Volume 2 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 2nd Session VERBATIM REPORT Tuesday, March 27, 1973 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 37

March 27, 1973 The Houae met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker· in the Chair. MR. SPF.AKF.Ri Order, pleAae! -,------ Tape 829 (afternoon) HON. G,R. OTTENHEIMER~ (MINISTER OF EDUCATION): Mr. Speaker. I wiah~to inform the legislature of the situation as it presently exists regarding the provision of heat in the school at Buchans. There are two school systems. Roman Catholic and the Integrated School System. A boiler has been installed to heat the Roman Catholic School, so far no heat is being provided for the two echools which are next to one another 0 forthe Integrated School Board.

PIC - 1 The Roman Catholic School at Buchana is a 300 pupil school and a boiler of sufficient capacity was found. The buildings of . th~-~ntegrated School Board are designed for approximately 600 students and so far it has not been possible to get a boiler of sufficient capacity, Now the superintendents of both school boards, they are Mr.

Cull of the Integrated School Board and Mr, Southcott of the Roman Catholic School Board,have been meeting in an attempt to arrange a shift system whereby pupils in the schools under tre jurisdiction of both boards could share the services of the one school. lt·has not been possible for them to work out such a shift system, the main difficulty as I understand it being that of housing approximately 900 pupils in a building desi~ned for approximately 300.

Provision has however been made for the Grade XI students at the Integrated School who are preparing for public examinations to continue their studies in the An~lican Parish Hall. After it was learned that a shift system could not be worked out,a stationary engineer was sent to Stephenville to examine a boiler which have been located there and it was only approxi~ately an hour ago that it was learned that this boiler is not in fact suitable. 2847

March 27, 1973 Tape 830 PK -1 I ahould point out as well that this morning I phoned Mr. Hart ot the American Smelting and Refining C0111pany Limited at Buchana to officially request him,as Minister of Education and on behalf of the government of the province,to permit union workers to provide heat for the schools without heat at Buchana. His position was that he would agree to the provision of heat in general or for additional premises as well, this I understand is unacceptable to the union. The point is he refused to allow workers to provide heat only for the schools concerned.

Obviously I do not wish to comment upon the point at issue in the labour dispute itself. I should however state that in refuaing to allow workers to provide heat to the schools• company has in the government's opinion not acted 1n the best interests of the approximAtely 600 pupils concerned who in no way can be regarded as parties to the dispute, The government are continuing to do everything in its power to provide heat for the schools and to minimize the amount of time during which the schools will be closed.

This includes every possibility of locating other boilers. '.Ibis I understand,although I do not know much about the technique involved,is not very easy because the necessity of size, the necessity of their being in a certain state of repair and also investigating the possibility of purchase of boilers for the schools,this would run in the vicinity of approximately $30,000. Inquiries are being made to see whether boilers which can be purchased are in ~act suitable.

So we are continuing in every way possible to provide heat for the schools and to keep to an absolute minimlUI\ the time which would be lost by the pupils. MR. S,A. NF.ARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the honourable minister a question before he takes his seat? I just want to make 2848

March 27, 1973 Tape 830 (afternoon) PK - 2 ur• that I am clear on this point~ Did I understand the minister to ••Y that the union were prepared to supply the technician  to opetate the boiler but the company were not prepared to just provide heat for that one school,that they wanted to provide heat for the hospital and the two schools? MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, no. MR. NEARY: Just the two schools. MR. OTTENHHMF.R: What I learned from Mr. Hart was that heat is being provided now to one achool and to the hospital. My request to him was,would he allow union workers to provide heat for the school without heat.

His answer was no. He would consider providing heat in general by which he meant other areas. MR. NEARY: He seems to be pretty small minded. MR. OTTENHEIMER: But he refused to allow union members access to the premises to provide heat for the school. I make it quite specifically to him that I did not wish to get involved in the labour dispute or what he or the union regarded as essential services or anything at all but on a very specific point I was asking his concern and that was for provision of heat to the schools. The answer was a refusal. HON. T. M. DOYLE: (MINISTER OF TOURISM): Mr.

Speaker, I have a statement that I would like to make at this time. Several months ago when the well-known and respected Newfoundland Coasting Skipper, Captain Charlie Kane,announced his retirement from the coasting trade and offered his vessel the "Norma and Gladys" for sale. It occurred to me that of the many thousands of schooners that had existed in Newfoundland this vessel did seem to be the only remaining schooner symholizing an era now past.

Following suhsequent investip,ations by officials of the Historic Resources Division of my department,a decision was reached to approach the Secr<'tariate Of National Museum Policy in the Department of The Secretary of State at Ottawa for assistance to purchase the ''Norma and Gladys." 28~9

March 27, 1973 Tape 830 (afternoon) I am very pleased today to announce that our request of $18,000 for this purchase has now been approved under Toe Secretary of State special ~rants funds. It is the intention of the Historic Resources D1v1B1on in my department to restore and equip the "Norma and Gladys" as a fishing schooner with the lower decks aet aside for travelling exhibits. We have heen given to understand that further funding for this purpose will be made available to us under the National Museum Policy.

The "Norma and Gladys" was built in 1945 by that well known shipbuilder,the late Captain Henry Stone of Monroe, Trinity Bay. Por six years he prosecuted the Labrador fishery and since 1951 ahe has been a welcome sight along the northeast coast of Newfoundland particularly in ports of the Great Northern Peninsula as far north aa Cooks Harbour. In fact it can truthfully be said that both Captain Kane and the "Norma and Gladys" were always welcome visitors in just about every port on the northeast coast.

I am quite pleased that we have now been able to obtain vessel so that she may continue to ply the waters around Newfoundland, this time as a floating museum depicting our rich maritime history. At the same time I am also pleased to announce that a sum of $63,500 has been approved from the same sou~ce for a design report and preliminary drawings for a new Newfoundland museum and that our museum has now attained associate status which in effect qualifies us for the very type of funding I have outlined above.

We were also delighted to learn today that the Conception Bay Museum Association with headquarters at Harbour Grace has been granted an amount of $31,000 for further restoration of the Court House in that community, a certain amount of work having already been done there by our own Public Works Department, and that the Trinity Historical Society baa received an amount of $2,000 towards their local projects. 2850

March 27, 1973 Tape 830 (afternoon) n- 4 From information official• of my Historic Resources Division have received,I am confident that we are finally beginning to make inroad• into variou• federal funding agencies which were heretofore virtually untapped by this province. Thank you. NOTICE OF MOTIONS MR. O'ITENREIMER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act." HON. T. A . HICKMAN: (MINISTER OF JUSTICE) : Mr.

Speaker• I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill; "An Act Further To Amend The Registration of Deeds Act." ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RON. H. COLLINS (MINISTER OF fUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to Question no. 39 on the Order Paper dated February 26, in the name of the honourable member for St. Barbe North. RON. C. W. DOODY (:MINISTF.R OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT): Mr. Speaker, the answer to Question No. 116, in the name of the honourable member for White Bay South, on the Order Paper of March 7, 1973. 2851

March 27, 1973 Tape no. 830 Page - 5 OIDERS OF 'IBE DAY Mil. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions outstanding. 'lbe hon. Minister of Public Works and Services promised to get me some information on the Babb Construction. Did the honourable lliniater get the information? HR. EARLE: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that the question would have been put on the Order Paper today. I am not exactly sure of the nature of the queation but if the honourable member will give me exactly what he wants to know, I shall get it for him. MB.. NEARY: carried out. The value of the contracts and what work was actually MR.

EARLE: I will get the answers. MB.. NEARY: The Minister of Finance was going to get me some information on the Linerboard logging operation in Goose Bay in connection with a wildcat strike that took place down there yesterday. MB.. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be described as a wildcat strike. Two employees were laid off on Friday at Goose Bay from the warehouse division of the company. There was a reduction in the work force, the Stores and Warehouse Division. Yesterday 011e of the employees in the warehouse division walked out, presumably because they wanted to have these employees reinstated.

They are not members of the union. They are not members of the collective bargaining unit and some of them have nov returned to work and some have still not returned to work but it is not a wildcat strike. As the honourable gentleman, Kr. Speaker, realizes from out discussion of last week, and as we all realize, everything possible must be done to make the operation more efficient in Labrador and to save costs • Thia ia a move in that direction. MR. NEARY: Hr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations.

Can the minister confirm or deny that the chief executive officer of the Labour Relations Board has resigned to 2852

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 831 take up new duties? If so,what action has been taken to fill his position? MR..'DAWE: That is confirmed, the normal course of action. MR.. NEARY: Normal course of action? MR.. DAWE: What do you usually do when a vacancy occurs? HR. NEARY: I presume the job would be advertised and the other civil servants would get a crack at it. Mr. Speaker, another cuestion for the Minister of ~anpower and Industrial Relations. Did the minister meet with the steel­ workers executive from Wabush today? MR. DAWE: Yes. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, Would the minister care to give the House a report of the meeting? MR. DAWE:_ No. MR. NEARY: We are really getting information today, Sir. Mr. Speaker, a question for the honourable the Premier and this is a rather urgent matter. Will the Premier inform the House if the government have made representation to the Government of · Canada to extend the benefit period for several thousand fishermen whose benefits have expired or are due to expire this month in connection with fishermens' unemployment insurance? ?-'R. MOORES (PREMIER): The answer is no. ~r. Speaker. MR. ROBERTS: You have not? MR. NEARY: Shame!

Shame! A further question for the Minister of Industrial Relations. Did he not make a release saying that he had made such representations? MR. MOORES: I understood. Mr. Speaker, that the question was directed to me. Had I made recommendations the answer was no. MR. THOMS: n,e government MR. MOORES: The ~inister of Manpower and Industrial Relations. 2853 Page 1

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 831 Page 2 MR. NEARY: ~..r. Speaker, have the government made any representation to the Department of Transport to have ice-breaking services provided on the Northeast Coast so that fishermen may get their long­ liners out to a patch of seals that is with a few miles of shore? The honourable Premier I am asking, Mr. Speaker, and when I want the flunkies to answer I will ask them. MR. MOORES__:_ That is all right, Mr. Speaker, my assistant will answer,who happens to have followed through on this matter and speaking of flunkies,one who knows one better probably than anyone else •.. MR.

NEARY: Oh come on answer the question, give us the information. MR. MOORES: The question will be answered by someone who ••• MR. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been following through on the business of the icebreaking on the Northeast Coast since the last of December with Mr. Marchand and his assistant flunky in Ottawa, because when you wire the Minister of Transport you get his flunkies to answer his correspondence, those many, numerous, thousands, myriad flunkies that they have in Ottawa. On:February 27, I wired the member for Grand Falls - White Bay - Labrador, Mr.

Rompkey, reouesting and at the same time corresponding telegram to the Minister of Transport requesting additional icebreaking facilities to be made available to the fishermen and other people on the Northeast Coast, right from Bonavista all the way through to Cape John including LaScie which is on the other side of Cape John. That was February 27. On February 29, two days later, I had a reply back from Mr. Marchand.

Yesterday I got a reply back from the member for Grand Falls - White B~y - Labrador in the fot'VI of a letter, saying that he had brou~ht the matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons, I have about three of four other tele~rams that I sent both to Mr. Marchand and to ~r. Rompkey in my files that the hono11r.4ble m~her could look at if he wishes. I hnve also sent all the requeAtA on the Northeast r.oast that I was aware of to Captain Leach here fs St. John's, and to Mr. r.eor~e. I think it totals four 2854

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 831 letters over the period from February 15, up to the present day. I was talking to the Department of Transport officials this morning and they informed me that the"Sir Hmnphrey Gilbert"is presently in the Hamilton Sound Area going to Change Islands with some oil - forty barrels of oil and some food supplies. Captain Leach informed me at that time that they are in the process of trying to get the"McDonald" as well as the"Sir Humphrey Gilbert"to go to the Northeast Coast.

A long-range forecast for the Northeast Coast for the next three days, for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday,is southerly winds. If this occurs the ice will move off sufficiently ·to allow either the"McDonald"or the ''Gilbert" one or the other to go on into the Little Bay Islands, Nipper's Harbour, LaScie Area,and the other one would go into Botwood 3 to help the ships there. That is the latest status concerning the icebreakin~ facilities as far as I know, as of ten-fifteen or ten-thirty this morning • MR. MOORES: If the "Sir John A.McDonald" gets in ••• MR. PECKFORD: Right. That is as far as I know.

I called the Department of Transport at about twelve-thirty or twelve-thirty-five and I could not get Mr. George on the phone at that time to find out what had happened since nine-thirty. MR. NEARY: day or so. I hope the longliners will be in the fat, Sir, in the next Now, Mr. Speaker,~ question for the honourable the Premier.

In view of the fact that the government have not made representation to the government of Canada to have the benefit neriod for fishermen extended, will the Premier indicate whether or not the provincial government is going to provide special assistance to fishermen whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired and who otherwise will be forced to go on welfare if they do not get some kind of special allowances or assistance from either the provincial government or the federal government. ~- 1-IOORES: Mr.

Speaker, this is not a matter of building materials this is a matter of assistance to people who re.Quire it.Any fishermen 2855

March 27, 1973, Tape No. 831 who through necessity requires assistance, of course, it is the policy of this government to provide it. Ml..' NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the honourable Premier referring to welfare or will there be special assistance to take care of the fishermen? MR. MOORES: I really, Mr. Speaker, do not see any great differential if it is a case of need. MR. NEARY: In other words, ~r. Speaker, the government is satisfied to let these fishermen go on welfare. SOME RON,MEMBERS: (Inaudible) MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct another question to the honourable ••• AB HON • MEfo'BER : Order! Order! MR. NEARY: Jh: keep quiet, "Long John!'' We finally got a job for him. We will make him skipper of that boat the Minister of Tourism just bought. "Long John." MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if Mr. Martin, Eric ~artin, the government representative at Come by Chance, the defeated Tory Candidate, is still sitting in on or participating in any of the negotiations that may be taking place between the parties at Come by Chance? ?"R. MOORES: As far as I know, ~r.

Speaker, he is the only member of management who is not involved and the only member of the union who is not on strike. MR. NEARY: Still an observer. A supplementary question, could the 4 honourable the Premier tell us if talks are going on today concerning the strike at the oil refinery at Come by Chance? MR. MOORES:_ I have said so, Mr. Speaker. ~ ....!,.__?!_EARY:_ Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Pelations. Due to the numerous complaints that I have been 2856

L March 27, 1973, Tape No. 831 getting from employers, unions and Chambers of Commerce concerning the inactivity of the Apprenticeship Board, would the minister inform the House when the Apprenticeship Board last met. MR. DAWE: I do not know the exact date off-hand. I think it was back in Deceinber,if I am not mistaken. It may have been earlier, MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, ~r. Speaker. According to the regulations laid down for the Apprenticehsip Board, is the minister aware that they are supposed to meet monthly or more often if necessary? MR. DAW!·: He is aware of it. MR.

NEARY: Why ·are they not meeting? MR. D~ The "white paper" has suggested,as everybody knows, the elimination of the Apprenticeship Board. The Apprenticeship Board has not met since sometime last fall, sometime between October and -December I think it was. However, this is not impeding the natural process of the apprentices, the certifications and applications and so on. The thirty-nine sub-committees are still meeting and are still functioning the same as they always have done and they are reporting now to the department. 5 MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, white paper, brown paper, tissue paper does not make any difference, the board is supposed to meet once a month and the work is delayed. What I would like to know is ••• SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) ~- SPEAKER: Order please! The honourable member has asked many 2857

March 27, 1973 Tape 832 JM - 1 questions and has asked them quite well, however he is not to be permitted to engage in debate nor to preface any question with a long debate. MR.. NEARY: A supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Iurlustrial Relations, Sir. Is the reason that the board is not meeting because the minister has given instructions to the board not to meet? HON,_ W.G. DAHE(MINISTER OF MANPOWER AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS): The board itself has not been dissolve~and it was supposed to be reappointed in January and they just were not reappointed.

But the board members are still there and are still available to be called upon and everything is functioning quite normally. MR. NEARY: Oh, nonsense. MR. GILLETT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Fisheries. I wonder if the minister is aware of a breakdown in conununications among the government, the salt fish trades and the Salt Fish Corporation. HON. R.L.CltEF.SEMAN(MI~IS TER OP FISHERIES): Mr. Speaker, I do not knOll but I am aware of a breakdown.

I am aware of the fact that we have over the past several months, that is the government through the Department of Fisheries, held meetings with the processing aspect of the salt fish trade to endeavour to identify the problem areas that were projecting as far as their dealings with the Canadian Salt Fish Corporationwere concerned and that we also held meetings with the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation in respect of these problems. The proble~s were identified and the two parties were negotiating for seventy-three contracts and I am not aware of any breakdown as such from that point on.

In fact my understandinP, was that the negotiations rer,arding the seventy-three contracts were proceeding quite satisfactorily. HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister responsible for pollution is not in his seat in the House I would like 2858

March 27, 1973 Tape 832 to direct a question to the hon. the Premier. Would the hon. the Premier give the House a report on a very serious phosphorous spill in Long Harbour that flowed out in Placentia Bay on Sunday night? MR. F.D. MOORES(PREMIER): The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister is testing the site today and - MR. NEARY: It is about time for him. He did not know anything about it - MR.. MOORES: No, Mr. Speaker, I mean if he were really going to stick to pollution he would stay and listen to the member for Bell Island.

But the fact remains is that he is down investigating it 0 lt is a serious matter and we will do what we can as a government and I understand those people involved are doing what they can as well. It is a serious situation and we are doing the best we can with it. MR. ROWE(F.B.): Mr.

Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Education concerning the heating facilities in the school in Buchans and it seems as if the minister has done everything he can for the heating down in that area, can the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations indicate what he is doing about the situation in Buchans in order to get the strike settled or in order to get the heating systems going in the school once again. HON. W.G. DAWE(MINISTER OF MA.~POWER AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS): I understand that they are meeting down here today.

I was in touch with both union and management yesterday and offered the services of a conciliation officer. Both a~reed it was a good idea but they wanted to wait and see what the outcome of today's meeting is. MR. ROWE(F.B.): A supplementary question. There is no indication, of course, as to when this thing will be settled in that case? MR. DAWE!· Not yet. MR. ROWE(F.B.): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education. 2859 JM - 2

March 27, 1973 · Tape 832 JM - 3 Probably somebody can make him aware of the fact that a question is being asked. In view of the question, Mr. Speaker, that I asked a week ago concerning the possibility that some school boards will have less teachers this coming year than they had this year teaching under the board and there were reports that the minister was going to make a ministerial statement on this, does the minister have anything new to report on the situation regarding the numbers of teachers to be employed by the various school-boards in the province? HON. G.R. OTTENHEIMER(MINISTER OF EDUCATION): No, Mr.

Speaker, only in general to say that I certainly do not foresee any large change, due to natural decrease in the school population, not in reorganization or in school closing and people being bussed somewhere else but I do not anticipate that there will be any significant chanp,e. Specifically with respect to a ministerial statement I shall be making it within the next few days but allow me to assure the hon. gentlemen that I certainly do not see any sir,nificant change, due to a natural and small decrease not due to a reorganization of school services. MR. ROWE (F .B ) : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Probably the minister could define what he means by a significant chan~e and we might be satisfied on this side of the House. What are the limits of a significant chanp,e? MR. OTTENJ!EIMER: Mr. Speaker, I think it would not serve any useful purpose for me to define significant but I think the hon. gentleman knows in general what I mean. I do not think my definition of significant would offer any great elucidation and I do not wish to compete with Webster or any of these chaps.

ORDERS or THF: DAY: On motion of the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housinr., a bill,"An Act Further to Amend the St John's (~fetropolitan Area) Act," read a first time, ordered read a second tirne on tomorrow: 2860

March 27, 1973 Tal)e 832 IB-4 Motion: Second Reading ot a Bill, "An Act to Ratify• Confirm ad Adopt An Agreement Made Hetween Newfoundland & Labrador Edison Company Limited With Shaheen Natural Reourcea Company, Inc. As Intervenor And To Make Provision Respecting Other Matters Ct'ncerned With The Agreement: MR SPEAKER: The debate was adj?urned. I believe when we broke off last evening the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. HON. E. ROBERTS: (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the House closed last night, Sir, I had made a few preliminary remarks dealing with the bill.

As I understand it and perhaps to refresh - I am sure Your Honour's memory needs no refreshing - but to refresh my own recollection, we had agreed in the-House that we would dehate in effect two bills at second reading at the same time, this bill which we can call the major agreement for the second refinery and bill - I forget the number - I think it is bill(76)J. Anyway, the bill that ratifies a supplemental agreement entered into by the government on one hand and the Shaheen companies on the other hand with respect to the first refinery. I was making the point, Mr.

Speaker, to recapitulate,that the government's case with respect to the second refinery very curiously is not founded upon the second refinery deal itself. We ,-,111 come in a minute or so to look at the second refinery, the deal which is set forth in the bill before us and the infor~~tion that has been given us. The ~overnment's case is not founded on that. You would think that it would be. It is not. They are very in­ sistent in saying and in maintaining that the refinery deal, the second refinery deal does not stand by itself. Now, they have not put it that way.

I have put a statement in the negative and they have nut it in the positive. They have sajd that it stands as part and parcel of R de11.l resoecting the first refinery. In other words, the second refinery deal in their view apnarently cannot stand alone. With resn~ct to th~ first refinery, they claim that the 2861

'.March 27, 197 3 Tape 832 IB- 5 1mrernment are obligated for $188 millions. The statement tl!e Premier •d• on 1ebruary 26th. I believe it was, said •l'ecif'ically - and I -.m quoting from pa~e (3) of that statement - "In Addition to the moral or practical responsibility for the indebtneSB . the previous Liberal Administration had delivered letters to the ECGD stating that the Government of Newfoundland would be responsible for the reoayment of the indebtness to ECGD in the event there would be any difficulty by the cr~ed corporations." Now, to coument on that, Sir. That is,to put it bluntly, mtrue. It is a 286 2

Karch 27, 197a Tape no. 833 Pagel - MRW teninological inexactitude. I am aware of no such letter. There aay be many letters which I am not aware of but I am aware of what has been read in the House and vhat the Premier has referred to. I would invite him to table any letter in which the Government of Nevfoundland said t1lat they would be responsible for the repayment of the indebtedness to ECGD in the avent that there would be any difficulty by the crown corporations. I would like to see that letter tabled. I will say that there ia no letter. There 1e no such letter. There is a letter apparently from Mr.

Smallwood. It has not been tabled. I do not have a copy of it but apparently there is a letter signed by Mr. Smallwood, u Premier. I believe the Premier read it yesterday,aaying that it would be the policy of the administration. That is one thing, Sir. That ill a long way away from a flat statement that the Government of Newfoundland would be responsible for the repayment of the indebtedness to ECGD in the event that there would be any difficulty for the crown corporations. That statement, Sir, I believe is incorrect, untrue, misleading and false. "The effect of this (the Premier's statement went on Mr.

Speaker) wu that the credit of the province was involved not .. rely for the sum of $30 million advanced by way of direct loan but for the amount of $188 million." Now, Sir, that also is untrue, false, misleading and incorrect. It just is not so. The government yesterday and last night confirmed what ve have been saying and no minister, no member on the other side,can deny this or again say it any vay, that the obligation of the Government of Newfoundland with respect to the first refinery ia $30 million. That is the legal obligation. That is common ground. Nobody can argue against that. Nobody can counter that.

That is true.- the only obligation. There is, however, a second side to it. That second aide is that the government are the shareholders of this corporation and 2863 ..

March 27 • 1973 Tape no. 833 Page 2 by that I mean the crown corporations which are after all the -,rtgagors in thia operation. The Premier, to put it mildly, is confused. Be thinks the crown corporations have guaranteed it. They have not guaranteed it. Provincial Building Company Limited and Provincial Refining Company Limited have borrowed the money. They went to the lender• and borrowed the money. I happened to be in office, Sir. 1 signed, I believe, those mortgages, aa an officer of the company. We were acting as ministers.

The government certainly vere involved. flle corporations in law are separate and complete. In fact they were creatures of the government. There was never any doubt about that. The British took as security for their loan, the British Banka and the British Government, which have guaranteed the repayment of the loan, accepted this and went along with it. a mortgage, a first mortgage to the refinery at Come-by-Chance. As well I believe they have assignments of the crude oil purchase contracts and of the sales contracts. Again that is a norm.al proceeding in this type of situation.

It is comparable to the mill at Hawke's Bay. The government there took as security not just a mortgage, but also an assignment of the timber rights. There is no good having a great big expensive plant unless one has the material to put through it and the saleil contracts to sell the product. The government, Sir, have misled this House and I submit have attempted to milead the people of Newfoundland in this respect. Legally the position is clear. Then we come to the question of what is the practical effect.

We heard very eloquent speeches from the Minisler of Economic Develop111ent and from the Minister of Finance. We may hear from some other miniaters on the other side. We shall doubtless hear from the Premier in closing the debate. The gist of what they had to say on this point was that the government would have to honour those obligations, that if the crown corporations got in trouble, the government would have to step in and make good. They were oh so eloquent! We were told that ve would never again borrow another nickel. We were told that the name of this province in the money markets 2864

March 27, 1973 Tape no. 833 Page J of th• vorld would be ruined for ever and a day. Kr. Sp~aker, nobody on this aide has said that the government of this province, u a matter of policy, may not choose to step in and cure any defaults. It 1• our aubaiaaion and I think the facts bear this out that the probability of that, the province's risk is every bit as great now or will be after these crown corporations are sold to Kr. Shaheen, it will be every bit as great then aa it waa a year ago or wu the day before these agreemeota were consumated. Consider the situation, Mr. Speaker.

Io respect of the first refinery, the goverD111&ot will have at risk - we, the government, ve, the people, through the govero•nt, have lent this refinery $30 million. It is at risk. It is secured not by the first mortgage but by the second mortgage. The first mortgage will be $120 million, plus whatever additional amount Mr. Shaheen has to raise. It i• up to $15 million. The Minister of Finance told us last night that there was $6 million, that 1a $21 million so l:here will be $140 million for the first mortgage standing ahead of our security. The Government of Caaada have a third mortgage.

It is in respect of the wharf. It ranks behind our security. We have $30 million riding out there, Kr. Speak.er, and there will be about $140 million apparently from what we are told standing on the first mortgage. What happens if the first mortgage defaults, Sir? If that is to happen, if that ever happens, the government of this province will be faced squarely and fairly with the issue of what exactly their commitment is. Legally it 1a clear. Legally they can wash their hands of it. They can laugh at it and walk away from it. What will they do in fact? 1 do not knov. I will tell you what they will do •.

They will take a decision as to whether or not they should do it. They will not decide automatically to do it. 1 would like to hear any minister on the other side now stand 2865

March 27. 1973 'Iape no. 833 Page I and say that they will cure that default. They may or may not. 'lbey will have to conaider what the default is, whether the default is irretrievable, whether it is a one-shot default or whether it will go on, whether it will be repeated; they will have to c0D11ider what employment if any.will be lost as a result of all this. That is what will happen. But there is $30 million at risk. So, Mr. Speaker, the situation with the first refinery is no different and will be no different after this second supplemental agreement is approved than it was before.

The Premier's statements have been shown to be false. The Premier's statements in that respect just are not true. KR. CROSBIE: Twaddle. MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. Did the honourable gentleman say something? MR. CROSBIE: Twaddle. KR. ROBERTS: If the minister wants to call them twaddle that is fine but I do not want to enter into a debate between the Minister of Finance and the Premier. I watch him on CJON when he gives hie opinion on Stephenville and the Premier gives a different opinion.

I have discovered that the Miniater of Finance has elastic opinions, His opinions are being subverted, He says one thing now and then he changes, another. KR. CROSBIE: Do not get all upset, MR. ROBERTS .. : I am just trying to make the point that the Minister of Finance is not the man or quite the man we thought he was. We have aeen a new Minister of Finance during this last few days, a man who has been humiliated publicly by himself, the lowest form of self­ abasement, AN HON. MEMBER: Wait for the budget. MR. ROBERTS: I would love to see the budget.

I am afraid we are in for another "Black Friaay." The people of Newfoundland will get 2866

March 27. 1973 tape oo 833 Page 5 the abaft again. It will be vorae except for John Turner'• $24 million. HR. CROSBIE: conviction • He had enough nerve to croaa the House on his HR. ROBERTS: To crosa the House on this convictiona. HR. ROWE (W. N.) : He did not have enough nerve to ,·- _Mil. ROBERTS: Back and forth; back aad forth - it is his convictions that have changed, not his crossing the House. HI.. CROSBIE: That 111 right, Sir, convictiona are important. HI.. ROBERTS: They certainly are. We are trying to find out what the honourable gentleman's principles are. It turns out that they have changed too.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree some people cannot learn. The Minister of Finance cannot learn. HI.. CROSBIE: (Inaudible). HR. ROBERTS: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable gentleman says that. I quite agree with that and I find it very interesting that his opinions are sacrosanct. If anybody dares to offer a different opinion - let the honourable gentleman go back to thinking of his days of glory, past and to come. I withdraw it, Kr. Speaker. HI.. CROSBIE: _HR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I do not care if the honourable gentleman withdraws it or not - HR CROSBIE: He has been talking for ten minutes on it - I withdraw. HR ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I could not care less if the honourable gentleman withdraws or undraws or updraws or downdraws - he can do whatever he wants. He can sketch instead of draw, if he feels like it. He really can. I think we saw yesterday, when the honourable gentleman poke in this debate, as complete and as utter a self-abasement by a llllll as I have ever seen in politics.

My colleague quoted some words that he had said and the honourable gentleman said that he had 2867

March 27. 1973 Tape ao. 833 Pase 6 •aid them and he • tood by them. MR. RWE (W.N.): He turned green though. MR.ROBERTS: He turned more than green. He turned-coat. MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman is a complete saint. MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, my days of •ycophancy are behind me. The honourable gentleman's days are with him now. MR. CROSBIE: Those ,they are still ahead of you. The House Leader, the hon. member for Bell Island - sycophant - the hon. member for Twilliogate, St. Barbe North - MR. NEARY: The Minister of Finance. MR.

ROBERTS: The situation with respect to the second refinery and the government'• obligation is exactly the same, Mr. Speaker. No, it is not. I am sorry. It is a little worse. We have $30 million at risk in the first refinery out of a total project coat of, we are told, $205 111111100. That is about fifteen per cent. My mathematics are not quite - it is about fifteen per cent. In the second refinery, we have $80 'llliliion at risk out of a project co•t of $308.5 million at present. We have no idea of what it will be. That is what they say it will be.

This is the same group of men that said Stephenville would be $160 million. It ia now up to $220 million. Now, Sir, the $80 million will be at risk. It will be secured by a second n~rtgage. Any additional money that goes in will be secured by the first mortgage. The first mortgage will be with the British Banks, guaranteed by ECGD. We will be sitting on our second mortgage with $80 million 2868

March 27, 1973 Tape NO. 834 NM - 1 HR, ROBERTS: What happen• if the first mortgage goes nong, Sir? Why th• same thing that will happen 1f the first mortgage goes wrong at the other mill. The government will either have to step in and cure the default or lose $80 million. If the default is not cured, the people who hold the security, the mortgagees in England will realize their security, they will sell it at auction.

They will follow through on the normal procedures, They will sell it at auction and if there is anything left after they get out their price, what ls left is ours to go against our $80 million, I shudder to think what would happen to the fire sale in those circU111Stances, The government are asking us to assume a larger risk in dollars and a larger risk proportionately. We are taking twenty-five per cent of the risk with respect to the second refinery. _ We have apparently about fifteen per cent of the risk for the first refinery. True Mr.

Shaheen is absorbing a little more of the risk although I will have some words about his risk. I am quite taken aback by the Premier's statement that Mr. Shaheen or his company will make $40 million a year after servicing. They pay taxes on that, that is roughly fifty per cent, that leaves him $20 million a year. No wonder they were willing to put up $40 million equity, that is only two years earning and they will have their equity out . HR. MOORES: After fifteen years. MR.

ROBERTS: After fifteen years it will earn $40 million a year, but it will earn $40 million a year before tha~, it will have to go to pay the debt, sinfully profitable. HR. MOORES: Are you against the profits? HR. ROBERTS: I am not against profits, but I would like to see some of them come to the province. HR. EVANS: Inaudible. ~- ROBERTS:· Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Burgeo once again is ahead of us. There is just no keeping up with him. That is 2869

March 27, 1973 Tape No. R:31+ NM - 2 what it comes to having an IQ three steps above the genius range, The ability to penetrate unerringly far before any of us mere mortals can get there. Well I will have to ask him, Mr. Speaker, to bear with us, to bear with us aa we plod patiently along our way and maybe someday we will be granted access to that State of Birvana. I shall have to ask him, Mr. Speaker, to bear with ua. as we plod patiently along our way and maybe some day we will be granted access to that State of Nirvana that he habitually inhabits. Now the point is, Mr.

Speaker, and I think it is a valid point and I think it is an important point, all banter aside, the people of this province are being asked to assume in fact the only obligation we have in respect of the first refinery is $30 million, that is in, that is there, whatever obli,-ation that gives us in fact. We are being asked in fact to assume a far greater obligation in dollars or proportionately in the second refinery. That is precisely the situation. I say that the government have tried to mislead the people of this province as to what obligations we would have. In law the matter is clear.

My colleague stated it very effectively yesterday. He is quite right. In fact whatever obligation there is in the first refinery, is there in the second refinery, because it is the obligation that goes with having your money in second, with havin~ your money the second to come out if anything happens, with being subordinated, subordinated security. $80 million, I rounded it at $80, it is $78.5 million, but one fourth of the cost ae opposed to under one sixth of the cost in respect of the first refinery. That is one point. So when we come to compare the two deals, let us remember that, Mr.

Speaker, because these ~eniuses at ne~otiations that we have on the other side, did not manage to do that much better • deal when all wae said and done. To begin with, our risk is 2870

March 27, 1973 'Tape No. 834 NM - 3 greater. We are at risk for twenty-five per cent of the project cost and it is under a sixth in respect of the other project. The crown corporations carry with them no risk in law, no obligation in law. MR, MOORES: No risk at all. MR. ROBERTS: There is no risk at all, I agree. MR. MOORES: Practically, morally or legally. MR. ROBERTS: No, my colleague said it and I agree with him. MR, MOORES: Practically, morally or legally, MR.

ROBERTS: No, there is no risk in the fact they are a crown corporation and that is what my colleague said and I agree with him, The fact that the government own any more - MR. MOORES: He said legally, morally and practically. MR. ROBERTS: The fact that they are owned by the crown carries with it no obligation. The Premier can say whatever he want. He will say whatever he want, but it carries with it no obligation. They can ha111I11er at that all they want. They can all get up and wring their hands about the credit of the province, do anything they want. It carries with it, as far as I know, nothing in law.

I am sure it carries nothing in law and I am of the opinion quite firmly it carries no other obliRation with it. None. Now, we may have, because we hold the second mortgage, we may have a practical obligation. Of course we may. The same as if one puts up a house and gets a first mortgage and goes and gets a second mortgage. The gentleman who gives you the second mortgage will have a practical obligation, But that has nothing to do with crown corporations. MR. WM. ROWE: It is in its own interest. MR.

ROBERTS: Sure it is in our interest, it is $30 million and we have a greater oblir,ation in respect of the second mortgage. I know the financial people may say this and may say that, but the British Government, which approved all of these transactions and the banks which lent the money which put up the cash, put it 2871

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 834 NM - 4 on the table, knew full well what they were doing. Our law in Newfoundland is essentially the same as theirs in England on the point. Even if it were not, they have extremely able Newfoundland counsel who I have no doubt gave them advice and I have no doubt it was sound advice. They knew what they were getting into. They knew. Further they asked for a guarantee at one stage and we said no. The Government of Canada aked for a guarantee by the government and again we said no. The officials who sat down, Mr.

Mcaulay and Mr, Dustan, were sent to Ottawa to negotiate, The Ottawa officials on the other side began by saying, ''Well, of course we want your government's guarantee. You are here representing a crown corporation. We want your government's guarantee." Mr. Dustan and Mr. Mcaulay got up to go and said: "There is no point talking anymore because we have instructions. We are not going to guarantee this obli~ation as a P,overnment and if you are firm on that point, Mr. Ottawa, the thing stands and dies right there." Ottawa said, "Well, sit down, we will go on without talk of the guarantees.

We will go on." There is no guarantee. The government are not party to that agreement. They are not an intervenor, they are not a guarantor or anything else, they happen merely to be the shareholders of a company. To show you how little that is worth, everybody concerned except the Government of Canada, who apparently have not been approached as yet, everybody concerned have agreed to let the shares be sold. They were to be sold anyway. They were under sentence of death. The government's holdinR of those shares would be only until the debts were paid off. Why?

To give the government control over a refinery in which we had $30 million. Here we are giving $8() million to a crowd of men who happen to be honourable men, we are givinr. them $fl0 million and have little control over it. 2872

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 834 NM - 5 Here at Come By Chance we built the refinery, the government of this province, the Provincial Building Company Limited, I do not know who the directors are now. I assume possibly the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the Minister without Portfolio, are the directors of Provincial Building Company Limited now. They are building the refinery. They are the owners or the shareholders of it, we, the government.

I happened to be a director and a shareholder while I was a minister, When I left office there were twenty of them I was a director - , and Vince McCarthy came in and said, ''Here, sign your resignation," and of course I did. But in this other deal it is not t~e government, Sir. The government are merely serving as bankers. The government are merely putting in $80 million, or $78.5 million. It will go higher, mark my words it will go higher. The government will be back for more, wait and see. The Premier looks at me quizzically.

The government will be back here looking for more money before this is over for this "Pro1ect. We shall see, asking for authority for more money, more money will be needed to complete it. They will have to give more assistance, in money or guarantees or something, wait and see. But in any event, on this one we are just giving $80 million so that is quite a comparison between the two deals. In one we were building it, had the control, the contracts were si~ed with a crown corporation, the crown retained not just Mr. Shaheen's company to supervise it, we hired a company to supervise Mr.

Shaheen, a company called Jacobs EnRineerinP, Limited,in California, well know, reputable, very high standing in the industry and completely third party. The Shaheen people agreed to that, not gladly but they agreed to it, they had no choice. They agreed to it because they realized they might not be considered to be at arms length, since they were going to operate the refinery as well as supervise the building of it. 2873

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 834 NM - 6 I hope here the government retain, I do not care if it 1~ Jacobs, there may be better firms, but I hope they retain some firm to aet f.or them, to watch our $80 million and to make sure we are getting a refinery. Mr. Shaheen and his associates are honourable men. ~ have the Premier's word for it and tam quite happy to subscribe to that. I have always found them to be honourable men. The Minister of Finance has not but I have. They are touRh bargainers. They (what was itl) they would take the pennies off a dead man's eyes. They are tough bargainers. 2874

March 27, 1973 Tape 835 They are very tou~h bar~ainers. They are shrewd and they are skillful and they are out to make a dollar. not out to do Newfoundland any favo~rs but out to make a dollar. That happens to be the so-called capitalist ethic. That is the way the game is played. Now let us look at some other points between the two deals, Mr. Speaker. Let us compare the two. First of all in each case let it be recorded that the Shaheen companies are interveners only.

I can remember the Minister of Finance when he was on this side of the House being oh so eloquent, so completely eloquent that the Shaheen company should guarantee the performance. They would not then and they did not. They have not now and I assume because they would not. In any event when one reads the act one finds that they appear as interveners and not as guarantors. If this thing gets into trouble, Mr.

Speaker, Shaheen Natural Resources other than what share capital it may have in Newfoundland and Labrador Edison Company Limited, other than what share capital that company may have in it Shaheen Natural Resources has no obligation of any sort legal, practical, moral or anything else. They may if their interest so dictates, they may step in and cure a default but they do not have to. They are in exactly the same position, Sir, as the Government of this Province would be. They are the shareholders and that is all. The social security assessment, the seven per cent, the JM - 1 new deal is an improvement.

It will be paid by the project. It was not paid in the first instance. That was the policy of the ~overnment at that time. It has chan~ed since and I welcome it. It is not quite as good as the Premier would have us believe. That seven per cent will be built into the cost of the project which means we have had to lend them that much more to be~in with. It also means their capital cost allowances will be that much ~reater, their depreciation,and since approximately one-fourth of the corporation tax paid by a 2875

March 27, 1973 Tape 835 company in this province comes to the province, one-fourth of that seven per cent or nearly two per cent we will not get back, We are costing ourselves money. But it is an improvement and it should be regarded as such. The power subsidy, there was none in the first agreement and there is none in the second agreement. Let us just read another letter into the record, Mr. Speaker. We have a lot of letters going around this time. If one looks at the act as amended one will find that there is a clause in it,

section 3(

a) of the princip•l agreement of 1968 as amended which says that the government will pay a power subsidy equivalent to the difference in price between what the project has to pay for their power and 2.5 mills per kilowatt hour. However, at the same time a letter was written to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Confederation Building, St. John's, "Dear Sirs: This letter will serve to confirm our understandin~s with respect to para~raph (

a) of clause 3 of the a~reement,dated January 23, 1968,as amended.

(1) Provincial Refininp; Company Limited hereby waives its ri~ht under said paragraph (

a) of clause J of the agreement to receive an amount equal to the excess,if any, over the amount of 2.5 mills per kilowatt hour actually paid by it to the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission for electrical power to operate the plant," In other words the Shaheen companies, not voluntarily as it was part of the price, gave up their right to receive power. That was signed,in behalf of Provincial Refining Company Limited, by Leslie R. Curtis,who was a director representinl'. the r,overnment; by Mr. Homer White, the same Mr.

Homer White who is involved now with the second refinery,of course; in the presence of Vincent P. HcCarthy,witnese, Mr. McCarthy was and is Deputy Minister of Justice, and by Newfoundland Refininp; Comnany Limited, the Shaheen Company.by 2876 JM - 2

March 27, 1973 'fape 835 Otto Lessing, General Lessing who was then with the firm,and again by Mr. White,both of them as directors,witnessed by Jerrett Gillies with the firm of, I do not know what it is called now, Nixon, Mudge and Rose it used to be but Mr. Nixon has gone on to greater things so the firm, I guess, is Mudge, Rose, Guthrie and Alexander. in New York. He is a solicitor with that firm and they act for the Shaheen Companies, It is signed on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and accepted by Joseph R.

Smallwood who had some connection with the p,overnment at that point, Sir, some leading connection. So there was no power subsidy at all and there is none in respect of the first agreement. Further, and here the Minister of Finance misled the House last night, there was no obligation at all on the part of the Power Commission to buy fuel from the Shaheen Companies, no binding obligation. In paragraph (2) the government undertook to cause the Power Commission to buy such oil as they may need at competitive prices.

Paragraph (3) gives a method of determining prices and paragraph (4) said that while the price to be paid for the residual fuel oil to be sold by Provincial, that is the Provincial Building, to the Power Commission shall be as mutually agreed upon.In the event that no such mutual agreement can be reached,the Power Commission shall have the right to negotiate with any other supplier for the purchase of its requirements of residual oil,which we have agreed to furnish to it under the fuel supply contract,at such more favourable prices as it can obtain. In other words, Sir, to say that Mr.

Shaheen's company was given the right, and Mr. Shaheen's company by the way was not, it was the government's crown corporation,Provincial Refining, to say that that corporation was given the right to sell the fuel and that the 2877 JM - 3

March 27, 1973 , Tape 835 Power Commission had to buy it is misleading, incorrect, false and wrong. They said that they would buy it at a competitive price and if the price were not mutually ar,reed between the Power Commission on one hand and the Provincial Refining on the other then there was no sale and no purchase. So again on the two deals they are precisely the same. There is no power subsidy in either one. Corporation truces, there was a lot of chatter on that. Mr. Speaker, and I suggest there is no difference between the two deals at all.

The present refinery at Come by Chance is entitled to one hundred per cent recapture of their capital cost allowance. What that means of course, Sir, as Your Honour is intimately familiar, is that their taxes have been deferred until all their capital cost is used up. This is the same sort of thing as the Government of Canada are now doing with respect to quick write-offs on manufacturing and processing industries. The budget of 1971,which has not yet been made into law presumably,will be in Ottawa shortly.

They are entitled to recapture all of their capital costs, $200 odd million it will be and they can write off against their income and when that is gone it is gone and then they pay truces. JM - 4 That is a chanp,e from the original deal, Mr. Speaker, the deal of 1968 which I voted for in this House and the Minister of Finance either voted for or did not vote against. He was not heard to vote againf;t it. He objected to one clause, the so-called bridp,e financinn, the interim financinp;. He did not vote against the deal as a whole, the arran~ernent as a whole. He now tells us he was nauseated by it.

I think I have quoted his word correctly, absolutely nauseated by it,and yet he did not vote against it. It is amazinr, how thinr,s channe with the passar.e of time. Nauseated against it and he spoke against one part of it,and I p,ive him credit for that. He left the cabinet on one part of it, he and Mr. Clyde Wells. They thought somebody else mip;ht accompany them hut in any event nobody dicl. They 2878

March 27, 1973 , Tape 835 spoke and voted against that claw,e in committee. They tried to amend it. They put an amendment in and the amendment was voted down. But now he tells me he was nauseated by the whole business. It is funny he did not say so then, awfully strange. MR. CROSBIE: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Of course there are lots of letters. I am talking about what was said - MR. CROSBIE: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will allow me. I realize it is a strain on him but if he will just struggle on and allow me. MR. CROSBIE: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will allow me or will Your Honour perhaps take whatever steps are appropriate. AN HON. MEMBER: Put him out of the House. MR. ROBERTS: No, I do not want to put him out of the House. The only reason why I do not want to put the guy out is because the elections will do it. MR, CROSBIE: MR. ROBERTS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. ROBERTS: Cry baby! Just carry on. Mr. Speaker, will Your Honour chooseto call orderZ Order! Thank you! Your Honour calls order very well. The Minister of Finance has a tender skin these days, Sir, very tender.

As I was saying he told us he was nauseated at the time by he certainly kept that to himself. He fought down his nausea and the words that came out were not nauseatin~. Anyway on the corporation taxes, Sir, the Government of Canada chan~ed the ~round rules and that was fine. That was there JM - 5 law and they have chanr,ed it and as a result the first refinery whether it is a crown corporation or not, it makes no difference because it is under option of sale, the crown corporation will continue to pay taxes in the same way as any business does 2879

March 27, 1973 Tape 836 IB-1 They will take their de~reciation and what is_ left after depreciation. It mav be in a ~iven year or it may not be until the seventh or eighth year. I think the latterls the case. They will then begin pay1n~ taxe,:. You cannot use up denreciation twice, Mr. Spei.ker. Once you have taken your capital costfl allowances, you have taken them. If you take them all in the first seven or e1.,zht years of your project which you pretty well have to do to pay it off quickly, then you cannot take them later. It means all of your income then, all of your operating profits are subject to tax.

The second one; we have no idea whether there will be quick capital recapture or not. I suspect that is up to the C.overnment of Canada, the Income Tax Act and their authorities but in any event, if there is, the most there can be is quick depreciation. It will not change the fact. The deal is the same. The two deels stand side by aide on that noint, Sir. The Government of Newfoundland will ~et their full taxes. The Government of Canada will get their full taxes.

The only difference may he that the r.overnment of Newfoundland and the r-0vernment of Canada may have to wait but then they will get all the more once they have waited. Land has definite improvement, Sir, one million times as good. The land which the administration of which I was part, the Smallwood Administration, sold to the refinery was sold for one dollar. The land which the present administration proposes to sell to the refinery will be sold for $1,000,000. That is a significant imorovement. It is $999,000 ~•orth of improvement. It: should be noted. Now, Sir, we come to sales fee.

There is a sales fee in each . case of five point one ner cent of the v.ross. No chnnp:e. Same m:igic figure. In one cnse it {!'I pnid rl1 rectlv to Shaheen bccn11sc- Shnheen WAR opcrntinr, 1t, '.lewfoundland Pcffninp: w:is operntinr. it. 2380

~arch 27, 1973 Tape 836 IB-2 In the second deal, of course, it 1 a hundred per cent. He get• to keep everything and that 1e a fact, ~r. Speaker, that people have overlooked. It is worth looking at. Thie refinery, Sir,would have made profits. The first refinery would have made Profits according to the feasibility studies. The shareholders would have been entitled to those Profits and the shareholders u-p until the time it was sold were the C.ovemment of Newfoundland and they would have gotten those profits, Sir, ae dividends. Now, of course we are giving any possibility of profits over to Mr. Shaheen.

So, when the Premier boasts of how it is so great for this province to have sold the oroject now instead of when the debt is paid.which was the original one, he may take that into account as well. There was a possibility, a very real probability of profits. That of course is now gone. Any profits that accrue will accrue to the account of the shareholders, namely Mr. Shaheen or Shaheen Natural Resources or whoever is to buy it. Now, ¥r. Speaker, will the Premier table the feasibility studies for the first refinery and the second? He might not have the second. Will he table them for the first?

AN HONOURABLE MEmER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: They are. They are down in the files. AN RONOtTRABLE "fEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, now there we EO again. The same Minister of Finance - 'MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman was not allowed to look at them. MR. ROBERTS: I have them. The honourable p.entleman stn0te us ( Once again he has changed his tune} hip and thi~h for not tabling them. MF. MOORES: If you had them, why did you not table them? MR. ROBERTS: Because the same reason the honourable gentleman ~ave and if the Premier choose to ~fve that reason, I will not disagree with him. 2881

March 27 • 1973 Tape 836 IB-3 Feasibility studies; I have seen two by UOP and by Jacobs. AN f-10-SOl'P-ABLE :"'EMBER: Mr. Jocohs will not table his. ~. R0BERTS: Yes, that is right but I have seen the FOP one. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: It was not a feasibility study. 1-fP. ROBERTS: Yes it was. MR CROSBIE: Not at all, it was a confirmation of it. MR ROBERTS: They lent their opinion because UOP might not have been at arms length, because UOP and PROCON, I am not sure of the corporate relationship hut they are related as corporations - one owns the other or something like that.

PROCON are the contractors, IJOP here was ~iven the feasibility study, and the government of the day felt that was a little too close, so they brought: in a very antagonistic firm, equally competent, Jacobs Engineering, who looked at the UOP study very thoroughly and said;, "We confirm it." That was tabled. I have a copy of it. The other one is in the files, a big, thick, blue one. A blue cover on it, very - the UOP one. MR. HICKMAN: I do not disagree with you. I recall the first three - MR. ROHF.RTS: Well, the honourable gentleman cannot disagree with me because what I am saying is correct. Now, ~r.

Speaker, let us look at the two deals in terms of repayment. The first one is the deal that the refinery now voing UP had to renav the first mort~age in seven or ei~ht years. The second one would he renaid in seven years. Exactly thr same. In the first deal our mortgage, the second mortgage the province holds was subordinated and it would not he paid until the first mortgage had been retired. I think there was ;m option on the nrovincial building to pay it 1f they r,eneraced enough profits. In the second one the lerislation is silent,savs the r.overnor- in-Council may apnrove such terms as they wish.

We may never know ahout those terms. There is no ohliP,ation anvwhere in the bill to tnhle the :fnform;itinn. I am surprised. ~avhe the povernment will allow it tn he nut 1n at committee stage. nn th" repnvmcnt terms, they ar<.> the ~:me denl. They say the 2882

March 27, 1973 Tape 836 IB-4 British are puttin~ up more money but they are going to get it back in the same time, Same deal for the same reasons and for the same security. ,a first mortgage, no guarantees, a first mortgage only. The only difference is the government are on the hook for more, twenty-five per cent as opposed to fifteen. Now, let us look at the royalties. In each case, Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Province had sort of a price for the concessions they are p.tvinP,.

In each case the Government of the Province areentitled to two royalties, a five per cent of the gross as defined and then five per cent of the net as defined. In each case, Sir, the five per cent of the gross begins after the first mortgage is paid in the seventh or eighth year. So, the government then will p,et five per cent for - the same deal. There may be more dollars. We are risking much more. We are riskiniz many more dollars absolutely as well as relatively. So, no improvement there. The deal that these geniuses negotiated is exactly the same, five per cent of the r,ross. We are told that Mr.

Shaheen will be ~rossing $40,000,000 per year after the caoital cost is repaid. We will be getting two and he will be getting thirty-eight less the tax and the tax will be of the order of $20,000,000 at the ~resent tax rates, AN HONOURABLE ME!-fBER: Seventeen. '.'-"R. POBF.RTS: How do we £et - including the taxes. All right, we get the tax anyway. I am speaking ~f the point of the negotiated deal. ~. MOORES: Yes b11t see are vou talkinp: about Newfoundland gets - ~- ROBERTS: No, no. I am talkin~ About what we get on the gross rovalty.

On the gro!'ls royalty we get $2,000,000 by the Premier's figure yesterday. $4,000,000 on the ~ros~. $2.000,000 on the net. ~- POBER_TS: The gross is how much then? The gross is $80,000,000 per year? MR. MOORES: The ~ro!'ls is $4,000,000 after taxes are excluded. t-fR. noBF.RTS: Our take then under that five per cent of the gross is 2883

March 27, 1973 T&l)e 836 IB-5 $4,000,000 oer year. In other words, the plant will gross $80,000,000 a year after - MR. ~OORES: Before exnenses. MR. ROBERTS: No, no. That is not the way P,ross is defined in here, my friend. The p,ross is defined after oneratinP, exnensP.s are taken out. The same word for word as the one Peat, Marwick wrote for us in the first deal. ?-'R. MOORES: Before taxes. MR. RnRERTS: Yes but after operating expenses. ml. MOORES: Before financial charges. MR. FOBERTS: No. It includes interest but not capital cost, not recaptured depreciation. AN HONOURABLE '\IBMHER: Just the groFs profits. MR.

RORE~TS: Just the gross profits. Right. Just the gross profits attributed to the proiect means the gross orofits arisinp, out of sales of petroleum nroducts manufactured by the plant complying of course with generally accented Canadian Accounting Principles and as shown in the account less ,if not already ded_ucted, reasonable interests in rcsnect of money being borrowed, sales cost of five ooint one per cent and the reasonable expenses of ooerating the nlant and reasonable general and administrative expenses. That is the p,ross. We get five ner cent of that fip,ure.

The reasonable expenses of operating the plant and reasonable general and administrative expenses. That would include huving the oil and oaying the men. AN HClNOt'RABLE HPftlER: And the overhead. MR. ROBEPTS: Yes, sure. That is what I said. So, I think after all that the Shaheen comnanv has $80,000,000 left. That is what the Premier is sayinv,. Am I rip.ht? After "fr. ShahePn takes whatever they get for sellinp, the oil, the product in any p,iven vear, after vo11r fifteen, After thev nav interest in resnect of monies necessarily horrow~Q, sn]~q cost of five noint one ner cent nnd the reasonnhle 2S81

March 27. 1973 Tape. 836 •,q,ena•• of opex-atin~ the plant which would include payins for th• oil that comes in and paying for the men who work the plant .xtd ·au that sort of thing. over head if you wish, there is $80,000,000 a year left. IB-6 MR. K>ORES: Well, let us put it this way. $40,000,000 per year net. ?4R. ROBERTS: After tax. rra. mo~s: After tax. After fifteen years. MR. 'ROBERTS.:. Yes. So, tax is roughly fifty per cent. The $80. millions gross; we are getting five per cent of that on the first royalty. We are getting $4,000,000, 2885

March 27, 1973 Tape 837 (afternoon) PK - 1 which was the fi~ure the Premier gave us earlier. MR. MOORES : The second one, which is two more, and thirteen tax point, which is another eleven, which gives us $17 million a year. ~. ROBERTS: Right. A~reed. But the point that I am making is not how much we are getting, I am talking about how much we are gettin~ because of this deal. The tax income, we would get anyway. Any business operating in this province pays taxes, if this business is going to operate in this province we, the Government of Newfoundland . at the present rates, thirteen points. MR.

MOORES· That is why we want them here. MR. ROBERTS· Right. I am all for it. But you know that has nothing to do with the deal negotiated by the government. It is equally true of the first deal, the first deal they will pay thirteen points. The government will collect - MR. MOORES, Plus twenty-seven point eight per cent management fee which was put into it. MR. ROBERTS· No that does not come out for tax purposes, the federal people determine the rules for tax purposes. MR. MOORES: Oh, no, this is before you get your percentage which you arrange. MR. RORF.RTS: No! No! MR. MQ_ORFJ__:_ Oh, yes! yes! 'MR.

ROBERTS: Let the Premier go back and look at the 1970 act. Anyway, Sir, the point is on the gross royalties the government have not negotiated any hetter deal. What I am doinr, Mr. Speaker, I am comparing the two deal, the first and the second. The province will get no better deal in respect to the gross royalties on the second refinery than they got in respect of the first refinery. In each case it is five per cent of the gross and it is the same definition. Now let us look at the other royalty, the net royalty, five per cent of the net profit after taxes, the $40 million fir,ure to which thP Premier referR.

That means the shareholders of that 2386

March 27, 1973 Tape 837 (afternoon) PK - 2 company will get $40 million a yea;,less the five per cent they pay us. Mr. Shaheen and his associates or whoever own the company vi~l be getting $38 million a year. Because they will have paid their taxes, the plant will have been paid for, they will own the plant. They may have to put some back into depreciation or in new equipment but that adds to their assets and they will get depreciation for that. It is staggering. They will get their equity back in one year at that rate, one year. They may have to wait for fifteen,you may say.

All right, all right but in one year they are going to get their equity back and then they have infinity. MR. MOORES: How about interest? MR. ROBERTS: Interest on the - MR. MOORES: On the money that is put in. MR. ROBERTS: But the Premier said - MR. MOORES: Interest ovrr fifteen years does not matter. MR. ROBERTS: Hold on now. Interest on $40 million over fifteen years? MR. MOORES: Yes. MR. ROBERTS: All right. Then there is at least another $40 million or $50 million, right? I mean money at eight per cent doubles in some thing like twelve years.

Okay, so it may take them two years to recapture their investment to get it with interest. So let us make it three year. That is assuming they are charging themselves fifteen per cent interest and they have to get $80 millions interest back and $40 millions ori~inal investment. They have to wait three years to get it back. Not bad. Not bad at all. Maybe it is the same in the first refinery. I do not know. Rut not bad. The people of Newfoundland should know that.

The people of Newfoundland should know th~t this immense equity on $40 million is a lot of money but it will come hack with interest, bearing all its interest with it, it will all come back in three years at the most. I will say it will 2887

·"'-uch 27, 1973 Tape R37 (afternoon) PK - 3 be closer to two years because I say interest will be paid on that in the form of dividents throughout this piece, wait and see. We will see. But the two deals are the same. When we come to the five per cent of the net account which is $2 million a year on the Premier's figures, five per cent of the net, five per cent of $40 million a year, $2 million a year up to a total of $10 million. That is what it was for the first deal. As my colleague said yesterday, it was much better for the Province of Newfoundland in the first deal than in the second.

Because in the first deal, Sir, the government put up $30 million and got five per cent net up to a total amount of $10 million. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: The second refinery the government are putting up $78.5 million, that is two and one-half times as much and then some and they are getting five per cent net up to $10 million. You think they would at least get $25 million to keep the proportions the same. So the government gave away $15 million there. Sloppy negotiations. MR CROSBIE: What did they get in Nova Scotia? MR ROBF.RTS: I have no idea. That is a Liberal government over there.

They will do what they think best. MR CROSBIE: They are getting less. MR ROBF.RTS: Maybe they are getting less, who cares? I am talking, if we got more on the first deal, then maybe Jerry Regan is not as sharp as we were. MR. CPOSJIIF.: no not be childish. Who is r,oing to helieve that? MR ROBEFTS· childish.u '-'R CROSP.IF.: Mr. Speaker,the honourable p.entleman says;"do not be Who is 17,oinp; to believe that fairy story? 2888

Karch 27, 1973 Tape 837 (afternoon) PK - 4 MR. ROBF.RTS· Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman can say what he wants about who may believe it or not. What I am saying is fact. The fact is, let me repeat it because I have given up on the gentleman for Burgeo, he is seven acts down the way. For the benefit of the Minister of Finance in the first refinery, Sir, the government put up by way of second mortgage $30 million, on the net royalty they get five per cent of the net as defined,up to a total of $10 million. The second refinery, Mr. Speaker, the government put up $78.5 million.

They get five per cent of the net as defined,and it is word for word the same definition,up to a total of $10 million. On a proportioned basis they should be getting $26 million or $27 million. So let us balance the two deals off, Mr. Speaker. The Shaheen Natural Resources position are the same on power subsidy, they are the same on corporation tax. The amounts may be different, but so is the size of the refinery, so are the earning1 They are the same on gross royalty, they are the same on sales fee. The repayment terms apparently are the same as far as we know.

The second deal is better in respect to the sales tax and the second deal is better in respect of the price of land. Two pluses. The management fee does not really enter into it because in one case Mr. Shaheen p,ets all the mana~ement fee,in the second case, and in the first case he gets twenty-seven point eight per cent and the shareholders of the province get to hold the rest. They may have to reinvest it but it is to their account. That is the pluses for the new deal, SSA and $1 million for land.

The negative,they have given away at least $15 million, if they had had the same proportion of return on the net royalty to government investment on the second deal as they had in respect to the first,this province would be $16 million or $17 million becter off, There is no 2889

March 27, 1973 Tape 837 (afternoon) PK - 5 denying that. That is a fact. It is a statement of fact. It is true and it 18 accurate. They may say that Mr. Shaheen would not accept it. Fair enough. That ia a matter of bargaining. Rut I aubmit, Mr. Speaker, the two deals side by side are precisely the same. The Province of Newfoundland in each case gets certain benefits. The deal negotiated by the Premier and his colleagues is no better for the people of this province,in the financial terms, on the face of the deal, the facts of the deal than was the deal negotiated by Mr. Smallwood and his colleagues.

All the words in the world will not change that. The Premier can make the most powerful rebuttal in the world, it will not change that fact. Returns for jobs invested, one is 600 jobs, the other is 400 jobs, using round figures. I believe they are the figures in the Premier's statement. The Premier does not give the figures here but I think the figures are roughly 400 and roughly 600. Let us make them two to one, let us make it 600 to 300. The province's CO!lllllitment is every bit as high or higher or twice as high. Even with the multiplier of four to one.

How-do laughed at Joey Smallwood for even talking about multipliers. l can remember the Minister of Finance why he had practically the galleries howling, like the "Laugh In Show," as he talked about multipliers. Mr. Smallwood knew what he was talking about - right here now the Premier agrees with him, except Mr. Smallwood never dared to use a four to one figure. The economist that we consulted the same one is row working for the government. They have raised their sir,hts I gather. We used to talk about it one to one, or one and a-half to one.

The Premier is talking of a multiplier of normal ratio,to quote his words on page seventeen "four to one." MR. MOORF.S: Would the honourable Leader of the Opposition permit a question? MR. RO_B_ERTS: Yes, gladly. ~PSJRF.S: Is it true that the House Leader of the Opposition when the steel mill closed used the fip,ure of ten to one? 2800

March 27, 1973, Tape 838, Page 1 apb check Hansard, it is, it is exactly ten to one you said, sorry. MR. W.N.ROWE: Ten to one, ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. MR. MOORES: Ten ••• ·--------- MR~N_~~-WJ~ Two to one or three to one. MR. ROBERTS: My colleap.ue, Mr. Speaker, I think has dealt with that for the false canard which it is. Now, they can ~o and look at all the Hansards they want. tf we are going to look at the Hansards, we have lots to look at. Let us look at it as a matter of curiosity but my colleague knows what he says. MR. W.N.ROWE: If we are going to look at the Hansards, let us listen to the tapes. MR.

ROBERTS: Yes, because the Hansards as the Premier I suspect knows, are a good approximation of what is said in the House. But Mr. Smallwood used the multiplier one and a-half to one, one ~o one. If he was feeling very adventurous and bold and risky and gambling, it could be two to one. MR. CROSBIE: 'MR. ROBERTS: He never - it was always five, six, eight to on~. The honourable gentleman is flatly misstating the position, flatly misstating it. He can shake his head, we are use to the honourable gentleman shaking his head.

The only trouble with the honourable gentleman is, the facts do not support him and more and more these days they are not supporting him. The Premier now, the present Premier, the gentleman from Humber West,uses four to one. Mr. Speaker, in jobs created, the cost to this province will be as great in the second refinery as in the first. The only place where the second deal is better,! submit, Sir, is for Mr. Shaheen, he is ~oing to make infinitely more money on the second deal than he ever made on the first. By Mr.

Shaheen I do not mean John Shaheen personally, I mean Shaheen Natural Resources or whoever ends up owning this company, Mr. Shaheen may or may not be the major shareholder, I quite candidly do not know. I know that he is the orincipal agent in the company, he is certainly the 28D1

March 27, 1973, Tape 838, Page 2 apb controlling authority. I have no idea who owns the shares of Shaheen Natural Resources. I know it is not I. Anyone who wants to look it up can go to Illinois, is it not? Wherever Shaheen Natural Resources are incorporated. AN HON. ?-'EMBER: Yes. ~OBERTS: Yes, the State of Illinois and for the benefit of the gentleman for Burgeo, it says in the &RTeement that that is one of the States of the United States of America. Shaheen Natural Resources will do a lot better out of it. Just imagine, Mr.

Speaker, $40 millions net a year once the plant is paid for and they have to give $2 millions to us,up to $10 millions. That will be taken care of in five years. What is the song,without being profain? "fy God how the money rolls in, rolls in, rolls in, my God how the money rolls in." The gentleman from St. John's West would have been singing that two or three years ago, he probably did. HR. W.N.ROWE: Imagine if we had twenty-five percent of that. MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, we made a deal three or four years ago, we made two deals.

There were three actually if you want them allr There was the Avalon Core Chemical Act, passed in the winter of 1967, the dying days of the session. It was an abortive act, it never came to anything, The project did not materialize but it is on the books. It may have been repealed but it is there in the statutes of that session. Then there came the deal that the honourable gentleman left the cabinet over and left the cabinet over one

section of it, bridge financinp,, that was the one in the 19~8 act. MR._f.ROS~JE~ Read the letter of resignation. !'fR. R~~Y.J~~ Mr. Speaker, I read the gentleman's letter of resignation. }!R, CROSBIE: (Inaudible) ~- RpB~ TS : No, but I read it. I read it very carefully. I remember the phrase in it. 28:)2

March 27, 1973, Tape 838, Page 3 -- apb MR. CROSBIE: Did you make Ul) the rel)ly? MR. ROBERTS: Ro, I did not make up the re1>lY, Mr. Speaker. M&. CROSBIE: I am surprised you did not. Somebody made it up. MR. R.Q.BERTS: If the honourable gentleman wants to debate it~I shall. MR. CROSBIE: MR. ROBERTS: l-fR. CROSBIE: MR. ROBERTS: I do not want to debate it. I did not think he wanted to debate it. That is past history. In 1970 a much better deal was negotiated. It was a better deal and I give credit to the men who wrote the original deal and made it into law.

I supported them in the House but I was not a member of the cabinet at that time, Sir. The reason that we were able to get a better deal in 1970 is that Shaheen could not live up to the 1968 deal. That is the reason simply put, that is it. I do not know if we ever said so, we did not have to, we were interested in getting a new deal and we got it. We got it. We got the five percent of the gross concession, all this govermnent were able to get now we got. We got five percent of the net, we got more than they got.

We got the power subsidy taken out and that was a million and a-half or two million dollars a year the province would have had to pay for fifteen years. It was a better deal. I am not saying that it was the best deal that ever had been tllil.de. It certainly was attacked as being a eell-out,a give-away, making John Shaheen rich. I can remember honourable gentlemen sayin~ in this House, saying outside this House; "The problem is, there is too much in it for Shaheen and not enough for the province." Mr. Speaker, ~r. Shaheen made a deal and he has lived up to it. Mr.

Shaheen has now made another deal and he will live up to that but John Shaheen will get two or three dollars out of this second deal for every one he will get out of the first deal. I do not hear the honourable gentlemen now standing and sayin~ in their way that John Shaheen is gettinr, too much and the province is getting too little. 28D3

Much 27, 1973, Tape 838, Page 4 -- apb They are not saying it now, now that they have the cares of office, now that they have the responsibility of dealing with the facts, now that they have to tTY to live with reality. They are beginning to see some of the light. They are beginning to realize, ~r.Speaker, they are beginning to realize some of the problems of dealing with this province. I said last night and I meant it as a compliment, the Minister of Economic Development was speaking and I thought for once it was 'Hr. Smallwood because be bas something of that same sort of faith. You have to have that, Mr.

Speaker, to be in the Government of this Province, else you end up in a confession of defeat. We had the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago throwing up his hands saying; "We cannot do it, we have to get Ottawa to do it, no Government of a Province can do it." he said. We did not hear that a year ago when they were going around the province asking for the support of the people, then they were the miracle workers. Now they have made a deal that is no better than the deal that we made, maybe not as good, because they are following - Joev Smallwood and the men who stood with him pioneered.

They made a deal and they were told; "Aw Shaheen is a crook, he is a thief, he is a robber, he will never live up to it, he is going to take the $5 million bridge financing and disappear." That was said in this House. Mr. Smallwood and his colleagues,and I was not one of them I was a backbencher at that stage, Sir, I was in a position,in law, comparable to that of the honourable ~entleman from Green Bay. In fact, I hope I was not in his position but in law I was. They made a deal, ?fr. Smallwood and his colleagues ,then and they were told: "Shaheen will never j!:et the oil.

That refinery will go up and he will never get any oil to put through it." Well, he ,.ot the oil and then they said: "All ri~ht, he will Ret the oil but he will never sell it." Well he got the take-or-pay contracts the same requirement as is in here, sixty percent take-or-pay. He )!;Ot that and then they said; "He 2894

March 27, 1973, Tape 838, Pqe 5 - apb will never make any money at it." • When one saw the feasibility •tudy one realized that he would make money. That was the back~round against which Joey Smallwood and his colleagues negotiated a deal, the deal that stands in the 1968 and 1970 acts together. Three or four years later, this crowd c0111es along and make a deal with John Shaheen. We welcome it but it is no better a deal,it is a worse deal. It may seem almost equal face to face but it is a worse deal.

We are paying more per job, far more per job and also, Sir, they are only following, Now it is a proven thing, John Shaheen has two refineries now, one built and one to be built in Nova Scotia. All the present government are doing, Sir, is carrying on where others have gone and that is easy. That is the easy part of govermnent. It is hard when you have to go alone, it is hard. lt is like Churchill. There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the only man in the world who believed that the Churchill Falls Development would go ahead with BRINCO doing it vas Joey Smallwood.

Bob Winters did not believe it, (Donald Gordon was not involved then) Donald ~cFarland did not believe it, Henry Borden, none of the BRINCO people. They said; "It cannot be done,you have to go through Quebec, you have to make a deal with Quebec Hydro, not just to sell the power but to give them a chunck of it. You have to make a deal with them on their terms." AN HON. ~ER: They izot it all. MR. ROBERTS: John LaSage's famous five terms. Joey Smallwood held out and he ~ambled and I say now that Newfoundland got as much out of the first Churchill deal as it could.

They may get more out of a second deal, of course they will, it is always easier following My friend from Labrador North is a businessman and a izood one, a very good one. He will tell you it is easier to make the second deal when the first one has been done, when you have shown that it can be done. 2895

March 27, 1973, Tape 838, Page6 - apb Thi• government stand here now boasting of this deal, let them boat of it in perspective ., let them realize that they are only following a path that others have pioneered. They have not done any better. 1 will give them credit for the deal, I believe it will be a good thing for Newfoundland, I do not think we will lose any money on it, ve will get substantial tax revenues, we will get our $80 million back.

I do not really think there is 11111ch risk there, I do not think there is much risk in the $30 millions, I never have thought that. 1 think those things are so profitable we are bound to get our money back. We are bound to get our money back. If everything in life •• certain aa our getting back the money we put in the second mortga~e, Mr. Speaker, life would be very certain indeed. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development 2896 1 : ··-' ,__o

Karch 27, 1973 Tape.839 (afternoon) PK - 1 last ni~ht referred to the Smallwood Administration as amateur bargainer•. ~Amateur bargainers•were hi• words.I wrote them down. All I ehall say to that. Sir, is the preeent crowd have exactly the same agreement. and they had far 100re going for them, far more. So we will see who the amateurs are? Then he talked about give-a-ways. We built a refinery and we said we will sell it only when the debt is paid off and the province has got its money back. AN HON. MEMBER: $2,000. MR. ROBERTS: For $2,000 plus $10 million, $3,000 plus $10 millions.

Well the honourable gentleman for Burgeo may be new but this Rouse passed it in 1970. 1 realize it sometimes takes three years for things to get through to his skull. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERT!;: I cannot help that. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. rou cannot even lead a half horse, if it is like the honourable gentleman,to water. Mr. Speaker, the present government are giving Mr. Shaheen and his associates $78 million with precious little control on it, not the controls we had on the first refinen. Mr.

Speaker, the honourable gentleman's arguments were completely irresponsible. I suggest he knew it. All this talk of the province's obligations and everything is just a front put up to try and fool the people of Newfoundland. We will have I hope the leaI'tled gentleman for St. John's South in this. It looks like the learned gentleman for Placentia East is getting his orders. I hope we will have a number of other honourable and learned gentlemen in it. I challenge anyone of them to say that the legal position is any different than as my colleague and I have stated it.

The moral position, the practical position, Sir, that is a matter of opinion- a matter of opinion. It depends entirely upon the circumstances. Tf I were Premier of this province and the thin,­ had gone wrong, I could conceive of certain circumstances where 28!)7

March 27, 1973 Tape 839 (afternoon) PK - 2 I ahould have no heaitation in saying to 1llY colleagues in the cabinet; 'Cimtlemen,let us wash our hands, forget the $30 millions and walk a,ay.• I could equally conceive of circmnstances where I would come to the cabinet;"?ioys,we r,ot no choice, We have to plow more money into her to keep her going." Just as they are doing at Stephenville now. I suspect the Minister of Finance is right when he said if the government had known a year ago the Stephenville mill would cost what it is going to cost, they would wash their hands out of it. I swspect he is right.

The Premier says he is wrong, and the Premier is the Premier so we will leave it at that. 'MR. ROWE, W.N. It was the other way around. KR. ROBERTS: It was the other way arotmd,was it? I am sorry I have done the Premier a disservice. The Premier ie right and the Minister of Finance - KR. ROWE, W,N. hands. MR. ROBERTS: The Premier was the one who wanted to waeh hie Well I think the Premier is right. If they had known one year ago, I am sorry I did the Premier a disservice and I certainly did not mean to.

If they had known a year past, Sir, if they had known the night they sat ont in St, Stephen's Hall in Stephenville, that huge hall there, AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: It was blocked, lt was blocked a couple of days before to in an opposing cause. Unfortunately,crowds do not always equal votes. People came because they were interested. But if they had known a year past, Sir, I think the Premier is right, ~f they had known a year past it would coat what it is costinF,,I suspect that he would have 0ome to cabinet and said; 'Torget it boys, take our losses, hlame it on Joey.v MR~OQRF:S: I never said that.

MR. RO~ERTS: You know,am I imaging all of this? Are the newspapers bagining it? MR. ROWE, W.N. The Minister of Finance said he said it, 2398

March 27, 1973 Tape 839 (afternoon) PK - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Well then we are relying on the fact that the Min1ater of Finance aid the Premier aid it. Maybe we cannot rely on the Mini1ter of Finance in this matter. Hr, Speaker, I have given up trying to understand the minister, the Premier is beyond me anyway. I have given up trying to understand the Minister of Finance because when he says things they do not mean what he says, he does not say what he means. Then he comes back and tries ridicule and acom. The man is a verbal gymnast. He is fast losing any credibility he ever had.

But I can conceive circumstances, Sir, in which the Government of this Province would say; "Boys we have $80 million in her, there are a couple of thousand people working out there directly or indirectly, we got to keep her going, put more money in.y I can conceive of that and I can conceive of a Rouse of Assembly supportin~ them. On. that, Sir, no matter what any honourable gentleman opposite says, I hope they shal~ all speak. I would like to hear them, I would like to hear their contributions on this. Let any of them say any differently. It depends on the circumstances.

One may say the credit of the province is involved. Of course it is. Anything the r,overnment of this province does affects the credit of the province. But the Government of this Province their only connection here is they own the shares and they are now selling them with the fuli consent of the people who put up the money.They could not be sold without their consent. The position is clear and simple and all the honeyed words and all the eloquence in the world will not change it. The people of Newfoundland know that, Sir.

Let us talk for a second about the wharf,because the Premier again is trying to pull a slight-of-hand one there. The Premier would have it appear. Mr. Speaker, in his speech yesterday and in his statement in the House that the wharf is the cost of the first project, the capital cost. I think at one point he said the ~ovenunent ~uaranteed the wharf. If he said that it is not 28D9

},larch 27, 1973 Tape 839 (afternoon) · PK - 4 conect. tf he did not eay it.then it is still not correct. The wharf, Sir, is being built by the Government of Canada. They ar~ not only puttin~ up the money, they are the contractors. They iMisted upon it and it is a good thing, The cost is going to go to $23 millions, I understand. The wharf originally was to cost $16 million, It just shows either the Government of Canada are not good estimators or the cost1'have escalated, or both. Maybe there have been changes,I do not know.

But, Sir, that wharf if one wants to regard it as part of the capital cost of the project,and it is, it should be split between the two projects because this bill purely envisages that wharf, the same wharf the hockey stick one now out in Come by Chance - there will be used for the product,the incoming crude and the outgoing product for bot:l refineries.

Furthermore if the Government of Canada do not put up the extra money,and I share the Premier's hope that they will, after all they are building it, they have complete control of the expenditures- lf it goes o.ver their estimate of $20 millions, let them finance it. It will be paid for by user charges anyway. It will be paid for by topage and sideage and the charges of the incoming tankers and the outgoing tankers including the "Joesph R. Smallwood 1'and the"Frank D. Moores" It will be paid for by those ships or the cargoes those ships carry. The government should put up the extra money. If they do not Mr.

Shaheen. As the Minister of Finance said, it was quite an admission yesterday, quite an admission by him. For a couple of years now he has been pretendin~ that somehow any extra money in this project had to be put in by the government. Not so, Sir. There were some political undertakings by that administration. I am aware of them, I was party to them. But, Sir, legally the government had to put in nothing. John Shaheen 2900

March 27, 1973 Tape 839 (afternoon) PK-5 was obliged, when I ••Y John Shaheen I of course mean his companies. The Shaheen companies had to put in the extra money, that was in the. agreement we wrote, the House of Assembly. for it. It became law, we, as the government, made into law through The government and their supporters voted That is why Mr. Shaheen has put into·it - is it $15 millions extra now? That is why he has put it in because he is obliged to and also because this is a very profitable little business indeed, He will of course get his money back.it will become part of the first mortgage.

It will be paid off in the same way as the rest of the first mortgages. Nothing mysterious about it. The customs duties, the Minister of Finance is right when he says we said nothing about it. We did not deny that they would have to be paid. Indeed the contract says they would have to be paid. We were not sure how much they would be. We still do not know. The minister says $5 million or $6 million. You know $1 million is a lot of money, Obviously the money would have to come in. We knew where it would come from, under the law it would come from Mr. Shaheen and his companies, just as where it is now coming from.

If it is a crime not to say in the House how much they would amoant to, when we did not know, we were guilty of that. The Minister of Finance asked me a number of times, and I said simply I have no answer. Then he went on at some length,but that is okay. He has now confirmed what we have said. The important point was that any extra money had to be found by John Shaheen or by his companies. Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt with most of the points raised. Let me just say a word about one or two other points the Minister of Finance made, so far he has made the only major speech on the other side.

The Premier's Rpeech was introducinR it, it was more a factual exposition . I think he would ar,ree with the bill and debate on its merits. He made some assertions which I think were weakly founded.Ile will doubtlessly differ with me, that is fine. 2901

March 27, 1973 Tape 839 (aftemoon) PK - 6 , I vaa quite impressed to hear the honourable Minister of Finance admit something which he would not admit before,that the govet'Dlllent are dealin~ with Mr. Shaheen among other reasons because no other oil company is interested. I find that moat interesting. Two or three years ago we were driven to the devil for dealing with John Shaheen. No other oil companies registered then either, they were interested in blocking it. They were not interested in building anything. They were interested in only tearing it down or blocking it or destroying or stopping.

I find it interesting the present government have now come arowd to exactly where Joey Smallwood was. Exactly! A year and three or four days since they were elected, they have come full circle, They are doing exactly what they damned the Liberal government for doing. Oh how they decried it, Sir, From cape Chidley or the Mutton Chop Islands or Mutton Ialand• whatever they are called up there, Mutton Islands from Cape Chidley all the way down to Cape Race and over to Cape Rae, they decried it. 2902

March 27, 1973 'tape No. 840 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: He said we should not have dealt with Shaheen. We should not have made a refinery deal with Shaheen. • We should not have refineries in NewfolU\dland, it is not the sort of development we need. Now, a year later, Sir, they are talking out of the other side. Now, Mr. Shaheen is an honourable gentleman. Now we should have a refinery. Now we should have a deal.

Then they say, "but it is a better deal." When one looks at it carefully and one goes through the subterfuges and the clever mistatements in the Premier's statement, the one on February 26, when one goes through that Mr. Speaker. one quickly realizes that it is no better a deal. I think we have shown so at some length. It is the same deal. Sir, NewfolU\dland may get a few more dollars,absolutely. She gets no more proportionately to her risk, no more. She gets the SSA, true.

She gets $1 million for land, Sir, but in return she is not getting anything like the royalty and that royalty, because $10 million out of the profits of the first refinery, Sir, is a much larger proportion to those profits over any period one wishes to take than $10 million out of the profits of the second refinery over the same period. We gave away a concession there, Sir. We got some on the other hand and we gave some away on that hand, and the Premier cannot hide that. He cannot argue about it. He can ridicule it. He can laugh and mock and do anything he wants, but he cannot change the facts.

He can change the bill and that would change the facts, but as the bill stands, Sir, the facts remain. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I have taken a few minutes on this but I think it is worth it. I hope that a number of honourable gentlemen will, the Premier is I know ready to speak but I really hope that some other members on the other side will come into this debate and add to it. They may want to speak to given points or they may want to speak to the major arguments put forward. 2903

March 27, 1973 T,ape No. 840 NM - 2 That is fine, each of them would have something to contribute. The honourable member for Bonavista South made a very real contribution last night. MR. WM. ROWE: Too bad he is going chancellor of the university. MR. ROBERTS: Is he? Chancellor of the new community college. MR. WM. ROWE: Chancellor of McGill I understand . MR. ROBERTS: McGill is it? I have one or two questions for the Premier. Sir, perhaps in closing he could deal with them.

I realize it is a hypothetical question but I would like him to state what the government's position would be assuming this present arrangement becomes law as I assume it will?

If the Shaheen companies, who would then own the shares of the company, default in respect of the first mortgage, what will the Government of this Province do with respect to the second mortgagef Our $30 million would then be of course completely at risk, I am very interested in ,;•hat they would do, whether the government would step in and cure the default or whether the government would allow the Kleinwort­ Benson Syndicate to realize their security, sell out the mortgage, sell out the property and if more than their debt came in then of course it could be applied against our $30 million; but I would like a statement of what the government might do on that.

I will not be surprised if the Premier says that will depend on the circumstances, because that is exactly what my colleague and I have been sayinr, for the past two days. That is what I would like him if he would, to be good enough to address himself to the point. I do not expect there is the remotest possibility in the world that it will ever happen, Mr. Speaker. I do not think anybody who has looked at the financing of oil refineries ever expects them to go under. They are all incredibly and intensely profitable.

But if the burden of the government's argument I think we have exploded it now, but if !twerp originally that this is a 2904

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 840 NM - J good deal becau•• th• crown corporations are no longer involved, ve will show him what the crown corporations are worth in law and we put forward a very sound argument what they are worth in fact. Jt would revolutionize, Mr. Speaker, revolutionize business practice in English common law world, if the shareholders of companies are required absent guarantees, absent undertakings were required to honour the obligations of that company. The gentleman from Placentia East is a good corporate lawyer, he could grabble the acts for EPA and has for years.

Would he think the shareholders of EPA should stand behind EPA? Not unless they have guaranteed it in a specific undertaking. "I hereby guarantee this agreement,"signed so and so. It would revolutionize commercial structure and this is a commercial undertaking, Sir. The British people entered into this with eyes wide open and with lawyers well armed, Every honourable gentleman opposite can get up and as piously and as imploringly as you want say. , "We could not let it go down the drain, our credit would be ruined." Sir, that would depeti.d entirely on the circumstances.

There might be times when you would let it go down the drainthere might well be times. Equally there might well be times when you would not. But I would like the Premier to address himself to that because I would sumit, Sir, that our risk in fact, our risk in reality is as great after this crown corporation is sold to the Shaheen interest as it was before. I submit that our risk with respect to the $80 million we are putting into the second refinery is greater, because $80 million is more than $30 million. It is our money, it is in there and there is a first mortgage over us.

Indeed the first mortgage is a little less. Our risk is a little ~reater. We are takinr, a bi~~er share of the risks. Twenty-five per cent is greater than fifteen per cent. 2905

Much 27, 1973 Tape No. 840 BM - 4 Finally, ~r. Speak.er, let me deal with one other point the Minister of Finance m&de and let me aay now,Your Honour, that this point is a little beyond the major point of the debate but since the honourable gentleman made it, I am going to ask for liberty to deal with it. I will be as brief as he was • . Re said and I am not quoting him word for word but I think I can accurately produce his thoughts.

He ,aid that parties with partisan ideas that call them party principles. and I do not speak of philosophy, I do not speak of political philosophy, I do speak thou~h,Sir, of party principles or party's general approach, party's general policy. He said, as I heard him last evening in this House,that they do not matter. A party is merely men, merely personalities, that all the electorate look to are the people in the party. I 8111 not going to argue that people are not important. Of course people in an election look at the men running for each party and weiP,ht them up, of course they do.

But I reject completely and utterly the gentleman's contention that that is the only thing they look at. Each party, Sir, stands in the eyes of people for a certain body of political action and political wisdom and political principles. They may be ~ood or they may be bad, people may like them or people may not like them, but they stand. The Liberal Party or the Pro~ressive Conservative PartY. New Democratic Party or the Social Credit Party or any other party stands for so~ething beyond and above and over the men. I hope it will always be such.

If it is not, Sir, then we are right smack, dab, right in the middle of personality politics of the worat order. We are back where Newfoundland was in the twenties or thirties, when there were no parties, when you had coalitions coming and going over nip,ht. Your Honour I am sure has read some of the history of that period, the political history of Newfounnland. Mr. Sid 22')~

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 840 NM - 5 Noel'• book 1• reasonably good. It 1• by far the best thing that has been published. But coalitions came and went. The only cement the coalition had, a group of men had to keep it together, Sir, with one exception, the only cement it had was that, "we are in boys, let us stay in." The only cement the other coalition had was, "boys let us hang together and flick them out." Sir, I think what I am saying is an accurate rendition of our history, in that .. period after the first war. The one exception was Coaker. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

ROBERTS: Well the honourable gentleman drew the analogy not I. Coaker stood for a policy and a set of principles and for a platform and,from 1980 until 1923, Coaker ruled the north, no man could be elected anywhere,from Baccalieu North to Cape Bauld, unless he was Coaker's candidate. The man had an incredible hold on our people. They supported him. I know of older feople in my constituency who still speak of Coaker. I do not see any honourable gentlemen here from the Northeast Coast, there may be some in White Bay South, the honourable gentleman is not in.

Well the member for Green Bay has probably run into older people in his constituency who remember Coaker,and if Coaker were alive today and could endorse a candidate - AN. HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

ROBERTS: Coaker may have had a job to take Green Bay but I can assure you the honourable gentleman is going to have a greater job. !ut I am trying to be serious, I am not trying to play that little,cheap party game for a minute. the point I was making was that Coaker, there are still people alive in Newfoundland today, very old now, who if Coaker could r.ome from that tomb of his over in Port Union and endorse a candidate, those people 2907

March 27, 1973 Tape No. 840 NM - 6 would vote for that candidate because Coaker endorsed him. 1 aa sure it ta true in Trinity North. The honourable gent1elll8Il, the meaber for Trinity North would agree. Coaker's influence never got down south of Baccalieu, be tried to organize on the Southern Shore, he tried to organize on the Burin Peninsula - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Well maybe, they weTe the original 2D08

March 27 I 1973 Tape no. 841 Page 1 - MRW Confederates up there. They vere the original Cooferates - smart enough four times to reject the gentleman from Burgeo, unequalled. I do aot think anybody i  going to be rejected four ti••• KR. EVANS: Inaudible - White Bay. MR. ROBERTS: Well so far in White Bay North I am three and zero. We will try it again 1f the hooourable gentleman wanta. _KR. EVANS: (Inaudible). KR. ROBERTS: Could be. Could be. They were narc enough on the outh west coast to reject the honourable gentleman from Burgeo four ti••· MR. EVANS: (Inaudible). MR.

ROBERTS: Ye, I must say that they elected him the fifth time. I thank Your Honour. I mut say that the member from Burgeo is not really very relevant to anything under discus ion in this Bouse. I reapect Your Honour's ruling. "1J I was saying, Sir, I hOl)e the day never comes in thi province when the only thing we have in politics i  men · 1 personalities and not a party. We came close to that in the last three or four years. 'l'he Premier has decried it and I have decried it. I know that each of us mean that. I am all for men,a part of politics - of course they are.

A party is shaped and influenced by the men who are in it, the men who are its leaders. Of course it is. There is far more to a party than just man. There is far more to a political party than just men. There is all the tradition for which •it stands and all the programmes it has brought in over the years. I was really surprised to hear it from tha Minister of Finance. It maybe is an insight into his political thinking. I reject it completely. It is foreign to mine. People of Newfoundland will choose as they wish. I did want to c0111111ent upon it. I did not want to let it pus unnoticed. It waa not unnoticed.

I did not 2909

March 27, 1973 Tap• DO. 841 Pag• 2 want to l•t it pu• unremarud. It •hould a.ot hav• b••n. It 1a a for•ign philosophy to the sytem of government w• have in Newfoundland or have acroa• Canada. I submit it would be diaastroua for our province if we ever succumbed to the philosophy he uunciated. It would be bad because then there would be nothing but man. We aw that in the 1920'  and 19301 s, Sir. They crossed the Hause. That 1s when they had the opposition, the hanger-down oppoition, 1919 - 1923. They hung her down - days, days and day, Sir Michael Cabin, Sir. John R. BeDDett, Sir A. B.

Morioe - day, days and days. I do oot know what the Bouse Leader would have done if he had been faced with that sort of opposition,but times have changed. MR.. MARSHALL: The House Leader rises to a point of order oo the relevancy of the hon. Leader of the .Opposition. The deceased former Priaa Minister, Hr. Coaker, and the sermons on the mount on our personalities really do not have too much relevance to the principle of this bill. MR.. ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour.

As I said at the outset, I find it interesting that the House Leader will allow his own colleagues latitude aod will not allow anybody else latitude. He is the most ooe-sided and biased man I have seen as a House Leader and I have ooly seen two. As I said at the outset, Sir, I realize _what I was about to say was out of order. It was D(!t •trictly relevant to the principle of the bill but since the hon. Minister of Finance was permitted to say it, lam grateful that Your Honour has given me similar latitude. I do appreciate it. I am only sorry that the gentleman from St.

John's East shows no regard for the traditions of the House and little regard for fair play. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying quite simply that my colleague• and I will vote for thi• bill. We are quite happy to. We are quite proud to. AN HON. MEMBER: Sure,it is our bill. 2910

Karch 27 I 1973 Tape.ue. 841 Page 3 Kl. IOBEB.'IS: That i  precisely the point. It is our bill. Tb.is is the ... 1 that Joey Smallwood and all of us who have been damned and condemned, harangued and harraaaed made. The numbers are bigger. The deal, one c:ao argue either way, may or may oot be any better for the people of this provioc:e. The central fact remains that this ?,ill before ua now, Sir, vill authorize the e;overnment of this province to uae public: money in the form of aec:ond aortgage security to build an oil refinery at Come-by-chance.

The oil refinery at Come-by-Chance will be awned and operated by a company, con tolled by Mr. John Shaheen. 'lb.at ia what thi11 bill does. That is all that the first Come-by-Chance deal did. We believe that one to be to the benefit of Newfoundland and we supported it through thick and thin. We believe this one to be to the benefit of Newfoundland and we shall support it u well. Thank you. _MR. NEARY: You know, Mr. Speaker, how the mighty have fallen. I remember when the member for St.

John's Centre was on this aide of this Bouae talking about being over genuflecting to the leader, ltissing the hem of his garmeti take a look at him now. How the mighty have fallen. I remember the honourable minister in this Bouse, Sir, the abuse and the criticism that was heaped on Mr. Shaheen - MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Would the honourable member please confine his remarks to the principle of the bill? MR. NEARY:' Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the abuse and the criticism that was heaped on Hr.

Shaheen and his uaoc:iatea when they were in on the floor of this House, that great television extravaganza that we had in this province. Mil. MURPHY: Baby talk~ MR. F.B.ROWE: Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister is not in his seat and he 1a speaking. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, point of order. The honourable minister is supposed to be in his seat when he is speaking. 2911

March 27, 1973 ' Tape no. 841 Paga 4 Ml. MUaPHY: (Inaudibla). MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourabla member continue? Hll. F. B. ROWE: To a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable lliaiater is not speaking from hia own poaition.in the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Would members be silent and let the member for Bell Island speak. MB.. llEARY: thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the principle of this bill to establish a second oil refinery at Come-by-chance and la aapporting the project. Sir, providing that the bill is puaed in (1 have no doubt that it will be) this honourable House, Mr.

Speaker~ thi• honourable House, Mr. Speaker, as has been so ably pointed out by ay colleagu•,the member for White Bay South and the Leader of the Opposition, will be marely endorsing a programme of development for Come-by-chance that vu started by the former Liberal Adminittration, the Smallwood Adld.niatration. It 1a a vote of confidence in the Smallwood Administration, Sir. It is indeed a great t~ibute to the leader of th• former Liberal Adlliaiatration. Aa a member of that administration, Mr.

Speaker, and prior to that as a backbencher on the government aide of thia House, I bow, Sir, what we had to put up with from members on this side of the House, like the member for St. John ,'• Centre and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance, when they were in opposition. However, Sir, be that as it may, I personally feel, Mr. Speiker, that the individual to be admired and respected throughout this whole affair ia Mr. John Shaheen. The man is a ••int, Sir. He vill go straight up to Beaven when he die• the abuse and the criticism, the inauendoe, the uggeetiona that were made against Mr.

Shaheen, Sir, both inaid• and outside of thie House are fantastic. It 1a incredible. You can hardly believe it, that a half dozen members of thia House could a•••••inate a man'• character and do auch a hatchet job as the Minieter of Finance, Miniater of Social Services, the Miniter of Justice, the Hini ter of Pbblic Work 2912

March 26, 1973 Tape o.o. 841 Page 5 •• hrvica, ,t:hil othel' Tod.••, .the _.er for Caader • th• IUGi;ater of Municipal Afta11'9. who •u al10 l.11 th• 11ouae at tibat time; th.e batd.let jOb, tha .. di~ra .cter ueas•i:11&tion., Sir, the Uku of it we baft ._,,.r ·aeeo 1D. tbia prov.io.ce a11d poor old Mr. Sb.aheea 'had to be«cr th• btuat of it -11, Slr, both iaaide aod ~uq~ of this hOalourable Boue. 2913

March 27, 1973 Tape 842 According to the moans that I heard on the other side,there are apparently SOl'le of the members have not taken Mr. Shaheen into their bosom yet. AN BON. MEMBER: Shaheen we have in our bosom but it is the hon. member for Bell Island. MR. REARY: I would say, Sir, that the man that deserves the credit and the respect of this hon. House and the people of this province ie Mr. John Shaheen. I suggested to the Minister of Finance the other night that the man should be canonized. How h• ever stood here and took it, Sir, I will never know and there were times, Mr.

Speaker, and I know it more than anybody else in this House, when that oil refinery project was just hanging on by a thread. The Premier of the day was almost ready to throw in the towel. Mr. Shaheen had given up and gone back to New York. Why should he bother with this kind of nonsense? He was a businessman. He was invited to come into Newfoundland, invited by the former government to establish an industry at Come by Chance. He was invited here, Sir. He did not have to put up with the abuse that he was getting in this province and the hostile attitude that was being shown especially by the Minister of Finance.

Here he was here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you would hardly believe your eyes, you would hardly. believe your ears. The only other time I have seen it happen was down in Bairds Cove. Down in Bairds Cove, Sir, the only other place I saw it. The only