VOL. 3 NO. 29 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. FRIDAY, APRIL ia, 1H81

M April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1125 SD - 1 The House met at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! Hon. members I know would like to join me in welcoming to the galleries this morning forty Grade XI students from Charisma Collegiate in Springdale, from the district of Green Bay, along with their teachers, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Peters. We hope they enjoy their visit. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, my understanding is that in my absence permission was granted to the Press Gallery to do live coverage of the House of Assembly. I believe there have been some different

interpretations on what is meant by 'live coverage' and I understand that the television stations had already made plans to just do news, to come in and tape the thing- not do it live-and just provide news clips of the proceedings of the House on that day. Well, I do not know what the procedure is, I am in Your Honour's hands on this, but I know under the ordinary rules of the House that anytime you want to you can withdraw leave. Now I was absent, unavoidably absent on that day, as Your Honour knows.

And I do not see why, if they can bring in the cameras on that day to do news clips,why they could not bring the cameras in every day and do news clips. So if I can withdraw leave, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps Your Honour might want to take that under advisement, I want to do it, because I do not think they just should be allowed to come in one or two days a year, I think we should have the television cameras in this House, as far as I am concerned,on a daily basis doing live co'rage. 312 4

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1125 SD - 2 MR. THOMS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: But if they want to come in just as a experiment to do news clips, to tape the proceedings of the House and then provide news clips, well I am all for that too. I am all for anything that can get this House televised, Mr. Speaker. MR. CARTER: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEARER (Simms): To the point of order, the hon. member for St. Johns North. MR. CARTER: In the private session of this House unanimous leave was given to provide live TV coverage for the hon. the Minister of Finance's (Dr. Collins) Budget Speech. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it makes nonsense of unanimous consent if that consent can be withdrawn at any time. I can understand the hon. gentleman's desire to get publicity on this matter, but nevertheless I feel that unanimous consent having been given, it cannot be withdrawn. MR. SPEARER: Well, to the point of order, first of all, the Chair was under the impression that the request from the Parliamentary Press Gallery was to provide live coverage of the Budget Speech. First of all, that was the request that was put to hon. members. I understand now 3125

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1126 EL - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms): that that is not the case, that they wish to tape the presentation of the Budget Speech and use excerpts from it in later fleWCasts. The point of order that has been raised is not one that I necessarily should deal with immed- iately,so I think I will take it under advisement and give it some consideration. MR. MARSHALL: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to note that the hon. member is withdrawing leave, that is my understanding. MR. SPEAKER: My understanding - MR. MARSHALL: The. hon. member for LaPoile. (IS. Neary) is withdrawing leave? MR. SPEAKER: That is my understanding.- The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I am in Your Honour's hands. I am asking if there is a pro- cedure in this House- whereby I car - I sin not sure. if I can if I can withdraw leave. Your Honour will have to rule whether or not a member can withdraw leave. And if Your Honour rules that that is the case, then I will withdraw leave. MR.

MARSHALL: To the point of order,Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. - MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the House cannot be played cat and mouse with by the hon. member. There are rules for the governing of the House and one of the rules is that hypothetical questions cannot be asked of Your Honour, that Your Honour cannot be asked to prejudge situations. SO, I 3126

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1126 EL - 2 MR. MARSHALL: think it is incumbent on the hon. member to indicate as to whether or not he is going to withdraw leave and then, Your Honour, if he withdraws leave1then Your Honour decides as to whether or not he can, bearing In mind that if he withdraws leave, Mr. Speaker, he prevents and pre- cludes the public from seeing the Minister of Finances (Dr. Collins) speech. MR. NEARY: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): To the point of order, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: To that point of order, Nr.Speaker, I have to correct a statement that the hon. gentleman just made, It is the media who are refusing to show the minister live, to show the minister's speech., not I. The media have already decided that, that they are merely just going to pro vide news clips. But what I am asking Your Honour is if I would be in order to withdraw leave. If I am, I withdraw,but Your Honour is going to rule on that at a later date. MR.

SPEAKER: I have taken the matter under advisement and maybe the way around it would be to put the question at a later date and then we. will see if we have leave again. STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Judge Edward Langdon as Associate. Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. Judge Langdon is a native, of Botwood and married to the former Peggy Critch of Botwood. Judge and Mrs. Langdon have three children. Judge. Langdon re- ceived his early education in Botwood and attended Memorial University.

He then taught in Deer Lake and Botwood until his appointment to the Provincial Court in 1969. 3127

priJ. 10, 1981 Tape No. 1126 EL 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER: In 1975 Judge Langdon received his L1.C. from Daihousie Law School. He attended Daihousie under the auspices of the Law School Training Programme for Provincial Court Judges. He was admitted to the Newfoundland Bar in 1980. Judge Langdon has served in St. Anthony, Woody Point, Port aux Basques and Gander and brings a wide knowledge of Newfoundland to his new position. He is presently the Provincial representative on the Executive of the Canadian Association for Provincial Court Judges and is a Past President of the Newfoundland Provincial Judges Association.

The position of Associate Chief Judge is a newly created one in order to relieve the Chief Judge of certain of his administrative duties. This has become an increasing burden as the jurisdiction of the Court expands, especially as a result of the new Small Claims Act. I am confident that this appointment will serve to provida 3128

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1127 DW - 1 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: even more efficient administration of the Erovincial Court throughout the Province. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. L. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment that I can understand that the Department of Justice has created this new position. The Chief Judge certainly needs some administrative assistance in the Province and I would just like to wish Judge Langdon well in his new appointment. MR. SPEAKER: Any further statements? MR. J. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. J.

MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, as a result of meetings this week between the provincial Department of Fisheries and the large fishing company, H.B. Nickerson & Sons Limited from Nova Scotia, as a result of these meetings between the govern- ment and the company officials concerning their operations in Newfoundland at locations along the Northeast coast at Jackson's Arm, at Charleston, at Triton and South Dildo - these are the large major plants owned by that company - I wish to inform the House of Assembly that I have now received written assur- ance from H.B.

Nickerson & Sons Limited that the company is now committed to the off season use of these major inshore plants on the Northeast coast of our Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. J. MORGAN: The company, in a written letter as of yesterday to us - awritten assurance rather - has ensured the Newfoundland Government that through the use of Northern cod as well as further reprocessing of fish landed during the inshore fishery, the goal of year-round utiliza- tion of their major plants at South Dildo, Charleston, Tri- ton and Jackson's Arm will be reached. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear 3129

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1127 DW - 2 MR. J. MORGAN: The company, Mr. Speaker, in meetings this week reported that 21,000 man days of employment and over a million dollars in wages had been generated by Winter opera- tions in these normally seasonal plants this past Winter. The further processing of fish,mostly squid,that had been frozen in 1980,as well as some Northern cod landed by company trawlers in Triton, in particular, this past Winter, provided an average of 320 jobs per month in plants that would otherwise have been lying idle.

The plants at South Dildo and Jackson's Arm were also utilized,according to Nickerson's officiars, during this past Winter they were utilized in that way, mostly by reprocessing of squid. Eased on the information provided by the company for the first four months of the 1981 fishery, this year, and based on a written commitment, I am satisfied that significant progress is being made towards meeting the govern- ment's objectives of (1) utilizing inshore plants to the greatest degree possible during the off season, and (2) adding more value to Newfoundland fish products through further or secondary pro- cessing. Mr.

Speaker, as a result of these meetings held this week between the company officials and the 3130

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1128 NM - 1 officials of the provincial Department of Fisheries and myself, the company giving us these undertakings, the Newfoundland Government has now decided to lift the'freeze the freez that was placed on licence renewals for ex- pansion and new acquisitions and has now instructed the Licencing Division of the Department of Fisheries to process all outstanding requests in a regular manner. And I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the commitment for further expansion and utilizing these plants theyhave on a year round basis - MR. NEARY: You were forced to back down.

MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, could you ask this member to keep quiet over here? MR. SPEAKER (Simins): Order, please The hon. member wishes to be heard in silence. MR. NEARY: Trivial stuff. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, we are now going to process the applications from that company in a regular normal way and these will include too che acquisition of a company at Gooseberry Cove in Trinity Bay, where they intend to move in to establish a processing operation. Also applications for licences are made at Pacquet, Mr. Speaker, in the White Bay area. MR. NEARY: That is absolutely ridiculous. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, please keep this horiourable noisy gentleman quiet over here. MR. SPEAiR: Order, please! MR. NEARY: The Anchor Point crowd will look after you.. 3131

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1128 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, Gooseberry Cove is one area where Nickerson will be expanding by means of acquisition of a cprnpany there, and Pacquet in the White Bay area, where the company has now made application for processing licences and will operate a facility there owned by the federal governmenti also, at Woody Point and Rocky Harbour in the Bonne Bay area, and in St. Barbe. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, heart MR. MORGAN: So the company, Mr.

Speaker, is expanding its operations in this Province because, in meetings this week1 they firmly believe in the future of the Newfound- land fishery. Mr. Speaker, I will be watching with interest the progress made by the company, Nickerson'-, over the next year in achieving the full utilization of its facilities along the Northeast Coast of our Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAEER (Sirnms): The hon. Deputy House Leader. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, since one is not permitted to debate in responding to a Ministerial Statement, then I will not debate. But, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is obvious to everyone from reading this statement as to where the change is taking place and, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is no great change taking place with respect to the operation of Nickerson's in this Province. None whatsoever. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. LUSH: What the minister could have done to really indicate the change, Mr. Speaker, was instead of telling us what the achievements of the company were over the past year was to say based on the new policy what will result. 3132

J April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1128 NM - 3 MR. LUSH: For example, reference was made to the 21,000 man days of employment and over $1 million of wages generated by Winter operations. So what the minister could have done was to have indicated to the House as a result of this new change that he is suggesting that by Nickerson's,what that would have resulted in man- days and in dollars. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that simply Nickerson's have just reaffirmed their philosophy and policy with respect to operation in Newfoundland and they put it in writing for the minister because the minister could not 1, understand it otherwise. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! - . S 3133

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1129 AM- 1 MR.SPEAKER (Simms) Further statements? SOME HON.MBERS: Oh, oh MR.SPEAKER: Order, please The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR.GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I mu pleased to announce to the House that Cabinet has approved a recommendation - SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.SPEAKER: Order Order, p1ease MR. MARSHAML: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR.SPEAKER: Order, p1ease The hon. the President of the Council has a point of order.

MR.MARSHALL: The hon. gentlemen there opposite obviously do not wish to hear the statements that are being made but there are other people who would like to hear them. MR.NEARY: To the point of order. MR.SPEAKER: To the point of order. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. All we were saying to the ministers was it must be Friday again. If they ever stopped the weekend edition of the papers there would be no Ministerial Statement5, that is what we were indicating. MR.

SPEAKER: i suggest that maybe that is not a point of order but it is pertinent that members should - SOME HUN.ME-it(S: Oh, oh MR.SPEAKE Order,please Members should give the opportunity to ministers to make statements. Obviously if the members to my right want to respond to those statements they would have to hear them and it would be very difficult if there is continuous interruption. 3134

L April 10,1981 Tape No. 1129 AH-2 MR.SPEAKER (Sinixns) : The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House that Cabinet has approved a recommendation from the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities which will exempt the people in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay - North ''est River area from the fuel adjustment clause in their electricity bills.

SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR.GOUDIE: The House will recall that some time ago the matter of an alteration of rates to be charged by the Power Distribution District for the supply of power in the Happy Valley -Goose Bay - North WestRiver interconnected area of Labrador was referred to the Public Utilities Board for investigation, examination and report. In accordance with

Section two of the Electrical Power Control Act,the Public Utilities Board had made an interim report to Cabinet which contains the recornniendations. A public hearing will be held on the matter in due course. The recommendations of the Public Utilities Board are as follows: That the rates charged by PDD to customers in the Happy Valley—(oose Bay—North Nest River area as of April 15th.,1981 be the same as those charged by Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited to their customers and made eective on November 1,1980 with the exception that a fuel adjustment clause will not apply.

The rates shall remain in effect until such time as final recommendation is made and shall not be affected by any change that may be granted in the fuel escalation formula to Newfoundland Light and Power or to Newfoudland Hydro in other public hearings; that the provincial government pay to PDD as a subsidy the amount remuired to cover PDD's deficit on the cost of services in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay—North West River area. 3135

April 10,1981 Tape No.. 1129 AH-3 MR. GOtJDIE; I am pleased to confirm that Cabinet has approved the recommendations of the Public Utilities Board with, effect from April 15,1981. I apologize to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker . This statement was just completed a few minutes before the House opened. We will have copies made and distributed. MR.SPEAKER: Further statements? ORAL QUESTIONS MR.SPEAXER: The hon. member for Lapoile. MR.NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, my question in the absence of the Premier-and we are not sure if the hon. gentleman is recovering from exhaustion and fatigue or if he is campaigning in Bellevue today driving a car, so therefore I am forced - MR. MORGAN: Do not be so foolish. Act your age for a changein the House. 3136

April 10, 1981 Tape 1130 EC - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please Order, please MR. WEARY: Nickersons just finished with you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. MORGAN: Would the hon. gentleman be quiet, Mr. Speaker? MR. NEARY: Nickersons just dealt with you and the Anchor Point fishermen will deal with you probably next week. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, my question for the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) in the absence of the Premier has to do with TerraTransport and C.N. layoffs.

As hon. members know, 150 TerraTransport employees are going to be laid off - 150 in St. John's, some of which reside in the President of the Council's district, 20 in Bishop's Falls, 10 in Grand Falls, 40 in Corner Brook, 90 in Port aux Basques and 110 other - that is Terra- Transport. And then C.N. Marine will lay off another 105 in Port aux Basques. I want to ask the hon. gentleman what message this government communicated to Mr. Pepin when he was here recently in connection with this matter.

Because my understanding of the news reports is that the provincial government completely caved in and said, 'Yes, we agree with containerization. Immaterial of how many jobs it will cost, we agree with containerization. Put it in on the backs of the employees of Canadian National in this Province.' Was that what happened, would the hon. gentleman tell the House? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. 3137

April 10, 1981 Tape 1130 EC - 2 MR. MARSHALL Mr. Speaker, in response to the early part - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) : Order, p1ease MR. MARSHALL: In response to the early part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I would observe by the way the hon. member is conducting himself that he is acting his age, certainly his mental age if nothing else. Well, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to his question Dn this, the government is concerned about employment in this Province, is very, very concerned about the operations of the Canadian National Railway in the Province and has indicated this a great deal by the studies it has had, the study it had by consultants into the operation of the railway. As to the present situation, we regard it as a very concerning situation, the plan for containerization brought in by Canadian National, brought in by the federal government.

There is some talk and there is some thought that this overall will result in the taking up of some of these jobs that have been lost, but the jobs that have been lost are a matter of concern. The whole matter of the railway and the railway's operation in Newfoundland, as the hon. gentleman knows, is a matter of concern. The railway's operation in this Province and the federal government's backing of it and refusing to comply with its normal obligations of providing the synchrolift in St.

John's, the downgrading of the railway, the failure to maintain or to put in a standard gauge railway, make the railway more effective,

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1131 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: the delegation by the federal government to the Canadian National Railway of the responsibility for the railway which the federal government itself took on under the Terms of Union and delegated to the CN,and the way that this hasoperated since Confederation is certainly a matter of great concern to us. And this particular action at the present time and the layoffs are regarded by this government as very serious and the government is in discussion about the matter with the authorities concerned. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAI<ER (Simms): Supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman in his usual typical fashion in an outburst against the Government of Canada,did not answer the question I put to the hon. gentleman, But at the end there the hon. gentleman said that-the question I asked, Mr. Speaker, was in connection with the meetings with Mr. Pepin, if this government objected to containerization being implemented in a big way by CN in this Province on the backs of its workers, 525 of them to be laid off right across this Province from St. John's to Port aux Basques.

Now the hon. gentleman at the end said that the provincial government is in negotiations with people in authority to try to do something about these layoffs. Would the hon. gentleman indicate who the government is negotiating with., who they are talking to and what plans are they talking about? What is involved in these discussions- if indeed there are any discussions? MR. SPEAKER: . The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as far as the matter of containerization, this was discussed at the time between Mr. Pepin and the then Minister of Transportation and Communications.

It is noted that containerization was an element which was 3139

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1131 SD - 2 MR. MARSHALL: explored in our study into the long term operations of the railway. There is some thought in some peoples minds that this containerization will, in the long run - maybe not in the short run - in the long run will serve to strengthen the viability of the railway but it is not something that we are completely and absolutely sold on. We are very concerned over the layoffs that have been announced. And as to where we are taking them, we are taking them up with Canadian National in the first instance and also, immediately there following with the federal government.

And I say,whether the hon. gentleman likes to hear it or not, that it is quite evident whether it is in the hon. gentlemen's district of Port aux Easques or whether it is in Bishor's Falls or whether it is in St. John's or whether it is anywhere in this Province, that it has been quite evident over the past thirty years that the way in which the federal government has assumed its responsibilities with respect to the railway in this Province is less than satisfactory.

As the hon. gentleman knows, every province in Canada when it joined Confederation, one of the reasons it joined Confederation,,aside from the three founding provinces, particularly the Western ''rovinces,was for the purpose of providing a railway for their territories. They got a railway; unfortunately when we joined we are the only Province where the federal government seems to be determined to take the railway away. So that is another example of the inequitable treatment that this Province has received with respect to the railway. The hon. gentleman need not talk to us about 3140

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1132 OW - 1 MR. N. MARSHALL: the railway. The railway has been a matter of burning concern, its operation in this Province and it will continue to be. And, Mr. Speaker, this particular step itself will be a part of the continuing discussions that this government will have with respect to the operations of the CNR in this Province with a view to putting it on the viable basis that it was when we entered into Oonfederation. It should never been allowed to get to the stage that it is at the present time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Sirnms): A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his version of the history of the Newfoundland railway. And his version is this, Mr. Speaker - let us see hon. members applaud this-that the hon. gentleman, the former Minister of Transporta- tion,when he met with Mr. Pepin agreed to these layoffs, agreed to allow CN-because they would not do it without the blessing of the provincial government-to bring in containerization - MR. MORGAN: You were afraid (inaudible. MR. S. NEARY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. - allowed them to bring in containerization on the backs of its employees rand that is the statement I am making. And now, Mr. Speaker - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. S. NEARY: - they are trying to weasel their way out of it by saying they are holding negotiations. MR. SPEAKER: Order, lease The hon. member during Quetion Period is not supposed to make a statement. 3141

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1131 OW - 2 MR. S. NEARY: Who are they holding the negotiations with and what is it they are attempting to do now? Locking the barn door after the horse is stolen Are they now trying to save the jobs of these 525 employees who will be laid off? Are they tr'ing to save these jobs? That is the question and there is a simple yes or no answer and ijot a tirade and an outburst against the Government of Canada. MR. EPEAKER (Sioms): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. W. MARSHALL: That is the hon. gentleman's version.

And if the hon. gentleman's version were adopted-at any time it would be a black Friday in Newfoundland every day, seven days a week, 363 days a year - SOME HON. !EMBERS: Hear, heart MR. W. MARSHALL: - because that is not true. Just because the hon. gentleman gets up and makes a statement the hon. gentleman thinks it is to be taken as the Holy Writ or the Holy Oracle. Mr. Speaker, this government is extremely concerned with any layoffs in this Province, particularly the layoffs with respect to the railway. Because of the studies which we have undertaken, studies which, by the way, Mr.

Speaker, we ought not to have had to have undertook because it is a federal responsibility, but we took it because we are concerned with the livlihood and the viability of this Province and to see that the Pro- vince of Newfoundland gets its rights. So because of this particular study, Mr. Speaker, and as we say, we are in continuing discussions with the head of the CNR, Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, the Minister of Transport, and other government officials with respect to these matters.

And if the hon. gentleman wishes to be of assistance to us, what the hon. gentleman might doinstead of getting up and making statements of this nature with innuendoes that are completely unfounded, he could go 3142

April 10, 1981 Tape NO. 1133 EL - 1 MR. MARSHALL: to the five quiet quislings in Ottawa who sit on the government side of the House and and ask theinto support the people of Newfoundland in en- deavors in the railway. And at the same time they might have L some time, Mr. Speaker, for the jurisdiction on the offshore for our rights to fisheries and our rights to transmit alec- F::'' trical power. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear F MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Siinms): A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Now, let us see what the answer was, Mr. Speaker.

The answer was a personal attack on me, a personal attack on quislings, the six quislings in Ott- t awa-five rather-the offshore oil jurisdiction. The hon. gentleman completely evaded the question and refused to deal with the question that I put to him. So I am going to put the question again andincidentally, just for the hon. gentle- rttan's benefit, I might say, that in this particular matter that I think the Government of Canada, especially the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is making a grave mistake.

I think they should, instead of giving an ultimatum to CN to reduce their deficit in Newfoundland, instead of doing that and forc- ing CN to lay these 525 employees off, I think they should give CN the money to keep them on the payroll and have the jobs eliminated through attrition if somebody resigned or if somebody retired or somebody died or quit,that they would not be replaced, That is the way to do it, Mr. Speaker, So, therefore I am in the hon. gentleman's corner, as far as that is concerned. But let me ask the hon. gentleman again what representation they have made so far to the Government of Canada to Mr.

Pepin,to stave off these layoffsThat is the number 3143

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1133 EL - 2 MR. NEARY: one priority, that should be our target, stop the layoffs. Now, what has the government done so far or what do they plan on doing to stop these layoffs? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my answers to the questions given by - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen there opposite do not want an answer, I will not give it to them. Now, I can only repeat, Mr.Speaker, the answers that were given before.

The hon. gentleman gets up in this House and he makes statements,and questions which contain allegations and innuendos and everyhhing else ,and if he does not pull the answer out that he particularly wants,he keeps at it and at it and at it. But the fact of the matter is, the truth of the matter is that this government is extremely concerned abcut the operations of the CN in Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR.MARSHALL: It has discussed the matter of containerizations in great depth with the CN and with the Fed- eral Government and it is extremely concerned that this rail- way be taken from a 1949 railway ,which it was-and then in 1949, as a result of the Commission of Government it was a 1930 or a 1920 railway-into the twentieth and the twenty-first century. And that the railway does not cease to exist in this Province to cause a lot of layoffs to people in this Province. And I say, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman 31

I. I April 10, 1981 Tape 1134 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: had been as assiduous in his concern over the railway and jobs in this Province when he was a member of a government at a particular time when the railway went down pretty well to nothing, we definitely would not be in the sorry shape that we are in today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. MARSHALL: But, Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the jobs.

We are in close contact with the federal government to see that any layoffs - we are going to demand that any layoffs, if there are any necessary, are going to be minimized to the greatest degree possible. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Power) re his recent statement concerning the harvesting of infested timber. In that statement the minister indicated that 300 jobs would be created.

I am just wondering what criteriawere used to come up with that figure of 300 jobs, you know. Is that how many men i takes to harvest 130,000 cords in X days? Just why was that magic figure arrived at? What were the criteria used? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. POWER: Mr.

Speaker, the figure of 300 jobs is primarily based upon the number of men required to harvest the timber, the number of persons needed to debark that timber, because it all has to be debarked before it is sent overseas, and also,obviously, the number of persons who will have to be involved, not only in the debarking, but the stockpiling and storage in certain given areas around the Province. 3145

April 10, 1981 Tape 1134 EC - 2 MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAFER (Sims): A supplementary, the hon. the member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Now, Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense at all, no sense whatsoever, because to harvest 130,000 cords there is no number of men involved, that could be done by ten, it could be done by twenty. So, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to come up with something more substantial than that. Involved here is time; you know, how long is this going to take? Does the minister know how many cords of wood a man can cut?

This is what we have to know, How many cords of wood can a man cut? so that we can know precisely how long these jobs are. Are these jobs going to last two weeks? Are they going to last three weeks? Is it going to be a month? And is the minister requiring that each of these companies take on so many men? I want to know precisely how this figure of 300 was arrived at, because it is nonsense to say that is how many men it takes to cut 130,000 cords. And I have cut as many cords of wood as anybody in this hon. House and know what I am talking about. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.

SPEAFER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, old habits die hard, I suppose, in the Liberal Party in the Province. I suppose the member opposite is suggesting that instead of having in the Province what we are doing, having companies in this Province who are going to go out to small contractors around the Province, going to cut wood primarily using chain saws or small skidder operations or what have you, what the member opposite is 3146

FT April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1135 SD - 1 MR. POWER: suggesting is that we go into a highly mechanical operation, employ ten or twelve people and therefore leave the 290 or so unemployed. F MR. LUSH: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms): Supplementary, the hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Obviously the minister does not have one single clue as to how Lis figure is arrived at, not a clue. And, Mr.

Speaker, this is what I want to find out, how this figure was arrived at because this figure is important because if we do not know how this figure was arrived at and how long this is going to be, I suggest to you we are talking about here 300 men cutting 130,000 cords of wood which I suggest is going to - wel1I am not going to suggest it at all. I am asking the minister: How long is this going to take? Is this going to be a two month operation, is this going to be a one month operation or is this going to take a year?

Is this going to be 300 jobs for 300 men for a year, for ten months, for nine months, for six months, whatever? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Forest J Resources and Lands. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, the member who seems to suggest that he knos.a lot about woods operations is now trying to say that these jobs should be twelve month jobs, 365 days of the year. MR. LUSH: I am not saying that MR. POWER: Mr.

Speaker, obviously anybody who is involved with the woods operations in Newfoundland, either with the large pulp and paper companies now1 or with the saw- I. milling industry, knows that it is not possible to have wood Akik cutting operations for 365 day per year. MR. LUSH: Ho,ho,ho 'That a joke. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, these persons who are going to be employed in this project - 317

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1135 SD - 2 MR. LUSH: Resign boy! Resign. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. POWER: - cutting 135,000 cords of wood this year with an additional 20,000 cords that is coining on stream from the paper companies based on negotiations we did last week - MR. LUSH: Well, well. MR. POWER: - Mr. Speaker, thosc jobs are going to go through the regular cutting season in the forest industry in Newfoundland today. MR. LUSH: I have heard it all, Mr. Speaker, I have heard it all. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member has a supplementary? MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker - Oh, oh. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! Supplementary, the hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: What an answer, Mr. Speaker, by a gentleman who grew up in nothing, Mr. Speaker, but a logging community, whose family, all of them were nothing but loggers, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that logging cannot be carried on for 365 days a year. Well, Mr. Speaker - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. THOMS: Your father was a logger for 365 days a year, that I can vouch for. MR. LUSH: That is right. Well, Mr.

Speaker, obviously the minister does not know what he is talking about. Again, I want the minister to answer the question and if he does not know it now I ask him to take it under advisement. 3148

1: April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1135 SD 3 MR. LtJSH: These 300 is jobs - what the duration? Are we talking about two months for 300 men, are we talking about two weeks or are we talking about three months? That is what is important. And the minister made the statement that for 300 jobs he should know the duration of those jobs. MR. SPEAKER (Sirrms) : Order, please I must draw the member's attention to Beauchesne, Fifth Edition, paragraph 357, page 129,

section 171, subsection (

d) which says: "An oral question must not repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused' So the question is not in order. Further questions? The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am almost afraid to ask a question this morning. The minister seems to be a little bit edgy, it must be the Bellevue by-election finally getting to him MR. NEARY: I am going to ask you about your advisor, the advisor you have down there. We will ask him about him next week. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: With fear and trepidation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) a question_From the statement that he made this morninq. 3149

r F. k - i . I t. I F- I MM April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1136 NM - 1 MR. LUSH: am I to understand now that H.B. Nickersons will be processing in Newfoundland all of the Northern cod that it will be harvesting? MR. SPEAKER (Simms) The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the statement made to the House of Assembly, the company will be now processing northern cod in the time of the season when they harvest Northern cod from the offshore trawler operations in their plants that they own,which are the major plants, at South Dildo, at Charleston, at Triton, and Jackson's Arm.

These are the four large fish plants they own and most of these plants, in fact until last Winter where they processed a bit of sguid,they were closed down in the Wintertime. The commitment received from Nickerson's in writing from a vice-president of the company as of yesterday afternoon confirms they will use Northern cod in these plants and keep them going throughout the year. Now hopefully that will mean, based on their trawler operations that they have, they have a limited number of trawlers, that it will mean practically all the fish they catch of the Northern cod. But we will watch what happens.

Our main objective of course is to make sure the plants they own in Newfoundland are not lying idle when they take fish back to other places like Nova Scotia. They own these four fish plants I mentioned - MR. NEARY: They are going to get their licences. MR. MORGAN: - and we want to see Northern cod placed in these plants and the plants kept open in the Winter- time. And that is received from the company. MR. NEARY: They are going to get their licences. 3150

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1136 NM - 2 MR. THOMS: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) : A supplementary, the hon. member for Grand Sank. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister this morning also refers to the goal of year-round utilization, but it does not tell us whether or not there is a time limit in which that goal is to be reached. Are we to expect these plants to be fully utilized year-round in two months time, six months time, a year from now, five years from now? What is the anticipated goal? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Of course, Mr.

Speaker, as we know the offshore fishing activity closed down on February 20th., based on the fact that the Northern cod stocks nuota had been reached and now these plants, most of them are waiting for the inshore fishery to open or commence. They are doing some processing of squid right now that was frozen and being reprocessed from last year.

But the plants will of course be going full swing now in a matter of weeks based on the inshore fishery, the seasonal fishery on the Northeast Coast, and then we are looking forward to carrying on after the end of the inshore fishery by means of fish that they would catch from the offshore sector, from their trawlers. MR. THOMS: One final supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: The statement as well refers to written assurances and 3151

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1137 AH-1 written commitments on behalf of H.B. Nickerson and Sons. Would the ministmr undertake to table the agreement in the House between H.B. Nickerson and the Province? MR.SPEAKER (Simins) : The hon. tlinister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with tabling the document. In fact the company has - I did not table it this morning because it was only received in fact a matter of hours ago. I have been out in the Bellevue district all week trying to get votes for our party. We are going to win,by the way,tonight.

We are going to win the election tonight, by the way - MR. NEARY: We are going to win by two thousand votes. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. MORGAN: - bya very small margin, seventy- five to one hundred votes , but we will win it-. MR.THOMS: We were worried until we heard you were out there. MR.MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, the agreement if you can call it an agreement, is a letter issued to the Department of Fisheries signed by the Vice President of Nickerson, and I understand the company will confirm today,if the media want any confirmation or anybody in Newfoundland wants any confirmation, the company will confirm, they have given us this assurance in writing and they have given us the authority, as well , the permission to make public the letter they have given us. So there is no problem with making all information regarding this matter public.

It is a firm assurance and we are convinced now that this will mean many, many jobs for Newfoundlanders on the North West Coast. MR.THOMS: So you will table the letter then will you? 3152

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1137 AH-2 MR.SPHAKEB (Sirnms) : The hon. member for LaPoile. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House during my absence the Minister of Development (Mr.Windsor) tabled an answer to a question that I asked involving the Newfoundland Development Corporation which indicate that fourteen companies that borrowed fairly heavily, got substantial loans from that corporation, fourteen of them since 1973 up to the present time went belly-up and it cost the taxpayers a loss of $3, 326,000.

The loans amounted to $4,885,000 and the amount recovered through disposal of the assets of these companies was $1,362,000 for a loss of $3,326,000. Would the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) indicate to the House whether or not all these files are now closed or will the government attempt to recover this loss, the difference between the loans made originally and the subsequent loans and the amount recovered from the disposal of the assets through public auction, etc., have these files now been closed and written of f and is the government now taking the losses on these companies of $3,326 ,000?

MR.SPEAXER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR.COLLflTS: Mr. Speaker, the announcement was made by my hon. colleague the Minister of Development (Mr.Windsor) . The question I understand was directed to me but it would possibly be more apropos if the hon. Minister of Development gave the details. MR.SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development. MR.WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it has been my lucky day and I thank my hon. colleague. Do you realize that I was appointed to this portfolio on August 20th and this is the first question hon. gentleman opposite have been able to 3153

April 10,1981 Tape No., 1137 AH-3 MR. WINDSOR: muster about development of Newfoundland and Labrador? SOME HON.PrEMBERS: Hear, hear! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. WINDSOR: I can relax now, my weekend is made, Mr. Speaker. I have finally been recognized as being minister of a portfolio. This is really a great day for me. MR. THOMS: You do not deserve to be recoonized. MR.. WINDSOR: And I would not have had it now, Mr. Speaker, except for the Minister of Finance (Dr.Collins) Mr. Speaker, to answer that question, the hon. gentleman opposite made 3154

MR. WINDSOR: a great dealof the loss of sev- eral million dollars by these fourteen companies. He neg- lected to point out the other information that was included in that answer yesterday, that these are fourteen out of 259, if I am correct- I do not have the copy with me - some- thing like 9 per cent of the companies, Mr. Speaker, that have been made loans or grants since 1972, since the corporation was founded. Some 2,602 jobs, if I remember correct1y have been created and only 9 per cent of the companies, Mr. Speaker, have folded. I also pointed out in that statement, Mr.

Speaker, that the loans that are made to these companies are the higher risk loans that are normally made only when the private lending institutions cannot get involved or will not get involved because these are riskier ventures. I think that only a 9 per cent failure rate is very commendable, Mr. Speaker, and we are very pleased with the job that Newfoundland and Lab- rador Development Corporation has done for this Province. The funds that have been lost, Mr. Speaker, indeed have been written off.

These are federal- provincial, as I understand it, this is a federal-provincial programme, the corporation has been funded jointly by the Province and the Government of Canada. Every effort was made to recover as much as possible from these companies. I also pointed out, by the way, that while these fourteen companies did operate there was more than $7 million paid out by way of salaries into the economy of this Province. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Nr.

Speaker, I would like to point out for the benefit of the hon. gentleman that the question that I asked was not answered in its entirety, that there are a large April 10, 1981 Tape N0 1138 EL - 1 3155

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1138 EL - 2 MR. NEARY: number of companies that borrowed money originally for a specific project who are now not operat- ing that project. The building has either been sold to some- body else or used for a different purpose than the original application. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, pleas& - A point of order has been raised by the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: You know, Mr. Speaker, this is the Question Period. The hon. gentleman is now making a speech.

If he is dissatisfied with the answers, I understand he has a procedure he can use. MR. NEARY: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: It is generally accepted in every jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, that you are allowed to give a few preliminary comments to the question that you want to ask. MR. MARSHALL: Yes, but not a speech. MR. SPEAKER: Well, to the point of order, the hon. member perhaps may not have exactly been giving 'a

preamble but may have been axpressing dissatisfaction with an answer. But, in any event, he has about thirty seconds to complete his question and get an answer as well. MR. NEARY: Well, the question I wanted to ask the minjster There was a loss here of 339 jobs. I would like to ask. the minister if his colleague, the Minister of Manpower (J. Dinn), included that in the statistics that lie has been bandying around this House in the last couple of weeks. Did he subtract 339 jobs which cost the taxpayers of this Province $3.5 million? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Develop- ment. 3156

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1138 EL - 3 MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am sure he does not include the 300 that are lost but he does include the 2,300 that have been created and are still ongoing. MR. SPEAKER (Sirrims): The time for Oral Questions has expired. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: I was going to make a Ministerial Statement but I figured one is enough for one day, so I want to table the reports on the pricing and marketing of lobsters in Newfoundland and the study carried out by the Fishing In- dustry Advisory Board.

I will table it in the House for copies for all members and the reports to be sent to all companies through- out the Province. NOTICES OF MOTION MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Minister of Finance. 3157

April 10, 1981 Tape 1139 EC - 1 DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice of two motions in relation to the Budget which will be brought down on this coming Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the raising of supply to be granted to Her Majesty. And I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of supply to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion? PRESENTING PETITIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Placentia. MR. PATTERSON: Nr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from sixty-five businesses in the Placentia area. The petition is in protest of the property tax value system for school tax purposes in the Placentia area. It reads: We, the undersigned business people of the Placentia area, strongly protest the implementation of the property tax system for school tax purposes. Many of the communities in our school tax area do not have a property tax system; therefore, we think it is quite unfair for the business people of this area.

As you are aware, it will mean a higher cost of living for the consumer, who is already burdened with taxes." You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that many of the communities in the area are not incorporated but yet they are communities that fall within the juris- diction of the School Tax Authority. I would like to support this petition and ask that it be tabled and referred to the 3158

I Ii F April 10, 1981 Tape 1139 EC - 2 MR. PATTERSON: department to which it relates. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): I wonder would one of the Clerks at the table get the petition? Further petitions? ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. MARSHALL: Order 20. Notion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respting The Protection Of Personal Privacy," (Bill No. 2). MR. SPEAKER. The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEINER: Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us now, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Personal Privacy", is one which I am of the opinion - obviously without knowing it - will have the unanimous endorsement of the House.

It is of the kind of legislation for which we have usually had unanimous support. It is a kind of reform - legislation, and in that respect, I suppose, similar to the Matrimonial Property Act, although obviously dealing with a much different kind of problem, and similar to the Freedom Of Information Act in that it is what could well be called a kind of reform legislation. I think hon. members are all aware that certainly during the recent decade, at least, and it could be argued even earlier, advancements which have been made 3159

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1140 NM - 1 MR. OTTENHEflER: in technology and communication, the retrieval of data, tans- mission of data, all of this electronic revolution, does certainly potentially pose a threat to the unwarranted in- vasion of a person's privacy, and I think that is probably one of the reasons that this important area of a person's rights has recently received much wider attention than it did previously. The bill is not a lengthy one and I will endeavour to give an explanation of its basic principles and then to say a few words of comparison between this bill and others that exist in Canada.

Three provinces do have protection of privacy 1egislation rather surprisingly the • three Western provinces. We are the first Eastern province. British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have personal privacy legislation. Yet in the legislation we were speaking about,yesterday actually, well there were two previous to New- foundland,whicb makes three, but all Eastern provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I do not know that it proves much but it is rather interesting from a geographic point of view the way that this has developed. Now what will the act essentially do?

After its passage, and it comes into effect upon proclamation, it will create by statute a tort, recognized as a civil breach of law; put another way it will recognize as unlawful a breach of a person's right - not - contractual right - which the common law today does not recognize. Although certain aspects of an invasion of privacy,it could be argued from a common law point of view, certainly defamation and certain others, but this will certainly expand it and create by statute a tort 3160

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1140 NM - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: which in fact will be the violation of the privacy of an individual, The violation of the privacy of an individual without proof of damage will be a breach of the law, will be a tort. So the principle is quite a simple one: A violation of the privacy of an individual will be illegal and action taken without proof of damage. All of the bills, the other three, and the proposed Newfoundland legislation, are all similar in that privacy is not defined.

You know, there are many - you know, one can define sodium chloride and one can define an isosceles triangle, and all numbers of things can be defined but, there are certain concepts which I think by attempting to define you are really giving them such restrictions and limitations that it could be an infringement upon the rights you are trying to protect.

So none of the three existing provincial laws do in fact define privacy, nor does this, and that is not unusual, I mean a reasonable test and many concepts are not defined as suchAnd the bill goes on to give I suppose an explanation, a broadening, but not specifically a definition, that the nature and degree of privacy to which an individual is entitled is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, due regard being given to the lawful interests of others. Obviously there is an important area of judicial

interpretation. I think that that is essential in this kind of legislation and I say in that the three other provinces which have protection of personal privacy legislation take a similar approach. They create the tort, making it actionable without damage for a person willfully and without a right to violate the privacy of an individual and they do not give a definition. 3161

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1140 NM - 3 MR. OTTENHEI?R: Now the bill specifically then identifies four areas where once it is proved that these things have happened without the consent of the individual establishes prima facie proof of the violation 3162

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1141 DW - 1 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: of privacy. I will indicate those four areas. It is import- ant to point out that the legislation says without limiting the generality In other words, these four are not exhaustive, not exclusive, not the onlybut they are four areas speci- fically identified.

And again, 'without limiting the general- ity' obviously means that these are not exhaustive; Again I think it would be very unwise for legislation to attempt to be exhaustive certainly in this kind of area where to date there is very 1ittle jurisprudence even in the three pro- vinces which have the legislation, very little. In the four areas specifically identified and called in the notesexamples' are: surveillance of another person,whether visually or otherwise, whether or not it is accomplished by trespass,and it includes eavesdropping, spying on other people.

So unwarranted surveillance is one of the four examples. Another is listening to or recording of a conversation or of telecommunications as well, or including telecommunications, tapping. Another example is the use of a name or likeness of the voice of another person, impersonation, which would advertise or promote the sale of some product or service. And then the use of letters, diaries or other personal documents of an individual. All of this without consent, of course. Obviously,

section five says, 'An act is not a violation of privacy where it is consented to by the person or is incidental to the exercise of a lawful right or authorized or recuired by law or indeed in the conduct of the duty of a peace officer. Also it would not be a vio- lation of personal privac'7 to publish a matter which is in the public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest or was in accordance with the rules of defamation 3163

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1141 DW - 2 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: In the event that the breach of personal privacy has been established in court, the court has a fairly wide discretion in terms of remedies. It may award damages, it may grant an injunction, it may order the defendant to account for any profits that may have accrued to him as a result of the breach of the other person's right,and it may order the defendant to deliver up any articles or documents that have come into his pos- session and grant any other relief that appears necessary under the circumstances.

So there is a broad area of dis- cretion that the court has in remedies. And again I am inclined to think that in this kind of legislation, it is important to have a fairly broad area depending upon the nature and circumstances related to the breach of privacy. I think the two other significant factors are with respect to limitation that an action is supposed to lie two years from the time when the violation of privacy became known or should have become known,and in any case before the exoiration of seven years.

And, ob- viously all things have to have a possible end somewhere, the death of a person extinguishes the right of action. The Act is binding on the Crown, it is binding on the government as well as on everybody else and also the Act takes paramountcy if there is a case of conflict. So that essentially is it.

I think the basic nucleus and general thrust, the general purpose of it is to create by statute , or to recognize by statute that the breach of personal privacy is illegal and an action will lie without proof of damage; it does not have to be established that a person has suffered financially or in any other way, 3164

April 10, 1981 Tape No.1142 SD - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: that, you know, his right to privacy is an established right irrespective of damage that might accrue to him. The legislation similar to the legislation in other provinces, does not define privacy and it i,.mposes, makes reference to what is reasonable in the circumstances, due regard being given to the lawful interest of others.

Then it gives four examples,which are not exhaustive-o the judgement of the court in other areas—was not intended to exhaust the instances but it gives four examples - surveillance, listening or recording of people's conversations, use of a person's voice or likeness, and the use of his letters, diaries, other personal documents without consent all of these are regarded as prima facie proof of violation of privacy of the individual. That is essentially the purpose and principle of the legislation.

As I say, it is in operation in three other provinces - British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan There has not been a great deal of litigation on it, as a matter of fact, fairly minimal. That, I do not think, is an argument for not enacting the legislation because the creation of a right or, you know, the identification of what could be a problem and a statutory remedy may well and hopefully, you know, would preclude the infringement of personal privacy.

Once it is established that it is illegal to so do, and I think the fact of establishing that is a worthwhile in itself the fact that there may not have been at least in the other jurisdictions many actions taken with respect to the statute7 I do not think one could - one could, but I do not think it would be valid to argue from that therefore the legislation was unnecessary because law should have an example setting, criteria setting, effect and certainly its usefulness is not by any means necessarily judged by the number of actions and litigations.

So I think it is worthwhile, it is progressive, it is a meaningful piece of legal reform I 3185

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1142 SD - 2 ii. MR. OTTENHEIMER and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce it. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I simply rise to support this particular piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that basically what it does is create what lawyers call the action of tort, tort action, which qimply means-tort is simply a civil law. So they make it a civil wrong to invade a person's privacy.

It think this is important in this day and age,particularly in respect to the electronic gadgetry that one finds today. Although this makes an invasion of privacy a civil wrong, one that a person, if it happens, can go into court, claim an invasion of privacy and the court has a right then to grant certain remedies once the illegal act has been proven He can grant damages, he can give an injunction - I am not sure that is a new remedy - he can order the defendant to account to the plaintiff and so on.

And then we have a catch-all clause that says the court can grant any other relief to the person bringing the action as the court deems necessary. It makes one wonder why the other four provisions are there. If the court can grant any necessary relief, it would not seem to me to be necessary to follow up with the other four, although it is usually done. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out though and make the hon. members aware that this act does not in any way affect - and I am speaking from memory here, I certainly would not classify myself as a criminal lawyer - but I understand that evidence which is gathered illegally, in other words, any evidence which would be gathered, this act here makes it a civil wrong 3166

w April 10, 1981 Tape 1143 EC - 1 0. MR. THOMS: for me to bug somebody else's office, for example. And that other person can sue me for damages, can go to court and get an injunction to make me stop it, etc. However, if, for example, a policeman or any law enforcement agency bugs a person's office, as I understand it, even though it is illegal, • even though it is a wrong, even though it is a civil wrong under this particular act, then the evidence so gathered, even though it has been gathered illegally, can still be used as evidence against that person in a criminal charge. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: Yes, Just to make a comment on that, that is correct. Of course, as the hon. member would agree, it would be impossible for us to alter that because that is in the area of federal jurisdiction. MR. NEARY: No, it is not. MR. THOMS: Yes, it is in that area. It has to do with the Criminal Code. I am just pointing out that this act does not prevent that. MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. And all I wish to say is that although we may wish to change that,we are unable to. MR. THOMS: I appreciate the minister's position on that.

The Province could not, of course, amend the Criminal Code because the Criminal Code is a federal statute which governs all provinces. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask asincere question? MR. THOMS: Yes,go ahead. I do not know if I can answer it or not. MR. SPEAKER (BAIRD) The hon. member for Grand Bank yielded for a question. The hon. member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: I just want to ask what provisions there are now - forgetting the act all together, assuming that this act is not to be enforced -viiat protection is there for the individual and his right of privacy now L 3167

April 10, 1981 Tape 1143 EC - 2 MR. CARTER: outside this act? Surely :here is some. MR. SPEAKER (Baird): The hon. the member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure of the answer to your question. In the context in which I am speaking, the courts have ruled that even where there are privacy acts that evidence gathered is admissible even though it was obtained illegally. MR. CARTER: In other words, you cannot complain to the authorities if someone has violated your privacy. What about the law of trespass? Does that not cover such things? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Very minimally. MR.

THOMS: Very minimally, yes. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to the members that this does not in any way have anything to do with - which I am not so sure, I mean, in my own mind, is right and proper that law enforcement officers can, in effect, break the law - and this is the law once it is passed - and even though they have obtained the evidence illegally can then have it admissible in court. There is something incongruous when you look at the two things. But, be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, it is a good piece of legislation. We have no problems in supporting the legislation. MR.

NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I too stand, Mr. Speaker, to support the legislation. I might say the introduction of this bill raises some very important questions about 3168

April 10, 1981 Tape 1143 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: privacy. As those hon. gentlemen who have spoken so far indicated, with the electronic devices and with the gadgets that are available today, one would sometimes wonder if there is any privacy at all.

I had a conversation recently with a gentleman who was in the electronic business, who told me that it is possible to sit out in front of Confederation Building with a small microphone held out through your car window directed towards the Premier's office and you could pick up the conversation from the Premier's office on the eighth floor by just sitting across the road in a car with a little microphone stuck out through the window. MR. OTTENHEIMER: It could happen or does the hon. gentleman think it does? MR. NEARY: It could happen. MR. OTTENHEINER: It could happen. MR.

NEARY: I am told by this gentleman,who is a specialist in the electronic field in this Province that that could happen. It could happen to anybody. I use thatas an illustration, the Premier's office, but it could happen. I could drive up to the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Ottenheimer) house, sit outside his house and listen to a conversation going on inside the house. MR. CARTER: Just for an example of that, there are tape recorders of which the microphones are so sensitive 3169

- I - April 10,1981 Tape No. 1144 AN-i MR.CARTER: that you do not have to be near them in order to pick up conversations, and they are self- requlating. - MR. NEARY: That is right. And then they have these cameras. What do they call these lens? The telescopic lens. It is absolutely frightening , Mr. Speaker, and I am beginning to wonder myself if there is any privacy at all.

You have people going around collecting data and information on individuals, storing the information, collecting the data sometimes very indiscreetly, sometimes going and knocking on people's doors and sayingDo you mind if I ask you a few questions about your neighbour?' Questions like Does he drink? Does he run around? Does he pay his bills? etc., etc. And sometimes people, not knowing the difference, fall for that sort of thing and that information is taken, stored in a computer somewhere. and God only knows how much damage it does to the individual, how much damage.

You go to look for credit sometimes, people go to look for credit,so they have told me and they pull out the weirdest things about people. Insurance companies are notorious for using information, and most of it sometimes inaccurate, against people. So I do not know if this bill is going to help cure that, Mr. Speaker, or not. I have grave doubts about it. This bill merely gives the individual the right to create a civil action against proven cases of where people have used the electronic devices to tape telephone conversations and so forth against individuals and they have found out about it.

I am also very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about some of the activities of the police. The RCMP and the Newfoundland Constabulary, they are no exception. 3170

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1144 AH-2 MR. NEARY: I understand that - I have no way of proving it. We all know the RCMP have been involved in illegal bugging of telephones. We know that. That is an established fact. The commission of enquiry investigating the operations of the RCMP have already established that fact. We do not know how widespread it is in Newfoundland, we do not know how widespread it is in the ranks of the Newfoundland Constabulary,if indeed it is being done. And I have reason to think that it is being done, illegal 'wiretapping. How can we stop this Sort of thing, Mr. Speaker? How can we stop it?

A few years ago hon. members will recall in this hon. House I came in with tapes of actual telephone conversations that took place between a former Tory bagman and a former project manager of Scrivener Projects over here at the Health Sciences Complex. MR. CARTER: Was that not reprehensible? MR. NEARY: Pardon? MR. CARTER: Was it not wrong for you to have that in your possession? MR. NEARY: No, it was not wrong for me to have it in my possession. MR. CARTER: How can you get up and (inaudible). MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I was not the one that did it.

I was merely at the time trying to uncover scandal and skulduggery, extravagance and waste and misuse of public funds,especially the crimes that were committed. >IR. CARTER: No matter what means you used. In other words1 the end justifies the means. MR. NEARY: Well,let me tell the hon. gentleman the story of that now. It was not I wio used the means, it was the former Premier and the former Tory bagman. 3171

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1144 AH-3 MR. NEARY: Let me tell the hon. gentleman how some of these tapes were made. Mr. Moores,when he was Premier of this Province had a tape, had a microphone set up in his kitchen up at Mount Scio House to try 3172

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1145 DW - 1 MR. S. NEARY: to trap, he set out to delib- erately try to trap the former manager of Scrivener Projects over here at Memorial University by manoeuvreing him into his kitchen when there was party going on, and had one or two ministers standing by there,to bait this gentleman, to bait him, to try to trap him into saying things. And the former Tory bagman did the same thing, he was taping conversations coining in from this former manager of Scrivener Projects aiid the former manager of Scriverier Projects was taping the former party bagman. They were both at it.

But I will tell you the frightening part of it, Mr. Speaker the frightening part of it was this, that it was all designed to try to undermine the credibility of this gentleman who said that the Premier and the ministers had committed crimes. It was all designed for that purpose to try to undermine Mr. Davidson's credibility. That was the purpose of it. And, Mr. Speaker, the former Tory bagman told me in my own house,when he got frightened and he came to see me and spent four hours talking to me, told me that he had called up the RCMP and said to the RCMP, 'Look, I feel that I am being blackmailed by this man.

Is it all right if I tape his conversations?' MR. CARTER: Mho are you talking about anyway? MR. S. NEARY: I am talking about a former Tory bagman. The hon. gentleman knows who. The hon. gentlemen should be more familiar with Tory bagmen than I am. And this gentle- man, this Tory bagman - just listen to this, Mr. Speaker, how the RCMP were duped. Just listen to it because it is a fact and it is something we should be very concerned about, a blot forever on the administration of Justice in this Province and how the government attempted to cover up for their wrongdoings at the time.

This gentleman called up the RCMP - just listen now - and he said, 'Mr. RCMP, I feel that a certain gentleman 3173

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1145 DW - 2 MR. S. NEARY: is trying to blackmail me. Would it be all right if I taped telephone conversations with that gentleman? And the RCMP says, 'My son, look, we do not care what you do. It is none of our business. So he interpreted that as meaning that he had the blessing of the RCNP to tape the conversations. Now what did he do with the tapes when he got them? He arrived down at Pleasantville, down at the RCMP headquarters and said, Look, you remember I called you there a short while ago about taping telephone conversations?

Well, I have taken these tapes now that indicate that this gentleman is trying to blackmail me and I want you to put them in safekeeping. I want you to put them in your vault for safekeeping in case I have to refer to them in future'. Involving the RCMP in his devious little crime that he was comrniting, involving the RCMP, and they fell for it and they took the tapes and put then away for safekeeping Later on when it caine to investigating that gentleman and the former manager of Scrivener Projects Limited the old RCMP remembered they had these tapes.

This gentleman has no credibility he is only out to blackmail the Premier and the government, the ministers.' And we saw the raid that took place on my office to prove that,when an RCMP officer went down and laid an information that the crime allegedly committed ,that gave them the search warrant to come into my office, was that Mr. Davidson and Mr. Doyle and Mr. Somebody Else had extorted $5,000 from the Newfoundland Government under threat of exposing certain documents. And when I asked the Minister of Finance if this was true he said, No, it is no crue. We paid $5,000 to this gentleman for services rendered' .

Paid it for services rendered, the Minister of Finance told us here in the House. So what they did, apparently successfully, they duped the RCMP into thinking that somebody was trying to blackmail Mr. Moores and the government and : 3174

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1145 DW - 3 MR. S. NEARY: the poor old RCMP fell for it and they were distracted from investigating the crimes that had been committed at that time - some very serious crimes, by the way, very serious— And that will forever be a blot on the administration of the Justice in this Province. • .•i - • • 3175

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1146 EL - 1 MR. WEARY: We do not know how widespread illegal wiretapping is in Newfoundland and Lab- rador,but we know it is going on. And there is something else that annoys me, Mr. Speaker, that when we have a demonstration here in front of Confederation Building, I have seen it happen so often, that you have a group of innocent people who come up for peaceful picketing, peaceful demonstration in front of Con- federation Building and what do you see?

You see the plain- clothesmen, the CID going around with their little microphones under their neckties and concealed cameras so that they can get pictures of the ringleaders. You would not know but they were in El Salvador or in Poland somewhere, taking pictures of these innocent people. Now, what do they do with these pictures? And what do they do with these tapes? I would like for the Minister of Justice (G. Ottenheimer) to tell us. These people no doubt are kept on file,on an active file somewhere.

And if we ever have an insurrection in this Province, I presume the files will all be gone over to try and find the culprit. Inn- ocent people, some students, young students, women, people protesting, peaceful demonstrations and having their picture taken by these hidden cameras, by these hidden microphones and the information put on file somewhere for some purpose that we do not know about. I think that should be stopped. MR. CARTER: Did you not have a whole pile of documents on people? MR. NEARY: No, the documents that I had were affidavits. MR. CARTER: Did you not have to burn all those? MR.

NEARY: No, the documents were affidavits and they are still down in my files. These files are still opened, by the way, as far as I am concerned, The cases are not closed they, have not been dealt with satisfactorily and they 3176

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1146 EL - 2 MR. NEARY: will be dealt With sometime. MR. CARTER: Can anyone have a look at them? MR. NEARY: Yes, wall,a lot of them were tabled in the House. The hon. gentleman already saw the documents. So, Mr. Speaker, I Would like to hear more about this collecting data and storing data, how much of this is legal, how much of it is illegal, how much of it should go on. The government now itself is in the bus- iness of storing data. Pretty soon the government will be able to give you your whole history in this Province from the day you were conceived until the day you die.

Over here at Newfoundland and Lab- rador Computer Services, every little minute detail now about people is being fed into the computers and stored over at New- foundland and Labrador Computer Services, So the government, are in the business themselves, maybe legally, and what I would like to know is how much of this information is given to outsiders, if any. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to raise this matter too, talking about privacy. Well, here is something now, this government talking about privacy.

Every year, as hon. members know, members of the press prior to the Budget, one or two hours before the Budget is brought down, they are locked up in a room so that they will not divulge any of the details in the Budget. Now, this year the procedure is changed. The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and the Minister of Justice (G. Ottenheimer) and the President of the Council (W. Marshall) and the Premier apparently do not trust the media' they do not trust them, because this year they are asking the media to sign a declaration.

They are asking the media, before they are allowed to go into this room that they go into every year, and are locked in until the Budget is - or five minutes before the Budget is brought down in this House, and there is no way 3177

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1146 EL - 3 MR. NEARY: they can get the information out. They are not allowed to use the telephones, they are locked in this room. They can study the Budget, make their notes and do their stories and so forth. This year the Minister of Fin- ance (Dr. Collins) and the Minister of Justice (G.Ottenheiruer) are asking these people to sign a declaration, and I think that is an insult to the media. In other words, what they are saying, they distrust the media, that they are saying you cannot keep it secret. And I think this 4s awful. It has never happened before.

It is the first time it has happened. There is no reason for it. There never have been any leaks. There never have been any leaks, Mr. Speaker, and if I were the news media I would refuse to sign that declaration and say you can take your Budget and you can stuff it. DR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) sign for sandwiches. MR. WEARY: Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, before you are allowed to go in this room where you are going to be locked in with the Budget, you have to sign a declaration saying that you will keep the information that you are getting secret. You cannot leak it out anyway.

Well, I suppose maybe you could with the electronic devices we have, maybe if somebody wanted to be clever enough they could do it. But it has never happened. My hon. friend from the Daily News now, if he is the one assigned to cover the Budget, he will have to sign a declaration before he is allowed to go into the vault or the room, the locked room. 3178

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1147 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: I think that is wrong, it never happened before, and if I were the news media I would refuse to sign it and I would refuse to go into that locked rooms I think it is an insult to the integrity of the newsmen in this Province. What the government is doing is questioning their honesty and their integrity, and they are asking to have it done in writing, sign a declaration. You talk about invasion of privacy, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if that is relevant or not but I had to toss it in there because I think it is all inter-related. MR.

THOMS: Everything the hon. member says is true. MR. NEARY: Of course. And so, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. The minister himself had to admit that in other provinces, in other jurisdictions where they have similar legislation that the legislation is not used. I do not know why. fhere apparently have only been an insignificant number of civil actions taken under the legislation in other provinces. I do not know why. Is it too hard to prove that your privacy is being invaded? Is that the problem? MR. OTTENHEIMER: I was just going to say, you know, perhaps people do not feel that it has been. MR.

NEARY: They feel that their privacy has not been invaded? MR. OTTENHEIMER: You know ,it could be. When something does not happen obviously it is difficult to say why. MR. NEARY: And it could happen in other jurisdictions that governments do not tolerate invasion of people's personal privacy like they do here. Every- thing here - Mr. Speaker, a politician in Newfoundland, why, it is almost like living in a goldfish bowl. 3179

c:. April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1147 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: Why I remember when I was Un- covering the scandals in this House,that I will continue to do as long as I am a member of this House, every day somebody would come to me and whisper in my ear and say, Boy, they got you this time Moores was down at Bally Haly, you got two weeks are you are going to be in jail.' Ministers were whispering to me, my own colleagues were whispering to me, and this is the crowd now that are gloating about protecting people's privacy. And they are still at it.

I still hear these little innuendoes Why the other day when we had to - and our job sometimes can be an awesome task in this House - when we had to deal with the former Minister of Transportation who lied to the House, it all started again. I heard the rumblings. I can name you the hon. gentleman on the government benches who started the smear campaign, who started the smear tactics again, saying, 'Oh,Meary is not clean, look at this and look at that.' We saw the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall) himself stand in the House and., through innuendo and smear tactics, try to undermine credibility of members on this side of the House. It is not going to work, Mr. Speaker, it will not work. It is a mug's qanie. And anytime that any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House wants to get personal - I am not interested,by the way,in a gentleman's personal life, I am only interested in their politics - but anytime they want to stoop, anytime they want to stoop that low, well then sobeit, I will have to take them on, that is all. And I am quite prepared to do it.

But it is not the way to operate this House. It is not the way to do it. MR. CARTER: Sir Galahad, have you found the Holy Grail yet? 3180

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1147 NM-3 MR. NEARY: Pardon? MR. CARTER: Have you found the Holy Grail yet? MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I think what we should do is zero in on the politics of it and leave families alone, unless hon. gentlemen open up a can of worms for them- selves. And so, Mr. Speaker, I have to say again I agree with the bill. I do not know if it is going to do any good or not. I do not know if it is going to cure the matters that I raised. I doubt it very much. I would say that illegal wire- tapping is still going to go on in this Province.

Only there a few weeks ago the whole population of Port aux Basques, through some quirk in the system, thought that their homes were being bugged illegally. You know, Mr. Speaker, how many times has wiretapping gone on - and I believe it is within a six month period the individual has to be notified, the individual has to be told that his telephone was bugged, tapped, and the reason for it. [1 3181

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1148 SD - 1 II MR. NEARY: I do not know if they pay very much attention to that procedure, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if they do. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) is the only one who can answer that.

I believe it is getting out of hand, I think we should be very concerned about it, I think it should be stopped, I think that evidence collected - and this is another thing, by the way- anybody who wants to read my files or the files in the minister's office will see that the RCMP in this Province have cooked up charges, trumped up charges, have used search warrants to get information and lay different charges than the ones suggested in the search warrant. That has happened in this Province.

There has been a delay of three months in carrying out search warrants and the information changed and the dates typed in by the RCMP themselves not typed in by the magistrate. That has happened in this Province. AN HON. MEMBER: You mean they faked the documents? MR. NEARY: Well, you might say they were faked documents. MR. J. CARTER: That is very strong stuff. MR. NEARY: It is very strong and it is all true. It all can be proven. MR. J. CARTER: You say it outside the House. MR.

NEARY: I have said it outside the House, inside the House, I will say it on top of the Rouse, down in the basement of the Fouse,if the hon. gentleman wants me to. MR. J. CARTER: Say it outside the Bar of the Rouse. MR. MEARY: - It is cli true. I hope, Mr.peaer, that a couple of law students - AN HON. MEMBER: He will not say it outside the House. - MR. NEARY: - now there you go. I have already said it outside the House. I am only repeating now what I have said dozens of times outside of this House.

Someday a couple of law students should write the story of the '70s from '72, say,up to about '79, a couple of law students should take it on, do a thesis on it, do a paper on it. Not only would they get 3182

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1148 SD - 2 MR. WEARY: a high mark when they graduate but there would be some interesting stuff, , I guarantee you, surface. Absolutely shocking, frightening! The hon. gentlemen know what I am talking about1 and they have sat on it, kept a lid on it, have not done anything about it.

All kinds of things are surfacing now in connection with the Moores administration.And all we get is a statement from the Premier saying,'Well, it was a misunderstanding between a couple of nembers,' or It will never happen again.' But we have to forget the past, we have to forget that nine years of corruption, sweep it under the rug, forget about it. MR. J. CARTER: What about the twenty-three years of corruption? MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. gentleman who keeps interrupting me over there, if the hon. gentleman knows of any corruption in that twenty- three years all he has to do is do what I do, bring it to the attention of the House and try to get it dealt with. The whole trouble is that the hon. gentlemen on the Public Accounts Committee tried so hard to implicate the Smallwood administration in the Public Works scandal,and every man, from the Deputy Minister down, said,'N.oit did not happen, it only happened since 1972.' MR. J. CARTER: Ha, ha, ha MR.

NEARY: Now the hon. gentleman can laugh like the jack rabbit but that is a fact. All you have to do is check the Hansards, check the public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee. One after the other they asked their questions: 'Did this happen, before? Was there a list before? And they were told, IWO. No,there was no list They were told no but they kept probing and asking,and the only thing I can ay to the hon. gentleman if he know examples today - MR. J. CARTER: The Bell Island contract. MR. EARY: Yes. What about it? MR. CARTER: "Right on my desk." 3183

IkJ ENJ April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1148 SD - 3 MR. NEARY: Oh, yes. That matter has been dealt with and that file is closed, Mr. Speaker. It takes two to sign a contract. And so I am glad to have the opportunity to debate these matters, They bring back unplesant memories of the wrongdoing and the skulduggery and the corruption of the 70s, that is what this bill brings back.

Some it may cure, by the way, some of the unethical procedures that were used by Tory bagnen and by managers of projects in this Province and so forth, it may cure some of that but it will never answer the questions in connection with the wrongdoing. For instance, the awarding of two contracts in connection with the Carbonear Hospital that were 3184

ir April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1149 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: given without calling public tender, one for a smokestack given to a firm that had no more idea of how to build a smokestack than I do of building a rocket to the moon. But the Minister of Public Norks at the time said, "Oh, well, he can subcontract it out." Subcontract it out Hundreds piled upon hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars. Is all that, Mr.

Speaker, is all that now just going to be wiped from the record just like you would take an eraser and go to erasesome- thing off a blackboard because we have a new administration, a new Premier, and a new administration and a new flag? Is all that going to be forgotten? MR. WOODROW: Like the song, it is time to clean the slate and make a new start. MR. NEARY: I see. MR. THOMS: The slate got a little bit dirty there recently. MR. NEARY: And, Mr. Speaker, the administration may change but twelve of the faces are still the same. Twelve of the faces. My hon. friend has not yet made it into the Cabinet unfortunately.

I think he would make a good Cabinet minister, Mr. Speaker. He seems to be passed over just about every time there is a reshuffle. I think the hon. gentleman is honest and a man of integrity. MR. LUSH: Industrious. MR. NEARY: And industrious and bright and has the interests of the people of this Province at heart. MR. THOMS: He is certainly the best looking one over there. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman has been brushed aside for the same old tired faces that were in the Moores ministration, twelve of them. And they can sit there with 3185

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1149 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: the faces of a robber's horse, day in and day out as I flick across examples of skulduggery and corruption, and they say, "Oh no, that is all over now. We have been cleansed and purified. We have been saved and so we do not even want to talk about that." How many files are still open in the Minister of Justice's Department in connection with these matters? They do not want to hear about it. The cringe when you mention it. They cringe.

And then they bring in a trivial piece of legislation hoping that all of their sins of the past will be covered up by a few Ministerial Statements and a bit of legislation making it legal to take civil action against somebody if they happen to tape your telephone conversation. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is good enough. I think if we are going to bring reforms into this House they should indeed be reforms and not excuses. This is all right as far as it goes but it does not go very far. And the minister had to admit himself that the legislation is not very useful in the other provinces of Canada.

And so while I support the bill, Mr. Speaker, while I support it I have to say that I do so with a heavy heart, knowing that there is no such thing in this Province, there is no such thing as personal privacy in this Province. MR. CARTER: Go out to Bellevue. MR. NEARY: The gossipers on the other side will be at work again now in due course. The gossipers will be at it again. They will not answer the charges but they will try their smear tactics. The Minister of Fisheries QUM

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1149 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: CMr. Morgan) there a few years ago, you would never believe the level that that gentleman went through to try and smear the Leader of the Opposition of that day. You would never believe it. And you talk about a man's privacy being invaded and the privacy of his family. AN EON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. THOMS: You were in the House. MR. NEARY: Yes, you were in the House and you know about it MR. THOMS: Slimey. MR. NEARY: And so while I support the bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said Ido so with a heavy heart. When I go to bed tonight I will know that - AN HON. MEBEfl: Mr.

Nixon said that. MR. NEARY: Yes. That is right. The hon. gentleman put it right when he talks about Watergate because that is exactly what they did over there. That is exactly what they did. They have been lying right from 1973 on, lying through their teeth. And that is what Nixon did1and do not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if in due course some of them do not get caught And I will be looking forward to hearing 3187

MR. NEARY: the report of the Mahoney Royal Commission tabled in this House. I hope it will give us the names, Mr. Speaker, of the twenty-two people who did indeed get the colour teleyisions in this Province. MR. SPEAFER (Baird) : The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, just a very few words on this bill. You know, the weekend papers usually have a

section of the comics or a bit of very fluffy sort of reading and this House has a similar type of thing. On most Friday mornings we hear the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). He gets up and he is sort of the comic

section for the House for that week. MR. CARTER: The comic relief. DR. COLLINS: The comic relief. He just has his entertaining little moments. Now, I mainly got to my feet just to say a word on this point that the hon. member brought up with regard to what we are doing to the poor press. He makes it sound as though we are carrying out some Draconian measures, some sort of Nazi-like measure or whatever, where in actual fact, of course, that is not the case. The press have always had a lock in - it is not a lock up, actually, it is called a lock in - they have had a lock in for every Budget day.

Hon. members will recall that there was a leak with regard to the federal Budget not too long ago. I just forget now the exact cause for it, but there was some delay anyway in the Estimates being presented in the House, and the press actually did print the material before it was actually mentioned in the House. Now, that excited a certain amount of discussion in all jurisdictions and we had communications with places like C.B.C. and so on and we were checking with each other 3188

April 10, 1981 Tape 1150 EC - 2 DR. COLLINS: how we handle these things. We found that we tend to be rather lax in the way we did it. Most jurisdictions have much more stringent measures in effect to prevent leaks at Budget time. So what we are doing this year is we are fitting in essentially with what other jurisdictions do. So it is not any great - MR. NEARY: That is untrue. DR. COLLINS: It is absolutely true. It is not the measure not the complexion of things that the hon. member is putting on it. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this bill.

This fits in with the open government that the Peckford administration has been promoting all along. It is quite in line with that. There are complications to doing this. For instance, I do not see how the Liberals will ever get back in power with the Freedom of Information bill. I mean, there is going to be so much exposure, how will they be able to last? They will not be able to last more than a few days. So that is one complication to bringing in this bill that I do not know if hon. members are aware of.

Another point is that this is largely - I think this point has been mentioned before - but this is largely for the bureaucracy, because most information that the ordinary citizen seeks, he goes to the officials really to get that information and often the officials tend to lean over backwards to prevent information going out. I suppose they are uncertain as to what they can give out; they do not want to take the responsibility, and 3189 N ii

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1151 EL - 1 DR. COLLINS: the citizen is therefore short- changed. Now, this will lay it out. that unless information is within very clearly defined categories, no one can with- hold information6 So that is a very good move, I think. This is not the final word, no doubt, but I think it is a very good start. Almost no bill brought into this House is the final words we do get amend- ments,but this is a very good start. For instance, over the budgetary process itself; I think there is probably excessive secrecy over the budget process, quite honestly.

It is a traditional thing that no one gets a look at the Budget as it is being prepared except within the deartments concerned and I think that that is probably overblown. And there is a general move to have more contact with, let us say, the bus- iness community or citizens groups or whatever in attempting to put the Budget together. And I think that as time goes along, we might be able to bring into effect actual procedures whereby there will be allowed to take place greater input into the preparation of the Budget. I think that would be a very good thing.

This bill, I think, was required by the very size of government. Government is getting so large now and there had to be such citizen contact with govern- ment these days, that we do have to have guidelines to make sure, as I mentioned,that the citizen is not unduly restricted from having information that he has every right to have. There are risks to doing it, there is no doubt about it,because there is always the possibility that misuse may be made of legitimately obtained information about government measures and government operations.

There is even the risk that in- advertently information might be given out because we deal with a very,very sizeable organization. There is always an opportun- ity for just plainsimple common or garden type mistakes. tnul

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1151 EL - 2 DR. COLLINS: And there is always the risk of inadvertently released confidential or personal infonttion and I think that is something we will have to guard against. And then, of course, there is cost. I think that this will be a serious cost to government. As a matter of fact, I am wondering if in the Budget in future years we will have to have a separate head for the hon. member for LaPoile (S.

Neary) because I am sure that it is going to be a tremendous cost to government to satisfy the often rather difficult to understand requests for information that the hon. member puts in. And I would not be a bit surprised if in future years we will have to have a separate heading entitled the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Baird): To the point of order, the hon. member forLaPoile. MR. NEARY: I have the impression the hon. gentleman thinks we are on the Freedom of Information Bill. What we are dealing with here is the privacy act, Mr.Speaker.

Has the hon. gentleman been away for a couple of days or some- thing? We are not discussing freedom of information now, it is the privacy bill we are on. The hon. gentleman is de- bating the wrong bill. MR. MARSHALL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the House Leader. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I mean, the hon. minister obviously knows what bill we are debating. The fact of the matter is, I mean, the hon. member gets up and 3191

April 10,1981 Tape em. LLD MR. MARSHALL: debates on points of privacy and brings in everything from aLmost the kitchen sink. There is nothing more related to the principle of this bill, that is the right to privacy, than freedom of information both go hand in hand. That is why they are introduced together, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the hon. member is so relevant and is so aware of what he is debating. MR.SPEAKER (Baird) : To the point of order. There is no point of order, just a difference of opinion between two hon. members. The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: 4r.

Speaker, I will be responding in a large measure to the hon. member and when the hon.member speaks on any bill he ranges so widely it is very difficult to know where things stop and where things start. MR. NEARY: I do not call the bills. It is your colleague who calls the bills. DR. COLLINS: So these were respoilses to matters that the hon. member brough.t up by and large. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned I only wanted to say a few words in support of this bill to make an explanation - MR.THOMS: A point of order,Mr,Speaker. MR.SPEAEER: A point of order. The hon. member for Grand Bank, MA. THOMS: Mr.

Speaker, I hate to see the Tory whip not earning his money. I do not believe we have a quorum in the House. MR. MARSMALL: How small, NR.SPEAKER: Quorum call. MR. THOMS: Wellit is your responsibility. It is your responsibility to keep a quorum in the House.Live up to your responsibilities. Your responsibility is to make sure there is a quorum here. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please 3192

April 10, 1981 Tape 1153 EC - 1 MR. SPEAEER (Baird): We have a quorum present. The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR.. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in terminating my remarks, then, I support this bill and cite it as yet another great advance of the Peckford administration. I congratulate my hon. colleague for bringing forth the bill and doing so in such an excellent and far-sighted manner. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKZR: The hon. the member for Terra Wova. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this particular bill. Like the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) who spoke so eloquently and with such conviction, Mr. Speaker, regarding this particular bill, I support it, but support it hesitantly. Mr. Speaker, my concern is not only with relation to this particular piece of legislation, but with the increasing legislation that we, as a Legislature, have been passing in recent years, legislation that affects the individual lives of people right throughout this Province.

Sometimes I am a little concerned that it is done rather hastily, done without too much thought as to the real effect that the legislation will have, and also without any real consideration as to why it is necessary. For example, sometimes, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the same thing does not happen in government as it does in education, that we look at other governments, particularly within Canada arid we hear of the legislation that they have and that we, in sort of wanting to match them, almost take their legislation verbatim and apply it to this Province, as I was saying, making the analogy that it is something like in education where we look up-along 3193

apri.L. .1u., ii ispe LJDi r - MR LUSH and see the kinds of things they are doing, and they look a little bit sophisticated and all of a sudden we find people bringing in goals and • objectives in education from other provinces in Canada - textbooks and this sort of thing, things that are quite out of place with respect to our own culture and with respect to our own traditions. Now, the minister himself indicated that this particular act is in place in other parts of Canada and that it does not seem to be too effective, that is if I understand him to be correct.

That is what I understood, that it was not all - or did not know how it was working out. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is not too effective in other parts of Canada, that • is a good reason for looking at it very carefully before we would bring in that particular piece of legislation in this Province. -

I April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1154 SD - 1 MR. LtJSH: But, Mr. Speaker, there does seem to be some inclination, there does seem to be some feeling that our privacy is being invaded. There does seem to be some inclination that today, with the excess availability of information created, of course, by our technological world, there does seem to be some protection of the individual in our society. The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) mentioned that government is growing so large that there is a necessity to have guidelines to govern our lives and to give the individual citizens contact with the government. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that would be fine if that was the result of the legislation that we are creating. But I find, Mr. Speaker, that governments are becoming more remote from people - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Rear, hear. MR. LUSH: - that they are not getting closer to the people, Mr. Speaker, that the government is becoming completely beyond the reach of people and people are being frustrated.

They cannot get a hold of government, the government is so far removed from the people of this Province and to suggest that this legislation or other kinds of legislation are bringing the people and bringing the citizens in closer contact with the government,is not the reality of the situation, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, my main concern is the large amount of legislation that we have been creating, the large amount of legislation that the government have been presenting to this hon.

House, Of course, there is not much we can do about it because the government have the majority and the legislation will get passed, but, Mr. Speaker, over the past few years we have passed an awful lot of legislation that affect the lives of all Newfoundlanders, and let me refer to some of them; the Municipalities Act. Now even though that is not meant to be an individual piece of legislation, it is such that it affects the lives of every Newfoundlander and, as a matter of fact, changes OWN

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1155 DW - 1 MR. T. LUSH: the way Newfoundlanders lived or the way Newfoundlanders governed themselves or the way they lived in their communities, changes that dramatically, and I want to leave that for another day. Because I have raised in this House matters pretaining to local improvement districts, I think it is, I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook) is certainly looking at these regulations because I plan to raise theme I plan to raise them as soon as the opportunity presents itself. I want to get into that because this Municipalities Act, Mr.

Speaker, does create a lot of problems for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Then,of course, there was the Matri- monial Property Act,

an Act that has far-reaching effects on the lives of every Newfoundland. And then, Mr. Speaker, there is the Freedom of Information Act. The oddity, Mr. Speaker, about legislation is that it seems to mushroom; you create one piece of legislation giving one group of people certain rights and privileges and then that necessitates and requires the initiation of another piece of legislation. For example, we have the Freedom of Information Act which is giving out information and now' we have the Privacy Act which is the preventing of the dissemination of information. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I know they are not completely related,but I am just pointing out how this creation of legislation sort of feeds on itself and mushrooms. And, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder, you know, how much legis- lation is there in this Province? How much legislation is there? And there is a concern, Mr. Speaker, in other parts of Canada and if we want to take a lesson- it seems as though we do not- there is a concern in many areas of Canada that we are, indeed, creating too much legislation. What certain governments are looking at is setting up a Department of De- regulation, trying to minimize on the regulations.

And that 3196

4-pE1i iU £OL MR. T. LUSH: is what I think the hon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) should have addressed. You know, sure we have to have regulations but, Mr. Speaker, let us keep it to a minimum. We passed legislation here, the Juries Act, for example, another piece of legislation that affected the lives of people in this Province. The WildernessAct, another piece of legislation that affected the custom and the tradition of Newfoundlanders. Then, Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of regulations and bills governing the wildlire and the environ- ment that have affected the lives 3197

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1156 EL - 1 MR. LUSH: of Newfoundlanders. Regulations, Mr. Speaker, respecting the building of Summer cottages, that have really frustrated the people of this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on, so much so that over the last three or four years we have passed in this hon. House so many regulations that have had the effect of changing our society. And, Mr.

Speaker, not that that is an unfortunate thing,because we do live in a chang- ing society, but it seems to me, Mr.Speaker, that the balance is not there to ensure that we are holding onto those trad- itions and customs that are associated with this Province and which the people of this Province want to maintain,their life- styles. And I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, many that are changing that. I have mentioned many many pieces of legislation that certainly now are changing our lifestyle and it is frustrating on our people. And that is a concern I have.

I certainly maintain that we do have to adjust to a complex and changing world but certainly, Mr.Speaker, we must take great care with the kind of legislation that we bring in and we must ensure that it is indeed absolutely necessary and that it does not affect the lifestyle,and tradition and custonsof the people of this Province. And that is my concern, Mr. Speaker, that is my concern with the vast amount of legislation and bills that we have had presented before us in this House over the past couple of years. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is more to come, there is more to come. And so, Mr.

Speaker, my fear is that we are going to regulate ourselves right out of existence. we are going to regulate ourselves right out of existence. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to leave these., I do not know if this is 3198

'p April 10,1981 Tape No. 1156 EL - 2 MR. LUSH; something I should say or not but I will take a look at it. I do not know if I should table it or not. It was passed to me, I believe, by the Minister of Forestry (C. Power) but I will refer to it a little later. I think it has something to do with the question I was asking him this morning. But, anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the concern that I want to leave with the hon. the Minister of Justice (G. Ottenheimer) and the government who are responsible for the creation of all of this legislation because, as I have said before, we are powerless. There is nothing we can do about it. IC 3 •j)9

April 10,1981 Tape No. 1157 AM-i MR.LUSH: There is nothing we can do about it. If we disagree with every piece of legislation that comes in,it is going to get pushed through so , Mr. Speaker, we are helpless in that respect, we can only caution the government, we can only bring out some concerns. So, Mr. Speaker, the concern I want to leave with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) and the government menthers,who,will over the next few months be attempting to create other legislation, I want to have that concern, that I am afraid that we are going to practically legislate ourselves out of existence that we are going to impose restrictions and regulations on Newfoundlariders so much so that it is going to affect and change our traditional lifestyle. And as I have said before, I have named at least a half dozen acts , a half dozen bills that we have passed in recent months that have that precise effect. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is my concern and I would hope that when hon. members opposite,the government, when thinking about legislation that they certainly think about these concerns and that we do not adopt legislation because it is in existence in other Canadian provinces. we do not do that because , Mr. Speaker, that is no reason for it being here, because it is in existence in other Canadian provinces. There are some things in other Canadian provinces that we would like to have but it does not necessarily have to be the volume of legislation that they have. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is no reason for bringing in legislation1because it is in place in other provinces of Canada1 we bring in legislation because there is a dire need for it, Mr. Speaker. That is why we bring it in, because there is a real, dire need and unless, Mr. Speaker, there is that real need for legislation,it should not be brought In. Because we have enough futile legislation around now and we do not want to bring in any other legislation that is ineffective and that will not do anything other than 3200

April 19.,1981 Tape No.. 1157 AH-2 MRLUSB: fill up books within the building, within the Confederation Building.. So, Mr. Speaker, having expressed these few- concerns I will talçe my place and say again that T support. tha bill but it is- rather reluctantly and rather fte.xtantly.. MR.SPEXER (Baird): The hon. member for St. Johns North. MR.CARTER: Mr. Speaicer, I' was not going to say anything on this act because it is

an act with which T concur but the members on the Opposite. side, although swearing that they will vote for and support this act, at the same time have us-ed the debate on this act as a forum to attack the government, present, past and future. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh., oh MR.CARTER: I have never heard if that is support I would hate to see opposition, so God save us from that. We have heard from the self-appointed Sir Lancelot in his quest for the Holy Grail, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) . My own name for him would be Sir Rantsalot. He reminds- me of the story, Mr.

Speaker, of the captain on a ship, a small crew, and every night the captain would end the log with., Mate drunk Mate drunk." Every night he would put in the log whatever was there and then "Mate drunk." One day the 3201

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1158 MM - 1 MR. CARTER: captain was sick and the mate had to fill out the log. The mate filled out the log and at the end of it he put down, "Captain sober." So although he was telling the truth - MR. THOMS: A time joke. MR. CARTER: - he was telling a great lie. And I think it ill-behooves, particularly, the member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) to get up and suggest that this act is an improvement Because I am certain that once this act goes through and is signed by the Lieutenant- Governor that he will just have to burn his files because he has more poison stored in his filing cabinet, if you can believe what he says, and I have to take his word - MR. THOMS: One full cabinet. MR. CARTER: — I have to accept the word of all hon. gentlemen here. We all have to accept each other's word. I accept his word when he says he has a room full of poison just waiting to be-like a Pandora's box, raise the lid and goodness knows what will come out.

I will tell you what will come out, an awful lot of unsupported and unsupportable half-truths, and innuendoes and smears. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a crying shame that the hon. gentleman is not thoroughly investigated. MR. NEARY: You will not allow (inaudible) investigate. MR. CARTER: I think he should be forced by a resolution of this House to bring that filing cabinet in here on his back. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. 3202

April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1158 NN - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Baird): Does the hon. member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) yield to the member for LaP oi le? The hon. member for LaPoIle. MR. NEARY: I will voluntarily bring up the filing cabinet and put it on the table of the House if the hon. gentlemen will assure me that they will read it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. John's North. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I would not mind giving such assurance but I do not know if my stomach is strong enough to be able to wade through the pile of garbage that the hon. gentleman apparently has.

And I think it is a shame and a disgrace that he should be able to get up and wave papers and wave things - I think he is another modern day McCarthy and I think it is a great pity. I do hope that this act goes through and I hope it has lots of teeth in it and I hope the hon. member is the first one to be investigated. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, perhaps I could have a word or so, Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour does not mind. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice. AN HON. MEMBER: He is a bit slow on his feet this corning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. OTTENIjEIMER: Mr. Speaker, just a few remarks on the remarks which have been made by some hon. members. I think the hon. member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush), who was the last speaker on the Opposition side, developed the point of more and more legislation and,you know, whether the Province would be well served with more legislation. Certainly I think there is a kernel of truthafter one gets the microscope out and zeros in on it,in that point. 3203

ik April 10, 1981 Tape No. 1158 NM - 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER: However, as conditions do change, obviously the law has to change with those conditions and the traditional way of waiting for coxtixuon law, which avows and develops over sometimes generations, certainly is not a process, in my mind, which is today totally adequate when changes happen so quickly. And when there are the kinds of electronic surveillance and computerization and data transmittal which are available today, then to wait for that evolutionary process f - -t 3204

.4w: - MR. OTTENHEIMER would not be appropriate. The point was also made - and indeed, I informed the hon. members in introducing it - that there has not been a great deal of jurisprudence, a great deal of case law, with resoect to freedom of information, with respect to right to privacy legislation in the three provinces where it exists. I would suggest that that does not mean that it is ineffective.

The fact that there is not a great deal of litigation does not mean that the law is ineffective, because the law is there as a guidepost, as a criterion, as a set of principles to be adhered to, and the fact that there is not a lot of litigation does not mean that the law does not serve a very useful purpose. The final point I want to comment on briefly relates to matters referred to by the hon. the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) , and he was speaking in terms of, in general, wiretapping. Now, I think one has to distinguish there.

The Criminal Code, federal law, does authorize wiretapping under certain conditions, that is what could be called legal wiretapping, what is legal wiretapping. And I do not think anybody