. -· ....... --- --:-· ·--- _, ('" (• ', .. '·~--·· ,.c·' r '' ~· ·- ·~ i I ._, ;:· \-.· v·-. ,!l f ·~" ,._,, . " ,.;. 1 :;_ . . . .. ~· f t • ' Province of Newfoundland THIRTY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND ' ·~ 0 .... -~t ! ~' " = ..... "{ ~~ ::;--;_ ~~ :~ -- Volume XXXIX Third Session Number 66 Thursday VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable James Russell 13 December 1984 ~~

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Statements by Ministers PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction that I greet today' s announcement from the federal government on the matter of search and rescue. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: For some years now the provincial government and many prominent local groups and individuals have been stressing the need for an increased search and rescue effort in our Province during the Winter offshore drilling season.

During the tenure of the previous federal government, it became questionable as to whether or not the safety of human lives offshore was secondary to their ongoing political battles with my administration. The change in the tone and tenor of federal/provincial relations on this and a whole range of issues is nothing short of phenomenal. It is indeed gratifying to see a national government that believes that people in all parts of the country are good Canadians and are thus to be shown respect and allowed participation in the decision - making processes of our nation. In this regard may I say, Mr.

L5964 Speaker, that I want to go on record as conunending the Minister responsible for Energy (Mr. Marshall) for untiring efforts in representations to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mrs. Carney) in Ottawa, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Dawe), to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and so on in bringing about this positive announcement today. Even as I make this statement, one monument to the victims of the Ocean Ranger disaster is being constructed in front of Confederation Building.

It is therefore fitting that today we have this announcement from the federal .government of increased search and rescue facilities for our Winter off shore activities. What better monument can we in government provide than to take action to reduce the possibility of such a tragic event reoccurring? The risks associated with Winter work on the North Atlantic can never be totally eliminated, but it is incumbent on all levels of government to make all reasonable efforts to minimize these risks where possible.

Today's announcement from the federal government goes a long way towards meeting the challenge of working safely in the harsh environment of the North Atlantic. The provincial government is pleased to have been associated with those who have fought long and hard for these improvements and we feel the new federal government is to be congratulated for its sensitivity and positive response after sixty or seventy days in office to our long - ignored pleas for reasonable search and rescue facilities for our offshore workplace. December 13, 1984 R5964

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the level of increased search and rescue offshore will now be three fixed wing aircrafts and three helicopters which is over and above what we had requested last year. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: I table with the statement more details on it relative to the press release issue by Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa this morning. This side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is very, very pleased that not only did the present federal government accede to the requests made by this government but exceeded the request that we made last year. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Leader Opposition. MR. BARRY: of the Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is this easily satisfied with respect to search and rescue, I fear, Mr. Speaker, as to what the remaining aspects of the offshore negotiations will bring for this Province. Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Premier would not indicate what it was he was talking about. What we have, Mr. Speaker, in this communique from the federal Energy Minister (Mrs. Carney) is an indication that there will be a second fixed wing Tracker aircraft stationed in St.

John's which has no capability for rescuing people in the water other than throwing out a self-inflating life raft and L5965 ' survival gear. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, all we have here is a statement not that there will be a permanent helicopter located in St. John's, but a statement that in addition a Canadian Armed Forces helicopter with SAR capability will be deployed on a routine basis from its base in Gander to St. John's during the Winter months - whatever that means. What it does not mean, Mr. Speaker, is that it is permanently located at st.

John's and there is a need for a helicopter to be permanently located here in St. John's. Mr. Speaker, that is what was recommended and that is not what is being offered here. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: Apart from that we have the minister indicating that the industry will provide another rescue helicopter and the Premier counting that in his six helicopters. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The time for the bon. the Leader of the Opposition has expired. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR.

COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that the previous federal administration left federal/provincial relations in what can only be described as a ghastly mess. December 13, 1984 R5965

On Monday last, together with my provincial ministerial colleagues responsible for lottery matters, their officials, and representation from the federal government, I attended a day-long meeting in Vancouver, the objective of which was to harmonize a provincial attempt to clear up yet one more aspect of that mess and make a unified response to an initiative already made by a the new administration in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, let me provide a little background.

In 1979, an agreement was entered into by the Inter-provincial Lottery Corporation, representing all the provinces, with the Clarke administration whereby the federal government agreed to withdraw totally from the lottery field, under mutually agreed conditions, leaving lotteries wholly within the provincial orbit of activities. As lotteries on a nation-wide basis now constitute a $1 billion undertaking, this agreement between the provinces and the federal government was regarded to be of considerable importance.

Hon. members will recall that in our budget for the current fiscal year, lottery revenues are projected to be approximately $7.5 million. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Trudeau administration failed to honour the agreement. Utilizing what they perceived to be a loophole in the 1979 agreement, in 1982 the federal government again began competing with the provinces by setting up the Canada Sports Pool Corp.

Typically, this proved to be a financial disaster, losing millions of dollars, but nevertheless constituted a breach L5966 of good faith and posed a hindrance and a risk for legitimate provincial lottery activities. Accordingly, the pr ·ovinces mounted various legal and other counteractions, but the matter remained unresolved up to the time of the recent federal election. As bon. members undoubtedly know, the new administration in Ottawa almost immediately announced on taking office that this iniquitous situation would be remedied as soon as possible.

I am glad now to report that the federal government is actively consulting with the Provinces as to the best means of delivering on its promise. In Vancouver, shareholders the provinces, as in the Inter-provincial Lottery Corporation, reached unanimous agreement as to the means by which the federal government would remove itself permanently from the field of government sponsored lotteries in a manner that will be binding on future administrations no matter what their political stripe. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! DR.

COLLINS: The recommended mechanisms for so doing were subsequently discussed with the Federal Minister and received his full support. The Federal Minister's response was yet another indication of the new era of co-operative federalism into which the nation has been moving since September 4 election and as such bon. members will realize that it was greeted by all provincial ministers in Vancouver with considerable satisfaction. SOME HON. MEMBERS: December 13. 1984 R5966

Hear, hear! DR. COLLINS: It now only remains for other aspects of the 1979 agreement to be renewed in light of the federal commitment, which I have outlined. These are currently the subject of review by provincial officials out of which will come recommendations which provincial ministers will discuss with their federal counterparts at a date in the near future. When these discussions are completed and formal agreements ratified by federal and provincial Cabinets, I will make a further report to hon. members. SOME HON. MEMBERS Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: ·Mr.

Speaker, there is just as much content in this statement as there was in the one that the Premier just finished. MR. BARRETT: You are having trouble with that one, are you not? MR. BARRY: Well, I must say there is a bit of difficulty in responding to this one moreso than the Premier's, Mr. Speaker. It is time, I think, for the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) to think in terms of being honest with the people of this Province, and if he wishes to engage in additional taxation that it should not be the hidden tax of the lottery. He should have, Hr.

Speaker, the honesty to point out that what he is doing here is encouraging the creation of another form of indirect taxation. And before, Hr. L5967 ' Speaker, he finishes this set of negotiations I would hope that he would see that there is a new deputy minister appointed so that somebody can ensure that the proper negotiations are carried out, because the minister is not up to it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The bon. the Minister of Social Services. MR. HICKEY: Hr. Speaker, I am making this statement today concerning the issuing of the December social assistance cheques.

Long-term social assistance recipients receive two cheques monthly one on the 15th. day of the month and the other at the end of the month. The mid-month December social assistance cheque was therefore issued yesterday to be received Friday, December 16, 1984. The end of the month cheque for December will be dated December 28, three days earlier than is normally the case, and will be mailed on December 24, that is, before Christmas.

This is being done to ensure that the social assistance recipients will receive the second monthly cheque and have an opportunity to cash it and make the required purchases prior to the long New Year's holiday. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Hr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): December 13, 1984 R5967

The bon. the member for LaPorle. MR. NEARY: That is very good, Mr. Speaker, and in keeping with what we recommended to the bon. gentleman a few days ago in this House. I do hope that there will be no delays as there were last year, by the way. I do not know what caused the foul-up but the cheques did not get out on time. MR. HICKEY: The post office. MR. NEARY: No, it was not the post office. So recipients of social assistance will get a cheque on the 16 and another one on the 24. That is pretty close. It does not give the people much time to shop around.

If they could get their cheques on the 22 or the 23, I believe it would be much better because they would not be rushed Or they would not be panic stricken, Mr. Speaker. Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Leader of Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer a question to the Premier with respect to the negotiations that were carried out and the report that came from the meeting between the Newfoundland Minister responsible for Energy (Mr. Marshall) and Mrs . Carney.

I would like to ask the Premier whether the removal of the 25 per cent back-in does not constitute a complete reversal of the principles of this government with respect to the need for L5968 participation by the Province as the best means of obtaining adequate revenue benefits from offshore development? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I know it hurts the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) to see that we are just about now almost to the end of negotiations where we are going to have a deal which treats the offshore the same as it were on land as it relates to revenues, because he thought he was the only one in this Province who could so negotiate. I am very, very sorry that the Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself to move to other political quarters where his personal ambition could perhaps gain more prominence than it could on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. And secondly, we will have a management regime which will see the Province have control. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: As it relates to the 25 per cent back-in, Mr. Speaker, that was a unilateral move to expropriate one-quarter of every oil and gas field in Canada in just one fell swoop, and it was not negotiated by the industry but was unilaterally imposed upon the industry. Now what we have, Mr. Speaker, now is that we can charge revenues and royalties and taxes just the same as if the oil was on land. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! December 13, 1984 R5968

PREMIER PECKFORD: We can tax away on royalty. We will be able to pick up if we want to, if it is in our interest to do so, that share of the 25 per cent back-in by our own royal ties and by our own taxes, Mr. Speaker. Besides, we will have control over the management of the resource. Now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland might try to condemn this agreement which their party would not provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but, Mr. Speaker, they will not succeed.

We have an agreement corning down the pipe now that will be signed the middle of January or late January or early February. It is only a few weeks away. And we will not allow the Leader of the Opposition or the rest of the members of the Opposition to somehow now throw some kind of a curve to try to indicate to the people of Newfoundland that what we held out for, what we stopped Mr. Trudeau from doing, what we stopped Mr. Lalonde from doing, what we stopped Mr. Chretien from doing, will not be the most historic agreement in the history of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Mr. Speaker, the Premier has now - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! L5969 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! MR. BARRY: - condemned himself out of his own mouth, Mr. Speaker. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to Regulation 94 of The Newfoundland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, enacted before the discovery of the Hibernia oil field, accepted by the oil companies when they commenced drilling on the East Coast of Canada as a condition upon which they commenced drilling, which says, Mr.

Speaker,'It shall be deemed to be a condition of every lease that the leasee shall transfer to the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Board - a name subsequently changed, Mr. Speaker within one year after the start of the term of the lease an undivided 40 per cent working interest in his lease.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier, in light of the fact that the oil companies commenced exploration and found the Hibernia development on the basis of this condition, that the Province of Newfoundland would have 40 per cent, does the Premier still consider that it would be expropriation without compensation, or that it would be retroactive expropiration in light of Regulation 94 to continue to have participation by the Government of Newfoundland in the development of Hibernia? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, sour grapes. grapes. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

December 13, 1984 Sour R5969

PREMIER PECKFORD: The Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Barry), sour grapes. I will answer the question for the bon. member. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order! PREMIER PECKFORD: We now have the power to charge whatever taxes and royalties we like up to 40 per cent, up to 20 per cent, up to 60 per cent, Hr. Speaker. Because the 40 per cent provision in our regulations earlier was a revenue mechanism and nothing more and that was told to the companies at the time. Now we do not need that because we have the power to charge what we like on taxes and royalties. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

BARRY Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER ~Russell2: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Again, Mr. Speaker, I give it to the hon. Premier that he stands, again, Hr. Speaker, condemned out of his own mouth. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell2: Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: Hr. Speaker, the Premier says - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L5970 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: The Premier says that 40 per cent - SOME HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: The Premier says that 40 per cent participation is only another means of collecting revenue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to quote the Premier's own words as contained in the White Paper, tabled when he was minister, issued under the authority of A. Brian Peckford, Minister of Mines and Energy, and I quote, Mr. Speaker. "The regulations must ensure that while the Province maximizes its revenue from highly profitable fields, economically marginal fields remain attractive.'' Now, Mr.

Speaker, "This means that the government should use such rigid mechanisms as the cash bonus, rentals or royalities sparingly and stress instead such flexible revenue generating mechanisms as government participation." Where is the Premier now with respect to government participation? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premeir. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, where the government is as it relates to government participation, which the bon. member could not get and now 'cannot get because he is on the opposite side of the House, is we control how the development occurs. We now have the power.

The Leader of the Opposition (Hr. December 13, 1984 R5970

Barry) could not get the power. Now, Mr. Marshall, the Government House Leader, has got the power. I cannot help it if the Leader of the Opposition is jealous of the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall). I cannot help that. That is the hon. Leader of the Opposition's problem. That is not our problem. We have the power to decide how it is going to be developed and we have the power to collect as much revenue as we want to collect, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we all saw the power when Mrs.

Carney rose in the House of Commons yesterday and said that MR. TOBIN: What is the question? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! . MR. BARRY: she felt confident, Mr. Speaker, in putting those proposals forward because she had called up Mr. Davis, and she had checked with Mr. Davis as to whether she should enter into this deal with the Premier and Mr. Davis said, "Throw them a few scraps. Yes, Mrs. Carney, they are poor." That is the power of the Premier. He gets the scraps thrown from the Conservative table, the crumbs, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the bon. the L5971 Leader of the Opposition on a supplmentary question. I think the Chair has been more than lenient with the extremely long

preamble that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has given. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we have never seen the Premier engaged in debate in Question Period in this House so I have to apologize to the Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the Premier conf irrn whether in fact he is not just getting the crumbs from the Conservative table that Mr. Davis deigns to let him have, that Mrs. Carney goes and checks with Mr. Davis before she makes a decision.

And I would like to ask the Premier whether he would confirm that the 25 per cent back - in provision which is being given back to the oil companies, whether that is not worth something in the range of $6 billion ·to $8 billion, depending upon where. the international price of oil stands? Is it worth $6 billion o $8 billion depending upon where the international price of oil stands? Is it worth $6 billion to $8 billion? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, two points to the bon. member's question. The hypocrisy! People in glass houses should not throw stones.

The bon. member joined a party and associated himself with the Liberal Party of Canada, a party which at that time would not give us any say over being able to levy any taxes or royalties or to treat the oil as if it were on land. He supported that view, that we should not have the right to levy taxes and royalties. He supported December 13, 1984 R5971

the view that we should have no say over the development. And now because we have both those things, he is saying that somehow the Conservative Government of Canada is only giving us crumbs. How can the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) stand in his place! The hypocrisy of it! You agreed that we should have no say over the management of the resource. MR. BARRY: You are a liar! You are a liar! You are lying! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. OTTENHEIMER: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Justice.

I am not sure whether he is on a point of order or not, I could not hear him. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, it happens at times that debate gets very hot here, but really we cannot be in a position where an bon. member can call another bon. member •a liar'. The fact it happens to be the bon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) calling it to the bon. the Premier does not make any difference. It does not make any difference who it is, no bon. member is allowed to call another bon. member 'a liar•. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order: With the shouting that was going on on both side of the House I have to say in all honesty that I did not hear a member call another member 'a L5972 liar'. I will reserve a ruling and check with Hansard, and if I find out that an bon. member called another bon. member 'a liar' I will certainly ask him to withdraw that comment. The bon. the Premier PREMIER PECKFORD: So that is number one, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has suddenly changed his spots. A few months ago he joined a party which said, 'No say over the management.

We support that Liberal government. No, do not give them the same royalties and taxes and allow them to levy them as if it is on land.' Now, somehow, because we have those two significant improvements in an offshore agreement about to be signed, the Leader of the Opposition is saying we are getting crumbs. Number two, on the question of whether it is $5 billion, or $6 billion, $8 billion, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) does not like it, Mr.

Speaker, but the fact is that now we have the mechanisms and the power in this Province to take some of that $6 billion, all of that $6 billion, all of that $8 billion if we want to because we have the power to levy whatever taxes and royalties we want to. That is the difference. The Leader of the Opposition does not like that because he thought it had to come through government participation. But the fact of the matter is we have the power, Mr. Speaker, to levy as high a tax as we want to, and we will be negotiating with the companies as to what our level of taxes and royalties will be.

And if there is a windfall as it relates to Hibernia, then we can participate in that windfall December 13, 1984 R5972

throu~h the power that we have throu~h an a~reement that the Leader of the Opposition could not ~et and that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland did not support. SOME-HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Leader of Opposition. the [Prolon~ed applause (Mr. Marshall entered the Chamber)] MR. BARRY: Shades Munich! of Munich! MR. SPEAKER: Shades of Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: Shades of Munich, Mr. Speaker. Shades of Munich! The ~reat appeaser has arrived, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: "Peace in our time," Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please!

Order, please! I would ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to direct a question. MR. BARRY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was just referrin~ to the arrival of the ~reat appeaser, Mr. Speaker. Incidentially, Mr. Speaker, if you do happen to pick up the word 'liar', Mr. Speaker, would you modify that to 'a purveyor of falsehoods'? I believe that is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: L5973 Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. OTTENHEIMER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, on a point of order. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: The hon. member knows that one cannot say indirectly what one cannot say directly, but he is so intelli~ent, he is such a rhetorician who really cares about the hair- splittin~ he does? He has nothin~ to say on the substance so let him put in Hansard what he wants to. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: I wish, Mr. Speaker, the minister would make up his mind. First he bounces up like a roly-poly ball to ask me to - MR. YOUNG: You must have learned that as a Professor of Law at Dalhousie. MR. BARRY: withdraw some thin~, then he bounces up to say that he does not care what I have to say. Mr.

Speaker, it is like on the musical scales. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, could we have a little silence here? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! December 13, 1984 R5973

"" MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to indicate - MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! I understood the bon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) was speaking to the point of order. MR. BARRY: Which point of order is that? MR. NEARY: There is no point of order. MR. BARRY: The minister's? MR. SPEAKER: I suppose the Chair will have to decide whether there is a point of order or not. I shall reserve a ruling and take a look at the original transcript. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier - MR. SIMMS: Sit down. MR.

BARRY: There is the other great appeaser who did not want to put the federal Minister of Forestry (Mr. Merithew) on the spot, Mr. Speaker, and the Energy Minister (Mr. Marshall) does not want to put Mrs. Carney on the spot. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR . SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order. please! MR. BARRY: Now, Hr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he would confirm that that 25 per cent L5974 backing provision - just for the record, Mr. Speaker - whether 25 per cent of the revenues from Hibernia is probably worth in the area of $6 to $8 billion, just, Mr. Speaker, so that we will know.

If the federal government gives him a $300 million, $400 million or $500 million cash advance up front for the next election campaign - just so we will know, Mr. Speaker if he ends up with a $300 million, $400 million or $500 million cash advance for his election campaign - will he be leaving, Hr. Speaker, from $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion on the table for the Government of Canada and the oil companies? Would the Premier confirm that it is worth from $6 to $8 billion? Mr.

Speaker, would he also answer my first question. which is if the oil companies entered exploration off the coast of Newfoundland it could not be retroactive expropriation if the oil companies commenced that exploration, Hr. Premier, off Newfoundland on the basis that there would be 40 per cent participation by the Government of Newfoundland, and that there is no retroactive expropriation by having a mere 25 per cent participation by the government of this Province? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the long and short of it is - and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) can put as best a face on it as he can from his point of view - that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland has lost on the offshore and the PC party of Newfoundland has gained and won. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! December 13, 1984 R5974

PREMIER PECKFORD: Now if you notice, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition finally understands that with the 25 per cent back-in gone nothing is lost to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because we have the power to levy taxes and royalties to whatever extent we want to, even more than we could get from the 25 per cent back-in. It may be possible, Mr. Speaker, we may decide as we get into it. MR. BARRY: What is it worth? PREMIER PECKFORD: We do not know what it is worth exactly because you do not know how much oil you are going to get out of it, Mr. Speaker. MR.

BARRY: (Inaudible) (inaudible·) . barrels predicted MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Prediction. We do not know how much money is going to be realized out of Hibernia yet; there are predictions and we will have to base a revenue flow based on that. Mr. Speaker, the long and short of it is this government may decide that if we were going to get half of the 25 per cent if it had stayed in, we can now decide to get three quarters of the 25 per cent because we have the power to levy taxes and royalties at whatever rate we want to. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER PECKFORD: We might get more, and that is what L5975 Mr. Speaker, troubles the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry), that now he knows the doors are wide open for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are not restricted by getting half of the 25 per cent back-in, we might get all of it because we might determine through our computer models and our financial analyses that there is enough there and still have an economic development with the companies by us getting more than the 25 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition would restrict himself to half of the 25 per cent.

So the field is wide open for us. We have a better deal now because it is in our power to determine what levy we want rather than a federal government which said, 'We will give you half of 25 per cent, take it or leave it.' Now we can decide ourselves what level of revenue we want from Hibernia, from Terra Nova, from Ben Nevis, from Hebron and all the rest of it, that is what the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition cannot get through their head.

The problem is they cannot believe that we are now going to be just like Alberta in levying revenues, we can do exactly as we want to do without any reference to Mr. Chretien or Hr. Lalonde. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: I know it is hard to believe, Hr. Speaker. As they begin to believe it, Mr. Speaker, suddenly it strikes home to them, 'My God, they were right, Mr. Speaker. My God, they held out for five or six or seven years. ' Everybody said he was a madman, everybody said he was a separatist, everybody said he wanted to fight and now suddenly when he can get along and December 13, 1984 R5975

gets the deal that he was asking for seven or eight years ago, they find that they are going down and we are going up. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Order, please! MR. BARRY: .. This means that the government should use such rigid mechanisms as the cash bonus, rentals or royalties sparingly and stress again such flexible revenue generating mechanisms as government participation ... SOME HON. MEMBERS: -Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

BARRY: Now I ask the Premier would he indicate to this House whether he accepts the rationale of the Mulroney government for eliminating the back-in provisions with respect to other parts of Canada because it would be retroactive expropriation without compensation? I ask the Premier to have the courage to answer the question directly. Does that argument apply to Newfoundland where the companies came in on the basis that there would be a 40 per cent Crown participation by the Province of Newfoundland? Have the courage to answer that question! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): L5976 The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) knows that he never thought in his wildest dreams that we would get control over the mode of development to the extent that we now have in this agreement, to have those instruments in our power, to have the instruments of levying taxation and royalty the same as if the oil was on land. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows in his own heart and soul that he never thought for a minute that we could gain that kind of concession, if you will, out of the Canadian people so that we could be treated the same as people in Alberta or Saskatchewan or British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition also knows that every oil field has to be based upon the economics of that oil field. The government now have the power to levy royalties and taxes and can levy to its heart' s content if in fact the money is there and the oil is there. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. The Leader of the Opposition also knows that hundreds of rigs and thousands of jobs left Canada this past two or three years under the National Energy Programme which was imposed upon the energy industry.

Now, given the situation in the world today with the price of oil, with us trying to become self-sufficient within that context we must try to re-establish some confidence in the Canadian economy for those who invested in it years ago and got the oil industry started in the first place. Mr. Speaker, we cannot lose on this deal, the Leader of the Opposition knows that. He knows that we have the levers on management, he knows we December 13, 1984 R5976

have the levers on revenues to bring this Province up. If the Leader of the Opposition was either bit smart be would be standing in his place in the House and saying, 'I congratulate the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) for doing something that I was not able to do.' SOME HON. MEr1BERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier a few moments ago heaped great praise on the changes to Air/Sea Rescue in the Province.

I would like to ask the han. gentleman if he is aware according to the Ocean Ranger Royal Commission Report that the SAR helicopters that he spoke about, which were referred to in the communique were manufactured some twenty years ago and although they have undergone extensive upgrading they do not have radar, automatic flight control systems, a hover coupler system, VHF marine radio, Mr. Speaker? MR. YOUNG: You could not use funerals, though. MR. NEARY: them for The hon. gentleman manages to get there in the helicopters. An upgrading programme has been initiated to remedy these deficiencies.

Is the hon. gentleman aware that the main weakness of the helicopter is its relatively short range and consequent lack of endurance for L5977 rescue missions offshore? Is the hon. gentleman also aware that there are certain weather conditions which restrict the operations of these helicopters? Is the hon. gentleman aware of these facts? And if the han. gentleman is, then why is he so content and satisfied that we have to settle for a second rate system of air/sea rescue in this Province? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, once again the Opposition are on the horns of an awful dilemma, according to what the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), the second Leader of the Opposition, or the third Leader of the Opposition has said, or first Leader of the Opposition. Through upgrading the helicopters are going to meet the standards set by the Ocean Ranger en_quiry. It is in the statement, that they are going to set the standards of the Ocean Ranger enquiry. Each helicopter is going to have the latest equipment and latest electronic gear and so on on it. A couple of new helicopters as well are going to be there.

So the hon. member for LaPoile does not know what he is talking about. This has been done to conform with the recommendations of the Ocean Ranger enquiry. We will now have three fixed wing aircraft and three helicopters here during that window of time that we wanted them for, that weather window that everybody knows about, that we tried to convince his friends in ottawa about when they were in power and he was going along with them at the time. Sure, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) does not even want this much. This is unnecessary, the member for December 13, 1984 R5977

~· LaPoile said last year. He said we did not need it, that I was just into a fight with the companies, I just wanted to qght with Mr. Trudeau. He said we do not need this. How can the member for LaPoile stand in his place and make such statements when he was against improving search and rescue and went along with his cohorts in Ottawa last year? How can he do it? You are against it but not for the right reasons. You are against it because it is not needed, Mr. Speaker . That is why the member for LaPoile is against it.

He kowtowed and was a handmaiden of Ottawa last year when we were arguing for this. and all his answer was that I was trying to snmehow be confrontational with Mr. Trudeau when everybody knew. and all the enquiries knew different. We have more here now than we requested and the standards that are going to be applied to the helico .pters and the fixed wing aircraft are going to conform with the Ocean Ranger enquiry recommendations. Too bad for the member for LaPoile. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker. with my penetrating questions I do not want to cause the bon. gentleman to have some kind of a breakdown. The hon . gentleman should cool it, just take it easy and try to be a little more calm. Now, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the bon. gentleman to point out to me. anywhere in this communique where it says that the helicopters to which I just referred are going to be brought L5978 up to the standards recommended by the Ocean Ranger Commission of Enquiry.

Show me in this communique that was issued in Ottawa today, December 13 , by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, show me, point out to me in this communique where it says that these helicopters are going to be brought up to the standards that are required to rescue people offshore. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the last sentence says.

"The allotment responds to recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger marine disaster" which has stipulated a minimum of one helicopter with a trained SAR crew and it just so happens that earlier in the statement they are ·talking about three helicopters with trained SAR crews. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Now, Mr.

Speaker, one of the helicopters the bon. gentleman refers to is an industry helicopter that the Ocean Ranger Commission says is not, and everybody else connected with the industry says is not satisfactory because they do not have the trained people and so forth. Will the bon. gentleman agree that what is referred to in the last paragraph is allotment, it is a response, it is not the quality of the helicopters? MR. BARRETT: December 13. 1984 R5978

It is. MR. NEARY: It is not, Mr. Speaker. Nowhere in this statement are they talking about standards or the quality of the helicopters, or the technology. They are talking about an allotment. Mr. Speaker, will the bon. gentleman not agree they could have given us a dozen SAR helicopters and it would still be second-rate? That is not what is required for offshore. It is not the number, Mr. Speaker. As the Ocean Ranger Commission of Enquiry points out that disaster, because of weather conditions the helicopters could not leave Gander until 6:30 a.m., the helicopters cannot get off the ground. Now, Mr.

Speaker, is it the number, or is it the colour, or is it the quality we are talking about? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! Ohe han. the member for LaPoile was entering into debate, and while he was doing that the time for Question Period expired. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLL IN S: Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act I want to table this report indicating that the Department of Education has been authorized to expend as a pre-cornmi tment on the L5979 1985/86 budget $66,000 for supplies and for the public a sum not exceeding the purpose of purchased services examinations. Answers to ouestions for which Notice has been Given MR. RIDEOUT : Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) to the bon. the Premier a couple of days ago, a matter of very urgent public importance, I believe, government's policy regarding the disposal of redundant library books by the Newfoundland ·and Labrador Public Libraries Board services. Discarded books in all areas of the Province, Mr. Speaker, are put on sale for institutions or the general public. Public notice of the sale is always given prior to its taking place. The books are sold very cheaply. After the sale takes place, any remaining books are incinerated. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that most of those books are not fit for resale or re-use.

All of those books are books . that we get back from our Books-By-Mail programme and they are all paperbacks. After those books are used in the Books-By-Mail programme over a period of years or months, they sometimes, obviously, deteriorate, they are unhygenic and things of that nature, so what is fit for sale December 13, 1984 R5979

are offered for sale and books people do not want to buy, after the sale has taken place, are incinerated. As per the comments of yesterday, nursing homes, schools, hospitals, etc., are quite free to purchase the books, most of which sell for from five to ten cents. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) last week regarding difficulty experienced by social assistance recipients cashing cheques.

I promised him I would check with my various offices, which I have done, and I find that there is no problem that we know of. There may be the odd case, but certainly we are not aware of any problem per se. There is a problem, Mr. Speaker, with regards to people cashing cheques in banks where they refuse to cash cheques unless the recipient or the person has an account there.

We are attempting to determine whether this is the policy of all banks, the reason for the policy, and to see if we cannot convince the banks that they might show people on fixed incomes, whether it is unemployment insurance or social assistance or old age pensions whatever, a little more understanding and realize that those people to the largest extent do not have money to open accounts and they are 1i ving on fixed incomes and therefore they might give some consideration to indeed cashing their cheques. L5980 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) -several days ago as it relates to assistance to the people of Ethiopia, the government is presently in the process of extensive consultation with all of the charitable groups in the Province, with churches and others who have been involved, and with the External Affairs Department to see if we can get some advice and suggestions.

After those consultations are over and we have the benefit of the advice of these charitable groups and churches and the External Affairs Department, then within a few days we will be in a position to indicate in specific terms what the Government of Newfoundland is going to do. But we want to do it in consultation with those groups and External Affairs so we are not somehow in conflict doing it the wrong way, and also, of course to ensure the proper funnelling of whatever it is we do.

But after those consultations are over, within the next couple of days we will be in a position to be more specific on the kind of support and the way that support will be directed to the people of Ethiopia. Petitions MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. December 13, 1984 R5980

·I rise to present a petition from Barr'd Harbour on the Northern Peninsula in the District of St. Barbe "We, the residents of Barr'd Harbour hereby petition the Provincial Government to pass immediate legislation so that there would be one price for the electricity throughout our Province

whereas now there are four or five different rates depending on where you live. In our Province we pay the same sales tax of 12 per cent, the same income tax proportionally, the same airfare, there is only one price for beer and liquor throughout our Province, and we also pay the same taxes on a carton of cigarettes, so why is it that we have to pay a different rate for electricity? "At the present if you consume electricity that is generated by diesel, the more kilowatt hours you use the higher your biil becomes,

whereas if you consume electricity generated by hydro power, the more kilowatt hours you use the cheaper your bill is. We believe that we are not being treated as equal citizens and we hereby petition the government to have one rate for all our citizens regardless of where they happen to live". Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a reasonable petition, signed by the people of Barr'd Harbour, asking that-MR. STEWART: How many residents? MR. WARREN: There are more than three. MR. HODDER: There are more than thirty residents in the community. It does not have to be a larger L5981 community to submit a petition. MR.

HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, with residents, I will get only have five minutes, ask that I would be silence. regard to to that. I so I would heard in With regard to this petition, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is reasonable. We have all Labrador on diesel electricity. We have Fogo, Burgeo, Ramea, St. Anthony and the Northern Peninsula, Change Islands, St. Brendan's Island, Grey River, Petite, and we can go on and on, Mr. Speaker. There is quite a lot in our Province. And yet as the people of Barr'd Harbour say, we pay the same rate of sales tax, the same rate for beer and liquor.

This government can bear the cost of the shipping liquor and beer anywhere in the Province and make sure that it is sold at the same rate. Newfoundland Hydro, which is owned by our citizens, through its subsidiary, the District, ends up, Mr. Speaker, charging different rates for electricity. I, for one, support this petition. It is signed, Mr. Speaker, by ten families in Barr'd Harbour, which is in the district of St. Barbe. This is something I will continue to champion, that we should have one rate for electricity.

In the next election, hopefully this will become an issue, and whichever party forms the next government should make this a reality. As I said, I hope the people of Barr' d Harbour will continue, Mr. Speaker, to press for this improvement, because the cost of living as has been pointed out, is higher in rural Newfoundland. A lot of people in st. John's and other urban areas think that if December 13, 1984 R5981

you live in rural Newfoundland you own your own house, you can go and cut your own wood, you can go and get a few rabbits, you can get X numbers of other things and so you do not need as much money to live on, you do not have that many bills to pay anyway, so there is a uniform rate for electricity. That is often the attitude that prevails unfortunately, in larger areas concerning our rural areas. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is it a reasonable request that is long overdue. I know that the Minister of Energy (Mr.

Marshall)) will get up and say, we already spend $24 million subsidizing diesel electricity. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The time for the bon. expired, except by course. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave! MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): No leave. member has leave, of The bon. Council. the Present of the MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we about $25 million, million. spent actually it is not $24 Mr.

Speaker, I can sympathize very much with the people from Barr'd Harbour and with people from other smaller communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, L5982 particularly those in Coastal Labrador who are paying an extra amount for their electricity. But I would point out that the Government of this Province is already subsidizing the electrical rates to these customers to the tune of $25 million a year and I think that is a substantial contribution.

I would also point out the fact that we try to make the impact as low as it possibly can be on each resident by charging a lower rate for consumption below, I think, 500 kilowatt hours per month, and then it goes up there afterwards. So the point of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to dollars and cents. MR. HISCOCK: Always dollars and cents. MR. MARSHALL: Yes. It -comes down to dollars and cents, and it comes down to the past tense too, and it comes down to cents in the past tense. Barr • d Harbour, by the way, I am told has some five homes in it.

But whether it has five homes or two homes or three homes, the preference of this government, if it were possible, is that everyone would pay the same rates, but I am afraid that is not possible. Mr. Speaker, it is almost a twist of irony or a twist of faith that the bon. gentleman who represent Coastal Labrador, who comes in here regularly with petitions ofthis nature with respect to electrical rates, by so doing causes us to reflect upon the fact that upon that same landmass the bon. gentleman represents is a gigantic hydroelectric undertaking which has been sold out to the December 13, 1984 R5982

Province of Quebec, and every year some $700 million to $800 million float Westward. Now, if an appreciable amount were flowing Eastward, we might be able to do something more effective for the citizens of Barr'd Harbour and elsewhere.

I can tell the bon. member with the kind of relations that we have built up with the federal government and the kind of statement that the Prime Minister has made recently with respect to the Upper Churchill contract and his desire to see if he can bring his considerable efforts of conciliation and goodwill that he has throughout the country to bear on this, to see what he can do to renegotiate, there is a bit more hope for a rational solution to that problem now than there was when the last time he brought in such a petition. MR. NEARY: You are on a roll now, so keep it up. MR. MARSHALL: I am on a roll.

The poor old gentleman! · I came in here today and his mouth was down to his foot when I looked over at him. It serves him right, Mr. Speaker. They cast their lot and put their fortune in with a jealous Tory who is going to end up being the undertaker of their particular party. I think he realizes that today with all its full force. But getting back to the bon. gentleman's petition, we would like to see what possibly can be done to reduce the rates for the people of Barr' d Harbour and the other communities from which the bon. gentleman brings petitions.

I would point out that at the present time it is not possible to L5983 ' do it. I would point out that the government subsidizes these smaller places very generously to the greatest amount it can afford, as I say some $25 million. We take steps to see that the impact is minimized on those who have a lower consumption of electricity. Certainly we will take cognizance of the petition. In supporting the petition. In supporting the petition I can tell the bon. member, though, there is no hope of realizing his aim until the economic condition of this Province improves appreciably above what it is now.

And it certainly would be immensely improved, improved to the extent necessary if the Upper Churchill contract had been a reasonable, rational contract, and we would not be having these problems today. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the prayer of the petition so ably presented by my colleague on behalf of the residents of Barr'd Harbour, who are asking for equal privileges, asking for something that we take for granted her-e on the Island of Newfoundland and in certain parts of Labrador-, asking that their electr-icity rates be equal to what the people in St. John's pay. That is what they are asking for, Mr. Speaker. Now, I have three communi ties in my own district of LaPoile. MR . STE t-/ART: There are five or six families involved and it would cost about December 13, 1984 R5983

$90.000 per person to do what you want. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. would the han. gentleman go out and get his bottle and nipple? Mr. Speaker. in my district of LaPoile I have three communities • Petites. LaPoile and Grand Bruit with this problem. and numerous communi ties on the Great Northern Peninsula and in Labrador also have it. Now. Mr. Speaker. are we talking about cash? The bon. gentleman mentioned the Upper Churchill.

Well. now. let me remind the House that the former government of Canada that he is condemning. the Liberal administration, offered to finance a · transmission line down through the Strait of Belle Isle and bring the surplus electricity across to the Island of Newfoundland. The Liberal administration offered that, but the administration there o~posite rejected it. So the han. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is again uttering falsehoods in this House. Mr. Speaker, for three or four years running we have heard the present Minister of Energy (Mr.

Marshall) tell the House that he sympathizes with these people but. because of the economic conditions in the Province, they are unable to equalize the rates for electricity in these communities. But there are other things they can do, Mr. Speaker. For instance, all up and down the Southwest Coast, you have remote communities where people are still dragging and hauling forty-five gallon oil drums. the fuel to operate the generators. up over rocks and stumps and cliffs. Mr.

Speaker. in this day and age, can you imagine all up and down the Southwest Coast the coastal boats L5984 putting ashore on the wharf forty-five gallon oil drums. and then the operator has to go down and drag it up and put the oil in the tanks? Now, Mr. Speaker, that is about to change. Woodwards are about to change that. I have fought for it for years and the people on the Southwest Coast know that I was the one who brought about that change. They are now going to put storage tanks in these communi ties so that the tanker can come a couple of times a year and fill up the storage tanks. In that way. Mr.

Speaker, the cost of fuel will be reduced and therefore the cost of generating the electricity with these diesel plants should decrease. Now, the bon. gentleman should take a look at that. You do not need ready cash for that, all you have to do is bring about some badly needed improvements. Just look at how you can lower the cost. And that is going to lower the cost, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: That is going on all the time. MR. NEARY: It is going on all the time? I have been fighting ever since I went to LaPoile in 1975 for these storage tanks and it is only now that they are going to put them in. MR.

STEWART: Another great victory, I suppose. MR. NEARY: I had to fight for the bon. gentleman•s district. MR. STEWART: Nobody has to fight for my district. MR. NEARY: I had to fight from Port aux Basques to Terrenceville to get December 13, 1984 R5984

these storage tanks. MR. STEWART: To where? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, not only will they get lower cost fuel for their generating plants, but the people will be able to buy gasoline and fuel at a lower rate, because the tankers will come right in to shore and fill up the tanks a couple of times a year. That is the sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, the administration there opposite should be looking at. I support the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. I compliment my hon. colleague.

Year after year he is bringing in a series of petitions trying to get equality for Newfoundlanders who 1ive in remote parts of this Province. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The time for the han. member has expired. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. OSMOND: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. Barbe. MR. OSMOND: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to speak to that petition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. SPEAKER: L5985 According to the everybody has spoken. hon. member have leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): procedure, Does the The hon. the member for St.

Barbe. MR. OSMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have to speak to that petition. I am very familiar with each individual in that community. I have been working with them for the past three years and we have resorted to all measures in trying to get hooked up to the power grid that passes through their community, so I certainly support the petition. But, Mr. Speaker, we have been successful over the years in having Newfoundland Hydro do the maintenance on the diesel plant in Barr'd Harbour, which is privately owned. It is a community of only five permanent homes and a f~w Summer camps.

It was only a few months ago that their small diesel plant was brought into Bishop's Falls by Newfoundland Hydro and the generator was overhauled and new parts added, and it was paid for by Newfoundland Hydro, which has also installed a large diesel plant there. Newfoundland Hydro provides maintenance and the cost to the people is the cost of the fuel.

Now, that diesel plant, I know and I admit, is costing them quite a bit because it is a large diesel plant, but we have been negotiating with Newfoundland Hydro and we have been looking around through development associations trying to find a smaller diesel unit for the Hydro to put in there to cut down the cost of their fuel. So I do support that petition and I sympathize with those people. December 13, 1984 R5985 ·,

MR. NEARY: Order, please! Corne on over, boy! Corne on over! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. OSMOND: The cost of putting the power into their homes from the main grid line is in excess of $400,000. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a similar petition from the community of Croque. Before I get into it, with respect to the remarks made by the member for st. Barbe (Mr.

Osmond), it is interesting to note that Newfoundland and Laprador Hydro, on pehalf of five families, provides the building and services the generator, but does not provide the same service to the communities of Pinsent Arm and Norman Bay with fifteen families. I would to ask the Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall), what is the rationale for a situation where a five family community is getting that service and a fifteen family community is not? One would expect government to be for all people regardless of where they live. MR. STEWART: Barr'd Harbour has a good member. MR.

WARREN: The member is the reason, is that it? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): L5986 MR. HISCOCK: The prayer of the petition from the community of Croque, on the Northern Peninsula, reads as follows: "We, the residents of Croque, hereby petition the provincial government to pass immediate legislation so that there would be one price for electricity throughout our Province

whereas now there are four or five different rates depending upon where you live. In our Province we have to pay the same rate of sales tax, 12 per cent, same income tax, same air fare and there is only one price for beer and liquor throughout our Province, and we also pay the same tax on a carton of cigarettes. Why is it that we have to pay a different rate for electricity? "At present, if _you consume electricity that is generated by diesel, the more kilowatt hours you use, the higher your bill becomes,

whereas if you consume electricity generated by hydro power, the more kilowatt hours you use, the cheaper your bill is. "We believe that we are not being treated as equal citizens and we hereby petition the government to have one rate for electricity for all of our citizens regardless of where they live" - or how they vote or what religion or creed or colour they happen to be, or who they are represented by, whether it be a member, a minister or people of any political stripe in this party. In addition to this petition, ML. Speaker, I will be presenting other petitions, one on behalf of the residents of Grey River, which is represented by the Minister of December 13, 1984 R5986

Environment (Mr. Andrews). It is interesting to note that I have to present petitions on behalf of people whose districts are represented by members on the govenunent side, who are not fighting for this cause, who are more concerned with the cost of services requested than with people. They do not argue the cost of rental for the Premier's house, they do not argue the cost of sending a couple of ministers to the Orient, they do not ask the cost of travelling first class and staying in the best hotels- no, that is an accepted part of it MR. ST EWART : How many signatures? MR. HISCOC K There are 108 signatures, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) says that we cannot expect anything to be done on energy prices until something is done with the Upper · Churchill contract. Mr. Speaker, in this House, regardless of what political party is in power whether it be the Liberals under Mr.

Smallwood, Moores with the Conservatives, or the present Premier, one of the rules we have always had is that we would never, never, never negotiate or even consider development of the Lower Churchill or the seven rivers that have headwaters in Labrador but flow through Quebec as long as the Upper Churchill contract is not renegotiated. Now the Prime Minister plans to intervene and use his good offices. Well I would say, Mr . Speaker, let us not take that on face value.

Those rivers are run into the Prime Minister's district, he wants jobs created in his district, and I will go as far as to say when it L5987 comes to the rights of Newfoundland and the rights of the people of Quebec in his own district, he will be standing up for Quebec. And I also say and predict that they will be trying to present a package deal on those seven rivers and the Lower Churchill, something that this House has always rejected. Mr.

Speaker, I hope that this government continues to make sure that the Upper Churchill has to be renegotiated long before we ever think about negotiating on the Lower Churchill and the seven other rivers. We ought not bow to pressure from the Prime Minister because he wants development in his own dustrict. DR. COLLINS What has that got to do with Croque? MR. HISCOCK With regard to this petition, Mr. Speaker, from Croque, we have 108 signatures.

The prayer of their petition says, "We, the people of Creque, will definitely fight any more increases in electricity rates and if there is another increase then the only one solution we will have is to cut off all power completely. •• MR. SPEA KER: Order, please! The time for the bon. member has expired. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, again I have to compliment my colleague for so ably presenting a petition on behalf of 108 residents in Croque and I might just note that Creque is not in my bon. colleague's December 13, 1984 R5987

district, but the people are so frustrated, they are driven to desperation, Mr. Speaker, over these high rates. They feel that they are being treated as third-or fourth-class Newfoundlanders, that they are not equal to people who live in urban centres. This is the Ottawa/St. John's mentality, Mr. Speaker, the Tory mentality being foisted on these people. Mr. Speaker, how do these people feel? How do they feel when they hear about ministers being given motor cars, when they hear about the minister and an entourage going to the Orient?

And how do they feel when they hear that the Premier of the Province has moved into a $1200 a month rent-free apartment, compliments of the taxpayers? How do they feel, Mr. Speaker? How would Your Honour feel? I know Your Honour cannot answer me but how would Your Honour feel? How would members of this House feel if they were iiving in one of these communities and they were not treated as equal Newfoundlanders? And they are not treated as equals, Mr. Speaker. And the Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) gets up year after year, year in and year out, and merely brushes it aside. He flicks it aside by saying - DR.

COLLINS: That is why more people are voting Liberal these days. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman go out and buy himself a $2 calculator so he can at least try to balance the budget? He is only 500 per cent out in his estimates every year. In every other Province you can be a little bit out, but our minister here should go into the Guiness Book of World Records. He is 500 per L5988 cent or 600 per cent out in his estimates every year. A little $2 pocket size calculator may be of some help. And a little $2 calculator may help the Minister of Energy. Because, Mr.

Speaker, year in and year out the minister comes into the House and says, "We are subsidizing these communities - MR. SPEAKER (Rusell): Order, please! Order, please! I am sure the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is aware that he is certainly not very relevant to the prayer of the petition. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Energy, responding to a similar petition stated that they are already subsidizing these smaller communities and that the government did not have the wherewithal because of the horrendous state of the economy brought about through their own mismanagement, they do not have the funds to equalize the rates in these smaller communities. Now, Hr. Speaker, that excuse is pitiful, it is worn out. We have been hearing it now for several years from the hon gentlemen.

And if the people in these communities like Croque have to wait until the hon. crowd there opposite get the economy straightened out they will never be equal Newfoundlanders or equal Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and that is the tragic and unfortunate part of it. And as I say when they hear about all the perks and all the privileges the ministers are getting, tripping around the world, getting their own private cars and trips to the Orient, and $1200 a month apartment rent-free, compliments of the taxpayers to the Premier, they must feel awfully frustrated and angry, Hr. December 13, 1984 R5988

Speake~. And would you blame them fo~ being ang~y? Would you blame them? And would you blame them fo~ ci~culating petitions eve~y yea~ and giving them to my colleague who does an outstanding job of p~esenting them in this han. House, ~ep~esenting the people not only in his own riding but all ave~ the P~ovince and the G~eat No~the~ Peninsula, and the dist~ict of St. Ba~be? The han. gentleman who ~ep~esents that ~iding (M~. Osmond), I do not know if he has made his maiden speech yet o~ not. I cannot even remembe~ his name to be honest with you. So, M~.

Speake~, I do not know if we can make a law, I do not suppose that is the ~ight way to do it, but ce~tainly the administ~ation the~e opposite should give se~ious conside~ation to the p~aye~ of this petition to standa~dize the elect~icity ~ates in all communities in Newfoundland, whethe~ they get their powe~ from Bowate~, from the Newfoundland Light and Power Company, or diesel generated power from Newfoundland Hydro, It is shameful, Mr.

Speaker, in this day and age that these people have to complain about a privilege that we have and the administration there opposite just shrugs it off, dismisses it as if it was nothing. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's image is so battered and bruised these days, no wonder he gets so wild during the Question Period. DR. COLLINS: Can we cut off the Opposition's long-distance calls to help pay for that? The Opposition has a huge long distance bill. MR. NEARY: Well, we would be glad to L5989 accommodate the hon. gentleman if they will do the same thing. Why the Opposition? Why not ministers also? MR.

SPEAKER: O~der, please! The time for the han. member has expired. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to p~esent a petition conce~ing the Bell Island ferry service. As han. members know, the ferry service between Bell Island and Portugal Cove has been the subject of controversy now for a good many years. The people feel that the government's - announcement over ~ate increases is unjustified, it is unfair to people who live on the island, and they contend, Mr. Speaker, that the fare should be eliminated altogether. DR.

COLLINS: How many signed the petition? MR. NEARY: The required number under the Standing Orders of this House. DR . COLLINS: Did you state how many? MR. NEARY: The required number. DR. COLLINS: Oh, no. You are supposed to say how many. MR. NEARY: Mr. -speaker, movement when I spearheaded a I lived on Bell December 13, 1984 R5989

Island to have the ferry service made an extension of the provincial highways system. MR. SIMMS: Why did you not twenty-three years? MR. NEARY: do it for Well, Mr. Speaker, the administration there opposite have been in power for twelve of the eighteen years since the mines closed and they have not lifted a finger for Bell Island yet. Mr. Speaker, we used to hear the criticism levelled at us, but the people over there feel, and as a former Bell Islander I feel that the ferry service should be made an extension of our provincial highways system.

And again I have to repeat what I said earlier about the other petition, that Bell Islanders will never be equal to their Mainland counterparts until that is done. And the ferry John Guy is twenty-five years old, I believe she was built in 1959, and that ferry has to be replaced, but there is no move on the part of the administration, which has now taken over the intra-provincial ferry service, to build a replacement for the John Guy. So, Mr. Speaker, the people are frustrated. They have asked for meetings with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) and he has refused to meet with the people.

They have been after their member, the member for Harbour Main-Bell Island (Mr. Doyle), and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that - DR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! L5990 On a point of order, the bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I just draw your attention to Standing Order 92, this is under the

section dealing with petitions. It says, "Every memb~r offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains. •• Now the bon. member has waffled about the material in it and he certainly has not confined himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes. But one of the things I just want to concentrate on, and ask Your Honour to direct the member in this regard, is he has not said anything about the number of signatures attached to it. MR. WARREN He does not have to. DR.

COLLINS Now, if there are less than three signatures it is not a valid petition. MR. WARREN: No, there are more than three. DR. COLLINS: We do not know that. He has not said how many there are. There may be only one signature on it and according to 92 he is required to give the number of the signatures attached thereto. MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To the point of order, the bon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: December 13, 1984 R5990

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) can be very well aware that we know on this side that there has to be at least three names attached to a petition. I can assure him that there are three names attached to my bon. friend's petition. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if he is were going to object he should have objected when the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) was presenting a petition or when the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) was presenting a petition. If he wanted to object and bring up this silly nonsense perhaps he should have done it when the petitions were started.

Furthermore, let me point out to him that while there are several clauses that say what you can do with a petition, you do not have to do all three, you can perhaps do one. As I understand it the member for LaPoile was ta lking about the prayer of the petition and that is perfectly in order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I would suggest that Standing Order 92 suggests what people can talk about while they are presenting a petition, but they would not necessarily have to talk about each and every item in Standing Order 92. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward): The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition just so Your Honour will be clear on what it is I am talking about. It says, 'We, the undersigned, L599l petition the Peckford government to eliminate fares on the Bell Island ferry service and make the service an extension of the provincial highway system.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a principle that we have adopted on this side of the House not only with regard to the Bell Island ferry service but all the intraprovincial ferries we think should be made an extension of the provincial highway system.

There should be no charge because Bell Islanders want to come over to the Arts and Culture Centre to see a play or they want to come to the parks or they want to come shopping. Why should they have to pay a toll when the member for Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) does not have to pay a toll? Why? Why that discrimination, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! The bon. member's time has elapsed. The bon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand and support the prayer of the petition just presented by my colleague, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). Mr.

Speaker, what the member for LaPoile has been saying, of course, is correct. Because Newfoundland is an island with many smaller islands off its coast Bell Island, Fogo, Random Island, New World Island, and Twillingate before the causeway was put across, and other islands the people who have to go to these islands for whatever purpose, Mr. Speaker, have to pay to get there. I remember, Mr. Speaker, as a teacher going down December 13, 1984 RS991

to New World Island back in 1963, long before the causeway was completed from New World Island to Twillingate Island - DR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we have, in this House, certain rules that we go by and the rules are either our Standing Orders or the rules of the House of Commons or they are set by precedents. Now, Mr.

Speaker, one of the precedents in this House in terms of petitions is that petitions are presented on behalf of constituents, either the person's own constituents . or some other individual's constituents. It is not our tradition that petitions should be presented on behalf of sitting members of this House. To do that sort of thing would be an abuse of this House. Every member of this House is given ample opportunity to speak on any matter he wants to in this House. He does not need a special mechanism of a petition.

A petition is a special mechanism that is extended to those who are not members of this House but who need to bring their concerns to the highest court in the land. And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is an absolute abuse of this House for members opposite to be presenting petitions signed only by members of this House, i.e. members opposite, as this petition is. There is no other signature on that petition but members of this House. That is not our precedent.

Our precedent is directly opposite to that and I L5992 submit it is an abuse of the privileges of this House and it is, indeed an abuse of the opportunities given to people who are not members of this House to have a say in this House. MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To that point of order, the han. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) should not rise any more points of order if he is going to make such a fool of himself as he is now making. It is no secret, Mr.

Speaker, that this government does not regard certain people as citizens of this Province. I have to tell the Minister of Finance that petitions in this House require the signatures of three citizens of this Province and members on this side of the House are citizens. DR. COLLINS: It is an abuse. MR. TULK: It is not an abuse, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly in order. In regards to the precedence of this House or our Standing Orders, I would remind him that our Standing Orders come first and in our Standing Orders the only requirement is that there be three signatures on the petition.

The petition that is now being presented is perfectly in order. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! To that point of order, I would refer hon. members to Standing Order 90 which says: 'A petition December 13, 1984 R5992

to the House shall be presented by a member in his place who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter; and every member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his own hand. ' It would probably be the case that most petitions presented in the House would be from constituents, generally, but I do not see anything in our Standing Orders that says that the petition has to be presented by a member for his own constituents. The bon. the member for Bellevue has about twenty seconds remaining. MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, let me say in that twenty seconds that I know what it means to have to travel to these islands where you have to pay a fare in order to get there whether you want to go there to go to work or whatever and, of course, it is wrong to expect certain citizens of this Province to pay higher electricity bills than others and, of course, to have to pay to use a system which, as the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) says, should be a continuation of the highway system. I support the petition. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: ~ Mr. Speaker, I move that Orders of the Day be now read.

MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: That is completely out of order, Mr. Speaker. We anticipated that L5993 the administration might try to pull something like this. I will refer Your Honour to page 7 of our Standing Orders which says: 'A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House. ' At the moment there is no motion before the House, Mr Speaker. We are presenting petitions. There is no motion before the House so therefore the han. gentleman is completely out of order.

It is another move on the part of the administration to try to gag members of this House. We now have closure before the House, Mr. Speaker, and we stand on our rights in this House. The han. gentleman is misinterpreting that rule and the hon. gentleman knows he is out of order. The fact of the matter is there is no motion before the House at the present time and therefore that particular motion cannot be made, Mr. Speaker. MR. OTTENHEIMER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To that point of order, the bon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, I think one can reply to that point from two different perspectives. Standing Order 21 is quite clear. 'A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.' I think it can be assumed that most people in presenting a petition assume that what it does is it move that this petition be now tabled and referred to the department to which it relates. There is, in fact, an assumed motion. What happens with petitions is they are tabled and then forwarded to the departments to which they relate. December 13, 1984 R5993

So there is, in fact, an assumed motion. MR. NEARY: You cannot assume anything. MR. OTTENHEIMER: One can assume any number of things. The hon. gentlemen cannot assume anything. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. OTTENHEIMER: The han. gentlemen cannot even shut their traps. So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one can assume there is a motion. But one who wishes not to assume there is a mot.ion, Mr. Speaker, will find that throughout parliamentary practice the Government House Leader (Mr . Marshall) or the person acting on his behalf may always present the motion that the House proceed to the Orders 'of the Day.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you will find that our precedents will establish that that is in order. MR. NEARY: To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Mr. To that point of order, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, again, does not know what he is talking about because a motion before the House needs a seconder and a petition does not need a seconder, it is not a motion, Mr. Speaker, and you cannot assume that it is a motion, you cannot assume anything. The han. gentleman is assuming too much. All he is trying to do is gag the members of this House. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have to follow the L5994 Orders of the Day, we have to follow the Standing Orders of this House. I submit there is no point of order, Mr. Speaker, only a little bit of strategy on the part of the hon. gentleman to try to force the House into a debate on another issue when the han. gentleman does not have the right to do it under our Standing Orders . Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe Your Honour might want to take a few moments to consider this one, I do not think it has even arisen in the House before, I do not recall it. MR. STEWART: Yes, it has. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! MR.

NEARY: No, it has not. We had the motion before when there was an order on the floor of the House but there is no order, Mr. Speaker, and I would submit there is no point of order. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, the han. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Essentially it is recapitulation. Standing Order 21 is very straightforward, "A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House. •• If it is assumed that there is a motion, then it has preference.

If it is assumed there is no motion it does not say it shall or shall not have December 13, 1984 R5994

preference, and that is where the practices of the House come in. I think Your Honour will find in the practice of the House that a similar motion under Standing Order 21 has previously been made and I think in checking the Index of Debates Your Honour will find that. MR. NEARY: Never before. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To that point of order, the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

BARRY: I refer Your Honour to the little Order Paper that we get each day in the House of Assembly in which it is set out: Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion; Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given and Petitions. After that, Mr. Speaker, we move to Orders of the Day. Now, Mr. Speaker, the presenting of petitions is something that in every democratic institution has a long and respected tradition. Mr. Speaker, to have this government interfere with the ability of not just the Opposition but of any member of this hon.

House to present petitions - DR. COLLINS: From whom? MR. BARRY: From any citizens Province, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! L5995 of this MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: I refer Your Honour to page. -8-9 in Beauchesne: "It is a fundamental rule that, with the exception of certain matters dealt with under Routine Proceedings, no question can be considered by the House unless it has been previously appointed either by a notice or a regular Order of the House.

The paper known as Order Paper and Notices is the official agenda printed on the responsibility of the Clerk of the House, containing all the proposed questions set out in accordance with the Standing Orders. All the proposed proceedings of the House are recorded in abbreviated form in that paper. To add to, or suppress from it, any proposal which the House has ordered would constitute a serious infringement on the privileges of the House of Commons." That- translates to the House of Assembly. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we are into the routine proceedings and the agenda as set out on the Order Paper and what we have here is an unwarranted and unprecedented attack. It is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, that we have a notice that closure shall come but, Mr. Speaker, it is even, I would submit, more serious that the sacred rights of the citizens of this Province to have petitions presented to this hon. House should be interfered with. It is something that cannot be tolerated, Mr. Speaker, and we ask the protection of Your Honour, we ask the protection of the Chair that we be permitted to do the job for which we were elected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that motion should be ruled out of order forthwith. December 13, 1984 R5995

HR. SIMMS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To that point of order, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Just to add a bit to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) has offered to Your Honour as some substance in helping you address this particular point of order in this particular question. The Minister of Justice has argued that when a petition is being presented to the House it is assumed that a motion is before the House. I refer Your Honour to paragraph 694 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 213, subsection (1) which refers to petitions.

It says: .. While a Member has clearly a right to ask that a petition be read, it is a privilege, like many others, subject to the approval of the House itself. In case of opposition, the Speaker will put the Member's motion, .. that the petition be read ..... Now, that, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) has been arguing that when you present a petition to the House of Assembly it is assumed, it is the same as if there is a motion being presented. It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 694.

"In the case of opposition, the Speaker will put the Member's motion, "that the petition be read. '"' I submit , Mr. Speaker, that that will assist you in supporting the argument against the point of order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: L5996 Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! To that point of order I have heard quite enough argument on it now. I am sure hon. members will agree that I should take a couple of minutes to confer with members of the Table. Recess MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To the point of order raised by the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) , I have found a precedent in our House from April 7, 197.6, Tape No . 1900 and I will read it for hon. members . MR. TULK: Who was in the Chair? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): It does not say which Speaker was in the Chair. The Speaker recognized the hon. the member for Trinity - Bay de Verde: ''HR. F. ROWE: In the interest, Sir, of getting the true function of Private Members' Day back on track I move that the Orders of the Day be read according to Standing Order 21. "HR. SPEAKER: the Chair - The motion before "MR.

WELLS: In fact this motion, as I say we have been consulted on it, this motion in effect dispenses with the Question Period.. - and if I had gone back a December 13, 1984 R5996

bit further we were into Petitions at the time - "and then we would proceed into Orders of the Day which being Private Members' Day would be the resolution, and the hon. member would, of course, finish his speech, and we, of course, would be very happy to agree. "MR. SPEAKER: the Chair is the Day be undebatable. question." The motion before that the Orders of read, and it is so I shall put the I have to rule that the motion by the han. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) according to our precedent is in order and I put the question before the House that we proceed to Orders of the Day. MR .

N EARY: I appeal Your Honour•s ruling, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Call in the members. Order, please! The motion is that the Speaker's ruling be upheld. Those in favour ''aye". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those against "nay". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay. MR. SPEAKER: The "ayes" have it. MR. BARRY: Divide. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Call in the members. L5997 Division MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Ten minutes have passed. All those in favour of the motion, please rise. The han. the Premier, the han. the Minister of Rural Agriculture and Northern Development (Mr.Goudie), the han. the Minister of Education (Ms.

Verge). the han. the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey). Mr. Reid. the han. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), the han. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer), Dr. McNicholas, the han. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Rideout). the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn), the han. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms). Mr. Barrett, the han. the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr. Young), the han. the Minister of Environment (Mr. Andrews). Mr. Baird, Mr. Peach, Mr. Tobin. Mr. Stewart, Mrs. Reid, Mr. Hearn. Mr. Patterson, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Butt, Mr. Stagg. Mr. Osmond.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise. The han. Opposition Callan, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Mr. Fenwick. MR. SPEAKER: the Leader of the (Mr. Barry), Mr. Neary, Mr. TUlk, Mr. Hiscock. Mr. Warren, Twenty-five for and eight against. The "Ayes" have it, the Speaker• s ruling is upheld. The question is that the House proceed to Orders of the Day. All those in favour of the motion that the House - December 13, 1984 R5997

MR. NEARY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! All those in favour that the House proceed to Orders of the Day. MR. NEARY: On a point of privilege. What is going on? MR. SPEAKER Those in favour "Aye". SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Aye". MR. SPEAKER: Those against "Nay". SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Nay". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! The motion is carried. Orders of the Day MR. NEARY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. MR.

NEARY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Is Your Honour deaf? L5998 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMS: There is Sit down! that. no need for that, boy. There is no need for MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Is it the pleasure of the House - MR. NEARY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): On a point of privilege. Is it agreed to stop the clock? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. NEARY: No, Mr. Speaker. It is 5:30. MR. TULK: It was not 5: 30 when it happened but it is 5:30 now. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward): It being 5: 30, I have to inform that there is a question for the Late Show raised by the bon. the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock). SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. no! MR. WARREN: It was withdrawn. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! December 13, 1984 R5998

Has the question been withdrawn? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been given a question. Is there one question or two? AN HON. MEMBER: Two questions. MR. SPEAKER: Two , questions. The first question raised by the bon. member for Eagle River. 'I do not agree with the Premier's answer to . my question concerning Coastal Labrador DREE agreement.' MR. HISCOCK: I withdraw. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): That question is withdrawn. The second question - MR. HISCOCK: I want to drop the first question. MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I see!

The second question is, 'I would like to drop my first question.' The motion before the House is that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House - MR. BARRY: Question, Mr. Speaker! Question! MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that the House do now adjourn. All those in favour of the motion, please say .. Aye ... L5999 SOME HON. MEMBERS: .. Aye ... MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, signify by ''Nay ... SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Nay". MR. OTTENHEIMER: You want the Late Show now! MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): There is no Late Show. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: I move the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole? All in favour, 'Aye', contrary 'Nay', carried. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the rules do not permit this. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Late Show, there has to be notice given by 5: 00 o'clock by standing Order 31 (k), Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is no Late Show, then the House must adjourn until 8:00 o'clock. MR. SIMMS: The motion was defeated. December 13, 1984 R5999

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, if the motion is carried, the Speaker 'shall leave the Chair until Friday', but if the said motion is defeated, 'the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 8:00 o'clock.' MR. SIMMS: And it was defeated. MR. BARRY: So what is he doing moving Committee of the Whole? MR. SIMMS: What are you doing raising a point of order? Let him leave the Chair. Sit down, boy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR ·. BARRY: You defeated it! You defeated it! You cannot go into Committee of the Whole after defeating the motion. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, plea~e! Order, please! MR.

BARRY: The Speaker has to leave the Chair. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The motion is that I.do now leave the Chair until 8:00 p.m. All those in favour, contrary, 'Nay', carried. 'Aye', I do now leave the Chair until 8:00p.m. L6000 December 13, 1984 R6000

The House resumed at 8:00 p.m. Orders of the Day On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Committee of the Whole MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): Order 4, Bill 37. In Commit tee it has been the practice to have a fifteen minute intruduction by the minister, a fifteen minute response and ten minutes for each speaker thereafter. Is it agreed that the House follow this procedure tonight? MR. TULK: Go by the Standing Orders. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can go by the Standing Orders. Standing Order 49 takes effect. The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Standing Order 49, as I understand it, is sixty minutes and sixty minutes, and everybody else, I believe, has twenty minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thirty minutes. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thirty minutes, right. Sixty minutes for the introducer, sixty minutes for the responder, and everybody else has thirty minutes. I surely am not going to take anything close to sixty L6001 minutes. ·I would not want to encroach upon bon. members' desire to filibuster, and we certainly want to leave the Liberal/Socialist coalition with all possible opportunity to filibuster.

I would point out that this afternoon they lost two hours of debate with these petitions. So it would appear that while the bon. members say they need more time to debate, what they really want is less. However, with respect to Clause 1, and we are now on Clause 1 of this bill, there is an amendment. So if the pages would come here I have two copies, one for the leader of each wing of the coalition. So I will let the pages figure it out, one for one wing and one for the other wing. DR. COLLINS: The right wing and the left wing. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Actually, this is an amendment to Clause 1 of Bill 37. When the hon.

Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn) was speaking on second reading he pointed out and indicated what the nature of the amendments would be. This is, in fact, those same amendments. So the amendments, and the hon. minister will speak at greater length on them, but they are the identical amendments which the hon. minister pointed out that he would be making in Committee of the Whole, and these amendments are now made with respect to Clause 1.

What it comes down to, hon. gentlemen on both sides will have it, but it is no news to them because they have been informed of it by the minister who introduced the bill, is that Clause 1 of the bill as presently drafted is December 13, 1984 R6001

deleted and the following substi tued: Paragraph 1, 'The Labour Standards Act is amended by adding in

Part VIII and immediately before

Section 4 7 the following: 46.1 in this part•, and then (

a) and (

b) defining temporary layoffs and termination of employment in the identical manner that the hon. minister pointed out in second reading. Going on to Clause 2, for the purpose of the relevant paragraph ·and subsection, 'Any day during the period of twenty consecutive weeks for which an employee receives pay, including pay the employee receives for a public holiday occurring during that period, shall not be counted in the calculation of the thirteen week lay-off period set out in Paragraph A" - exactly as the hon. minister explained.

Then it goes on with respec.t to 'temporary layoffs become termination', that is the side note. 'Where an employer temporarily lays off an employee and the lay-off exceeds a temporary lay-off the employee shall', for the purpose of this part, 'be deemed to have been terminated at the commencement of the temporary lay-off.' And then, exactly as the hon. minister explained in introducing second reading, this

section is deemed to have come into effect, come into force on August 1, 1978. So that is the amendment and it is identical to what the hon. minister - it must have been a week or so ago since second reading was introduced - indicated would be made in Committee. The only reason why I am making it, of course, is that the rules preclude the hon. minister from making it himself.

And hon. members L6002 opposite would obviously wish all hon. members on this side to observe scrupulously the rules, which we all endeavour to do, and, indeed, I think we fulfill that endeavour 99. 99 per cent of the time, and it is arguable that even 100 per cent of the time. I have an hour. I have now gone five minutes. I do not intend to go any longer than another minute at most, because I do not want to interfere with the Socalist/ Liberal coalition, or Liberal/Socialist coalition, I am not sure which it is, their desire to filibuster.

It is very interesting, however, as I said before, that they have been saying that they need more time to debate the bill when this afternoon they gave up two hours with these petitions because they did not want to debate it. But it sounds very . good to say publicly 'we want to debate it.' ;r do not want to interfere with the coalition's f Hi buster, I do not want to interfere with anybody's filibuster, I gladly cede the floor and give fifty-five minutes. MR. TULK: You do not know what you are talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): Order, please! MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. and incredible member for Fogo (Mr.

Tulk) is interrupting me, Mr. Chairman, and I find it very difficult to get my cogent points across. But not wishing to interfere with the filibuster, I take my seat. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! December 13, 1984 R6002

MR. CHAIRMAN: The bon. the Opposition. MR. BAR RY: Leader of the Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting that the minister should refer to a filibuster on this side of the House when we had received notice before the debate ever started from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn), and subsequently from the Premier, that closure would be invoked. It was very interesting to us, Mr. Chairman, to see members opposite speak out of both sides of their mouths. In particular, Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting for us to see the Premier of this Province get up and invoke closure after the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) had stood up and vehemently denied that there was any such intention when we brought to the attention of the House, before anybody on this side of the House had spoken in debate, the fact that the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) had gotten up and told the people of this Province that government was considering closure. Now, when we raised this to the attention, Mr. Chairman, of the House, we had the Government House Leader get up and say, 'When this bill was first introduced the Liberal Opposition indicated on Friday that they were going to conduct a filibuster, which is their right to do.

And there were references made with respect to - . I have heard references in the debate to closure and what have you , and it never has been' - he did not finish that sentence 'closure is an implement, Mr. Speaker, of Liberal Governments in the past, Liberal Governments federally and Liberal Governments in the province, and it certainly L6003 would not be the desire or the intent of this government at this time to entertain any matter of closure. What we hope to do, Mr. Speaker, is to allow an adequate time for debate on this bill.' Now, Mr. Chairman, how the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) has been forced to eat those words. And how correct was the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) when he announced to the people of this Province that there would be closure invoked? And the intention was there, as shown by the minister, before anybody on this side of the House, before anybody, Mr. Chairman, had said one word on the bill. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of checking back a little and seeing what other members have had to say about the introduction of closure. I was very interested to learn that back in March 31, 1971, Liberal Reform Chief, John C.

Crosbie - I did not realize he was Liberal Reform Chief at the time - described it as the foulest rule in parliamentary procedure. The foulest, Mr. Chairman. And, of course, I suppose we should have expected it, if it was the foulest rule that one could expect. What else would we expect from members opposite? Now, Mr. Chairman, on another occasion in the same debate Mr. Crosbie indicated 'It is a black day for democracy in Newfoundland' - March 31, 1971, the dying days of the Smallwood Administration, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Crosbie went on to say 'There is no justice in this House tonight where the foul rule of closure has been brought in.• December 13, 1984 R6003

Let us move a 1i t tle further afield, Mr. Chairman, let us move away from this House of Assembly, go up to the House of Commons in Ottawa and let us hear what the Conservatives under Mr. Joe Clark had to say about closure in the federal House of Commons. Mr. Chairman, they said it was insidious - AN HON. MEMBER: You can organize (inaudible). MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): Order, please! MR. BARRY: There would have been a better offshore deal from Joe Clark than you are getting from Mr. Mulroney and you did that. Joe Clark would not have caved into the Americans the way Mr.

Mulroney did and the way he is sweeping the philosophy of hon. members opposite aside. Now, let us work it out, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mulroney has handed over, we figure on a conservative estimate, $6 billion. Let us be easy. Deducting the $500 million that he is going to give the Premier to play with in the next election, let us say there is $6 billion given back to Mobil and the other US companies. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! I just want to bring to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr.

Barry) attention that we are discussing Bill 37, particularly the amendment to Clause 1, and I would remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of our rule of relevancy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! L6004 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! I just want to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we are discussing in detail the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 37. MR. NEARY: So what? There is closure, is there not? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There has been no motion for closure brought before this Committee that I know of.

We are discussing, the same as we would in any other Committee, an amendment to clause 1 of Bill No. 3 7 , and in Commit tee our remarks are to refer fairly directly to the clauses that we are discussing. MR, BARRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad to hear those interesting comments. MR. STAGG: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order, the hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. STAGG: Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House approximately ten years. I have been Deputy Speaker in this House, I have sat in the Chair, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry), and it is a custom of this House, it is one the courtesies of the House that when the Speaker or the Chairman is speaking the person who had the December 13, 1984 R6004

floor previously would sit. That is a normal courtesy that is afforded in the parliamentary system. Now the Leader of the Opposition stood on his feet for the duration of the Chairman's discussion of this point of order or intervention. So I would say that the Leader of the Opposition should apologize to the Chair, because it is the utmost in discourtesy to the Chair. MR. OTT ENH EIMER: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the bon. the Minister of Justice. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: -To inform the hon. coalition leaders opposite, the Committee of the Whole is a regular Committee of the Whole on Claupe 1 of the bill to which I have moved an amendment and at this particular time there is no closure in operation. The hon. the Leader of the Liberal side of the coalition was saying, 'We are under closure. We are under closure. ' The bon. Socialist Leader of the coalition was wondering himself whether we were under closure or not. So one of the hon.

Conservative members is now informing the bon. leaders of both sides of the coalition that closure is not operative and that bon. gentlemen were thinking that they were debating the closure motion

whereas they are debating clause 1 and the amendment thereto. I rest my case, in the words of the bon. gentleman. MR. CHAIRMAN ( Ay 1 ward) ; Order, please! To the point of order raised by L6005 the bon. the member for Stephenville (Mr. Stagg), it is correct that when the Speaker is speaking or giving a ruling members should be seated. The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, we had the Prime Minister of Canada go down to the United States. Normally when you have these fund raising dinners - and I am talking about temporary layoffs, Mr.

Chairman, I am talking about a layoff that is going to occur when the next election is called. I just wanted to point our that normally when you have fund raising dinners with politicians involved you have a $100 a plate dinner. If every member at the dinner give $100 and 1,000 people attended, that would be $100,000 donated to the politician. Well, Mr. Mulroney decided to try a new twist: He went down to the United States and he had 1,000 people there but he decided to give out $6 billion, or it was a $6,000 a plate dinner. Everybody who was there received on average $6 , 000, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Mulroney had 1,000 of his oil industry friends there and he decided to pass over $6 billion from the Hibernia development to his oil industry friends. It was a reverse fund raising dinner. Instead of those at the dinner each donating $100 or $1,000, we had $6 billion distributed to the oil industry, Mr. Chairman, $6 billion that came out of the pockets of the people of Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Chairman, Bill 37 is an interesting bill. I got a letter from the Premier the other day and he copied me with a letter from December 13, 1984 R6005

"\. Mr. J. Stewart Herman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Kruger Inc., Bedford Road, Montreal, Quebec. Now that letter was dated December 11, Mr. Chairman, the day after the Premier had been away from this House all day - remember? - we were wondering where he was. The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) was gone too. I wonder if he was at the same meeting? Well, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier returned, despite the fact that he got up in this House on a number of occasions and said that Bill 37 was not necessary for the Kruger takeover - MR. DINN:- Of course not, you know that. MR.

BARRY: I ask the minister, did the Premier say that or not in this House of Assembly? MR. SIMMS: Did he say what? MR. BARRY: · Did he say that Bill 37 was not necessary in order for the Kruger deal to go through? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Hr. Chairman, the Premier of this Province stood up in this House on a number of occasions and said that Bill 3 7 was not necessary in order for the Kruger deal to go through. DR. COLLINS: I do not think he said that. MR. BARRY: Well, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) did not hear correctly if he does not think that.

He should L6006 check Hansard, because I can assure the hon. minister that is what the Premier said. DR. COLLINS: He said 'It is not part of the agreement.' MR. BARRY: No, Hr. Chairman. The Premier went further and said it was not necessary for the Kruger deal to go through. He said, Mr. Chairman, that the Kruger deal would go through but that he would prefer if he could have this little gift to give to Kruger when they carne into the Province to start business. MR. TOBIN: I will never talk about Joey again. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Chairman, I ask you one thing and one thing only, could you squash the member for Burin Placentia West (Hr. Tobin) and keep him quiet during the course of this debate because I think the member has had too liberal a dinner hour. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): or:der, please! MR. TOBIN: I was at dinner with the bon. the Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Barry), Hr. Chairman, I can shut him up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Leader of Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr.

Chairman, we went through a week in this House listening to the Premier say that Bill 37 was not necessary for the Kruger December 13, 1984 R6006

takeover from Bowaters but then, when the Premier saw that he had a fight on his hands in this House and in this Province, Mr. Chairman, he disappeared for a day. He disappeared for one day, Mr. Chairman, and then, lc and behold, we are delivered with a letter from Mr. Kruger's henchman, Mr. Herman. And what does the first paragraph of that letter say, Mr. · Chairman? The first paragraph of this letter says, 'Dear, Mr. Premier: You have asked whether Kruger Inc. would be prepared to complete its acquisition of the shares of Bowater Newfoundland Limited prior to the enactment of Bill 37?' Now, Mr.

Chairman, what does that indicate to members of this House? Now, we have to keep in mind, MR. DINN: The greatest speech.of the year. MR. TULK: Be quiet! Every time your mouth you make a yourself, so be quiet! MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): Order, please! MR. BARRY: you open fool of Mr. Chairman, we have to keep in mind that this letter was delivered and this first paragraph only carne in after we had a report to the media from Kruger that they were not too concerned about Bill 37. They did not really know what was in Bill 37. They were not paying very much attention to Bill 37. I think it was the same henchman, Mr.

Herman, who had said, 'No, we are not following Bill 37. What is Bill 37? We are not concerned about Bill 37. Now, Mr. Chairman, would it be L6007 unreasonable for us to infer that the reason this letter has been delivered is because the Premier went pleading on bended knee to Kruger to ask them to take his chestnuts out of the fire? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. MR. BARRY: Would that be unreasonable? Could it be, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier's chestnuts were roasting in this House for awhile? Could it be that the Premier's chestnuts might be caught in a wringer, Mr. Chairman? MR.

BARRY: And could it be that the Premier could have gone to Kruger and said, 'Get me out of this predicament?' Is it possible, Mr. Chairman? Is it possible that the Premier decided that he had to go ask somebody to get him out of this predicament? Is it unreasonable, Mr. Chairman, when you consider this first paragraph: 'Dear, Mr. Premier: You have asked whether Kruger ink would be prepared to complete its acquisition of the shares of Bowater Newfoundland Limited prior to the enactment of Bill 37?' Now a few days before they never heard of Bill 37. They were not concerned about Bill 37. Mr.

Chairman, they had been in negotiations with the union and they had asked the union, Would you waive your rights under the Labour Standards legislation? They knew that the Wabush Mines case was going before the Labour Standards Tribunal and then before the courts. They had the decision of the Labour Standards Tribunal. Did they say to the unions there is no way you will get an agreement from us unless you agree to waive your rights? No, they December 13, 1984 R6007

did not say that, they signed the agreement and they let the workers of Corner Brook keep their rights. And did they, when they signed the agreement with government, say there is no way we will sign this agreement unless you put in it that you will pass a Bill 37? No. No, Mr. Chairman, there was nothing in that agreement. And, Mr. Chairman, after they had signed the collective agreement with the union, after they had signed the agreement with government, and after they had made comments to the press that they were not concerned about Bill 37, now, Mr.

Chairman, what could possibly be the explanation for this letter coming from 3859 Bedford Road, Montreal, Quebec? MR. BUTT: We want 'Steve' ! MR. BARRY: Do you think this was a spontaneous inspiration that Mr. Kruger had in the bath that morning, that in the course of his shower it struck him, Oh, my God, what have I done? I have signed all of these agreements and I have not insisted that Bill 37 go through the House. Is that what happened? MR. NEARY: No. Maybe their contribution would be cut off. MR. TULK: That is not what happened. MR.

NEARY: They are trying to get their contributions before the Election Act comes in. MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this House and everybody in L6008 Newfoundland knows that this letter was delivered - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hurrah! Hurrah! MR. BARRY: - this letter was delivered at the request of the Premier of this Province. In order that the Premier's chestnuts be hauled out of the fire, Mr. Chairman, he had to go to 3895 Bedford Road, Montreal, Quebec and plead with Mr.

Herman to give him that letter so that he could come into the House of Assembly and try and give some sort of pathetic explanation as to why it was necessary to try and ram Bill 37 down the throats of the people of this Province. Time out, Mr. Chairman! I should not have thrown this letter away, because there is another paragraph in this letter that is somewhat inter;-esting. Mr. Chairman, there is another paragraph in this letter that is of interest. It is still page one. It is a one page letter, so I think it is still page one.

Now listen to this: 'Our corporate decision to purchase Bowater Newfoundland Limited was based on the assumption that any significant Labour Standards liabilities would not become liabilities of this company. Given that the viability ~f our plan could be seriously - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, are you going to control this Committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I wish to remind all hon. members that while a member is speaking he December 13, 1984 R6008

has the right to be heard in silence. And I wish to remind the bon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) that we are dealing in detail with Clause 1 of Bill 37. The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second paragraph of the letter from Kruger: 'Our corporate decision to purchase Bowater Newfoundland Limited was based on the assumption that any significant Labour Standards liabilities would not become liabilities of this company. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, I am getting sick and tired of trying to out-shout members ·. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Order, please! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, would you please keep them quiet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would remind hon. members on both sides of the House once again that while a member is speaking he has the right to be heard in silence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, 'Given that the L6009 viability of our plan could be seriously jeopardized, Kruger Inc. cannot proceed with the acquisition of the mill until Bill 37 has been enacted.' Now, Mr. Chairman, they have made a pretty significant leap here.

They started off by saying that their decision to purchase Bowater Newfoundland Limited was based on the assumption that any significant Labour Standards liabilities would not become liabilities of that company and they have jumped from that to the assumption that, therefore, Bill 3 7 was necessary. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wrote Mr. J.

Stewart Herman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Kruger Inc. today and I pointed out to him that members on this side of the House were prepared to supply Kruger Inc. with a guarantee that there would not be any significant Labour Standards liabilities incurred by his company, and I have asked him whether, in light of that guarantee, it is still his conclusion that Bill 37 would have to be enacted. Now, Mr. Chairman, we all know what the answer to that letter is going to be. The Evening Telegram has already answered it in their editorial today, where they set out their position on closure and Bill 37. Mr.

Chairman, if I could take a moment, they say, ' If the Premier is so sure that Bill 37 will be upheld in the courts, he could very easily have signed a document assuring Kruger it would not be liable, or he could, as th