuff being done by people who do not want to do what they believe they ought not to have to do. What I am saying is that these words, I suggest, could conceivably interfere with a completely different situation than the one which they are intended to 6454

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2391 so - 2 MR. ROBERTS: deal with and the words I am referring to are, 'The landlord refuses to renew their leases at or about the same time'. They will not prevent a landlord from clearing people out of a building by refusing to renew leases because the words are, 'At or about the same time', and all he has to do is to-arrange the termination times of his leases in .a staggered fashion. Right? MR. MOORES: That is correct. MR. OTTENHEIMER: In conjunction with (b) , of course, ther"! is a modification because the area of judicial discretion. MR.

ROBERTS: Yes, I would leave the whole thing to the judicial di~r.rP~inn.If you asked me what is a group eviction I would not have written any legislative guidelines, I would say let us leave it to case law and if we get some case law we do not like then we will change it by statute. I would do for group eviction what the minister is doing for 20.1 1 because the new 20.1 which is imported by

section 7 of this bill, in effect, 9IDPodies the criteria set down by Mr. Justice Goodridge of the Trial Division. Agreed? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. MR. ROBERTS: I forget the name of the case but there was an action which His Lordship heard, gave judgement and he said, "Here are the kinds of the factors that ought to be taken into account". And what the minister is now doing- and we support it - is 20.1 , writel? into legisla;tive form what is already the law of this Province as enunciated by Mr. Justice Goodridge. In other words, we are adopting case law because we agree with it in a policy sense.

If there was case law we did not adopt or we did not like, then I suggest the minister would bring in a bill changing it. And I suggest that is what we should do on group eviction. 6 i~ 5 ~

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2391 GS - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I have a five minute bell. I wonder if I might have leave at this stage to go -- I will be a minute or three or four beyond the bit. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. ROBERTS: MR. CARTER: MR. ROBERTS: If that is agreed, I will - Provided you are nice. My friend from St. John's North (Mr. Carter) adds, 'Provided I am nice'. I would say to him in the same good spirit as he and I normally go at it,that I am as nice to him as he deserves and he can make what he wants of that. DR. COLLINS: MR. ROBERTS: DR. COLLINS: Would the hon. member - Well, Mr.

Speaker - Would the hon. member just permit a question on that last point. The method you are suggesting, do you think that might be fine for a relatively long-term solution but if you have short-term problems, could case law build up quickly enough to take care of it? MR. ROBERTS: Oh, sure, because some tenant of the Regency Towers and -if need be, the minister could fund the tenant. I mean, the minister has a larcre ~taff of lawyers, very competent solicitors. any one of whom could be put to work to bring the action. We would have a decision out of the court, I would suggest, very sh.ortly.

You know, I think it would work, I think it would deal - because the Regency Towers one, if it has been reported correctly - I do not know what is past because I am not a tenant and I have no knowledge of what has gone on - I am not a landlord down there either or anywhere else - but I have no knowledge of exactly 6 1.~ 56

J:une 11, 1981 Tape No.2392 EL - 1 MR. ROBERTS: what has passed but if what has been in the newspapers is correct, then that is as clear a group eviction as you could want because I understand everybody there has been given a notice to quit. MR. OTTENHEIMER: And I think some of them have been non-renewals unless agreeable to a new rent. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and that - MR. OTTENHEIMER: And you get into that point that the hon. member is making when you get non-renewals - MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Well, I want to aalk about this non-renewals because I think there we are in a little diff- erent situation.

Let us just look at the present act. The pre- sent act gives a landlord security of tenure. And we do not dis- .agree, by the way, with the policy that the ministry are adopt- ing in this bill. I simply want to question some of the words because once they become law - they are easy to change in here. Once they become law, you know, people have to live h¥ them and abide by them and changing them becomes much more difficult. A tenant now has security of tenure with the exception he can be given three months notice to quit, right?

I mean if he has set a fire in the middle of a room in which there is no fireplace,then he can get put out the next day. HR. CARTER: What if it is a furnished flat? MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? MR. CARTER: What if it is completely furnished. MR. ROBERTS: As I understand it, no difference between furnished and unfurnished. As I understand it 1 but I am no particular expert on this landlord and tenant stuff, the kind of law I do does not involve that kind of work. My understanding is it makes no difference, you cannot defeat the 64~7

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2392 PK - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Landlord And Tenant Act by putting a bed and couple of chairs and a kitchen table in the apartment. AN HON. MEMBER: Right on, boy. MR. ROBERTS: So a tenant,assuming he does not take an axe to the walls and, you know, remodel the place with a pickaxe or something of that order, a tenant has security of tenure. MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is correct. MR. ROBERTS: And it really does not matter what the term of his lease says, when the lease ends he can be served with a three month notice, right? MR. OTTENHEIME'R: Yes. MR.

ROBERTS: And at the end of his three month notice,he either stays or leaves. If he stays 1 as I understand the act 1the landlord may choose to carry on at the same rent and the same terms and conditions, in which case there is no question, everything is hUnky-dory. If the landlord says well now your lease is up 1 I want more rent- correct?- MR. OTTENHEIMER: 'fes. MR. ROBERTS: - then the tenant can say, I agree, in which case again everything is hunky-dory or he can say, I do not agree in which case he may go to the Board on a rent set application and the Board will set the rent. Right? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Correct.

MR. ROBERTS: But the landlord has the right to serve the notice and to get that tenant out. Suppos·ing a landlord says to a tenant, 'I do not want more rent,I want you out for whatever reason, I want to put my maiden grandmother in as a tenant. The people n.ext door say that they do not want anybody on either side of them and I am willing to go along with them' ,r mean, whatever the reason is. If it is because the person is the wrong colour or the wrong creed then, of course, 6 I+ 58

J'une 11, 19.81 Tape No . 2392 PK - 3 MR. ROBERTS: the human rights legislation operates to come into play . We are not talking of that. It is not a matter of usin.g - 1-'Ilat I am saying is if you attempt to use the notic e to quit as a means of raising your rent 1 the tenant is already protected. I think _ that is agreed. That is tha way the law works. If you attempt to use the. notice to quit to try tG get a tenant to pay more money,then he- MR. OTTENHEIMER: I agree. MR. ROBERTS : - the tanant is protected, the minister will agree? Am r correct? MR. OTTENHETMER: Correct . MR. ROBERTS: Ka is protected by the.

Board. MR. OTTENHEIM.ER: Right. MR. ROBERTS: If the. tenant does not want to leave the apartment- he can leave if he wants, ne does not have to out he can - a nd if he does not want to pay the increased rent, then lie can go to the Board and the Board will make. a decis ·ion and that resolves it, and that is a very good way to do it. And whether it is the bo~rd or a court, you know, tnere is a 6 1f 59

June 11, 1981 Tape No. 2393 PK- 1 MR. ROBERTS: neutral, impartial third party that giv~s the binding resolution. But supposing the landlord just wants to clear out the building, not to get more rent, to clear out the building for whatever reason7 Now, it is a policy matter. It is a policy. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. MR. ROBERTS: But what I am saying is I do not understand why a landlord ought not to be able to clear out a building.

He can do it.If he is relatively clever he can do it by simply structuring it right from the start so that more than- you never get to the point where, you know, it is a concerted effort, and I do not think you would have to be terribly bright to set ·up your tenancy terms to do that and then you go and argue with a judge. MR. CARTER: What is to prevent a landlord from making a very strict lease? MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? I did not hear the hon. member . MR. CARTER: What is to prevent a landlord from making a very strict lease whereby all the provisions of this act are negated. MR. ROBERTS: He cannot.

A lease that attemtps to vary the act is invalid to that extent, I mean, that is a very wise provision and essential, not uncommon. MR. OTTENHEIMER: And there are other statutory provisions in the act which cannot be contracted out. MR. ROBERTS: Yes. In fact, you cannot give up your rights under the act by contract, and anything that purports to achieve that is of no validity. And similarly there is an interesting provision which is a good one in the act 1 that a tenant is entitled to have a copy of the act given to him, and if you do not give him that 1the lease is not binding on him. 6 i+ 6 !l

June 11,1981 Tape No, 2393 l'K - 2. MR. ROBERTS: You know,that is a good idea because the average tenant does not even know if there. is

an act let alone what is in it. I mean, let us face it ,even the lawyers half the time do not know what we are doing in here by way of legislation, a person on the street •rould not. MR. CARTER: Should not they be consolidated'? MR. ROBERTS: Well 1 my friend says, should they be consolidated? And the answer is of course, yes. MR. OTTENHEIMER: I think they are, are they not? MR. ROBE'RTS: I suppose there are . two answers to that. I assume in due course we will get what is called an office consolidation of this act which simply embodies them together and then presumably in due course the RFN 1~70s, which are now hopelessly out of date, they are