Province of Newfoundland THIRTY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XXXIX Third Session Friday VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honourable James Rut>sell Number 67 14 December 1984

The House met at 10:00 a.m. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Oral Questions MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he agrees with the approach which Mr. Wilson has indicated that the Conservative Party in Ottawa took prior to the last election, where Mr. Wilson stated they deliberately avoided any references to cuts in socfal programmes for fear that the electoral might take it the wrong way? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: It does not sound like the way the Liberal Party of Canada would act. I would answer the question with a question, Mr. Speaker. Does the bon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) agree with the way his leader in Ottawa acted the election before that when Mr. Crosbie came out with eighteen cents on a gallon of gas and the Liberal Party said, no way, then proceeds to put it up fifty cents? Does he agree with that approach before an election? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. L6106 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary? MR.

BARRY: I must say, Mr. Speaker, at the time I felt that that was not really fair pool. Nor, Mr. Speaker, did I feel that the bringing in of wage and price controls after the fact was fair pool. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he agrees that there should be further cuts in spending programmes in Canada in light of the fact that we have a situation where the OECD of Europe had a report recently completed which indicates that Canada is either fifth or sixth in line in terms of the Western industrialized nations with respect to the percentage of the Gross National Product which is spent on social programmes? Does the Premier think that it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to adopt as its policy the cutting of social programmes at this time? MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: A number of report by the OECD over the last number of years has also shown that I think we were next to Italy, second last as it related to productivity and that we were not really generating the wealth in this country per capita that other Western industrialized nations were doing. I think, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the approach that the Government of Canada is taking in that they are going to consult widely on a range of social programmes that they wish to review. And to December 14, 1984 R6106

consult very widely, I do not think, for example, in the unemployment insurance scheme where it relates to provinces like our own, that very many changes could be made at this time, especially as it affects the underdeveloped areas of Canada, and the ones that, for whatever reason, are still disadvantaged. But I think a healthy public debate on that whole area, which is now going to ensue through the First Ministers' Conference first, then through a national summit and then through consultations with groups who are involved in these social policies sphere is not a bad idea at all.

I do believe that we have to increase our productivity generate more wealth in this country. And if we can do that, generate more wealth, then obviously there will be more wealth to go around for social programmes as it will for everything else. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

Would the Premier agree, in light of the economic conditions and in light of the history of this Province, that this Province probably has more to lose than any other province in Canada when this _ type of review of social programmes is undertaken by the Government of Canada? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, no I do not think L6107 so.

Because from most of the comments that I have heard from federal ministers, and, of course, it is all in a very preliminary stage and a consultative stage, from what I have heard, even on the most sacred of social programmes, they are looking at the higher end of the wage scale. And knowing that the per capita earned income and the wage scales in Newfoundland, which I think are the lowest in Canada, we would be the last to be affected because we do not have too many people at the higher end of the income bracket.

So the wealthier provinces like Ontario and Alberta and Saskatchewan and those kinds of provinces would be hit hardest first because they have more higher income people per capita proportionally than Newfoundland has. So I would see it that we wo~ld be perhaps the last to feel any impact of that. And. by the same token, Mr.

Speaker, if I may continue, if that is done at the higher end of the scale on some of the more sacred social -programmes, I think one of the thrusts that the federal government is going to take with the savings is to redistribute some of them to those who are less well off and then that will benefit Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, or maybe the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), but I will probably address my question to the Premier.

I understand that the Province of Ontario and the Province of British Columbia have December 14, 1984 R6107

banned happy hour drinking in their provinces. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is knowing that our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has as many pubs and beer outlets and liquor outlets as any other province per capita, and knowing that the Federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is planning on bringing in stiffer laws for drunk driving, and taking into consideration that there are a lot of accidents and deaths as a result of drunk driving, would the Premier advise the hon.

House if there is any intention of this government bringing in regulations abandoning the Happy Hour as it is carried out in this Province by many beer and pub outlets in this Province? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I have a sneaking suspicion that come January or February, when the offshore agreement is finally signed, sealed and delivered between the two governments, and then legislation is brought in to give legislative sanction to it, and constitutionalization later on, in 1985, hopefully there are going to be an awful lot of happy hours around Newfoundland that we have been waiting for for a long, long time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A supplementary, the hon. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr.

Speaker, ' I believe there will L6108 be an awful lot of happy hours around come January or February. I again would like to ask the Premier, if this government is planning to bring in legislation that will curtail pubs and beer outlets in this Province from selling beers and wines and spirits at a cheaper price at such a time in the day? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I think it was back in August 1983, there was an unfortunate accident on the Trans-Canada Highway when Barbara Linda Cheryl Randell and Windy Karen Elaine Brophy were killed by a pulpwood truck. The bon. gentleman will recall the circumstances. Judge Jenkins, I think, conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the deaths of these two young girls and made certain recommendations, and regulations were to be put in place governing, for instance, the safe loading of tractor-trailers. Would the han. the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) inform the House - because he was the one who released the report and said that the recommendations would be carried, some of the recommendations involving his colleague, the Minister of Transportation (Hr. Dawe) - if the recommendations and findings of Judge Jenkins have yet been implemented? December 14, 1984 R6108

MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman is probably aware when these provincial court enquiries come in they have recommendations and a number of them can be recommendations involving departments. This particular one was a recommendation to the Department of Transportation with respect to the loading of tractor-trailers. I would really have to check with somebody in the Department of Transportation with what success they have been able to implement that recommendation.

I would not know it offhand, but I will certainly undertake to pass it along to the Minister of Transportation. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman also make a note to find out from the Transportation Department if the haul-offs to be provided along the Trans-Canada Highway for tractor-trailers loaded with pulpwoods have been built and also if recommendations governing safe loading of ' tractor-trailers and the · struc~ural design of these tractor-trailers have been implemented?

Perhaps I could ask the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) if the recommendation in connection with Occupational Health and Safety carrying out periodic inspections of the equipment has been implemented? L6109 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that when the accident happened we had somebody from Occupational Health and Safety go out and do a complete inspection and as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) has said a lot of the jurisdiction for this comes under the Department of Transportation and Communications.

The role of Occupational Health and Safety in this area would probably be limited to occasional spot-checks as a result of the recommendations that came out and, of course, the inspectors are doing that. With respect to the recommendations of Judge Jenkins, we are working with the Department of Transportation and Communications and we will continue to do the spot-chec-ks as recommended by Judge Jenkins.

The other thing is that there was a study done in Ontario on transportation in the pulpwood hauling industry and we have studied that to see what if anything we can do to possibly improve the conditions here in the Province. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for LaPoile, a supplementary. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) is not in his seat so perhaps I will forgo the question until he gets back. The question I wanted the Minister December 14, 1984 R6109

of Manpower to address himself to was a recommendation made by Judge Jenkins that Occupational Health and Safety carry out periodic inspections of woods equipment, trucks and tractor-trailers, that transport pulpwood. Now I am asking the hon. gentleman to specifically address himself to that question: Has that been done? I read the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Ottenheimer) statement and when he released the findings of Judge Jenkins he assured the people in the Province that these recommendations would be carried out in the near future I would like the hon. gentleman to tell us whether or not that is being done.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I just found out for the hon. gentleman that over the last year, since the report has been released, the Department of Transportation has held meetings with the Truckers Association, and not only the Truckers Association as such because a lot of them are into dump trucks as opposed to the tractor-trailers, then they sat down and met with all the owners of tractor-trailers around the Province, and then they met with the paper companies who receive the wood and had meetings with them.

As a result of those meetings, regulations have been now formulated and will be before Cabinet in the next couple of weeks. MR. NEARY: Just for the wood part of it. PREMIER PECKFORD: L6110 Just for the wood truck part of it. Now it could enlarge further - I do not know - because I just got the information since the hon. gentleman asked the question. But I know that meetings have been held with all those concerned and draft regulations are now prepared and ready to go before Cabinet. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Menihek. MR.

FENWICK: The question I have is a serious one and I would like it to be treated that way. Unfortunately, most of the ministers whom I want to ask the question of are not here this morning, so I will ask it of the Premier, I guess. As I think all members know, over the last little while one of the former Premiers of this Province suffered a stroke. While I do not want to dwell on that, what it does point out, in a rather more urgent fashion, is the major project that he is working on right now, which is to produce a new encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador.

From having looked at the first two volumes, I would suggest is by far the best work that his individual and this publishing company have done. Given that only the first two volumes have been produced, which I think go up to G or H or something like that, as it now stands it will be of very limited use to a lot of institutions in the Province that should have access to this. Out in Alberta, for example, a company are producing a Canadian encyclopedia has been generously supported by the provincial government there. My question to the Premier, or December 14, 1984 R6110

whoever else is capable of answering it, is will the provincial government look into what help it can give to ensure that this extremely valuable project can be brought to completion so that these resources can be available throughout the Province? MR. SPEAKER (Rus sell ): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I do not know where the project stands as to its completion, nor do I know the present financial arrangements or whether they are sufficient to complete the project, given that the hon. gentleman may still be able to do some work on it.

I do know that last year, on the first two volumes which are now completed, we did undertake to ensure that they were distributed to schools around the Province. That is about to be undertaken now in the next week or two, that .is 700 of each volume for a total of 1,400 of them. As a matter of fact, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) brought to my attention there a couple of days ago that they were ready for distribution. So we will be moving on that. I do not know if there is a problem getting the other two done or not but I will surely look into it and check it out. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: ·The han. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Kr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Premier if there have been any meetings with the Buchans Action Committee recently. We all know that Buchans is undergoing L6111 very difficult times, that the mine is in the process of being phased out completely, that they are desparately looking for other minerals in the area and so forth, and that the Buchans Action Committee have been greatly involved in trying to bring about alternatives to the mining industry in that town to keep the economy of Buchans afloat.

Could the hon. gentleman tell the House if there have been any meetings, what the purpose of the meetings were and what action has been taken on any of the meetings held recently with the Buchans Action Committee? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of meetings between the Buchans Action Committee and the Government of Newfoundland .over the last several years. I had a meeting with them myself earlier this year at which time we reviewed a lot of the alternatives that they had studied or had recommended to have studied.

I think five or six Cabinet ministers then went to Buchans as part of the Resource Policy Committee of Cabinet, so a Cabinet committee actually visited Buchans and sat down with them in their own community. I think the Government of Newfoundland paid their way to Ottawa to make representations on things which were under the federal jurisdiction. I promised that I would not have them incur that expense, so we paid for their transportation and board and lodging while they were in ottawa and helped arrange some of the meetings for them. They are continuing now with some of the projects.

As you know, the December 14, 1984 R6111

federal pen location is still a matter of some dispute and I think they are following through on that. They had brought fo~ard some tourism alternatives, they had brought forward some alternatives relating to their ·hospital, they brought forward some alternatives relating to their landing strip there that I am aware of. Forestry can be important if you go through on that road past Buchans and go Southwest from there almost to the Burgeo Road, and then there is gap in between there . There is some forestry related activity. I just have a note from the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr.

Goudie) who says that there is a proposal in now as it relates to a tourism development there before his department for his consideration. MR. NEARY: What is it? What is the project? PREMIER PECKFORD: I think it is a hotel - motel proposal for tourism. They are trying to do a lot of work on the Red Indian Lake tourism end of things with the development association. One of the biggest problems you have in Buchans is the same problem you had in my constituency, in Little Bay, Springdale, South Brook, Robert's Arm and Gulbridge is that you built up a large expertise in the mining industry.

They are miners, they are drillers, they are mill people, they know no other work. MR. NEARY: Muckers, blasters, pipe fitters. PREMIER PECKFORD: So they have very specialized trades which make it difficult for L6112 individuals, especially if they are, I suppose, beyond forty or forty-five or whatever, to get into a retraining kind of scheme. So the other thing we have been looking at very seriously with the Minister of Mines (Mr .

Dawe) is that, as the bon. member might know, in addition to the gold find in the Isle aux Morts area, if you will, or the Burnt Island Pond area, but I think more particularly there is a second gold discovery in the Cinq Cerf Bay area. MR. NEARY: LaPoile Bay, yes. PREMIER PECKFORD: Cinq Cerf. The distance between Buchans and that Cinq Cerf deposit is not all that far and it may be possible that we can utilize a lot of the miners who are bona fide miners, in that development. MR. NEARY: Would Cinq Cerf be underground or surface operated? PREMIER PECKFORD: It is a surface operation.

It is one of the more significant gold discoveries in Canada in the last fifty years. The only other one that might equal it, which the bon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) might know about, is the one in Ontario, Kemlow, which is a major new discovery. It will be an open pit operation. It is extremely promising and there is a lot of drilling going on. So we are thinking that we might be able to do some kind of a linkage as it relates to some of the bona fide miners in Buchans with that development which is not all that far off. MR. NEARY: Do not rob all the jobs of the December 14, 1984 R6112

Southwest Coast now. PREMIER PECKFORD: Pardon? MR. NEARY : I said do not rob the jobs from the people on the Southwest Coast. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, but you are going to need certain expertise there. There are drillers who are not available on the South\1/est Coast. My best friend is a driller in the mines and he just finished at Cat Arm and now he is on his way to the Yukon and Northern BC and places like that, and he has special expertise. There are a group of them, I have about five different teams in Green Bay, and every company is after them. They get calls every day looking for their talents.

They go down and they actually do the drift in an underground mine, do the drilling that is necessary. It is a very specialized and difficult trade that you learn more by experience than anything else. And it was, as a matter of fact. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report, mostly the people from Green Bay and White Bay who actually did the tunnels at Cat Arm, all of whom had been in either Churchill Falls , have done most of the mines in Northern BC and parts of Alberta, Baffin Island, the -Yukon and Northwest Territories.

So there are a number of things you might be able to do in tourism to attract more tourists off the Trans-Canada down to Buchans. If there are some people in Buchans who are forestry minded, there is some wood that is going to have to be cut by Abitibi-Price, from there to the Burgee road, where we might be able to help them. And if we can get the Cinq Cerf mine underway then we are going to be able to L6113 get quite a few more there.

We are looking at upgrading the landing strip because this Cinq Cerf mine could possibly be a fly in and fly out operation; it could be two weeks on and three weeks of, the kind of thing like they do offshore. A lot of the mines in the Northwest Territories are done like that now and that would be a very short trip for the Buchans people, they would not be very far away from home at all. We are looking at the hospital and possible uses for it as some kind of a specialized institution. There is a lot of work going on there and a lot of the ministers have been involved in it.

So that is a brief, cursory look at what we are trying to do to assist the people of Buchans. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A final supplementary. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The bon. Mr. Speaker, God must have been a Liberal or I must be living right because the two gold deposits that are showing the most potential in Newfoundland are in my district, Cinq Cerf and Burnt Island Pond. Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the statements from the bon. the Premier that the Cinq Cerf gold exploration and deposit have great possibilities.

I think the Burnt Island Pond one has great possibilities also by the way. PREMIER PECKFORD: Not near as much as Cinq Cerf. MR. NEARY: On a scale of one to ten, it might be six. PREMIER PECKFORD: December 14, 1984 R6113

If Burnt Island is six then Cinq Cerf is ten. MR. NEARY: Well, give it 9. 5. Mr. Speaker, what is the situation now as far as Buchans is concerned? There are still some people working in the mines. Is it rapidly grinding to a halt? How many people are employed there now? When will the mine cease operations completely and leave the people of Buchans economically marooned? PREMIER .PECKFORD: I think they are just about finished. There is just some clean-up and that going on there right now.

I think the last number of people that I saw working there was somewhere around the hundred mark but I think it is down below that now. There may be only thirty or forty working there no~, if there is that. The other problem you had in Buch~ns was they tried to get into the tailing to generate barite for the offshore. Because of transportation costs they were not really able to compete with barite from other places and it proved not to be as successful as they thought, where there was suppose to be somewhere in the order of twenty-five to fifty jobs in that kind of an operation. But it is winding down.

I think it has wound down now, and there might only be very few people on right now as it relates to the mining activity itself. There is just no ore. MR. NEARY: If my hon. colleague will allow me I have another quick question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A final supplementary. member for LaPoile. L6114 The bon. MR. NEARY: In connection with the barite operation that the han. gentlemen there opposite held out great hope for for the people of Buchans, what has happened to that operation? I heard the han. gentleman just refer to high transportation costs. Well what about our local preference?

Has it gone out the window as far as barite is concerned? We are bringing it from long distances, from- Asia somewhere or the Middle East. PREMIER PECKFORD: From Ireland. MR. NEARY: We are bringing it from Ireland. There must be heavy transportation costs involved there, Mr. Speaker, as far as the barite operation is concerned. Anyway I would like for the han. gentleman to answer that question. I had another important one that I .was going to ask but it has slipped my mind at the moment. These late nights get to me.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Well there have been studies done and I have seen the studies comparing the costs and why they are so great and it is just way beyond the local preference, the cost is far more. It might also be in the quality of barite that is produced and what it can do in relation to other barite. The other factor there, another piece of information is that the barite mine at Colliers Point, I think is under development right now.

I think there were some early start-up problems with various operators who for one reason or another did not have the cash to complete the job but it is underway now and most of the barite, I thinkfor offshore, is December 14, 1984 R6114

going to come from Colliers Point. But there has been problems in the whole barite operation using the tailings in Buchans which have proven that in order for it to be economic we have to charge a price which is a lot more. MR. NEARY: While you are on your feet, what about the big holes, the glory holes? Are they all going to be filled? PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, that is the other thing that is happening now. While there are still some people on there is a lot of environmental clean-up going on in Buchans right now.

There are a number of good buildings there, I was told a little while ago, that I think the community are going to get their hands on which could be of some benefit down the road. MR . NE AR Y: For $1.00, I hope. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, not $1.00, for nothing, a big difference. MR. NEARY: Well to make it legal, $1.00. PREMIER PECKFORD: I think they are just going to -give it to them as a gift which is also legal. So there have been a lot of studies done on the barite situation.

We, as a government, sort of pushed it but the studies just show, and I do not know all of the factors that are involved, that the cost that they would have to sell that barite for is a lot more than it can be delivered here from other sources, a very, very different price. But we did then continue to push the Colliers -L6115 Point area and it looks like we are going to get most of our barite from indigenous sources for the offshore over the next few years. MR. SPEAKE R (Russell); The hon. member for Mountains. MR. WARREN: Torngat Mr .

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. Some time ago when the member for Trinity North (Mr. Brett) brought in the food prices survey, one of the recommendations was that government would take the necessary steps to terminate its involvement in the food retailing business in coastal Labrador communities. Government operated stores should be turned over as soon as possible to private operators and competative markets encouraged.

Could the - minister advise if his department have advertised or have received any proposals from private enterprise to operate the government stores on Coastal Labrador? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Agricultural Development. MR. GOUDIE: Minister and of Rural, Northern Mr. Speaker, the department has not advertised as such recently for proposals or other bids to operate the retail stores on the Coast of Labrador, there are five of them involved. There was some activity about a year ago when a couple of interested companies visited several of the stores along the North Coast of Labrador and expressed an interest in them.

However, the department is analyzing the report that was presented by my colleague and December 14, 1984 R6115

other members of the bon. House earlier this year, and in my opinion it would be a prudent move on the part of government at the proper time to get out of the retail trade on the North Coast of Labrador, especially in light of the fact that there are a number of responsible business people along the Coast now who it appears would be willing in most cases to expand their operations and take up trade that we have been doing in the past. So what I am saying, I guess, Mr.

Speaker, is that we, as a government, would be interested in turning these stores over, based on certain conditions, to the private industry, but as yet the decision has not been made. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

If it is the intention of the goverrunent to turn over those stores to private enterprise - for example, in Makkovik at the present time there is a new store that is probably going to cost $400,000 to $600,000 to construct and there is a new one proposed for Hopedale next year - if the government is planning to turn over the retail operations to private enterprise, why would they spend such an extraordinary amount of taxpayer dollars to build new facilities if they are going to turn it over to private enterprise? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Agricultural Development. L6116 Minister and of Rural, Northern MR. GOUDIE: Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, and perhaps other hon. gentlemen, the operation in Makkovik, the retail store there, has been one of the best run operations along the North Coast of Labrador, if not the best. One of the problems we had is that the building in which goods are sold, plus the storage space, has not been as adequate as it should have been. In the case of Hopedale, the building itself is in very poor repair as well. So what we are doing, and ~ave been doing over the last number of years, is replacing the retail stores in all of these communities with modern, more efficient buildings.

One of the rationales behind that, other than providing a much better and improved service to the residents of each community, is we think it might be a little more attractive to private industry if these facilities are there and they then are in a position to take over a much better operation that it had been in the past. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for the Question Period has expired. Notices of Motion MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Service (Pensions) Act, (No. 2)". MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Minister of Consumer Affairs and Communications. December 14, 1984 R6116

MRS. NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act -To- Amend The Insurance Act. " MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Education I give notice I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting The Department of Education." Presenting Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition signed by forty-eight residents of the community of Hopedale in the district of Torngat Mountains. Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague from Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) presented two such petitions, I think there are a ·number of those petitions, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with a uniform electricity rate throughout the Province. And, Mr. Speaker, as the other petitions state, those residents in Hopedale have asked the government to assure them, as residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that they should be treated equally.

Why should there be three electrical rates? Even in Labrador alone there are three electrical rates. In fact, Mr. Speaker, take for example Rigolet which is only ninety miles out the L6117 bay from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and for the same number of kilowatts in the Wintertime, for example, 1500 kilowatts, residents of Rigolet pay 152 per cent more for residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, to keep their lights and their freezers going, their electrical stoves and their appliances going, and keep themselves comfortable.

They have to pay 152 per cent more for electrical rates in Rigolet as compared to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Because Happy Valley-Goose Bay, naturally, is on the Churchill grid. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people in St. John's, also are paying a different rate again, a little more expensive rate than the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. MR. HICKEY: Your buddies gave it all away. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey) interjects and says, 'Your buddies gave it away.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, hindsight is a great thing to have and I would probably think that with Bill 37 we can see that this government is giving a lot away also. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that nobody in this Province, bar none, would not agree that there should be a uniform electrical rate in this Province. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Rigolet, the people in Hopedale, the people in Black Tickle, or the people in Grey River, should not be required to pay more for electrical rates than people elsewhere. And furthermore, Hr. Speaker, if this government, if the Department of Consumer December 14, 1984 R6117

Affairs, or the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), who is responsible for liquor and beer sales in this Province, will allow liquor and beer to be the same price throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, surely goodness they should demand that the Public Utilities Board make sure that the electrical rates will be · uniform throughout the Province. This petition is signed by forty-eight residents in the -conununity of Hopedale, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to place it on the table and refer it to the department to which it relates. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I want to whole-heartedly support the prayer of the petition. AN HON. MEMBER: Have a cup of tea. MR. NEARY: I will not say what is · on my mind. I think we are all getting punchy here, Mr. Speaker, but I could not help but think of the cup of tea that was in here. DR. COLLINS: Send it out for a lab report. MR. BARRY: A urine analysis. MR. NEARY: No, not a urine suggested they send to the laboratory analyzed. analysis. I the tea down and have it Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the prayer of the petition soably presented.

This is the L6118 second day in a row that we have had a petition of this nature and there wi 11 be more such petitions in future. And the bon. gentleman who is responsible for energy (Mr. Marshall), his only excuse is that the economy is bad because of the mismanagement of the administration of which he is a member, the economy is bad and therefore they cannot equalize, standardize electricity rates in this Province for people who have to purchase their electricity from Newfoundland Hydro using these diesel generators. And, Mr.

Speaker, this is a very serious matter indeed because these people consider themselves to be third or fourth class Canadians and Newfoundlanders. I have three communities in my own riding Petites, Grand Bruit and LaPoile using diesel generated electricity. Mr. Speaker, these people are being punished _unnecessarily. But it is not the horrendous state of the economy brought about by the mismanagement of this administration that annoys these people. All you need, Mr. Speaker, is use your head, use a little conunon sense and eliminate the oil drum.

Now down in Hopedale they have, but down in my district they have not. All up and down the Southwest Coast they are still dragging those forty-five gallon oil drums up over rocks and stumps and cliffs in the middle of Winter, very expensive, very inconvenient, and it creates a hardship for the people. Now Woodward's are in the process of installing storage tanks along the Southwest Coast, thanks to my suggest, because I was the one who initiated it in Northern Labrador in case the bon. gentleman is not aware of that. That was my project. MR. GOUDIE: December 14, 1984 R6118

Indeed it was. MR. NEARY: Right on! Right on, Sir! Mr. Speaker, there are things that they can do to reduce the cost. They can modernize the operation and there will be countervailing savings. And there countervailing savings should be used to standardize to equalize electricity rates for everybody across . this Province. These people in Northern Labrador, Southern Labrador, the Great Northern Peninsula, on the Southwest Coast, Mr. Speaker, are second or third rate Newfoundlanders. They will never be equal to the rest of Newfoundland until their electricity rates are standarized.

The hon. gentleman should get up and support this petition .. The hon. member for Burgeo-Bay · d'Espoir (Mr. Andrews), . Mr. Speaker, very seldom, very rarely speaks out on the problems in the Southwest Coast. And we have as many problems on the Southwest Coast as in -Northern and Southern Labrador in the remote communities. And the hon. gentleman should get up and say, 'I wholeheartedly support the prayer of that petition,' and try to push it in Cabinet, try to persuade his colleagues, especially the Minister of Energy (Mr.

Marshall) to abandon this negative attitude that he has that they cannot do anything until the economy improves. I say God help the people in Hopedale if they have to wait that long, Hr. Speaker, until this crowd does anything positive about improving the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. They have wrecked the economy of this Province, Mr. Speaker. L6119 This administration has made Newfoundland a disaster area.

And the hon. gentleman gets up, very pious like and self-rightousness, and says, 'Oh, we cannot afford it now because of the terrible state of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, ' which was brought about by their own misrnangement, an admission of failure. We hear the Premier at it here night after night telling us the same thing. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, these people are not equal to Newfoundlanders inasmuch as they have to pay higher electricity rates than people who live in the urban centres, people who live in St. John's. The Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) should be able to find sufficient money to standardize these rates to make them equal. It is a big issue, Mr. Speaker, for a lot of people. This is a big issue. And hon. gentlemen should realize that there are quite a few votes involved in this issue too, Sir. MR. ANDREWS: So that is your concern! MR. NEARY: No, but I am reminding han. gentlemen, I am reminding the han. gentleman for Burgeo-Bay d' Espoir (Mr. Andrews) that voters in these communi ties who are forced to buy electricity from the diesel generating stations at higher costs than their fellow Newfoundlanders, Mr.

Speaker, there are quite a few such voters in these communities that could defeat or elect the hon. gentleman, Hr. Speaker. And he should be the first to take the lead because communities three. there are involved. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): December 14, 1984 so I many have R6119

' Order, please! The time for the hon. member has expired. The hon. Environment. the Minister of the MR. ANDREWS: Just a brief comment, Mr. Speaker, because I cannot let this pass. The ex-Leader of the -Opposition (Mr. Neary) talks about votes, and he should certainly be concerned about that. He had a major victory of eighteen or twenty-one votes. I am more concerned about the welfare of the people. The member for LaPoile talked about, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of the .South Coast as second-class citizens. They are indeed not second-class citizens. MR. WARREN: . They are treated as such. MR.

ANDREWS: They are not treated as second-class citizens. And I will tell the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) of the $22 million that this government put into the community of Burgeo, and the $9 million that we put in the community of Ramea, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that this government put into Francois, McCallum, and all of the communities along that coast. And there is not one community in my district were forty-five gallon oil drums are dragged up over the rocks as he referred to. Now on the petition, Mr. Speaker, there are some concerns, yes.

There are a great many concerns about the equalization of hydro rates in this Province. I have some concerns, the residents of the South Coast have concerns, but the simplistic mentality of the L6120 Opposition is not going to solve this problem. This is a very complicated problem. It is one that is being addressed by the government and by Newfoundland Hydro. Mr. Speaker, issues such as this, difficult issues require difficult solutions. And one of the most difficult solutions that we are facing here is where we are going to get the money to do that. We have been assured by . Mr.

Mulroney that our equalization payment will not be reduced, that we will get a fair deal on the offshore, and, when these things come to pass, I believe then we can address these major issues affecting the people of the South Coast and other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Are there any other petitions? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader Mr. Speaker, it gives pleasure to stand and petition on behalf residents of Grey River. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

BARRY: of the me great present a of the And I am very happy to hear the member for that area get up and say that he is concerned about the residents of the South Coast. We look forward with interest to his rising now in support of this petition. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. December 14, 1984 R6120

MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for St. John's North on a point of order. MR. CARTER: I am all for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), or any member bringing a petition into this House, but I am well aware that the rules governing petitions are very loose. MR. NEARY: Yes, and your tongue is very loose. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder would you protect me from the idotic element in this House? I am well aware that the rules governing petitions are very loose.

I wonder if, for instance, it would not be a good idea if all petitions were to be checked by the table, examined by the table for authenticity before they are presented in this House. I do not blame the han. gentleman for voicing the concerns of people in Grey River or any other community in the Province, but I firmly believe that we should have proper procedures and make sure that they are genuine petitions and that they agree with reasonable guidelines. And, Mr.

Speaker, I think that it would not hurt if the member were to perhaps put off presenting his petition until it could be checked by the Table or by some competent authority. MR. TULK: No, no, no. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! To that point of order, the Chair has no intention at this point in time of checking petitions. L6121 MR. NEARY: He wants you to censure members .. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There was an incident a little while ago when a copy of a petition was presented.

At that time I made a ruling indicating that the responsibility really lies with the individual members in presenting original petitions and proper petitions to this House. Certainly if there is any further evidence to indicate that copies of petitions or documents are being presented that are not proper, then maybe the suggestion made by the bon. member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) could be considered at that time. But the Chair has no intention of doing that at the present time. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell~: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it might be an idea for somebody to ask the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) to table the speeches that are written for him before he presents them in the House as well. Mr. Speaker, the petition is that, 'We the residents of Grey River, hereby petition the Provincial Government to pass immediately legislation so that there would be one price · for electricity throughout our Province,

whereas now there are four or five different rates depending on where you live. In our Province we pay the same sales tax of 12 per cent, December 14, 1984 R6121

the same income tax, the same airfares, there is only one price for beer and liquor throughout our Province, we also pay the same tax on a carton of cigarettes.' Why is it that we have to pay a different rate for electricity is the question of these eighty-four residents of Grey River. 'At present if you consume electricity that is generated by diesel, the more kilowatt hours you use the higher your bill becomes,

whereas if you consume electricity generated by hydro power the more kilowatt hours you use, the cheaper your bill is. We believe that we are not treating our citizens equal and we hereby petition the government to have one rate for all our citizens regardless where they happen to live.' Now, Mr. Speaker, presuambly the government will be announcing a new appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland Hydro, who will also become involved in heading up the Power Distribution Districts of the Province, and this might be the appropriate time to have government have a reivew, Mr.

Speaker, of its policy with respect to the diesel powered communi ties of this Province. We know that there are problems of financing. However, Mr . Speaker, I have long felt that we could do with a review of our electricity policy with respect to our smaller communities, that we are a bit unsophisticated in our approach right now where we do have such a heavy discrepancy between the electricity that is available to the customer or consumer on a hydro grid and the customer or consumer who is dependent upon diesel generated electricity. L6122 We can also do more, I believe, Mr.

Speaker, to follow up on some of the mini-hydro projects that we started to experiment with when I was minister. I have not heard very much about those lately. There are possibilities for some mini-hydro projects, possibilities for other alternate sources of generating energy, one of which might be to use some of the excess heat generated from members of the other side in the course of debate. I think that is called cogeneration, Mr. Speaker.

But we support on this side of the House, the eighty-four residents of Grey River who are seriously concerned about the cost of electricity that they are now experiencing and we would ask that this House give favourable consideration to their petition. The people in Grey River have certain disadvantages not the -least of which is the _ member standing in the doorway of the House here now. They have other geographic disadvantages. They have costs involved with their being an isolated community and we think that they deserve a little sympathy. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The time for the han.

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has expired. MR. BARRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on what I presume is a bona fide petition, I will take the word of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. December 14, 1984 R6122

Barry) that it is a bona fide ·petition. I would like to say · that the Leader of the Opposition was a fomer energy minister and he knows what has to be done. He had a solution when he was energy minister which he not only failed to implement but failed as far as I am concerned to recom..11.end. And even now he gets up and talks some kind of nonsense, talks about - MR. NEARY: Go eat yotlr savoury. MR. CARTER: If the hon. gentleman would eat what I put in front of him I would supply him with his daily ration. Mr.

Speaker, the answer quite clearly lies in bringing in a unifom electric rate for all the citizens of this Province and also making sure that the initial kilowatt hours burned are at a lower rate than the later ones. There is nothing wrong with the

schedule of rates for the diesel areas, what of them. is wrong is the size If all of the electricity rates in Newfoundland were to be restructured so that the initial rates were cheaper, say, for the first 1, 000 or 1,500 kilowatt hours, and thereafter the succeeding kilowatt hours were ·mor~ expensive, then you would see far less frivilous use of electricity. And I maintain, Mr. ·speaker, that an awful lot of electricity is wasted in this Province with a consequent strain upon our generating resources and a good partial solution lies in a complete restructuring of the rates.

I would suggest that the ministry have a look at this. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. member for Torngat Mountains. L6123 MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the petition presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) in behalf of eighty-four residents of the community of Grey River. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) with all due respect, came in with a good recommendation to government through-Cabinet to make sure that there is a uniform rate in this Province. After all, Mr.

Speaker, we all are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we all should be treatly equally. Another thing that should be borne in mind is the weather experienced by people on the Southwest Coast and people on the Coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. For example, the temperatures in Hopedale in January month could go as low as minus forty, and subsequently it requires more beat to warm their homes. And with diesel generated electricity_, the more kilowatts that are used the more costly it becomes.

Whereas, on the other hand, the more hyd~o generated kilowatts used the lower the cost is reduced accordingly. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very unfair. There should be a maximum cost for a maximum number of kilowatts, whether it is hydro or whether it is diesel generated. This government has been preached at time and time again since 1979 by members on this side of the Legislature, saying that we need a uniform rate. And the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) is the first member on that side of the Legislature who has said that we need a uniform rate in this Province. And, Mr. Speaker, the member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Andrews) has said we cannot December 14, 1984 R6123

afford it. That is what the member said, "We cannot afford it." Now, Mr. Speaker, the people in Grey River cannot afford it either. · The people in Grey River cannot afford to pay high electrical rates compared to the people in St. John's or the people in Goose Bay. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister responsible for Energy (Mr. Marshall) should assure the .residents in those communities throughout Newfoundland and . Labrador who have to rely on ·diesel generated power that they will be treated as equal Newfoundlanders and equal Labradorians. I support the petition that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) has placed on the table because it goes to show that there are in this Province, as far as this government is concerned, second-class citizens. Let us try to treat everybody equally. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the President of the Council. MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Lapoile on a point of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the House, the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Andrews), was hoping to have a few minutes on this petition and we were going to grant leave to the bon. gentleman, providing, of course, that I have equal time.

So the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) tried to cut across him to make a motion , of closure again, to try to gag the members of the House, including his own members, Mr. L6124 Speaker. MR. MARSHALL: That is not a point of order. MR. NEARY: It is a point of order. How else can I raise it if I cannot raise as a point of order? The han. gentleman is going to bring in another gag rule and this time he is going to cut off his own members because the petition happens to be from the bon . gentleman's district. So be fair and give the han. gentlemen a chance to speak to support the petition. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, to that point of order. MR . SPEAKER (Russell): To that point of order the han. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Let me say first of all this is another abuse in the rules of the House as far as I am concerned. The petition was given to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Andrews). It is silly to have two or three members opposite signing petitions and putting them before the House. So it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and there is no leave given for anyone to speak beyond the people who have already spoken. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the han. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), the presentation of petitions was over and no other member could speak except by leave. The Chair, of course, has a policy of recognizing the first person who catches the Speaker's December 14, 1984 R6124

eye and recognized the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not rise at 1:00 p.m. today and that is seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer). MR. SPEAKER: That is not a debatable motion. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman stands in his place in this House - MR. SP EAK ER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! That is not a debatable motion. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak the motion was not seconded. MR. S.PEAKER: Order, please! That is not a debatable motion. The Chair has to put the mot.ion immediately.

The motion is that the House not rise at 1:00 p.m. Those in favour, 'Aye'? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'Nay.' MR. NEARY: What a dictatorship! MR. SPEAKER: Carried. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the L6125 Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Orders of the Day be now read. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): That is not a debatable motion. Those in favour, 'aye'? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'Nay'? Carried. Orders of the Day MR. MARSHALL: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the bon. the Minister of Education (Ms Verge) to introduce a _bill,. "An Act To Amend The School Attendance Act, 1978," carried. (Bill No. 60). On motion, Bill No. 60 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. MR. MARSHALL: Order 3. MR. SPEAKER: Order 3 is third reading of Bill No. 37. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion with respect to this. I move that this December 14, 1984 R6125

question be now put pursuant to Standing Order 40, seconded by the bon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins). MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the previous question be now put, which, of course, is a debatable motion. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I made the motion, I guess I am entitled to lead off the debate. Is the mover not permitted to debate? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. MR. MARSHALL: I wish to have the opportunity for a few moments to lead off the debate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon . the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr . Speaker, I want to once more indicate that - MR.

TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, .Please! The bon. the member for Fogo on a point of order. MR. TULK: I think the minister has moved third reading on Bill 37, if I understood him correctly. What he moved under Standing Order 40 was the previous question. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: L6126 That is how I understand it. MR. TULK: I would ask the Speaker to take a look at Beauchesne to ascertain if indeed you can move the previous question on third reading. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, why does not the bon. gentleman look up Beauchesne before he gets up in this House and asks questions of the Speaker. Beauchesne, Paragraph 460, says: "When the previous question is moved on the third reading of a bill and voted in the negative" --' which I am sure this bill will not be - "the main motion must be dropped." So authority is replete in Beauchesne. Why does the bon. gentleman not quote Your Honour some authority instead of getting up as Opposition House Leader and asking the Speaker what to do? Why does he not go back and ask Mr. Speaker Sparkes, who is still alive, or Mr.

Speaker Clark or any of the other gentlemen? If the bon. gentleman cannot carry out his duties, Mr. Speaker, why does he not give over to the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) who did such a good job? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR . SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! To the point of order raised by the bon. the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), some research has already been done by the Chair on this December 14, 1984 R6126

particular item and it is in order. The bon. the President of the Counc.il. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak for a long period of time but I want to say that we moved this motion, as we have moved all motions on behalf of the people of Corner Brook, in the interest of Kruger taking over the Bowater mill and to avoid the awful possibility, which was upon us, of Kruger backing out of this deal because it could not get through in time enough for Kruger to be able to take certain tax advantages. That should be as obvious and as clear as the noses on the faces of the bon. gentlemen.

The fact of the matter is if this had been January or February or April or something like that, there would not be this urgency, but this is the end of the year; we approach the end of the year, we approach the end of the taxation year. In addition to the many reasons why Kruger is taking over this mill, obviously one of the reasons has to be to get certain tax advantages. What has happened, what the bon. gentlemen there opposite have been doing with their filibuster is they have been playing with the lives of the people of Corner Brook.

We do not want to see the awful stultified atmosphere that occurred during the negotiations when Kruger walked away and went back to Montreal when people did not believe the situation. These motions, Mr. Speaker, have been brought in to stop the bon. gentlemen there opposite from filibustering on behalf of the people of Corner Brook. Now, Mr. Speaker, also I want to point out that here we are in third reading o·f the bill and we are debating L6127 the previous question. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is wise for the bon. gentlemen to look up Beauchesne and see what can be debated and what cannot be debated. What _has gone through second reading, Mr. Speaker, is the principle of the bill, so we cannot debate the principle of this · bill at the present time. Now let us make that perfectly clear to everybody as this debate goes on. There is a reference in Beauchesne, page 221. To the so-called Opposition House Leader, that is this red book.

The fifth edition of Beauchesne, page 221, (5) says: "Third Reading - The purpose of the third reading is to review the bill in its final form after the shaping it has received in its earlier stages." Now, there is no other purpose for this debate. There cannot be debate as to the substance of the .bill, of whether it should have passed or whether it was wise to pass or whether it was unwise to pass and I am going to refrain from making any comments with respect to the principle of the bill. The only debate that is allowed in third reading is to review the bill in final form.

There are certain amendments allowed, one of which I have moved, which is the previous question which can be debated, Mr. Speaker, as well as whether the previous question should have been moved. Some of the bon. gentlemen there opposite can understand why we moved it. It means if this is resolved in the affirmative the question will be put, the matter will be over, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will come in and give his assent to the bill and enact it into law. There can be no further amendments.

So we have given the gentlemen there opposite one more chance to repeat their empty speeches with respect December 14, 1984 R6127

t.o this. They have half an hour each to respond and then we will put it to a vote. We have done this, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Corner Brook. We have been forced to take these measures which · we do not like. We would prefer to have these things debated out we do not like closure, we do not like moving the previous questions - but we are faced with an irresponsible, immature, uncaring, reckless, stupid, asinine Opposition who do not realize the realities of life and the dire consequences that will be visited upon the people of Corner Brook unless there is speedy passage of this bill.

Hon. gentlemen opposite would not believe us before, but now there is a letter before them, signed by Kruger, supporting exactly what we said earlier, but they still do not want to believe it. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) quite ·rightly said, they are playing Russian roulette with the lives of the people of Corner Brook, and they could not care less about the people for Corner Brook.

We have used the established procedures that have been set down in British parliamentary practice for years precisely for the purpose of protecting the people of Corner Brook and the people of Newfoundland, on the West Coast from a reckless Opposition such as we have opposite who would delay this bill over and over again and eventually see Kruger pick up its papers and leave and go back to Montreal. But the bon. gentlemen do not care about it, Mr. Speaker. They are so stupid that they do ' not understand.

They thinK they are in a Grade V classroom and they are talking to the teacher, and they are relating to the teacher and their L6128 intelligence quotient has not gone anything beyond that. But the chilling part of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the lives of the people of Corner Brook have been toyed with, and as far as this government is concerned, it cannot allow the situation to continue any longer. It is an essential prerequisite to pass this.

To those people who ask why do you not just resolve the Kruger situation, wait until the court case is decided, and then do it again, if necessary?, we reply it is either right or it is wrong and in our opinion it is right to do this .. Should we have nine or ten debates like this going on month after month, year after year, when it is so obvious what has happened? What . has happened is this is not retroactive legislation, it is conformatory legislation, conformatory of the origi~al intention. MR. NEARY : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please.

A point of order, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I do not know if Your Honour has been following this debate very closely or not, but the bon. gentleman is debating the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. He gave us a lecture a few minutes ago which was low in quality, very low in content, and could only come from a stinker, from in this House, Mr. Speaker: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! Order, please! MR. NEARY: December 14, 1984 R6128

The han. gentleman is now debating the pr-inciple of the bill and he should be made follow his own advice, Mr. Speaker. MR. MA RS HAL L: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I did that, Mr. Speaker. I must say I transgressed the LUles of the House. I have to make an open confession. MR. NEARY: What a stinker. MR. MARSHALL: I assume Your Honour is going to draw me to order and, having drawn me to order, then, Mr. Speaker, the han. gentlemen there opposite must comply also.

They now know what we mean by debating the principle of the bill. So I will sit down while Your Honour makes the LUling, but I just want to say to Your Honour I join in the point of order raised by the bon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) against me. And I say, Mr. Speaker, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and when it comes time for the bon. gentlemen to speak, we will not hear any debate on the principle of the bill. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order, the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) is quite correct that we are not peLmitted to debate the pr-inciple of the bill. We are dealing with third reading and it is very direct. The bon. the President of the L6129 Council. MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just say the purpose of this debate is to review the bill in its final foLm, not for the purpose of debating the pr-inciple of the bill, which Your Honour has just indicated, most for the purpose of discussing the reasons for posing the previous questions, whether it was wise to move the previous question on third reading.

I suppose the other type of amendment is noLmally put on in third reading is whether there should be a six month hoist. So let us get the debate, Hr. Speaker, constricted in that area. Let us make some progress for the people of Corner Brook, the people of the West Coast, and all of Newfoundland. The biggest thing about all of this debate, I will say in closing, is the shameless, disgusting, unreasonable, immature and stupid way in which the han. gentlemen there opposite have been prepared to toy with the lives of the people in this Province.

They know just how close it has come to KLUger picking up its papers and going back. I think that might even get through the thick heads of the bon. gentlemen there opposite and they might be constrained to vote in favour of the people of the West Coast and the people of Newfoundland. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard and witnessed the most despicable perfoLrnance I have seen in this December 14, 1984 R6129

House in a long time. He says we are toying with the lives of the people of Corner Brook. What we are toying with in the last week in this House, Mr. Speaker, is a dictatorship. We are fighting for democracy. We have never in our lives in this Province witnessed such tactics in this House, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman says they are using established procedures. What a joke, Mr. Speaker. What a joke. Is the bon. gentleman on some kind of a bad trip? We are using established procedures, he says. They are using dictatorial tactics, Mr. Speaker.

They are using the kind of tactics that you will only find in totalitarian countries, the kind of stuff you would find in Poland and in Nicaragua, Mr. Speaker. In totalitarian countries, behind the Iron Curtain, is where you will find this kind of strategy, this kind of tactic. Mr. Speaker, democracy has been trampled on in this House in the last few days. This recent motion by the hon. gentleman is closure, it is to gag members of the House, make no bones about that. I hope nobody there opposite is deluding themselves into believing that it is anything else but closure. It is closure, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr.

Speaker, it is only a scroundel that would take refuge in making statements - DR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! The bon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I did not want the bon. member to get into a state of L6130 apoplexy or anything of that order. We are on the third reading and the debate has to be confined precisely to the final form of the bill.

The bon. member by his own words just now was getting into debating a previous motion which was non-debatable, and, of course, having been non-debatable it was already passed by this House. He is now opening a debate that is quite out of order and I would ask Your Honour to direct him to confine his remarks to the third reading of the bill. MR . SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order, the bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are perfectly in order. We are debating a motion on the previous question, how the bill got where it was.

The procedure that we are using is closure. Mr. Speaker, I have not referred to the principle of the bill in any way, shape or form. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order, when remarks are made to the bill they are referred very directly to the bill. But we are also debating, at the present time that the previous question be put. Both are debated at the same time, although the principle of the bill is not to be discussed because we have passed it. The bon. member for LaPoile. HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the scroundel who just made that despicable speech December 14, 1984 R6130

and then ran out of the House, scurried out of the House like a coward because he was too ashamed to stand his ground, Mr. Speaker, that bon. gentleman -- -told us that we are following established procedure. We are not following an established procedure. We are following the procedures of a dictator, of a dictatorial administration, of an arrogant government, of a government that is on the run, of a government that is desperate, a government that is out of control, Mr. Speaker. They have taken leave of their senses, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, that same bon. gentieman, as I remember well - I was on the other side of the House when that bon. gentleman was over here - when closure was invoked in 1971, almost had a breakdown. He almost, Mr. Speaker, committed hari-kari. Now he is over there moving closure two days in a row, when he told us only last week tp.at they would never do it. They would not do it. Only Liberal administrations, federal and provincial, move closure, the bon. gentleman told us. Well, it is only a dictatorship that does what this han. crowd are doing here in the last two days. Mr.

Speaker, the han. gentleman said in his remarks that he is giving us a last chance. Since when did the government give us the right to speak in this han. House or outside the House? Since when? It is our right to speak in this House any time we feel like it, within the realm of good taste and within the rules of the House. The han. gentleman does not give us a last chance. The bon. gentleman is trying to gag us. They are using brute force, they are using their large majority to ram, to railroad this L6131 bill through third reading, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr.

Speaker, when the han. gentleman starts talking about toying with people's lives the han. gentleman should look in the mirror and hon. members there opposite should take a look at themselves and what they are doing in this House. They are making a sham out of the House. Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this House in the last week is similar to what we see happening in Poland. They are trying to suppress debate. If the Newfoundland Teachers • Association speaks out, the Premier writes a letter to the newspaper condemning them, they are not allowed to express their opinion.

If a municipality speaks out, the next thing down comes the administration on them like a ton of brick, and or the trade union movement, if they fight for their rights. The han. Premier should have heard the professor of history who was on CBC this morning interviewed about the anti-labour policies of this administration and he would have gotten an eye-opener, Mr. Speaker. Nobody dares speak out, The Mayor of Corner Brook spoke out during the federal election and wrote a letter to Mr. Crosbie, and the Premier tried to gag him.

They are trying to gag NAPE, they are trying to stop the NTA from expressing their opinion, they are threatening the Fishermen's Union, and bon. gentlemen opposite know that. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in this Province in the last year is an administration that is on the road . to a full dictatorship. MR. BAIRD: You supported one for twenty-three years. MR. NEARY: December 14, 1984 R6131

And only a scoundrel and only a group of scoundrels would hide behind statements like 'you are toying with the lives of the people in Corner Brook.' Only a warped mind, Mr. Speaker, would make that kind of a statement, only narrow-minded partisan, warped individuals, only somebody who is the ultimate in nastiness could make that kind of a statement, Mr. Speaker, that we are toying with the lives of the people in Corner Brook.

The bon. gentleman should have seen the interviews on television last night when the majority of the people, nine out of ten of them, who were interviewed in Corner Brook said they agreed with amending the legislation but they did not agree with the retroactivity part of it. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): A point of order. The bon. President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: The han. gentleman just a moment ago .was talking about some radio programme or some television programme I guess it was, and his perception was that the people of Corner Brook agreed with the bill but they did not agree the retroactivity. . In introducing elements like that, the bon. gentleman is talking about the principle of the bill. He drew me to order and I now draw him to order with respect to it. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, I would have to rule that discussion of the retroactivity of the bill would be discussing the principle of the bill and, since that has been passed, it is out of order. L6132 The bon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, two world wars were fought to give people the right-to freedom of speech. Two world wars and the Korean war were fought, and Newfoundlanders and Canadians laid down their lives, Mr.

Speaker, to protect democracy, to protect Canada and the world against tyranny, to protect society against the kind of dictatorial procedures that we are seeing in this House in the last week. The last time this came up and a war was fought, men and women fought against Hilter and Nazi Germany and fought against Mussolini•s fascist Italy. Mr. Speaker, I ask Your Honour is any comparison to what we are seeing here today, is there very much difference between the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the mouth, arm-waving Adolf Hilter, Mr. Speaker, and the present leader i~ this Province? MR.

ANDREWS: What regiment were you in? were old enough! MR. NEARY: You Mr. Speaker, only a scoundrel and a rogue would interrupt with that kind of a remark. The bon. gentleman should go out and take the breathalyser test or leave the House. Now if the bon. gentleman wants to get dirty, Mr. Speaker, we will get dirty and we will demand that people come into this House sober. MR . SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! I would remind the bon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) that he is insinuating that members of this House are not sober and he was pointing towards one bon. member of the House.

I would ask him if he would withdraw these remarks because I consider December 14, 1984 R6132

them to be unparliamentary. MR. NEARY: I will, Mr. Speaker, because I should have pointed towards a number, but I will withdraw the offending words. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! is considered I would ask withdraw it. MR. NEARY: Even that remark unparliamentary and the han. member to I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. But if the han. gentleman wants to play with fire he is going to get burnt. What a low, rotten, stinker, Mr. Speaker! What a general nuisance! I am amazed that Napoleon would keep the bon. gentleman in the Cabinet at all, Mr. Speaker.

So we have similarities between what is happening in this Province today and what happened in Nazi Germany and in Mussolini's fascist Italy, and what is happening in Poland today and in Nicaragua, and what happened in Argentia. The administration there opposite is developing into a fullfledged dictatorship, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Newfoundland are beginning to realize it. We do not need the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) to come in and tell us he is going to give us one more chance. We know what our rights are, Mr. Speaker, and our rights are being trampled on by han. gentlemen there opposite.

And the rights of the people of this Province are being trampled on. The iron heel of the Fuehrer on the other side has come down in the faces of the Newfoundland and Labrador people, the iron boot, Mr. Speaker. MR. BAIRD: L6133 You should have got an iron boot somewhere else years ago. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman should go out and try to explain his behaviour in this House to his constituents. So, Mr. Speaker, the iron boot has been shoved into the face, ground into the faces of the Newfoundland and Labrador people by this administration. It is a sad and sorry day for Newfoundland, Mr.

Speaker, because we cannot have free and open and continuous debate in this han. House, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentlemen are moving to gag the opposition, they are moving closure every day now in this hon. House to choke off debate, to gag members of the House and that is tyranny, that is as close to fascistism and Nazism as you can get. And, Mr. Speaker, how hon. gentlem~n c~n sit over there with smirks on their faces, how they can sit there and try to be smart­ alecky, try to be humorous when they are not is beyond that. MR. CALLAN: Why, do you think something wrong? MR.

NEARY: there Yes, there is something wrong them, Mr. Speaker, there definitely something wrong han. gentlemen there opposite. MR. CALLAN: In what way? MR. NEARY: is with is with They have no conscience, there is something wrong with their moral views, their moral attitude, their moral thinking. There is something wrong with them, Mr. Speaker. It is very easy to come to that conclusion when you look at the attitude and you listen to December 14, 1984 R6133

" the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) making the most despicable and rotten innuendo and accusation and insinuations, Mr. Speaker, you would not hear in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Now we are having the Fourth . Reich emerging in this Province, we are seeing the rise of the Fourth Reich, and the next thing we will all have to do the goose step up and down the centre of the House of Assembly and we will all have to come in and say, "Hail Fuehur", Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: We will cook a few gooses before that. MR. NEARY: Yes, I guarantee you we will cook a few gooses before that.

If I was the bon. gentleman standing in the doorway I would go out and sleep it off. We have had enough of the likes of the hon. gentleman, Mr. ·Speaker, looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses, do not know what is going on, while democracy is being threatened in this Province. democracy thrown out the window. Mr. Speaker, we have to tolerate in this House day in and day out interruptions from the likes of the bon. gentleman. And you would not mind if they were worthwhile, but they are low and rotten, Mr. Speaker. We saw an example of that last night. How low can you get?

The bon. gentlemen there opposite are so low now that they could crawl under a snake's belly, that is how low they are, Mr. Speaker. You could not get any lower, you could not belittle yourself any more than bon. gentlemen are doing over there in the last couple of days. How low can you get? Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill that L6134 is now being rammed and forced and bullied by brute force through third reading had a very rough ride in this House, a very rough ride indeed. DR. COLLINS: You have had your say, so you might as well vote for it now. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to reach the point where we have no choice and that is precisely what the complaint is about. MR. DINN: Is that not normal and reasonable? MR. NEARY: What is normal and reasonable? MR. DINN: That the people of this Province see you vote on something. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we pleasure of the there opposite. MR. DINN: You are now. MR. NEARY: are not at the han. gentlemen We are now, yes, and we do not like it, Mr. Speaker. It is frightening. It is frightening. MR. DINN: It is not frightening for the people out there. MR. NEARY: You know, Mr.

Speaker, when the people of Newfoundland woke up on April 7, 1982, and they realized that there were 43 members on that side of the House and 9 on this side, when they woke up on April 7, 1982, Mr. Speaker, do you know what went through their minds? You know the questions the December 14, 1984 R6134

majority of people in this Province asked themselves? Do you know what it was, Your Honour? They said, "Oh God, what have we done? We have given the Tories a sweep. We have reduced the Opposition and the real danger is that they are going to become arrogant and dictatorial." That was the concern of the majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on April 7, 1982. Now, Mr. Speaker, have their words come true? MR. DINN: Whose words? MR. NEARY: The people's. It is the people who count. MR. DINN: Have they been speaking to you lately? MR.

NEARY: God save the people, that is all I can say, from the tyrants that we have in control in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and I tell you that I am having a difficult time · - to keep my breakfast down for one thing - to find the words to describe the disgust that we have for this bon. crowd. MR. DINN: You are a real Charlie McCarthy. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what they are doing is they are using brute force, they are using their large majority, they are using bullying tactics, they are using jackboots, they are using Nazi, Mussolini, Fascist-like tactics. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please!

The Chair has been L6135 very lenient with the bon. member. He is making an emotional speech and I am sure he means every word of it. But it has been ruled in this House, and he can find it in Hansard that the words "Nazi" and "Mussolini '' have been ruled unparliamentary and I would ask the bon. member to withdraw them and please restrain. MR. NEARY: I withdraw them, Mr. What is unparliamentary? Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The word "Nazi" "Mussolini" have unparliamentary. MR. NEARY: Did anybody raise a with Your Honour Honour taken the doing it? MR.

SPEAKER: and the word been ruled point of order or has Your initiative in It is the Chair's responsibility to keep decorum in the House and the Chair took the initiative. MR. NEARY: I withdraw. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing from the Premier. - Fascist is allowed by the way - is the last squeek from a pig. And there was another gentleman in the world in 1939 that the whole world knew as a pig. MR. TULK: They are the black sheep of democracy. MR. NEARY: They are the black sheep of democracy is right. And what we December 14, 1984 R6135

are seeing now is the last squeal from a pig. The messenger is the rotten stinker, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) is the stinker, the Lord Haw-Haw, Dr. Goebbels, carrying out the orders from the Fourth Reich, and the Fourth Reich in this world is in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I believe after watching the present House Leader when · he was on this side of the House, that now he is over there he -espouses different principles and I would say the hon. gentleman is a fraud. DR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of order, the hon. Minister of Finance. DR.

COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been skirting around unparliamentary remarks all morning and- one is being lenient to him because he knows that he is on a losing wicket here, he knows that he has lost the sympathy of the working people in this Province, he has lost the sympathy of the public, that they are in total disarray over there. Nevertheless, one can only let him go so far and he has been skirting so near the edge that I think if you put all the skirtings together he has really gone over the edge, as he has even pointed out himself now when he used the word "fraud". So I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that he has now got into the area of unparliamentary conduct. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. L6136 MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: There is only one person skirting and who keeps skirting in this Province and that is the Minister of Finance. He is skirting the financial affairs of this Province, and skirting them right down the drain. I would remind the hon. gentleman - I know I do not need to remind the · Speaker - on page 112 of Beauchesne the word "fraud" has been ruled to be parliamentary since 1958. So the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) is not using a word that is unparliamentary at all if that is the only word that he wants to refer to. I understand that was the word, the word "fraud". DR. COLLINS: He has been skirting many things. MR. TULK: No, no. You said he has used the word "fraud" and was therefore being unparliamentary. It is not unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, the hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that the hon. gentleman quoted the use of "fraud" in 1958.

However, on page 107 it shows that that ruling has in fact been overruled and that in May 1960, December 1960, and April 1962, fraud has ruled to be unparliamentary. MR. TULK: Different ways that is being used, Mr. Speaker, that is all. December 14, 1984 R6136

Fraudulent is perfectly in order. MR. DINN: We do not like it in this House. MR. NEARY: We do not like what you are doing to this House either. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I know it is in Beauchesne, page 107, that the term "fraud" has been ruled as unparliamentary. On page 112 the word "fraud" is acceptable. So that is a later ruling so we will have to accept the word "fraud". MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can understand the feelings of hon. gentlemen there opposite being offended, being hurt, Mr. Speaker. These are very strong words that I am using here this morning, Mr.

Speaker, but it is a most unusual situation that we are talking about here. Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I started to say a few moments ago, had a pretty rough ride to get where it is now, to third reading. Mr. Speaker, could we have a quorum call because I want to be able to look into their faces to see the look of shame on their faces when we are debating this. So I would like to have a quorum call if Your Honour does not mind. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A quorum has been called. Call in the members. Quorum Three minutes have elapsed and there is a quorum present. L6137 The hon. member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: So, Mr. Speaker - MR. CARTER: What are you trying to say? Say it. MR. NEARY: What am I trying to say? If the han. gentlemen have not gotten the message by now, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is possible for something to happen to you if you inhale enough savoury. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should stop clowning around while we are talking about a very serious matter. We are talking about an administration that is trying to establish a full dictatorship in this Province. Even poor old Frank Moores, when he was in trouble, when he was boxed in, when he was on the ropes, did not invoke closure. DR.

COLLINS: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot find words to express how I feel here today.

When I look across at han. gentlemen there opposite and I see the smirks on their faces and I see how they look at their Fuehrer, their Napoleon, with goo-goo eyes, with their mouths open, looking for their favours down the road, some of them trying to worm their way into the Cabinet they would sacrifice their principles to get into the Cabinet - some of them crawling on their hands and knees, on their bellies trying to get a little bit of recognition so they can get into the Cabinet, some of them out doing Dale Carnegie courses, Kr. Speaker, as a prerequisite to try December 14, 1984 R6137

to get into the Cabinet, so they sit there day in and day out like trained seals looking up at the Fuehrer with their mouths open and their eyes popping out of the sockets while he leads them astray, while he takes them on the road to a full dictatorship. Mr. Speaker, is there anybody on that side of . the House who has any courage or any principles left? There are a few over there I thought had some gumption about them, had some courage. Is there anybody over there who does not have the yellow streak? Mr. Speaker, is there anybody? What about the member for Gander (Mrs. Newhook)?

In her senior years, does the bon. minister not realize what is happening? Does the hon. minister have any gumption or any principles? MRS . NEWHOOK: - I will go with him all the way. MR. NEARY: You will go with him all the way! You will go down with him all the way. Mr. Speaker, the administration have become cynical. I am not allowed to compare them to Mussolini's Italy, to Fascist Italy but we have a Newfoundland Mussolini. Is that permissible, Mr. Speaker? If it is out of order I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of order, the bon. the Minister of Finance. MR. NEARY: There is not point of order because I have withdrawn it. DR. COLLINS: L6138 Mr. Speaker, again the bon. member is taking undue latitude. We have a certain sympathy for the member opposite because he is trying to mend fences, he has dug himself into such a hole with the people of this Province that he is trying to mend fences desperately. We have a certain sympathy for that because he is only going to be in the House for a few more years anyway. We would not like to see him going down to defeat.

We have that much regard for the bon. member, we would like to see him retire gracefully from the House. He is not likely to do that because of this present debate. I think people of this Province are rising up so much against members opposite over their opposition to this particular situation we are in now, because it is so meaningful for jobs in this Province, that he is in grave danger that he will be totally repudiated in the next election.

Now we have a certain amount of sympathy for that and we would like him to try to mend fences, but he is doing it in such a manner now that it is really outside the limits of parliamentary procedure. We would ask Your Honour, in a ·very kind way, to lead him by the hand back into the fold again. MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in regards to the Finance Minister (Dr. Collins) rising in this House to say that the member for LaPoile's (Mr.

Neary) days are numbered, I would remind him of an old saying in.the December 14, 1984 R6138

Bible, "Many are called but few are chosen." In the case of the member for LaPoile, I would remind the Finance Minister, that many have tried but none have succeeded and they are not likely to. Now the .truth of the matter is there is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) was about to get up on a word that the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) had used, but when he was halfway up - they have a serious habit of being half up and half down over there; the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) would know what I am talking about - to make a point of order, the member for LaPoile withdrew the remarks that he had made. So there is no point of order. The Minister of Finance is just trying to waste the time of the member for LaPoile who is making an excellent speech, one which hurts the other side of this House because it strikes at the very truth and essence of this bill. MR. NEARY: Right· an. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, I do not have to remind the bon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) that we are just dealing with this bill in its final form, he is well aware of that.

However, there is no point of order. The bon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest to bon. gentlemen who are interrupting me on that side of the House is if they want to find out from the people of this Province who betrayed the people, L6139 let them call an election on this issue, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: We will very shortly now. MR. NEARY: No! The bon. gentleman found out about the polls after the federal · election and that is why he did not try to ride in on the coattail of Mr. Mulroney in the federal sweep. Mr.

Speaker, the han. gentleman saw the weakness, saw how much trouble he was in. But one thing this debate has produced, one thing it has shown the people of this Province - the bon. member for Exploits (Dr. Twomey) should bear this in mind - is that the government is weak and that the Opposition is strong. That is what it has shown, Mr. Speaker . And if bon. gentlemen doubt that, call an election and let the people say who betrayed them. Let the people in Ferryland look at· the member for Ferry land (Mr. Power), who is not in his seat in this bon.

House right now, a smart young man, and let the people down in Ferryland deal with ·his position on this bill. The same way in St. Mary's - The Capes; the bon. gentleman whom I thought had great moral principles, had a lot of scruples, Mr. Speaker, is selling out the people so that the administration there opposite can get their own way. It is pure ego, it is spite, it has nothing to do with toying with the lives of anybody, it is toying with the han. gentleman's tiny brain, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is all about. It is an administration that is on an ego trip. MR.

TULK: They are never coming down from it either. December 14, 1984 R6139

MR. NEARY: And they are never coming down. They do not know how far to go, they do not know when to stop, they have gotten out of control, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: You might be .wiped out totally next time. MR .. NEARY: They are on a bad, bad trip. How can the bon. the member for St. Mary's - The Capes (Mr. Hearn) ever go and face the plant workers down in Trepassey again? How can he do it? Mr. Speaker, the bon. gentleman, drapes himself in such a pious flag, is such a pious individual, Mr. Speaker, is so self-righteous once he almost took the oath of poverty. Now, Mr. Speaker, where is be?

Is he on the side of the ordinary people now? He is betraying his constituents, he is knifing his constituents in the back and going a~ong with the tyrant, going along with the Emperor. Mr. Speaker, they have their own ode, they have their own army, they have their own flag, they have their own bravery awards. What is the next step? A total dictatorship, that is the next step. MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the bon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman is not debating the 'final form of the bill; the hon. gentleman is not debating the motion, which is the motion of the previous question here. We are not interested too much in the bon. gentleman's assessments of the membeFs on this side of the L6140 House. The bon. gentleman is out of order. He is in disarray, as a matter of fact. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the bon . the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I would submit to Your Honour that I am completely in order.

I am debating bow the bill got where it is, I am debating a closure motion and I am referring to the position that certain members opposite took on the various stages of debate of this bill. Everything is completely in order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I would remind the bon. the member for LaPoile - (Mr. Neary) that we are debating the final form of the bill at the present time. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we have the member for St. Mary's - The Capes (Mr. Hearn) who tries to profess that he is a real saint. DR. COLLINS: He is, too. MR. NEARY: Yes, he is a saint alright! Mr.

Speaker; ·we are seeing more Judases on that side of the House in the last week or so! We saw the Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) go up to Ottawa and sell out to Mrs. Carney. MR. CARTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. December 14, 1984 R6140

MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Order, please! On a point of order, the hon. the member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: We usually hear so much spite corning from the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) that we do not pay too much attention to it, but, just for the record, I think I heard him say a little while ago that the member for St. Mary's was knifing his constituents. Now, I do not think that is parliamentary. I mean, just because the hon. member was elected by the riff-raff of his constituency - MR. NEARY: What an insult to the people of LaPoile! MR.

CARTER: - does not give him any excuse to say that a member is knifing his constituents, and I think he should be brought to order. MR. NEARY: I will send that Hansard out to the people in LaPoile, I can tell you. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, there is no point of order. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the hon. the member for St. Mary's The Capes (Mr. Hearn), who always acts so self-righteously and is highly indignant when anybody abandons his principles. When anybody does things that he considers to be unscrupulous, he gets so pious.

Why is he doing it? He has that angelic look and L6141 tries to leave the impression that he is a saint. A saint alright, Mr. Speaker. More like Judas! MR. TOBIN: Why are you picking on the bon. member? MR. NEARY: Following the bad example set by the Premier and the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) , the hon. gentleman is going along behind them, running along behind the Premier like a little lamb, scrabbling along, crawling along on his belly behind them. MR.. ANDREWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the han. the Minister of Environment. MR.

ANDREWS: I do believe that in the vernacular, the word 'Judas' refers to a traitor and I believe the word 'traitor' is unparliamentary. MR. NEARY: If I offended the hon. gentleman - I did not refer to him as 'Judas • - I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I have too much to say for that. The han. gentleman is Iscariot, that is perfectly in order, Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows what I am referring to. MR. SPEAKER: The remark has been withdrawn. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I am talking about that saintly-looking gentleman from st. Mary's - The Capes (Mr.

Hearn), who did not raise one word of protest about the procedures that December 14, 1984 R6141

were used in ramming this bill through the House. He did not lift his voice to protest the way that the House was treated, the contempt that was shown for the House and the people of this Province. How, in all conscience, can the han. gentleman sit there and see the flag hauled down and democracy tran~led on, the jackboot put in the face of his constituents? How can he sit there and tolerate that? The only reason you could give, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. gentleman is crawling along on his belly, trying to get into the Cabinet, that is all, that is the only reason for it.

Sacrificing, selling his principles, selling his scruples for thirty pieces of silver is what the bon. gentleman is doing. He can see a Cabinet post. He is blinded with ambition. He is so blinded with ambition that he is satisfied to throw -his principles aside, tQ abandon his principles, Mr. Speaker. No _w, Mr. Speaker, let us take the member for St. Barbe (Mr. Osmond). Look at the hon. gentleman; a very intelligent-looking man, very vocal, very articulate, a gentleman, no doubt, who wants to make a career in public life. The bon. the member for St.

Barbe, how can that bon. gentleman go back and face the people in Woody Point and Norris Point, Rocky Harbour and Cow Head, honest, hard-working, decent Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I have drawn the bon. member's attention on two occasions to the fact we are debating the final form of this bill and he continues L6142 to stray from that point. I would ask the han. member to confine his remarks to the final form of the bill. MR. NEARY: Well~ Mr.

Speaker, I am referring to the final form of the bill and how it has arrived at the stage it is now, the attitudes that members took towards it, their attitude towards closure and moving such things as the previous question, which is closure. The han. gentleman supported all these things, and I am asking him how he can go back and look his constituents straight in the eye? How can he do it? DR. COLLINS: That is parliamentary. There is nothing wrong with that. MR. NEARY: There is nothing wrong with what? DR. COLLINS: There is nothing wrong with moving the previous question. MR.

NEARY: There is nothing wrong with the previous question, nothing wrong with closure? The bon. gentleman must be sick, there must be something wrong with him when he does not think there is anything wrong with closure, that there is anything wrong with behaving like a dictatorship. The han. gentleman thinks there is nothing wrong with it. There must be something wrong with the bon. gentleman. DR. COLLINS: Read Beauchesne. It is in Beauchesne. MR. BUTT: You will not go to Corner Brook again in broad daylight. December 14, 1984 R6142

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, do not worry, we have our finger on the pulse in Corner Brook. Some hon. gentleman over there a few moments ago said, 'You do not have the support of the working-class people in this Province.' Well, my answer to that is that if this administration stays in power very much longer, we will not have very many more working people left, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, here we have the United Nations, the ILO, the International Labour Organization, looking at Newfoundland, looking at this form of legislation. The ILO, the United Nations! What an embarrassment we are for Canada as a whole! MR.

MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr_. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman continues to debate the principle of this bill. Your Honour has already drawn the hon. gentleman to order on two or three occasions with respect to the way he is conducting debate. When he is talking about the ILO and his perceived attitude of certain people towards the bill, he is obviously talking about the principle of the bill.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, it was accepted by the Chair that we are confined to the final form of the bill itself on this particular motion of the previous question. The hon. gentleman is out of order when he is debating the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and he is debating the principle of the bill. L6143 MR. NEARY: I certainly did not refer to the principle of the bill at all. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, there are various forms of closure available under the rules of this House and members opposite have pulled them all out in the course of this debate. DR. COLLINS: Yes, properly, under the rules. MR. BARRY: Yes, under the rules. Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, closure is permitted. And we have seen how often, _ Mr. Speaker, any reasonable, any fair-thinking government has invoked closure. In Canada, I think, we have had six such incidents raised going back to 1913, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: And some of them were during the war. MR. BARRY: I think four of them were during the war.

From 1932 until 1956 I do not think there were any. I do not know if there were any apart from 1917 until 1956, except for 1932. And, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly the member is pointing out how since 1971, despite many serious problems being faced by governments in this Province, they have never deemed it fit to invoke closure. The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) December 14, 1984 R6143

is reflecting the cavalier attitude of that government towards closure. Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition we are entitled to point out that the democratic rights and privileges of the members of this House of Assembly are being trampled upon, and that is what the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is saying. He is explaining why this is happening and he is relating it to the attitudes of members opposite. But we are talking about the fact that the rights and privileges of the members of this House are being trampled upon by the many forms of closure being hauled out of the trick bag of the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall). MR. NEARY: That is right. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! - The han. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Just one point on that. I am sure that the han. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) did not mean to cast aspersions on Your Honour, on "the Chair when he says that the rights of members are being trampled on in this House. I am sure he did not mean that. Because I am sure that if anyone tried to trample on the parliamentary rights in this House, Your Honour would stop the proceedings there and then and bring that person to heel. I am sure the hon.

Leader of the Opposition did not mean that. It must have ·been just a slip of the tongue. And perhaps he would have the good grace to get up and say that he did not mean that Your L6144 Honour was allowing the members of this House to have their parliamentary rights trampled on. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, the hon. ~ember for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is straying away from debating the final form of this bill. We are in third reading. If he continues to stray from that I will have to rule him out of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what han. gentlemen are doing is making a mockery out of Parliament.

They are making a mockery out of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, if the administration had been anyways reasonable no doubt this bill would have followed its natural course. It would have been brought into the House the same as any other bill. It would have gone .through the various stages with very close scrutiny, with some debate, and eventually it would have become the law of the land. But, Mr.

Speaker, this bill, more than any other bill in the history of this Province, had the roughest trip through this House of any bill, certainly, that I have seen in my twenty-three years, and I doubt if any of the bon. gentlemen whose portraits are hanging on the wall of this House, Mr. Speaker, have ever seen. It was a very, very controversial piece of legislation, And the question we have to ask ourselves is do the people understand what is going on in this House? And, Mr. Speaker, if my judgment is any good at all, I would have to say, yes, they do understand what is happening in this House.

They understand that the government is using its large majority to ram a piece of unpopular, immoral legislation December 14, 1984 R6144

through the House . They are bullying the Opposition, they are bullying the House, Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening. They are treating the House of Assembly as if .it were in Poland or in some other totalitarian country. People understand that,Mr. Speaker, because there has been an awful lot of publicity about this debate and about this particular bill . And hon. gentlemen may think that people do not understand what the bill is all about, but they do, Mr. Speaker. They do. I know what is wrong with hon. gentlemen there opposite; they are smarting under the attacks, they are smarting under the criticism.

They have no support in the Province, except for a handful of employers, for the retroactivity part of this bill. And the hon. gentleman is getting ready to leap up because I mentioned the word 'retroactivity'. Well, go ·ahead leap up. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no support for this bill, no support at all, no'support whatsoever, not even in Corner Brook, much to the hon. gentleman's dismay. As much as hon. gentlemen there opposite have tried to poison the atmosphere, muddy up the water, drag in red herrings, Mr. Speaker, they have been unsuccessful.

The word has gone out from this House, because of the strenuous efforts of the Opposition, to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, that democracy is no more, that any time they want to, they can bring in a rotten piece of legislation, an evil piece of legislation. Do you realize, Your Honour, they could bring in a piece of legislation tomorrow to take Your Honour down in front of Confederation Building and build a L6145 scaffold, and have Your Honour hanged from the scaffold in front of Confederation Building? Do you realize that, Mr. Speaker? And they are so irresponsible they are likely to do it.

Look at what they have done to organizations and individuals who have dared to criticize Napoleon, the Emperor. Look at what he has done, and what his staff is doing, the propaganda machine that he has in his office. MR. TULK: He has vowed we will not forgive them. MR. NEARY: He has made statements that he will not forget, you are going to be punished, we will never forgive you. That is the kind of stuff we are hearing, Mr. Speaker. The same sort of thing that you will hear in Poland, the same sort of thing you hear from Gaddafi. Mr. Speaker, I tell you it is a sad day, it is a sad, sad day for Newfoundland.

It is a sad day. The han. gentleman cannot defend himself. The han .. gentleman cannot hide behind statements like we are toying with people's lives, because the hon. gentleman knows that that is not flying, it is not washing, people are not buying it. There is no excuse for rotten legislation, no excuse for it. MR. TULK: They have a credibility problem. MR. NEARY: They do have a credibility problem, and a bad one at the moment .

And the han. gentleman is trying to distract from this bill by making statements about the offshore agreement, about Air/Sea Rescue, using his old strategy, his old tactic of trying to December 14, 1984 R6145

distract from the real issues in this Province, Mr. Speaker. And the real issue is the way that this Province is being governed, the type of leadership we have. I said it before and I will say it again, that up to about the past year and a half, I was observing the hon. gentleman very carefully, and I tell you he was a very tough man out there with the electorate, a pretty tough guy. He was a fighter. He was a man of scruples, of high moral principles, Mr. Speaker, but how the mighty have fallen! Oh, how they have fallen. MR. TOBIN: Look at yourself. You have moved down three ~eats. MR.

NEARY: Oh, how they have fallen, Mr. Speaker. As I said last night, those the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Mr: Speaker, I am not by nature the kind of a person who casts personal insults at people, but we are talking about an administration that has gone astray, we are talking about an administration that is on the road to a total dictatorship. The Premier knows he is wrong and that is why he is so emotionally uptight and upset every time he gets into the middle of the debate. He knows he is wrong. The message is coming back to the hon. gentleman and the next poll will show it.

The hon. gentleman will pay the price for Bill 37 and his dictatorial strategy in this House. Where are the hon. gentleman's principles and all the things he, the great fighter, stood for. Where are they? The hon. gentleman now hides behind a smoke screen and says we are trying to save $27 million for a handful of employers in this Province. Is that the bon. L6146 gentleman's job? Is that what he was elected to do? Nobody is going to lose, not one person.

The bon. gentleman has not proved to us that one single person would lose a job if this bill stayed on the books and we just amended it to look after Kruger, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) said when he provided the House with a formula to get the hon. gentleman off the hook, to get him out of the predicament he was in. But, Mr. Speaker, they did not have to go to 'the extreme of making it retroactive, something that flies in the face of natural justice here. It is morally wrong; the Premier knows he is wrong, the hon. gentlemen there opposite know they are wrong. Mr.

Speaker, you should be sitting on this side of the House and see the looks on their faces when we stood to debate, or see the way they cringe when the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) invokes closure, not once but twice. MR. TULK: Four times counting this morning. MR. NEARY: This is four times in a row we have had closures, different forms of closures in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker. MR. TOBIN: I never thought you were like that, sizing up me. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, we have heard some pretty low interruptions from hon. gentlemen there opposite this morning. and I hate to get down and roll in the mud with bon. gentlemen but if it is necessary I guarantee you I can do it. This is not a personal matter, it is nothing personal about this. December 14, 1984 R6146

MR. TOBIN: The only thing you know anything about is dirt and filth and personal attacks, that is all you are any good at. Sit down, boy, you are making a show of yourself. MR. NEARY: The Premier will never put you in the Cabinet. You are never going ·to worm you way into the Cabinet. The Premier knows better than that, he knows you are low class and low caliber. He has more respect for the member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow) , who at least is not low and rotten and did not have to be brought to order thirty-seven times in this House in one day. Mr. Speaker, we were talking about one last chance.

I am going to give the administration one last chance: Withdraw the retroactivity aspects of this bill, that is your one last chance. MR. SPEAKER (Dr. McNicholas): Order, please! The bon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, in the last three or four days we have seen the Premier of this Province attempting to take away the rights of members who have been elected by the people of this Province. This is what has happened, Mr. Speaker. This morning the bon. Minister of Energy (Mr.

Marshall) stopped us from presenting petitions on behalf of our constituents, who had not asked for any big thing, just a chance to have electrical rates stabalized and equalized in this Province. That was not a big request, Mr. Speaker, but, for the second day in a row, we were stopped this, in the people's House, from presenting petitions L6147 because the minister invoked closure. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) and the Minister of Energy should go down in history in this Province as two individuals who muzzled members of the Opposition and prevented them from carrying out the duties they were elected to perform. Sometimes I have respect for the Premier, but I believe the Premier today sat by and allowed his lieutenant, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) - as he did yesterday with the Minister of Justice - to perpetrate a grave injustice in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the Orders of the Day are useless in this House if the government can change them when they want to.

So I do not see why we have an Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. Today and yesterday we were partially through item (

f) when the House Leader on the government side rose up and stopped us from presenting legal, proper petitions calling for government to take some action. Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a one party state, there is an official Opposition in this Province. There are members in this House who wish to stand up on behalf of people in the . Province, for example, the people in Gray River. In fact, this morning, Mr. Speaker, one of our petitions was from the constituents of a Cabinet minister, and, the bon. President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) or the member for St. John's North (Mr.

Carter), one of them said we should not be presenting the petition because it was in the minister's hands. Mr. Speaker, we had a proper petition to present. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had more petitions to present but we are not allowed to because of closure. The member for Port au December 14, 1984 R6147

Port (Mr. Hodder) had two or three petitions to present but he was not allowed to present them either. And, Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if we were allowed to continue today we still had petitions. We still have petitions ready to present, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Speaker in the Chair now made a ruling yesterday that we had to turn the clock back because we made a wrong procedure. Mr. Speaker, maybe we should turn the clock back now to let us present the petitions that we have. Why can we not go back and present the petitions that were given to us to present in this bon. House? Now, Mr.

Speaker, I believe the whole crunch of the matter of this Bill 37 is the letter or the correspondence, whether it was verbal or written correspondence, that the Premier had with the head of Kruger. That is the crunch of the whole matter. The Premier tabled a letter that was written to him from Kruger, but he deceived us when he failed to present the correspondence that he had with Kruger. Mr. Speaker, the first line of that letter shows that the Premier initiated the correspondence where he says, 'You have asked whether Kruger Incorporated would be prepared to complete this acquisition.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, that was a request made by the Premier is why members on this side of the House are so determined, will use every means possible of stopping this government from running roughshod over the lives of the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, Council (Mr. people in concerned. believe the the President of the Marshall) said the Corner Brook are Yes, Hr. Speaker, I people in Corner Brook L6148 are concerned because, as I saw on a TV programme from there last night, nine out of ten people interviewed said this government is taking the wrong approach. And, Mr.

Speaker, if the Opposition has done anything in the last few days in this House it has showed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what kind of a dictator we have in this Province. That is the one positive aspect of the whole process for the last week. It is really positive because the people finally realize that we have the same type of person, with the same type of attitude trying to run the Province for the last five years as we had from 1949 to 1971 - 'My way or no way. ' Hr.

Speaker, the people of the Province got sick and tired of it in 1971 and I am sure when the Premier decides to call an election they will show they are still sick and tired of it. We do - not need this any longer, Mr. Speaker. A high school principal can no longer be a dictator but must rely upon his teachers, upon his lieutenants in the classroom, and, Hr. Speaker, the same thing should apply to the Premier.

So I think there has been a very positive aspect of the whole procedure, of the whole debate for the past six or seven days, and that is that we have finally gotten through to the people in Baie Verte, gotten through to the people in Corner Brook, gotten through to the people in Labrador City, gotten through to the people in Grey River, that this government is not standing up for the well-being and interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that this government is standing up for the multi-nationals, standing up for Kruger, standing up for IOC. Hr. Speaker, the December 14, 1984 R6148

reason this government is acting this way is it is cont