VOL. 3 NO. 54 I .. 1 .I • 'I .,... PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1978 ._ r

May 9, 1978 Tape 1984 PK - 1 The House met at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I ~ pleased to welcome to the House of Assembly a delegation representing the Port Blandford to Winter Brook Rural Development Association, and the five gentlemen are Mr. Edward Hall of Musgravetown, Mr. Herbert Hounsell of Port Blandford, Mr. Irving Matthews of Musgravetown, Mr. Roy Oldford of Bunyan's Cove and Mr. David Newell of Lethbridge. I know han. members join me in welcoming these gentlemen to the House of Assembly. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that one hon. member; hon. gentleman has presented to this House various documents, - purported affidavits,signed,we are told,by one, Andrew Davidson. It must be pointed out that this han. member has presented the documents without specifically acknowledging the truth and the validity of their contents. It is critical,! suggest,that we realize just what has been tabled for public consumption. An affidavit is an assertion under oath by a person that such and such is true.

It does not mean that what he says is in fact true, but merely that he asserts it to be so. If in fact Mr. Davidson did sign these affidavits,! think it is important that i this House seriously consider why he has allowed and/or encouraged them to be used in the fashion in which they have been used. If you or I consider that an injustice has been done to us,we would immediately apply to a court in order that this injustice could be corrected and punished. Sir, I ask why has not Mr. Davidson brought these alleged wrongful practices on the part of certain individuals before the , tribunals? Is Mr.

Davidson afraid that the court would dismiss his accusations as being completely unfounded and motivated quite possibly by others than himself? Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the courts i I

May 9, 1978 Tape 1964 PK - 2 Premier Moores: would reject these allegations as the fabrication of a person who apparently for purely partisan,political motives intend on weakening the credibility of the government so that he can further his own ends. Mr. Speaker, I do not fear the courts. In fact, I believe that all of Mr. Davidson's allegations of wrongdoing are submitted to the courts, he will be shown to be the kind of individual that I believe he is. Mr.

Speaker, since these unsubstantiated allegations were tabled by a member of the Opposition, the image of this Province had been tarnished in the eyes of our fellow Canadians from Coast to Coast. As well,the allegations and the other various char~es are completely dominating proceedings and this disruptive activity has been held by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary)~aided and abetted,I suggest, Sir, in every way by the Leader of the Opposition. I would suggest, Sir, that because the matters are in the capable hands of the RCMP we give our full attention to the more important business of the Province.

However, Sir, to set the record straight, and to erase any doubt that the true state of my alleged involvement, I have retained legal counsel · and have instructed that proceedings be instituted tmmediately through the court for defamation and libel. I am not afraid to bring this matter to the courts, nor, Sir, am I at all concerned, although I am sure that Mr. Davidson and others will be,of the results of the investigation which the government has ordered and is presently being conducted by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Mr. Speaker, the allegations which Mr.

Davidson has allowed to be presented by a member whose motives I have personally questioned,are totally and completely false with respect to any personal involvement on my part. I shall sue Mr. Davidson, and eagerly await to see if he will attempt to contest my lawsuit. I have nothing to hide. I have done no wrong, and I am willing to let the courts of our country judicially examine this entire affair. It makes me, Sir, extremely -~ ..

~y 9, 1978 Tape 1984 PK - 3 Premier Moores: angry that by addressing this subject I am to some ~~tent, 1 suppose, dignifying a person whose accusations are so .unfounded and false he should,by normal standards, be completely ignored. tt makes me even more angry, Sir, that a member of this Legislature, tbe member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), as he must realize, has been influenced by people such as Mr. DavidsQn. I do not kn.ow what sort of relationship the member for LaPoile has with Mr. Doyle or Mr. Davidson. I have no idea. What I do knoGJ is that the member has yiel ded to the 1nflue .nce of Mr. Davidson.

What I do know is that the member bas a responsible obligat ion to act with dignity and decency towards matters relating to this bon. House , and individuals within and without it. .I! ji •! 1 1: r 11 I· - ·, l I !l • I I 5I ..

I j ;' f :<ay 9, 1978 Tape 1985 D~·l - 1 PRE"!IE?. !cO ORES: This,in my opinion, Sir, has l •• . , not been the case. 7he most upsetting aspect of all this is _the fact that a person living at Panaoa,v7ho does not care t ti ,. come to this Province voluntarily and rrake any statements, can not only make statements in the Province but with the co-operation of the Opposition make them throu~h a member of this House '.Vith imrmmity. t<r. Speaker, to make matters worse all that has transpired has been aided and abetted ~~d encouraged by the Leader of the Opposition and-I assume, by his party.

I hope, Sir, that when I have vindicated . by the courts on this particular matter, the Leader of the Opposition together lvith the merr.ber for LaPoile Wr. ~' eary) will take the only hon. course of act::.on. - ~'r. Speaker, I call upon ~:r. navidson an·d the ;;Jel!'.ber for LaPoile to inde=ify me for the falsehoods that have been circulated. The member for LaPoile has ~de allegations inside the P.ouse of Assembly where he hopes he has immunity.

Last ni~ht, Sir, I heard the merrber for F.agle River state t~at the men~er believes the allegations to be true, Therefore, ~ir, I am sure that the netrber for LaPoiJ e '·7ill have the courage to 1r.ake these same allegations outside the House ''here ,as ':e ''ell knows,he does not enjoy the same i=unity as h<;! r!oes "ithin this House. Hear, hear! ... ' '~. SPEAKE'P : The hon. Lea~er oF the on,osition. • I "r. Speaker, I rise on a !".atter of privilege, a ' ~atter affectin~ the privile~es of this ~on. Fouse <>nd every me!'lber in the hon. l'ouse. I rfse. Sir, <tt t':e ea~liest ~ossi~le onportunity.

It is a matter of distinct •"

l)T.T - ' ~'R. r.r. N • R(ll·.TF' : ~rom the matter raised by the hon. the Pre!"ier • I understood that he '"as rising too· from the tenor of his statement on a point of privih ·ge and therefore I did not interrupt,~cping per~aps that ~e might have also Sir, t'J.e l".atter I rif,e on is a grave and serious matter affecting the privileges of this han. Vause and 1I believe, Sir, every han. ~ember of the ~ouse of Assembly.

Sir, I inte~d to ~Dve a substantive motion at the conclusion of my remarl:s and, ti1erefore, Sir, sot:le of the language 't>Jhich I use in my statement which mi~ht otheruise be te=ed unparliamentary or oue of order, Sir, <!remade and said and stated in keeping with my commitment to ffiOve a s~bstantive motion regarding this matter. :~y point of privilege, Sir, is that the Premier mf this Province,aided and abetted by a minister or by ministers,has deliberately mislead this han. House in a matter b.volving tens of nillions of dollars of public money.

I submit, Sir, that t!1e deception and the misleading of this House and its members by the Prenier concerning this matter has been systematic and continuous, beginning in the first session of t:..'l.e House in 1')71\ follow~_ng the general election of Septneber 1'17S,continuing into the session last year 1 1977,and cul~inating in this ~resent session wit!o. remar!(s made ~y the hen. Premier in reply to a a.uestion as Iced in this Eouse yesterday. I <Till now quote directly from Ransard, "r. Speal<er, the words w·hich 1 I submit,deliberate:!.y and syst~~Atically mislead this han.

House,and I will be tabling these exerts from Hansard, "r. Spaaker. The first reference I would like to make is to "ay 13, l 0 7~.Jt is a question by my colleague,the member for LaPoile,referrerl to in Hansard as,of course,:'r. 'leary: ""r. Speaker, I would lilce to di::-ect a question to the han. Premier, Sir, in connection ~-lit~ t!'le rental ·)f ·I I • I I I' ., ·-

'":. t•' •• , • ".0\>'t: office spcce n0\1 for c!'l,e govern v~~c . Could c~e Premier ou cli~e for t he ~o use whet !ter or not t!1e agreer~nc ·n th Trizec is off antl if the c;overrunen t have ~een approac.":ec' !)y :tr. ~·or ~ an o:- "r • . \n:! re· ; Cros by to try and ?e rsuade t he ~vern~ent to rent S?ace in .\tlanc ic ?lace? ,~:-:rl i s the government goin g to rent space !n .\t laotic Place?

And thirdly , what is happeni:'lg to t he Dobbin dea l (Is that still on or is if off? ~!h at is the sit:ua tion 00\·1 r:egarci:Jg re.'lt ing of office space for govenur.cnc offices! ' Frea:der ~:oo res , referred to in !!ansar: c here on !~y 13, 1!?71;: "First of all in answer to c.'1e :irsc ques t ion, vr . Spea l:er, =-~ere never was ar.y ag~eemer:t as such co ~y knowletlge ~~ t h ~ri?.ec.

Seco ncly .re£a r cing w~ere t:he government is goin~ to rent S;>ace·' it is uncer consideration n0\1 and t1hen ~~ e have made up our minr3 ue will glac!ly · ;>ass t!'tec inforv.ation alonr,': ~lhen "'e have oac'e up our ll'ir.c'.s, ~ir ... ay 13, 1~71\. ~ little f art:ter c!ow-n ~ :'r. ~:ea ry : Hell, "r:. Spea'·er, a supp!e~n tary •o the. Pre::1.i er. In connection t.;,t h t he :-ental of office space , w'1et her i t !)e f r oM .\tlan tic Place, vr . '"'o!)!:>ir or Trizec,uould t ~e Prel!'i.er : - ·I! n ,, • ~ I r· ,. I t I .,

~-!ay 9' 1978 Tape No. 1'186 :':-11',. W. ROWE: indicate if public tenders 'dll be called for the rental of office space or just what procedure will be used." And then there is an i~e~j ection. ''Mr. Lundrigan: For rental a tender call? ~cr. Neary; Calling of tenders, yes,for rental. Premier }too res: l1r. Speaker, As I have said before, it can be done on a proposal basis. It can be on tendering if it is for a particular building, but it is impossible to tender space r.v·hich may have different criteria.

Some spece may have different, well not just cost but different amenities and all the things that make up Hhat space means, \vhat partitions are there, what services are there and so on. Ottawa and none of the provinces te..'lder, to my knm;ledge~for that sort of proposal, ioihat they do is call a proposal and acce!'t what seems to be the most beneficial to the government. 'fr. Neary;.

A :supplementary, " which was allowed, "Could the Premier tell the Rouse if the government have invit~d proposals in recer..t •vee!~s in connection -.;lith the rental of office space and if so what firms have they asked for quotes?" And as :-ray 13th., Premier ~·~ores answers, "~o t in recent vteeks, Mr. S!'eal<er .'' Mr. ·speaker, on June 3rd., 1976, the following exchange took !'lace during Oral Question Period.

"Hr. !toberts(", the hen. member for the Straits of Belle Isle, ·~y question would be addressed to the Minister of l'anpower who was in the Cl12.!:tber a ;r,o~ent or so ago but seems to have gone out for a moment or so, no,here he comes, ;.,r.,11 _let me ask one of the :linister of Public 1vorks while the }tlnister of :!.anpower is on his way bac:~ to !ris seat, Could t~!e r:ri.nister bring us up to date Hith respect to the gove=ent's negotiations to obtain additional office space? TI1is seems to be causing a lot of cocment. T:1e tenders \vere called last year, were the)• not?

There ~ ·1ere some tenders called for office space, or an office building, or proposals on an office building or space, the big building, the one t:1at we are all so interested in, and so badly needed,obviously, at least in part, could the minister bring us up to date on that please, Sir?'' The han. :·!inister of Public \-iorks a..'ld Services, says·;:rr. Speaker," and his - .J I ~ ..

:ray 9, 197G Tape No. 1986 i.;M - 2 :·IR. H. P..Oh'.t.: n&~e, Dr. Farrell, as of Jlli>e 9th., 1976, Dr. Farrell states, " !·!r. Speaker, >·Te diJ receive proposals publicly last year but nothing further ""-s been done up tc this date," June 3rd., 1S'76, "a decision has not been mnde and when it is ~ade I ,;i::.l be an.•10uncing it to the House. :e-rr. Roberts; ~!r.

Speaker, in view of the repeated statenents by members of the government that there was some urgency about acquiring additional space, could the minister tell us when so~e decision might be expected to be made~ I am not asking for a day but I am asking for a reasonably time frame indication, particularly in light of tile fact that tl1ese tenders were called a year ago. Dr. Farrell; I< ell, ~·!r. Speaker, I am glad to say that I -.i'ill be delighted to make the annou..-,cement in due time, when the Cabinet decides on what course to take." June 3rd., 1976. "Hr. Doody; ';llien you get the dollars. Dr.

Farrell; \;ben ."e can find the doll<::.rs. ~r. RobE7rts; A further -- supplementary. I thank the minister because he is obviously anS'\Iering questions. Could the minister tell us ;~hether the prices submitted a year ago, and I assume the proposals involved cost, whether those proposals are still valid, given the fact that a year has passed and costs have obviously escalated? !;nd if t!ley are not valid, could the minister tell us 1-Jhether further proposals ~Till be called or do the government propose to m·Tard this contract 1-Tithout calling further tenders"!" "~1r.

Speaker; The han. :1inis ter of Public Works and Services. Dr. Farrell; :1r. Speaker, I cannot ans1-1er at the moment hm~ valid they are because no further discussions have taken place with the individuals concerned. c·!r. Roberts; In other 1·1ords1 the minister's officials have not gone back to these comp~~ies and said, Are you prices still holding there now? Dr. Farrell: ~o, there have been no discussions officially at all, at any time since that as far as I lmow, to my knowledge." This is June 3rd., 1976. "As far as the future is conce'!'Iled, as I have Gaid, this will be discussed.

He may i;1deed go back,you know.,to look at this and probably ~1111, but at

:·!ay 9, 1978 Tape ~o . _986 :•IlL W. ROlo/E : this time t here is nothing being done in that catter ." And t3ere are other e.-.::traneous r efe rences in c~e Satle Ques'tion Period. February 7th., ~977, !1r. Speaker ., a question by the hon. member fo r LaPoi_e, ' .!r . • :eacy ; I ~~ould lik e . I to direct a question co the Hinister of :'ublic 11orks and Services 6 l'1ould t3e r-inister tell the House ~o~ha t has transpired :-ece.nt_ y and if any decisions have been taken in connection tnth additional office space to house the public servants? ~~ . Rousseau : Mr . S~eaker, not ~ing has happ ened recently.

First of all , th.e federal st~:dy -1e had done a couple of years ago is bei~g updated . This is a division of the ?ederal Deparcment of Supply and Services who we retained, 1 think, t~o"o or three years ago and '"'e are n.ot havi.."1g the:n u. dace their study of 1:'\.•o or chre.e years ago uhich v.•e hope to have" -- Ji I

~lay 9,1978 Tar>e No. 1987 AH-1 "l~!r. Roberts: Four years ago. Hr. ~ousseau: Four years ago it was. By ::ay of this year ,.,e <<auld hope that ti1at \vould give us an indication of what space we need based on certain limitations they have in respect to the space requirements of individuals and so on'.' Continuing with Hr.

Rousseau on February 7, 1977, 11 In ti1e mear,time 7 I think what the hon. !llember is getting at is Atlantic Place,and what the hon. w.inister said,and said it over and over again,is that there are a number of options open to the government -building its own building, lease a building, stay liKe it is,or AClar1tic Place or any ot:i.;r large u.rea, It is merely one of c:1e options available because there i;as a lar.se am.:>unt of space there." February 7,1977, Sl.r. ,.,The minister nor tl1e ;;ove=ent did fiOt say it was going to take space in Atl~•tic Place, it did not say it was going to build lt own building,or lease a buildi~ 1 but it is one of the ;JOssible options 1vhen you look at the m;;ouut of space tl~at is required by the various gover..u:1ent depart:o~ents.

So it is !llerely one of the uptions available. :io decision has yet beea taken." February 7, 1'>77 that' was, Sir. " :·ir. Speaker: A supplelilentary!' · By l:1r. Neary. "

H) supplementary is directed to the hon. the Premier. \·,uuld t..:." :1on. the Premier tell the liouse 1vi1eti1er or not the hon. gentleman intencis to proceed with the suggestion tl~at the Premier macie in the last session of the House tilat a special committee of the llouse would be established to look into office space to house tl1e ;:ublic service in this Province? Does the Premier still intend to follow that procedure? Premier Hoores: I do not know if tlJa t suggestion was mari~ in the l:iouse or behind the curtain, :lr. Speaker. ;1r. Neary: In tl1e house.

Premie:;:: Moores: But the fact is that I think there is no question wi1atsoever that office Sj?ace is needed for the sake of efficiency. This is always a very delicate situation when it comes up because t;1ere are all kinds of intonations read into it anti ·.vnat can happen anci so on. But certainly I would hope it would be the subject - .. .. i , I -(

day 9,B7i:> Ah-2 aR. W. ROl-lE: of the Department of Public ~larks presentation after wi1.ici1 time we would look at the requirements. We can either nave a select committee of the House on the matter or the government coul<l put forward a proposition whici1 can be debated by the liouse, either one." This is February 7,1977, Sir. A supplementary by ilr. Neary: "lvould the han. minister tell the house whether it is the minister's intention to lay on ti1e table of th~ House the report of the Federal-::'rovincial.

T~sk ~orce that the minister just spoke of that is updating the matter of office space to house the public service in this Province? :Jr. Rousseau: I t~ill tal~e the question under advisement, i·fr. Speaker. The study is merely for departmental study, for tr£ edification of the Department of Public Works officials, it is not meant to be any secret document. I am sure the federal department would not in any way tell us anything of a policy nature. All they are saying is that you have so many people, you Reed so much space and here are the obvious options tnat you have.

In consultation with my colleagues I will take it under advisement." The then :iinister of Public Works, Sir, referred to as Mr. Rousseau. On Harch 7,1977, there are so;ne references made, Sir, which I will table which bear on the matter but which I will not read out in the House at the present time. On Harch 28,1977, Sir, the following e:..:change took place, Harch 28,1977. "llr. Neary: ~iow I hope tile hen. minister" referring to the han. Minister of Public Works., then referred to as Hr. Rousseau here, "I llCpe the i"lon: minister does not think I am a mind reader, I just got the infor;nation now.

But, Sir, would the minister care to tell the House if a Task Force that is looking into this wi10le matter of office space has yet completed its ';olark and has submitted a report to the minister?" The :·Iinister of Public lvorks, "~1r.Rousseau: :!r. Speak.;r, the last date chat I was told was :1ay, ws l1ope to have it ., !Jy iiay, ao I ;.rill say l·Iay or June. That is the update of the study

Tape '-'lo. 1987 ~!R . ;; . OOHE: that was done a few years aso by che Federal Depart:nent of Supply and Service , t he division •·T.ich ~~e are usi:l;;. So the lase dace I i:eard is l-'.ay, so I 1..-ill say :·lay or Ju::e I anticipa te havi!l6 tt . " Whicil is :-:arch 2a,l97S.

" 1-ir. ~eary : Can the minister assure t he iiouse chen that in the inte::im period while the ministe r is wai tit1g for this report t hat if office space is required , such as the l•linis cer of Justice, that puolic t enders will l;e called for suc.l office spac.: aud t!lat the <..:art! will &o co the lowest biC:.ciar? can c:;e udnister assure the :louse c:tac that will be t ;1e pr ocedure?" J.:nd on .uu:c ;l 2e,l977 , Sir, ::r. 'i ' aousseau said "Yes . '.O:he :Unister can ::.ssu1:e :he l1on. illl!l.lu<:r " ~ aus•er to that que stion . referer.ces :~ere - 1977 .

"llr . :;e3ry: :!y question , Sil" . is uirect~ci to t!le ~on . c:1e Pr=ier . :.:ould the :1ou. ?re:lier now care to g!.ve -an u;;ci.:!ti:l;; on c:~e re::1tal of of:icc S;>ace because there !.s sti:l all ~cis of space available being re~tc ~ !.n vnrious locations in St . John's? Partitions are being ;>ut up , hauled down , etc. , etc . l . r i ! ' f I t ~ l

May 9, 1978 Tape 1988 EC - 1 UR. W. N. ROl<E : position is on the future of office space?" "Premier Moores: In general terms, Mr. Speaker, the situation is that the group from the federal government made available regarding the to do a study on what square footage is available and what efficiencies are desired. They will have their report finished, as I understand it - the Minister of Public Works is not here now - as I understand it within another ten days to two weeks. As soon as that is received, appropriate action will be taken." Mr. Neary asked a supplementary question: "Will the han.

Premier indicate to the Rouse whether the government, the han. Premier would follow a recommendation made by the rremier to this han. House last year - in this han. House last session with an impartial committee of members representing both sides of the House would be set up to take a look at the office space problem for the government1" "Premier ~ioores: No reason why not, Mr. Speaker. Because of the controversy that was raised the last time it may be a good idea to do.

But before making a final decision on that we will wait for the report from the Department of Public Works." (May 13, 1977) Sir, on May 17th of the same year, 1977, Mr. Neary again: "In connection with the rental of office space would the Premier indicate to the House if the report is yet in and what action the government are going to take in connection with the office space problem?" And the Premier says: "I understand, Mr. Speaker, the report actually arrived either yesterday or will be arriving today.

It will take about a week or ten days to analyse it and hopefully after that there will •I _ , - ' : ~ ,, :~ .l ~~ • I ! t ~ ~ ,. ·\ ~~

May 9, 1978 Tape 1988 EC - 2 MR. W. N. ROWE: be some decisions made as · r to which direction we will go." (May 17, 1977) On June 2, 1977, Sir, the following exchange.- and this is perhaps the most important of all the exchanges - took place in this hon. House- ,gain,'~r. Neary: I wonder if the hon. the Premier would give the House an updating now that they have received the report of the Task Force?

Has any decision been taken whether the government is going to build the new building, an extension to Confederation Building, a new House of Assembly, or whether the government is going to go for the proposals that have been made from downtown developers to rent office space?" "Premier Moores: Mr. Speaker, -- an answer to that is that the report, as I advised the House, has been received; it has been given to the Department of Public Works and others associated.

And somebody said it is only a draft -yes, I know, only a draft report, but it has been given to the appropriate officials to do the proper analysis and that has not yet been received, but I would think is probably momentarily to get it, one or two days, I would think." A supplementary by Mr. Neary: "Would the han.

Premier indicate to the House if the hon. gentleman will be keeping his commitment of appointing an independent committee representing members of both sides of the House to look over the report and to make recommendations before the government decides what course of action they are going to take in connection with office space?" The hon. the Premier mentions the report, Sir, but does not say anything regarding any commitment.

May 9, 1978 Tape 1988 EC - 3 NR. 1v. N. ROWE : Further down, Mr. Neary says this: "Could the Premier assure the House that no deals, that no commitments have been made to private developers to rent office space either on a short term basis or a long term basis until the government has the report in its hands and decides what the future is going to be as. far as government new buildings or office space is concerned?" And the Premier's answer, Mr. Speaker, to this hon. House, June 2, 197~ is as follows: "Premier Moores: I most certainly can, Hr. Speaker.

There have absolutely not been any commitments made to any developer with office space or without." June 2, 1977 - a statement made to this hon. House by the Premier of the Province. Mr. Speaker, a number of other statements were made on March 10, 1978 of this year, which I will table, which are relevant to anyone who wants to pursue the matter. On March 9, 1978, Sir, the same thing. And, Sir, finally as far as Hansard is concerned, Sir, May 8, 1978, yesterday in this han. House, "Mr.F. Rowe: Mr. Speaker, a question for the han. the Premier.

In view of the fact that I am sick and tired of driving constituency delegations all over the city to the various government departments that are scattered in the city, has the government any intention or plans to build a new government building or an extension to the Confederation Building?" "Premier Moores: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry the han. member is sick and tired. Also, Sir, there is no immediate plans right now to build an extension to the building, no." I. I T I

Hay ·9, 1978 Tape 1988 EC - 4 MR. W. ROWE: A supplementary by Mr. F. Rowe: "In othe-r words, Sir, what the Premie-r is saying is that no arrangement ·has been made with anybody at all to provide for a new government building o-r an extension to t he Confederation Building? Is that correct?" "Pr.emier Moo-res: I think that is what I said, Mr . Speake-r. That is what I meant to say. " 7 • .! --- ~~ I r. · s

May 9, 1978, Tape 1989, Page 1 apb MR. W.N.ROWE: A supplementary by Mr. F.Rowe: "Would the Premier mind answering the question? Did the Premier think he said it, or did he say it, Sir? Premier Moores: Both. " "Mr. Speaker ina supplementary by Mr. Neary: "Is the Premier saying in answer to my hon. friend there was no deal with Atlantic Place to rent office space and there was no deal with anyone else to put up a new building or to put an extension on Confederation Building? Is the Premier saying no to that question? Premier Moores: First of all, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member asked if there was a deal with Atlantic Place as a supplementary." Then, Sir, the matter goes on for a little while here until, Mr. Speaker, a little further over in Hansard,Mr. Neary asked the . following supplementary: "Is the Premier indicating that there is no arrangement, or is he indicating that there is an arrangement to put up a new building for office space? I am not quite clear, the Premier has me confused, will the Premier just tell me yes or no? Is there an arrangement or an agreement to put up a new building, that is all?" And, Mr.

Speaker, Premier M0ores replies as reported by Hansard; "Mr. Speaker, I have already answered once. Maybe if one of the pages could come I could spell it out for the hon. member. It is just n-o, Sir. He can get a translation from his colleague the Leader of the Opposition." These, Sir, were the statements made by the Premier and various ministers in reply to the questions raised since 1976 as to whether there was any arrangement or any deal with anybody outside to build an office building in this Province. Mr.

Speaker, late yesterday afternoon two documents came into my possession following - . ~ I ! .I I i I l -l i I I

May 9, 1978, Tape 1989, Page 2 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: the answering of the questions by the Premier. One of these documents, Mr. Speaker, is a copy of an agreement. The day and the month of the agreement are left blank, but the year is dated to be 1975. The agreement, Sir, is between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Newfoundland, represented by the Minister of Public Works and Services,called in the agreement, the government,and Craig L. Dobbin 1 called in the agreement, the developer. And, Sir, I have copies of that agreement which I will be tabling in the House when I have concluded my statement.

I think it important, Sir, that I refer for the record to various matters mentioned in this agreement. The

preamble of the agreement says: "Whereas the developer (Mr. Dobbin) proposes to build an office building hereinafter called the demised premises upon all that piece or parcel of land situate off Higgins Line in the City of St. John's in the Province of Newfoundland and being described in appendix (

a) as set out ·hereto annexed- I confess, Sir, that my document does not have appendix (

a) attached to it which would describe the land - and

whereas the government is desirous of leasing from the developer (Mr.

Dobbin) approximately 408,000 square of office space for a term of twenty years; now this agreement witnesseth that for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements by and between the parties hereto - the government and the developer - the developer hereby offers to lease to the government and the government hereby agrees to take on lease office space totalling approximately 408,000 square feet in a building to be erected by or on behalf of the developer for the term, the twenty year term, subject to the ~ayment of the rentals and other conditions hereinafter provided on land more particularly described an set out in appendix (

a) annexed, · which land the government hereby agrees to I • I i I -· . t t

May 9, 1978 , Tape 1989, Page 3 -- apb MR. W.N.ROWE: lease to the developer from the date of execution of this agreement to the expiration of the term of the lease." Sir, the agreement goes on to state its major tenrs which can be perused by anybody who cares to read it. Since I am going to table it,it will be a public document . "The minimum rental for the demised premises" -I •.<~ill refer to the major points - "Shall be" ~ .. "'" ' _ l i. r I · I t I~ ·:

May 9, 1978 Tape 1990 PK - 1 Mr. W. Rowe: this is 1975, "Shall be $8.35 per square foot per annum payable by equal monthly installments in advance." $8.35? ~ou have not heard anything yet, my son, if you think that is disgusting • . "The government as the lessee shall have the option to purchase the demised premises at the expiration of a twenty year for the sum of $1.00 by giving at least one year prior written notice of its intention to exercise the option to the developer!' In other words, Sir, the leaseback deal. The developer undertakes to have the building substantially completed and so on.

During the term of the lease the government, Sir, if you think $8.35 may be a nice little rental in its own right, the government, Sir, undertakes in this lease, in this agreement to lease, undertakes to pay all expenses whatsoever in connection with the maintenance of this building that is proposed to be built.

The government undertakes to lease to the developer the land for the $1.00, to pay all business taxes or other similar taxes in association with the premises, all rates and taxes, costs of the supply of all utilities and related services required and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the government agrees to pay all operational costs of lighting, heating, air conditioning plumbing, elevators, electricity, water and gas, repairing, maintaining, and if necessary, the alteration of the above, all water and property taxes, if any, management, maintenance, engineering, and security staff, at its own expense, all insurances in connection with the building, Mr.

Speaker, with an insurance company mutually agreed on by the party, maintain and operate at its own expense, the walkways, landscaped areas, entrances to the premises. If the method of collecting taxes or rates or charges render the developer libel in any way the government agrees to reimburse the developer, and any payment made by the developer. And the demised premises shall be measured in accordance with the provisions of Appendix D, which, Sir, I will be referring to;this famous Appendix D, a little later on. I' l - I ~ .E . ~ . i~ ~ I ' I

May 9, 1978 Tape 1990 PK ... 2 Mr. W. Rowe: Mr. Speaker, during the period prior to the commencement date, and it goes on with a few other matters which can be · looked by anybody who is interested in it. Disputes arising under the agreement, Sir, are subject to arbitration in the normal way under the Judicature Act of Newfoundland. And the agreement, Sir, calls for, of course, the execution of a lease of the premises and so on upon a certain period of time after the submission of plans and specifications and the lease itself.

In witness whereof- AN HON. MEMBER: Who is it signed by? MR.. NEARY: We will come to that,just take it easy. MR. W. ROWE: We are getting to that, Sir. MR. NEARY: The hen. gentleman will get the shock of his life. MR. W. ROWE:

In witness whereof - MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! i' I would like to point out to the House the Speaker's function here, and indeed the procedure here, I read from May, Page 346, "As a motion taken at that time for matters of privilege is thereby given.precedence over the pre-arranged programme of public business, .the Speaker requires to be satisfied both that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify him in giving such precedents · (or as it is sometimes put, that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed) , and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity·." And then in the next paragraph much the same thing is said.

"It has also been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege is limited to deciding the formal question whether the case conforms with the · conditions which alone entitle it to take precedence of the Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day standing on the Order Paper of public business, and does ·I not extend to deciding the question of substance,whether a breach of I ; privilege has in fact been committed , a question which can only be decided by the Rouse itself."

May 9, 1978 Tape 1990 PK - 3 Mr. Speaker; I say ~hat in order to remind bon. members that after I have heard what argument there is, I shall then have to make a decision on the earliest opportunity and prima facie, and the.n depending on that, then obviously whether there would be a motion and the substantive matters entered int:o . I just point out that there is a preliminary st:ep,before the substantive matters herein referred to are decided by the Bouse , a pre1.iminary step on which I have to make a decision . I yoint that out so that our procedures there are clear. In other words, "'.! . : ,~ , -l I - .. li . I ' j· • J

Nay 9, 1978 Tape i>o. 19'n ;;:-r - 1 :m.. SPEAKER: substantive matter would come or should come at a later date depending on the primary consideration on 11hich I have to make a decision. The han. Leader of the Opposition. ::R. W. ROWE: Thank you, Sir. Your Honour, I will try to be very brief now and finish up with some of the substantive matters which I am raising here. The agreement, Sir, to lease includes with ti1e following inform~ttion; "ln witness whereof the hon, Dr. Thomas C.

Farrell, ~!inister of Public Harks and Services, acting for and on behalf of Her :rajesty, the Queen in Right of Ne~·rfoundland, has hereunto his hand and seal subscribed and set ~~d Craig L. Dobbin has caused this agreement to rent to be duly executed, Signed, sealed ~~d delivered by the hon. Dr. Thomas C. Farrell, £linister of Public Works and Services, ~cting for or on behalf of Her ~aiesty the Queen, in Right of Newfoundland, in the presence of, and we have, Sir, a signature over the name of the hen, Dr. Thomas C.

Farrell, and above it the name uhich appears in somebody's handwriting and appears to me to be the name, T. C. Farrell, or T.C. Farrell, i1.D. And, Sir, it is witnessed by a signature, Sir, wnich on ar~ reasonable examination c~n only prove to be the following words and letters, F, D. Hoores. SOME HON. ~ERS: Shame! Shame! :!R. W. ROWE: Signed, sealed and delivered by Craig L. Dobbin, Sir, and then there is the name Craig L, Dobbin, and a signature above that and another signature which I cannot read.

The important points concerning this agreement, Sir, just to summarize, because I realize I ''as perhaps a little bit lacking in conciseness going through it, the agreement, first of all,is dated 1975, although there is no date or month. The - I r r " r

Hay 9, 1978 Tape ~lo. 1991 l·f.·!- 2 ~. W. ROWE: amount of space to be rented is 408,000 square feet, the length of the term of the lease is tventy years at winch· time the government buys the building for $1. The minimum rental, the minimum rental, Sir, as set out in t:te agreement is expressed to be $8.35 per square foot. All expenses of any kind whatsoever in connection Hith the building are the responsibility of the gove!rnment, not the developer. T:1at means, Sir, that means that the developer would make a net revenue of $3,406,800 per year, nearly $3.5 million per year - :m. NEARY: Scandalous!

Scandalous! :m. w. ROWE: - on this agreement. !·!R. NEARY: For t~venty years • !·!R. \-1. ROWE: Over the t~.renty years life of the lease, ~-lr. Speaker, t:1e developer ~vould receive $68,136,000 or nearly $70 million of public money - Im. :u:A.~Y: w:-.at a scandal. ~ m. lv. !tOIVE: - for this building. MR. !'ffiARY: lfuat a scandal . ~fR. ';). ROWE: Twenty years times the nearly $3.5 million, Sir, which I have referred to. PP~IER MOORES : yfuere is the building? :tF.. lV. ROWE : Remember, Sir, that these figures are expressed to be minimuo rental figures in the agreement itself.

The agreement as I said, Sir, purports to be signed by t he ~!inister of Industrial Development and is >n tnessed by a signature ~•hich appears to read, as I said, F. D. Moores, Sir. Appendix (

d) to the agreeme:~t, Sir, which ~1ould be interesting for hon. members to look at, states that the re:1.table area will indlude, among other areas, t :1c other areas ~:1. the building, will include air ducts, flues, vents, stacks, pi~e shafts, vertical ducts, ai r conditioning shafts and ducts. MR. NEARY: What about toilet seats? ~'IR . l-7. ROHE : Toilet rooms are all included in it. - . ·! ·1 h ., • ·!. .! ·, ; I

Xay 9, 1978 Ta!>e ~o. 1991 !\'li - 3 :1R. \Y. FOWE: The other document, ~r . Speaker, ~::Uch has cooe into my p os sessio~ i s expressed to be a true copy of a dire c tive approvec by Ca~i~et at a ~eeting held on Au~u st let~ . , 1975 . The records, Sir, •r...ll shov t.."lo.t t~.e t!at.a of that Cabinet meeting ~'as j ust or.e ~:eek before the general elec::!on uas called on August 2S::i: ., 1975. l.tat !s ..-hen that ' Cabinet meeti:lg t:as held, Sir .

I have a CO?Y of the direc tive, ~1ich I vill be attaceir.g to oy statement, anc ·~ch ~~ be tabled ir. this hon . iiouse. ':he Cabinet directive begins as :ollous, Sir, 1: ! , for the r ecod. ~state this; "Orde red that the !':oll ~~;ing proposals i I I s-.Jbmitt ed by ~! r. Cr.: ig L. Dobbin , St.

John 's, \.'i.th :-egnrd to the ' ,, ·' construction of an office cocplex for the government si tuat e t==.acia:ely - '! west of Confederation Building be and they are h ere~y approve d in principle. subject to the sub~ssion to Cabinet of satisfac~ory plans a:ld specifications based on anal ysi s of t~e project by the Departoent, of Public Works and Services," then :1eaJe d up, Sir, by my hoo . frie:1d, the present ~!nis::er of lr.dust:-ial :>e•Jelopoe~!: .

May 9, 1978 Tape 1992 EC - 1 MR. W. N. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet directive then goes on to approve the major points and the details basically of the agreement which I have already referred to including the approximate amount of space to be rented, 400,000 square feet, the rental period of twenty years with the government having the option to purchase for the sum of one dollar, and the minimum rental of $8.35 per square foot per annum. As in the agreement, Sir, so in the Cabinet directive, all expenses in connection with the building are basically to be paid by the government and not the developer.

The copy of the Cabinet directive, Sir, which I will not go through in any detail-~s I say, I will make it public - a copy of the Cabinet directive purports to be signed by the Secretary of the Cabinet and above that appears the name, which I have seen many times as a former minister of the government on Cabinet documents and so on, appears to me to be J. G. Channing - this particular document. Mr. Speaker, I submit humbly, Sir, to Your Honour, it is clear from these two documents that the Premier and at least one minister, maybe more, have deliberately misled this hon. House on this very serious matter.

Among the many references to Hansard which I have already given, I particularly mention the answer of the hon. the Minister of Industrial Develop~ent given to the member for the Straits of Belle Isle (Mr.Roberts) which I have already referred to, on June 3, 1976; I refer also to the answer of the hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower,referred to in the Hansard as Mr. Rousseau, given to the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) on March 28, 1977 - a firm denial, Sir. . ' .. ,._ i£ I~ ~ \" __. ~r rl -~ li ~.11 .. : '. ,· -I k , ..

}fay 9, 1978 Tape 1992 EC - 2 MR. W. N. ROWE: As far as the Premier is concerned, his answer given on June 2, 1977 replying to the memb~r for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) that there have absolutely not been any commitments made to any developer concerning office space,directly and deliberately misleads that member, Sir, and,! would submit, this hon. House.

Similarly, Sir, yesterday, May 8th, the Premier wrote out the answer, "No", as the Hansard would clearly show, and initialled the piece of paper in answer to the direct question by the member for LaPoile as to whether or not there is an arrangement or an agreement to put up a new building, Sir. And I will be tabling that document as well.

Let me conclude, Sir, by saying legal advice which I have received on these documents, backing up my own feeling, Sir, as a lawyer, on the matter, having studied them and looked at them, is to the effect that such an agreement or memorandum of agreement- whether it possesses a seal or a date or not, is irrelevant, Sir- such an agreement or memorandum of agreement backed especially by a Cabinet directive purporting to be a true copy of a Cabinet directive signed by the Secretary of the Council, copies of which I will be tabling here, all appear, Sir, to be legally binding and enforceable against the government in court.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, these documents would be and are very valuable documents worth many millions of dollars in the hands of the developer named in the agreement or anyone who may want to purchase the developer's rights under the agreement and the Cabinet directive. And I trust, Sir, that the Premier will not attempt to pretend or try to pretend that this agreement has in any way been rescinded, for example, since it first came into effect, rescinded unilaterally by the developer - I' .. j ·I ! I I I . I

May 9, 1978 Tape 1992 EC - 3 ~R. W. S. ROWE: without his having received other equally valuable considerations or concessions from this government. These documents, Sir, are qorth millions of dollars on the best legal advice that I can receive and based upon my own knowledge of the law as well. A court case , a case against this government is inherent in these documents.

I submit, Sir, that the whole matter is a grave and serious breach of the privileg es of this hon. ~ouse and I am prepared, Sir, to move a substantive and distinct motion to the effect that t he matter be referred immediately to a Committee of the Whole House, such committee being empowered to call witnesses before it for questioning and examination and also to call for documents to be brought before it. The question also arises, Hr. Speaker, as to what ministers of the government were aware of these documents and condoned t he deception, alloqed and condoned the dec eption of this bon. aouse? r

''ay~, 1':'78 Tape 1!1"'3 1"\l-f - 1 ~ • P~T. !'DHE : '·'=:at minister, !':ir, condonec the nislead.ing statements and the deception and deceit practice:! in this hon. Rouse?

And, Sir, if any ministers opposite claim to have had no knovledge of the agreel'!ent or the Cabinet directive~ the questions trUSt be raised publicly as to Hhy appropriate . questions were not directed to tbe Premier or to the secretary of J the C'abinet as to the possible existance of any such docul!!e.nts since the matter. has ~een raisen on numerous ocassions in this ~louse and outside, Sir, and I !"'.i~ht say, Sir, that before I came into possession of this docureent from a source in the Atlantic Provinces 1 that it :.;auld see!'!. to be coli)I:lon knowledge among r.>.any people that these doctll':ents existed.

So I '"auld like to hear explanations of ministers, Sir, on that particular subject. Sir, it is =tter of t!1e deception of mell'.bers of t!lis l!ouse in a matter -involving tens of millicns of dollars of public money.

And it is a =tter which must be dealt t<Tith on an urgent 'cas is ,forthuit!"t, Sir. tnd I am prepared as I sai:: to move a motion tvhich I will r.<ove no,; if Your Honour will permit!,or whic..'l I •,rill give notice of raoving, Sir, that this tvhole matter be referred to a Committee 1 to the ('ommittee of the \ihole of this House because it is such an urgent matter of misleading and perhaps skulduggery going on in the ~overnment ~ith outside soun:es outside people 1 that this t12tter be referred to a Conm:ittee of t..'J.e Hhole House and such Committee have the power to bring witnesses before it and documents cAlled for and examined by t!1is han.

House, Sir. Sir, this is not a ?leas ant dut:.• on my part.! believe this to be a tragic and sad 1av in this hon. i. .J 1\ i Rouse. Sir, it sickens me to the sto~ch to be doing whet I am doing here nm;. It sickens u:e, Sir, as a member of this !:a use and as a member of the public of ~:ewfoundlancl !Jut, Sir, I consider it to be my ho•mden duty as a mem!:ler of thie Fouse however sickening it may be,hm;ever hurtful it may !:le to me or ot~•ers, in thls House or outside, Sir, to bring this knowledge to the

!!ay 9, l':'n Tape 1?93 public, to the press and to other members of this Fouse so tl1at we can act accor~ingly, Sir, and I .do hope tilat the matter t~ill be dealt <lith forth- <rith on fin urgent basis and dealt with severely. I will table this, clr. Speaker. SOl:'T' RON • ~'IF."BEP.S : Eear, hear! HR. SPC::AI<ER ~ The hon • Prenie r . PRDHE:t MOORES: ~r. Speaker, it is obvious that we are at it again. I noticed the hen. member is sick to have to do it but I hope he does not throw up over the member for LaPoile (Hr. Ueary) because that is ah<ays a possibility.

Because I have never heard such unadulterated nonsense of nalf-truths aga~n, ::iir.We have here two documents. , . - I have here fortunately < great many more that I will table as 1.1ell this afternoon an exactly the same subject. Do we check 1.1ith anyone t ,o _find out if this true? Do ve fine' out tvhere these documents ·come from or are 1ve prepared to sa:•-or do tve say as the Leader of the r.pposition says, "I b;z:ing t!:is to the attention of the public, the press and the House," in that order,and that is exactly the order I would suggest, Sir, he wanted to bring them ir .. SO!:!': RON • "'EUlEr.

S : Eear, hear! PW-HER ~~oor.r:s: The fact is, Sir, that this is half a story,half the truth again. Not all tbe information, nothing about an attachment regarding a reference to Cabinet of any agreement;that is there,but the attachment is part of it to refer to Cabinet for approval or other:~ise. ~!o seal,nothing official but it is official enough to cause a rumpus in this "!'!ouse. 'Tov7, Sir, if you 1·7111 excuse me I am going to take some _time. The Opposi~ion are usinr the art of innuendo and smear through half-truths. in mv opinion again.

T:..ey see.."TT · these dRys , Sir, to be mout!l.pieces either for fugitive : from justice or in this case ! would suggest a thief !' I _I ,.

!"'' - 3 P?""'!E !' '·:OI'lP..E£: or SOI!'eone veiy close to i t , Because · Sir, h01..r coul;~ t he get an r de r-i:t-Council 'nless some ftespicable characte r b ro ~e his oat~ of secrecy, ~hi c ~ is ob iousl t he case. uea r , he ar! •r.less a le•·>y':!t" ro!-:e ~is _a~-y t"/d i ent reletionship,or =less a partner of t ha t l...,;ye r k-en t nex ~ '-'oor anc! <!ippecl into r?:e files of of t:!lat: particular lawyet:or unle ss, Sir a ::!lief s ~ ole it ? 3ut al2 t ~ ese, Si r, ar~ C:. a=..in~< :-o!>si!;ilicies , but ::!:e O<lC t1~in~ tna t s "bvious is ::tat a t:\ie'f kneu Hho his f rie nds '"ere. :iow, Si t", I :-.ave had a little forewarning on t his ::,eca!.!Se t!1ere are meoi>ers in t!1e Opposition ·.;::o are ~tor:!- concerne d abo UI: -- t he truth and presenting t h~ fac ts then just publi city ir. this Bouse and I a~ very thankful for t hose people at t his tic;e. ~~s time, Sir, I am not ou:: of t~ !' rovi::tce so I •,til _ not only se t the recorrl s traig h t bu t table t!1e comple te story regarding o ffi ce spac e anc ~o c jus t a small pa rt of it ~vich all kinds of innuenclo ;.;llich is a l-at ; as !:e en t~e «as e , Sir, this afternoon. 7

7 I :·L:!y 9 '197 b Tape :!o. 1994 AI:I-1 The backgro~~a to the office space requireoents is t:1at first of all, Sir, in 1974 there lvas a study co::~pleted by the vepartment of Supply and Services of tne gover~~nt, a study Ch.:;.t ;.;as done in conjunction w-i.th the federal government planning group. Ti1is particular study is fairly tietailed, It sh~ws that by l9ti0, I forget the e:{act figure, but it shows I t.link soce three :1uncred and soue-odu-t:1ousand square feet requireci but basically it is the document that we tabled our initial space requirement on. I table that particular one now.

Secondly, Sir, there was a study finished in t::arch 1977, and I will come back to the various proposals and the various actions that gover~ent took in the meant~e, a study tabled in Harch 1977 which is an update of that which shows that by 1980 government requires 470,000 square feet which,by the Opposition standards,may be a great deal of space, it may sound like a lot, it ~y cost a lot of money to sit L~ that ~aunt of space, they all may need ducts, flues and all the other things that the hon. Leader of the Opposition obviously practiced on to get all this verbiage correct on it.

I understand practicing is something that he does in great style in that regard. I also understand that ar. - Pardon! DR. KITCHEN: Did you or did you not? PREHIER l100RES: I am not sure wi1at the hen. member for St. John's West (Dr.Kitchen) is saying. I do not k:l.ow if he was talkL<g to i1r. Forsey about impeachment last night or not. I ~~~e no idea. A.'l HON. HEHBER: He made a deal. }l.K, DOODY: Will you just wait for the ~ist (InaudiblP), :u. F. ROWE: Order, please!

PREHIER t100RES: The fact is, Sir, that this particular document is an update of the requirements of government and these two documents basically are the background of what government needed in the business of office space. ., . ' ., • I ~ i _ j I' I . ~

Hay 9,1978 · Tape No. 1994 AH-2 PREMIER ~!OOP.ES: Now, Sir, instead of having one Order- in-Council here r h::.ve got approz:i.mately fifteen and I will be glad to table them. I do not think Orders-in-Council should be tabled,but as the Leader of the Opposition thinks this is the route to go I think in that case we go and we go with agreenents that have been with other companies before, companies present,and companies in between,and i1cpefully what we will do i..."J. the future. But, Sir, we will give the exact detail as to what has happened.

The first approach was in the end of 1973 and at that time Trizec made a proposal to the government. And, Sir, at this time I will table the agreement that Trizec presented to the government,and which government agreed with,by the way. I will also read the Orders-in-Council that goes particula•ly with that. Now, Sir, the Trizec proposal, in order to get it right, was going to be building office space not just for government but for others in downtown St. John's.

At this particular time there was no public tender or public proposal for office space,but rather it was felt that because Trizec planned to build a major hotel downtown, because they planned afterwards to build a convention center, apartments and so on1 that the government was interested in promoting this for two reasons: First of all 7of course,they needed space,but particularly to preserve the core of the city of St. Jo<m' s and with the proposal they had that ;;~acle total sense to cio.

Now, Sir, in order to insure t:1at Orders-in-Council of this nature are uot irregular or improper or unusual,I would suggest thu.t in December 31,1973 it was ordered: "That the han. the Premier be an~ is hereby authorized to inform Trizcc Corporation Li.c.ited in l1ontreal in the province of Quebec ti1at the Government of aewfoundland approves in principle the leasing of approximately 270,000 square feet of space in a commercial development which the said corporation proposes to establish in the downtown St. Jo<Ul's area for occupancy in 1~77.

The said lease to be for a period of twenty years at a net rental of $5.50 per square foot based upon present construction costs which may be adjusted f t § :j . I i I

liay 9,1978 Tape :1o. 1994 Ali-3 PREc1IE?.. :IOORES: in accordance witll the Canadian Construction l~dex and to be subject to the submission of satisfactory plans and specifications in due course." Shortly after that, Sir, in June 1974 it is ordered "that subject :o further negotiations betYeen the Depart:Iilent of Justice and Trizec Equities Li:aited, Trizec,with regard to certain clauses contained therein the hon. the Minister of Public Works and Services be and is hereby authorized on behalf ot Her Majesty thli Queen in the right of Newfoundland to execute an agreement with Trizec along the lines of the annexure to the relevant submission relative to the leasing of space by the Government of jewfoundland in the building forming part of a development complex-tlil be established by Trizec in the St.

Jehu's area bounded by Gower Street, Barter's Hill and so on. On June 26th, Sir, in that same year it was ordered that a sub-committee of the Executive·Council comprising of myself, the l1inister of Finance, the Minister of Health and the ~tinister of Public Works and Services be and is hereby appointed to discuss further with the Trizec Equities Limited the leasing of space by the Governme~t of ~ewfoundland in the building in the same actual location. On '. ·I '

-Hay 9, 1978 Tape No. 1'0'95 ?.m- 1 PRD-!ER !-!OORES: the 21st. of June, Sir, it ~·Tas ordered ~:tat the draft agreement to rent betwee~ Her ~faj esty the Queen in Right of· Newfoundland a.tld Trizec Equities Limited, vith Trizec Corporation Limited subscribing as an intervenor, a copy herewith, and all schedules of appendages thereto is on file tJith the Clerk - be and is hereby approved. The fact is, Sir, that at that time there ~as an agreement, both by Order-in-Council and tvith Trizec, to go ahead w·ith that particular development as has been suggested here today.

And, Sir, I am sorry that development did not go through. But the reason it did not go through is because Trizec could not find a hotel to come in to build up the core of the city of St. John's which ~Te as a government thought t~as very important at that time. And the fact is, Sir, that there are a>o other Orders-in-Council here that say exactly the s~~e thing, the last one. being regarding another proposal which I will deal with in a moment.

But the fact is, Sir, that agreements had been made with Trizec in 1974 t~at by Order-in-Council that we approved the rent for a twenty year period for that sort of an arrangement. We have an agreement and I ~~ill table a copy of that agreement, Sir, as well as the Orders-in-Council, just to shm~ that that tvas the first commitment by the government, ''hich ti1e developer did not live up to, but whic!1 we would hav£ liked to have gone along vri.th. That is number one.

Now, Sir, the fact is that it is obviously natural to order Cabinet directives, but it is always with the understanding that it comes back to Cabinet- signed, unsigned, With the developer there has altvays been covering correspondence and documentation that it has to come back to Cabinet for what is in effect final approval. The fact is, Sir, that there has not been any approval. I mean even t\1e Opposition must be able to identify that there is ~ot a building next - . I ll . ·f , . . , l !. t . I ; l

j ~ay 9, 1978 Tape No. 1995 NM- 2 PRr..fiER MOORES : door. The tens of millions of dollars t11Eiy .i said it was going to cost, Sir, I mean - . ~ MR. PECKFORD : Where is the building? PREJ1IER NOORES: The fact is, Sir, that there is not a building next door. The second approach, Sir, to the government on this same particular issue was for a building of 75,000 to 100,000 square feet of space. On that particular building !fr. Craig Dobbin once again made a bid on a building located on Torbay Road.

This ?articular building <vas for t~at amount of space - I ~7ill cot!le to it in a moment, when I get past the othe= bidders, to the amount of money involved. The Crosbie companies also bid on that particular building. Mr. Dobbin's bid was for a period of twenty years, two options to renew at ten years each. The price now had · 2nne up to $6.90 a square foot in that particular building,and that it is his proposal based on that which include.s ceiling, ducts, flues, electrical and telephone ~istribution, air conditioning, all these wonderful things.

Lundrigans also made a bid on that for twenty years for tile s=e places, double glazed, this particular one, elevators were in it, interior furnishings, interior partitions, taxes, operating expenses and so on. There was St. John's Development Corporation,which I think is Atlantic Place, The.re was Seabord,which is :·lr. Len Bro<m also with a proposal in here, and the price on it~ and an agreement, imagine that, an agreement once agai::J. bet1·1een Her ~!a.iesty the Queen and Craig L. Dobbin, •Jhich was assessed by Public vlorks to oe the best bid. This particular one is signed by ;.rr.

Dobbin again and I think we have some Orders-in-Council to deal 1vith that. I am sorry I got the wrong pile, Sir, I will be fixed up O.ere in a minute. No, the Orders-in-Council on that one, that <Jent out for proposal, these were the proposals that were accepted and they

)~y ? ' 1978 :ape ~o. 1995 :;:: - 3 ?R.E~UfR ~OORES: were all tur:~ed down. No one t!lought ti1at was a very good idea . we figured that if wt :~eeded 400,000 square fee t by 1980 :here "'as :to poict building someching in '74 that ~o-ould ::ot be ready until '78 and we would only ilave two years life to tt. So I will cable ::hat one ~s ;.·ell. ~ow, Sir, the third approac!l was an ~~tension to the Confederation Building. The extension to toe Confederation 3uildi::tg as sue!:!, there was ~~Order-in-Council that said , that "In vie·" of the ap';)arenc need of the government fo r additional office space in the St.

John's area and elseuhere duri:~g the next fe .... years, the ~o:-t. 'tinister of Puolic Works is hereby au:horizec to e!ldeavour wit hin t~ fl:aaework of c;\e existing approved leasin3 ;>olicy of ~U.s depa rt:l:!ent, to locate such additio~ cffice accommodation as may be determined in consultation vith ocher de?ar~!lt s to be ur ge:1tly required, c_he hon . minister of ," so on , i.s to go ahead, find out from the space consultants exactly what is neede d .

I t was then entered further, on 7th. ~ovember 1974, "Order ed that the hon. ~nister of Public Works and Services be and is hereby aut horized to enter into negotia tions I am sorry t hat is the 75 ,000 to 100, 000 square foot oae, Si~. I beg your pardon. I am going to table all that. ~I:R. PECKFORD: But there ~1as a Cabinet - PREmO *>ORES: Oh yes, I will come to that in a minute. I illll in -- . . .. . i . 1 f . ~ ' l .I t I . ( I.

May 9, 1978 Tape 1996 EC - 1 PREMIER MOORES: the other layer now apparently. ~ere we arei now we are coming down to it, Sir. The Sth August, 12th March - that one I am sure goes into the pile as well. Now, Sir, this one is the 5th August, 1976: "Ordered that subject to prior consultation by the hon. the Minister of Public Works and Services: (

a) detailed plans and specifications for a new public building to be erected in the Confederation Building area be prepared by the Department of Public Works; (

b) tenders be called requesting that bids be submitted thereon on a leased purchase basis arran~ement and on a fixed cost basis, both; the Department of Public Works and Services evaluate the tenders received under both alternatives and recommend 'I I - to Committee of Council the best course of action to be followed." Now, Sir, after all the various proposals that came in were analysed-! might say that first of all I have the sheet here of the analysation -but there was a fairly good proposal from Trizec, there was one once again from Mr.

Dobbin in a three-part form, there was one from Western Realties,which was not a very big one, there was one from Projects Management and Design. I have other documents of which copies could not be taken. I have one from the St. John's Development Corporation Limited, two from them, actually, which were the bids received. After those bids were taken and analysed by the Department of Public Works it showed very clearly that by far the best on a leaseback arrangement, if that is what the government decided to do, was the Dobbin proposal.

And I enclose the analysis of all these bids for the benefit of bon. members as they go through these various proposals. If someone would take these documents and put them in for late reading, Sir.

May 9, 1978 Tape 1996 EC - 2 .1' I PREMIER ~fOORES: One second now, I have some more Orders in Council I have to give you yet; take that pile too,if you would. At that particular time, Sir, it said that 'the following proposal submitted' - it was the Order in Council read by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition - ~ith regard to construction of an office complex of the government situate immediately West of Confederation Building' and so on. He said it was a week before the election, Sir. This was dated August 18, 1975; the election was exactly five weeks after that ,in fact.

And unlike the hon. gentleman over there, Sir, why he would. say that this has anything to do with election I do not know. Even the most acute and good builder could not build it --in five weeks. Also, Sir, it says here that this be done. Okay, this was done and I table those Orders in Council as well. Now, Sir, in addition to that, after this was done with Mr. Dobbin, the fact is that the agreement came in plus the attached business of having to refer it to Cabinet. He had to get some specific drawings and so on done. It was referred to caucus and Cabinet leaseback was discussed.

A lot of people did not like the idea, a lot of people wanted to build the building on our own, a lot of people did not like the going proposal, and the fact is, Sir, that the agreement and the Order in Council were rescinded and cancelled. And the fact is that I would suggest Mr. Dobbin is probably out several hundred thousand dollars. He is not the beneficiary of it nor can he sue for it, but I would suggest that he is out a lot of money because there is another plan, Sir, which was submitted to the Department of Public Works by Mr.Dobbin as to what the whole thing was going to be about. And I

l1ay 9, 1978 Tape 1996 EC - 3 PRElUER MOORES: would suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have adequate proof that no agreement is presently in existence - MR. PECKFORD : Nor was it . PREMIER MOORES: No. For that matter, nor was it ever officially approved. Now, Sir, all this time when we are talking about buildings, Hydro were also talking about building a building of their own. We have gone through Trizec, we have gone through the 75,000 to 100,000 square foot building, we have gone through the 400,000 foot extension to Confederation Building.

In the meantime, in the background, Hydro think they shoul~ have their own building, they do not think they shoul.d partake with anybody. And then, Sir, we have the fourth approach from Atlantic Place on the 9th of September this year, on which, once again, agreement in pr i nciple was reached and negotiators sat down with Atlantic Place, worked out all the details - everybody was happy, except, Sir, for the people who had to pay the bill - and in the end analysis there were a lot of things to be considered - the need, the economic particular problem.

But, Sir, in the end analysis it was figured that it was the wrong location, that in fact a great deal of cash would be required to change locations and terminate leases and so on, and the Orders-in-Council regarding Atlantic Place directing people to go and actually negotiate, actually sign - once again with Atlantic Place, all these Orders in Council once again, Sir, I lay on the table of the House. Now, Sir, - • I .l . I ~

May 9, 1978, Tape 1997, Page 1 -- apb PREMIER MOORES : · . .;hat I am saying in all this is that what is being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition is something that this government had done three times as it relates to office space. It has been done in such a manner, Sir, as never to be binding. And when I say not binding, it is never binding with the principals because we have always had documents that make sure it is not binding at that time. I also say, Sir, that all in all a Minute-in-Council may state a decision but, Sir, that decision has no value unless it is carried out.

And agreement is an agreement only if both parties agree in the final analysis to the final document which has to be the final seal of the Province and all the rest that goes with it. The fact is, Sir, that Trizec, Dobbin and Crosbie have all had proposals in exactly the same category.· No space has been rented, Sir, and no building has been built. This nonsense I heard a few minutes ago of tens of millions of the public money being wastedl The fact is, Sir, there has not been one nickle expended on the building, there has not been one agreement that is binding on this government. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER MOORES : There has not been one commitment made to any developer or any person with an office building. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER MOORES: The fact is, Sir, that the Opposition once again have tried to take away the thing that is important in this House of Assembly from the people, and that is to discuss the business of this Province that is meaningful. All the Opposition Leader had to do, Sir, was come and see if this was a fact,not take hours of the House's time. Come and see what the ., •. - . i

May 9 I 1978, Tape 1997, Page 2 -- apb PREMIER MOORES : story was and if it was wrong, of course bring it up in the House. But, Sir, is there any decency in doing that sort of thing? I suggest, Sir, there is not. Another cheap shot, As - he said in the beginning, the public, the press and then the House. I suggest, Sir, the Opposition clean up their acts, get their facts together and start acting in behalf of the people of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. gentleman I will point out to hon. members that I have heard the hon. gentleman to my right at quite some length in outlining his position which I think was proper. It is a very serious matter and I wished to have his full submission; and similarly the hon •. gentleman to my left to have his full submission. I will just point out that what the Chair will have to do, obviously, is to decide a specific issue and that is whether or not a prima facie case has been established.

So I would ask other hon. members who are speaking to bear in mind that that is the area in which the Chair will have to make a decision and the Chair will welcome submissions and reasoning and any authorities that would be of help. But I certainly will not allow the full submission which I allowed the hon. gentleman who rose on the matter of privilege and the hon. gentleman who made the direct reply and who was involved in the allegation.

In other words, certainly the rule of relevancy and the requirement here, the fact that there be no debate will be, as I think is appropriate, enforced I prefer to say expected of hon. members, because the Chair does not wish to act as a policeman or to be interrupting or that kind of thing. What I am - i r i . l f i

May 9, 1978, Tape 1997, Page 3 -- apb MR. SPEAKER: _ really doing is asking han. members to recognize what the Chair's obligation is now and what the nature of the submissions should be. The han. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in his submission, Sir, the han. the Premier instead of clarifying the issue, instead of allaying the fears of members of this han. Ho~se that the House had been indeed misled, the han. the Premier made the situation worse by tabling other documents other than the one - and you might note, Mr.

Speaker, that the han. the Premier did not table the agreement between the government and Mr. Craig Dobbin. AN HON. MEMBER: He tabled that. MR. NEARY: No, it was ta.J?led. The han. the Premier did not have that document i~ his pile and I would submit that han. members of the Cabinet heard today for the first time that there was indeed a document, an agreement between the provincial government and Mr. Craig Dobbin to build a building adjacent to Confederation Building. I would submit it is the first time my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) heard that there was an agreement.

And so in presenting other documents, Sir, the hon. gentleman has made the situation worse. Because ' ·I . ~ ·. ·;

May 9, 1978 Tape 1998 PK ~ 1 Mr. Neary: hen. members will recall,when my hen. colleague the Leader of the Opposition was outlining a prima facie case for a breach of privilege of this Rouse, my hen. friend laid out certain doOWDentation; and then the hen. the Premier followed in his case by laying out other documentation, But in the Hansard, Sir, in the Hansards that were tabled by my hon. friend, members will recall that •. consistently, systematically the hon. the 'Premier kept denying there was any agreements.

There were no agreements with Trizec, we were told, no agreements with Atlantic Place, no agreements with Craig Dobbin. Do not bon. members - The copies of Hansard are on the table of the House where the hon. gentleman kept denying, kept denying for three years, Mr. Speaker, and this is where the breach of privilege comes in. Mr.

Speaker, it is not just a matter of opinion between two members, it is a very serious and grave breach of privilege of this House where a member , not an ordinary member, not a minister, but the Premier of --this Province, Sir, according to the case that is'being laid out, has grossly misled the House. And in tabling these other documents this afternoon has proven to Your Honour and to the House beyond any doubt that the House has been misled for three years, over three years.

And if Your Honour will refer to Hansard, the documents that my hon. friend bas researched and laid on the table of the House,Your Honour I I< will note that for three years in reply to questions put to the Premier,the Minister of Public Works, and various other ministers that they denied emphatically that there was any deal. Now, Mr. Speaker, the bon. the Premier has li tabled documents. I have not seen these documents, but I am prepared to say right now, Sir, without seeing these documents,that they do not have a signature on them like the one I have in my hand. This indeed, Sir, is a legal document.

This document,as my bon. friend said,can be taken to a bank and peddled, and has been\ I would submit, Sir, that money has been raised on this document. And if bon. gentlemen want the names of the banks,I would be very happy to r

May 9, 1978 Tape 1998 PK - 2 Mr. Neary: provide them with them, that money has already been raised on this document. Now, Mr. Speaker, - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! I must point out that I cannot now hear argument on any substantive issue. There is no motion before the Chair, and there is a preliminary decision for the Chair to make which obviously will determine what happened subsequently. But there is no motion before the Chair. It would be improper for han. members to get involved on a substantive issue. The hon. member for LaPoile. 'MR. NEARY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, one very important point I want Your Honour to take into consideration in making .a decision on whether or not there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege of this House, and that is, Sir, that the han. the Premier stated,but did not table,a recision order, an order rescinding this agreement and the Order-in-Council. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a very significant point. The han. gentleman said he could prove it if he had to. The hon. gentleman did not put the documents on the table of the House.

So I submit, Sir, that there has been deception, and misleading statements in answers to questions by the hon. the Premier concerning this matter. And I would submit and agree with my hon. friend that it has been done in a systematic way, that it has been continued for the past three or four years beginning in the first session of the House in 1976 following the Provincial General Election in September 1975, and continuing right on into this session. Only yesterday, Sir, and I do not know if my hon. friend intended to table this note - MR. W. ROWE: I have tabled a copy of it. MR. NEARY: A copy of it.

When hon. gentlemen will remember the hon. the Premier said in his usual poker-faced, sarcastic way, "Maybe the hon. gentleman does not understand. I will write down, no, N-o~' And he wrote it down and the Page delivered it to me and I brought it back and I said to the Premier, "Would you mind signing this document?" which becomes an official document of the House, Your Honour, and he - 0: . I ; ._ f t i . l .. ~ li - r, li '• I' f It . ~ - It lr j; :~ if t ,.

Hay 9, ;1.978 Tape 1998 PK- 3 Mr . Nearv: signed it. He put down No, and then it was witnessed by my bon. friend the member for Eagle River (Mr. Strachan), in answer to a question in connection with the ~~tension to Confederation Building or the putting up,the ereeti.on of a new building outside of this building. And so, Si.r, it is a grave and serious matter indeed, Si.r, indeed, and Hr. Speake~, all of the documents that were tabled today do not discount tbe argument, tbe case that is being -· made by my bon. friend. It does not. .I ! -. l 7

~-lay 9, 1978 Tape ~To. 1999 NM- 1 MR. NEARY: It merely substantiates the case that IoTas made by the Leader of the Opposition, that indeed the House had been duped for the last three years, that 1ve have been given false and misleading information and I hope Your Honour will realize the seriousness of this situation and allow the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole so that we can send for IVitnesses, so that we can send for documents, And I l•rould think, ~!r.

Speaker, if the hon, Premier and the administration have nothing to hide that they would agree 1dth my hon. friend's proposal and bring witnesses, and bring documents i::J.to tl<is Rouse. If they have nothing to cover up and nothing to hide, Sir, why 1muld tl<ey not agree to have this matter cleared up? ~iThy 'muld the Prenier get up and just put up a very weak defence? • o\N RON. ~fEMBER: (Inaudible) • '1R. SPEAKER: Order, please! '1R.

NEARY: Instead of agreeing to have •Nitnesses brought before the House, as Your Honour knows we can do within the rules of the House, according to Beauchesne and our own Standing Rules, and according to '~ay, to have 1-li..tnesses brought into the Rouse, to !1ave documencs brought in, and Your Honour is in a position :IT.. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must point out that the House is now, and the hon. member is new, in my opinion, embarking on a debate of substantive issue uhich cannot be allowed z.t this time. I would ask the hon. gentleman to bring his submission to a conclusion.

XR. :·TEARY : lvell ,I bring it to a co::J.clusion by appealling to Your Honour, by calling upon Your Honour to see to it that the House has access to all the information involving this apparent scandal and that the Rouse be given access to ~litnesses and to documencs · that we do not now have before us. ciR. SPEAKER: The hon. ~-!i::J.is ter of :~ines and Energy. - I .I ·l i ~ l i J .f. ~ 1 ! • 01 I ,.

:lay 9, 1978 Tape ;:;!c. 1999 lil·l - 2 :..IF.. PEC!G'ORD: }ir. Speaker, to the point of rrivilege, the k.amel of the point, as I see it, Hr. Speaker, as p:.tt for..;ard ~y the Leader of the Opposition, is that members of tne government, :!inis ters of Public \Vorks in particular, and the P..-emier, deliberately misled the House when they said in response to questions asked by the opposite side whether there were any agreements in place as it related to additional office space for the government. Now one has to examine, ~fr. Speaker, ti-e word agreements. And I think this is the l~ernel of the situation.

As the hon. the Premier has pointed out in his submission, the normal practice for government over the last five or six years- and they arc related to three individual i."'1.cidents, Trizec, c-1r. Dobbin, and :·fr.

Crosbie's group, as it is related to Atlantic Place- that the practice "'as, and is as I understand it, to authorize the appropriate minister to either begin negotiationE ~.;ith an indivj.dual ,.;ho came in with the best proposal or had a proposal in, and then after so negotiating, to refer back to Cabinet all the details of those negotiations to see whether in fact Cabinet \~anted to ?roceed with a permanent arrangment with that developer. ;:;low, ~r.

Speaker, I submit that ~;hen the questions •,;ere asked here in the House over the last couple of years by members opposite, that when they asked those questions it was implied, or assUI!led, or whatever, by hon. members on this side of the House that the Opposition were referring to actual money outlays of an agreement, actual agreements signed and sealed that would mean that public money ~.ras to be expended on a given addition, on a given expansion, on a new building; that there r~as something permanent, some thing long lasting, some public func!s vrould be expended to a particular corporation, to a particular individual, to build an office building, to extend upon the Confederation Building.

Anc! so that~therefore, none of the hon. gent1enen on this side of the House deliberately misled the House. They were aware undoubtedly that Cabinet has on a number of previous .- ' - · . !

~!ay ~, 1978 !ape No. 1999 ~!R . PECKFOPD: occasions and afterwards authc~i zed a given !!rl:rl.ster to continue :~egotiations but to bring those negotiations and details back to Cabinet befo re any final decision would be made as to whet~er government was in fact going to enter into a per.nan~ t arranse:e:~t with developer Trizec, develope r Dobbin, developer St. John ' s Develop~en: Corporation. A:ld the record s!101vs that no such ?er.naneut agreements were e:ttered into. And it t~as in that light that the ans<Jers were given br hon. members on this side of the House anci surely this is <~hat the Opposi~on are ·l I : f i 1 ·: I . "! .... i ...... . .. -

::ay 9, 1':'78 Tape 2'1')') T:-1!". . PECK'?Ol'.!:: : interested in. Surely it is their role to try to ensure that government is spending public monies reasonably and after sound proposals have been put fon·rard - Order, please! !IlL PECKFORD : and so that therefore there ''as no such propcsals,no such agreements and hence there is no misleading of the House as being alleged by the Opposition. SO~ IE HO~<. ~!EHBERS: Hear, hear! l~.. SPEAKE~ : The han. me~ber for Burgee- Bay d' Espoir, then the han. minilOtP...-, ::R. ~. STI!}fO~!S: ~r . Speaker, I would think that ~<r.

Spea!:er has most of the information he needs now on ,.;hic;:h to base his decision. TC!ere is just a point or two I '·rish to emphasize, to do so very concisely ,.if I may. ~r. Spea~' er, we t.ave hearc:l much talk about negotiations.I am sure there were some,obviously there were lots, some of them related to this subject and some quite unrelated. For example,one of the documents the rremier tabled alleging that it was preparatory to the agreement with Hr. Dobbin was actually dated three month" ,.fte..- thf' Rereem•>nt '·ras signed with l'r. !:lobbin. The document from the St.

John's Development Corporat:ilon is dated ~!ovember 30, ~· r. Speaker, so that I ~10uld not pi!.ace an awful .!at of confidence in t hose docu~~nts until such time as we can peruse them,I just had a brief opportunity at the ta~le a moment ago. The documents are not necessarily related to the subject under discussion, that is the first point I ~rould like to make. ~·r. Speal:er, a lot of talk about negotiations • 1-le all know the difference, I believe between negot~~tion and agreement. You do not go around signing documents,signirig bits of paper when you are in negotiation.

That is certianly,I would hope,a necessary step "hich would precede an agreement~but let us not get befucdled on this one. we all know t he difference eetveen a negotiation sequence and an agreeMent,anc' ,.,!:tat • I , .... ' • ! -

:~av 9, 1978 Tape 2000 Dl-7 - 2 :·tR. P .. sr.~:mrs: I have seen tab l~d here today by the Leader of t01e Oppositior. is clearly ar. agreenent. :loH the government alleges, ~· !r. Speaker, the gover=ent asserts that it is not an agreement. ~!R. S. NEARY: Bull! }~. R. s:r:nrm1s: :1r. Speaker, in fairness, if it was not an agreement why did not somebody tell ~:r. Dobbin? Because he used that agreement, ~1r. Speaker, he did use that agreement to negotiate a large bank loan. '{r.

Speaker, it is neither here nor there, but it is very mud1 here, I suggest, if I were the bank manager sitting behind the desk and had what I thought adequate protection to cover a $20 million or $30 million loan, and then found out after that one of the signatories of the agreement is nol.r alleging that it is not a."l agreement. Bank l'lailagers, }!r. Speaker are not necessarily as stunned as the member for Green Ilay (:fr. Peckford) Hould li!ce to think they are. T:1e agreel:lent tlas used, Xr.

Speaker,to secure substantial bank financir.g of the order of, I believe, $20 million using this bit of paper that we have tabled here today - the Leader of the Opposition has tabled - :!R. S. NEARY: Interim financing of almost a half cillion dollars. c!R. R. SI~ItiDNS: That is right, plus some interim financing arrangement as l.rell. r:r. Speaker, very quickly: one, no question that there is an agreement, no question about that at all in my mind there is an agreement. No question in my mind that the Premier and some of his colleagues told the House there was no agreement. Now, :!r.

Speaker, if we agree that the Premier and his colleagues told the House there t·laS no agreement, and if tle could agree for the purpose of my submission that this document is an agreenent - the document tabled by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition - then, ~r. Speaker, one of two things follow from it: eit her the agreement still stands or it has been rescinded. If it still s~ands, the Premier clearly and deliberately misled the House, t<hich is t:1e point of the matter of ?rivilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If the

::ay 9 , 1978 _ape 2" 00 J!' - 3 :m . fl . sr:-'!~ .. s: ag"eement still, if the agreerBnt still stands - it h as not bee n revoked or rescinde d, the-. the P"emier and his colleagues cle arly and deli berate!· and know- in;>;ly and systematically and on a continuing bas is mis led this Eous e , if the agreement still exists. ! the agreement coes no t e~st, , r. Speaker - It is t hanks co us. - then first of all let the record show t!1at t he Premier !las today giv en no proof that i t ::as bee:1 r.esc i nded . Tie has given no ?r oc:~f that t he docUffie t has heen rescin ded .

He brough t in l!!Ountains of materi al co obfuscate and to confuse and to lmpre ss, but all of it ~ad not hing co do wi t h the price of fish i n China at e.ll. .U.l of it -

May 9, 1978, Tape 2001, Page 1 -- apb MR. SIMMONS: nothing to do with the material allegation made in the matter of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition, There are two possibilities; either the agreement still stands, Mr. Speaker, in which case the Premier and his colleagues deliberately and knowingly misled the House; or if the agreement does not stand, Mr. Speaker, first the Premier ought to produce documentation that the agreement has been recinded and then, Mr. Speaker, even in that instance I would submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier and his colleagues were being less than honest with the House when being quizzed on the matter of the existence of agreements. Because unless the agreements were made one day and recinded fairly soon after, before the House subsequently met, the Premier has-been given literally dozens of opportunities to infQrm the House of the existence of the agreement, even before such time as it might have been recinded in the unlikely case that that is so. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. DOODY: Mr.

Speaker, I had originally risen with the hope of presenting another statement but I would like to speak for just a moment on this particular item,if I may. The han. member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons) has raised a couple of points which I think are worthy of comment and should perhaps be clarified and underlined.

The major point is the fact that the files of all government departments, I would suggest, but particularly Industrial Development, Public Works, Fisheries and others are filled with suggestions, proposals, draft agreements, tentative agreements, agreements in principle, heads of agreements, suggestions from '. ' , ... - \' . ~

May 9, 1978, Tape 2001, Page 2 -- apb MR. DOODY: developers, from companies, They are brought in, looked at, examined. Some get as far as Cabinet, some are tentatively approved with the authority to go back and negotiate further, others are never heard of again, others go further along the· negotiation stage. I do not think that this one is all that much different from any of the others. I have seen dozens of them, hundreds of them over the years 1 and if hon. members opposite will remember, they themselves have seen hundreds of them during their days in office.

That so-called documents, that so-called agreement that was tabled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition,was not an agreement and nothing could demonstrate that fact more forcibly than the fact that it is dated back in 1975 or what have you. Nevertheless, it is purported to be tens of millions of dollars and nothing has been heard or seen of it since that time. That in itself, I think, destroys any argument there might be in that particular area. The Order-in-Council substantiating or authorizing that agreement, the han. the Premier has said that that has been recinded and that is sorperiod.

There is no Order-in-council authorizing that agreement. And that, Sir, to me is the sum, substance and gist of the discussion. When Your Honour finishes discussion on this particular point I should like to make a small statement on another item, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Trinity - Bay de Verde. Perhaps I should say here that I will hear no more than two further hon. members, the hon. member for Trinity - Bay de Verde (Mr. F.B.Rowe) and if somebody on the left wishes to make a further submission I think that that will suffice. The hon. member. I ·I I

May 9, 1978, Tape 2001, Page 3 -- apb MR. F.B.ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I shall be short here. I hope that I will not be repeating any- thing that has been said earlier. Sir, I will not get into any of the mudslinging that the han. the Premier got into in suggesting - MR. ROUSSEAU: (inaudible) who started it. MR. MURPHY: Tell that as a joke. MR. F.B.ROWE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the protection of the Chair. MR. MURPHY: You have it. MR. F.B.ROWE: I would like to have the hon. minister out of the Chamber.

Sir, I am not going to get into any of the mudslinging that the Premier got into, referring to stolen material and u~ing the valuable time of the House. This is the very place to bring this sort of a thing up, Sir. The point that Your Honour has to consider is whether a prima facie case has in fact been established by the han. the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, Sir, the han. the Leader of the Opposition got up and made numerous quotations from Hansard 1 dating back to 1976, in which we have repeated denials by the Premier and other ministers that any kind of an agreement existed for the building of any kind of a government _building to be used as office space on the part of this government, between the government and any other persons or companies. So that is one point, numerous references of denials over the past • I I • !. I. - ~ .. - f

May 9, 1978 Tape 2002 EC - 1 MR. F. ROWE: three years ending just yesterday. And, Sir, then we have a document tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, an agreement! Sir, and I shall repeat to the hen. members opposite, signed, sealed and delivered by the hen. Dr. Thomas C. Farrell, Minister of Public Works and Services - SOME HON. MEMF.ERS: Oh, oh! MR. F. ROWE: -Mr. Speaker, the hen. members opposite can speak in their turn - signed, sealed and delivered by the hon. Dr. Thomas C.

Farrell, Minister of Public Works and Services, acting for and on behalf of Her Majesty, the Queen in the right of Newfoundland in the presence of F. D. Moores, the hon. Dr. T. C. Farrell, signed, sealed and delivered by Craig L. Dobbin in the presence of signatures we cannot pick out, Sir.

Now, Sir, I ask this basic question: If any hon. member in this House had possession of this document is it not their duty to the people of this Province to bring it before the Chamber as a breach of privilege in view of the fact that we have had three years of denials by the Premier and by other hon. ministers when asked if any agreements or any agreement existed for the building of buildings?

Sir, the very fact that the hon. the Premier tabled a bale of documents or agreements - I do not know what they are, I have not seen them, but I got the message that they were agreements that were not acted upon. - but the very fact that the Premier saw fit today to table numerous other agreements further, I would submit, Sir, substantiates the Leader of the Opposition's argument that there is a prima facie case that the Premier has indeed deliberately, systematically and continuously misled this House over the past three years. And, Sir, we have no evidence - I do not know whether the Premier will ' . r

May 9, 1978 Tape 2002 EC - 2 HR. F. ROWE: be able to dig it up between now ·and some future point in time - we have no evidence of this agreement having been rescinded, no evidence whatsoever. MR. NEARY: Well, the Minister of Transportation just told us is is rescinded but not by Order-in-Council. MR. F. ROWE: And on top of that, Sir, I have to mention the fact that there is also not only the agreement signed, sealed and delivered, so said, with the signatures, but there is also a true copy of a directive approved by Cabinet at a meeting of Committee of Council held on August 18, 1975.

Sir, I would say that any member of t~is House who comes into possession of such documents, he or she is duty ,bound to bring it into this Chamber as a breach of privilege. Why?, Because we have had three years of consistent, steady, unalterable denials by the hon. the Premier to very simple questions. MR. NEARY: (Inaudible) does not have the truth in - MR. F. ROWE: Do agreements exist or does an agreement exist? - and we have bad denials. Sir, to me it is very simple.

I am not a lawyer but it is clear as the nose on your face, Sir, that a prima facie case has been established that the Premier has misled my hon. friend, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary), the member for the Straits of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) and myself in the question and,therefore, the whole House. And Sir, that is a very,- very serious thing indeed. There is no doubt in my mind that a prima facie case has been established and has been backed up by the tabling of a signed agreement by both partners, the government and Mr.

Dobbin,and witnessed by the Premier, backed up by a true copy of a directive approved by Cabinet at a meeting of the Committee of Council. l t • t t: I. 1: I! j, i I t

May 9, 1978 HR. F. ROWE: MR. ~EARY: Tape 2002 EC - 3 What more do you need, Sir? Draw a cartoon. ·. • I l\ -

May 9, 1978 Tape 2003 PK - 1 MR. F. ROWE: Sir,! would suggest that the simple piling upon the Table of a whole whack of other agreements by the minister, if it does anything it substantiates the case that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition. And, Sir, I feel very strongly in order to clear up this whole matter that we should be resolved into a Committee of the Whole House where we can bring witnesses into this House and let the truth hang out, Sir. And the truth, Sir, I will submit is the best defence. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, it is indeed a very serious matter, and I would like to have a few words to say on the matter put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which he puts forward as a prima facie case of privilege of the House. He attempts in his statement to put forward the argument that because of the fact that answers to questions on the dates of May 13, 1976 and June 3, 1976, February 7, 1977 and March 28, 1977, and May 3, just recently,in this year, and also on May 9, that the Premier in replying to questions, and also one or two of his ministers,gave information which is incorrect.

The Premier has put forward the argument pointing out that he did not make any incorrect information by pointing out there was no agreement made between government and any company, a legal,binding document sealed by both government and the company concerned which would make it a legal binding document. And what I am at a loss to understand is the fact the man who put forward this so-called prima facie case is indeed himself a lawyer, and surely he must know what is a legal,binding document.

And a legal,binding document is not a draft agreement in principle , it is an agreement signed by both companies,agreed by both parties concerned, in this case, government and company. It is indeed a document that is with final decision of Cabinet, agreed upon by Cabinet and agreed upon by the company concerned. The fact that the Premier I · ' ·I . I -1'- 1 I - ; I" ,. I ], - !. e ,.

May 9, 1978 Tape 2003 PK - 2 Mr. Morgan: has put forward arguments saying that he asked for proposals from companies like, in this case, Trizec, Lundrigan•s, the Crosbie Group, and others mentioned today, asked for proposals on building a building or leasing a building or expanding on the Confederation Building, despite these arguments and these facts put forward in documents filed in the House of Assembly. And, Mr. Speaker, a more serious case, a very more serious case is this, that two of the last spokesmen from the Opposition stated, and Hansard will prove this, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier had deliberately misled the House of Assembly. AN RON; MEMBER: That is right. MR. MORGAN: Deliberately. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very, very serious charge. AN HON. MEMBER: Well, of course, it is. MR. MORGAN: And I, Sir, would submit that if the -documents tabled today by the Premier of this Pro~ince, these documents, I feel, not because I am a member of the Moores' Cabinet, because I am a member of this House of Assembly. DR, KITCHEN:_ Is the hon. ~Pnt1em~n ~avina - MR.

MORGAN: Because I am a member of this House of Assembly that these documents tabled in the House will prove to the public, to the press, and the House of Assembly that what the Premier had said in his documentation is correct, there was no agreement. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in the Opposition who made the charge that the Premier of this Province made a deliberate misleading of the I ~ House of Assembly is indeed a very, very serious charge. And what I am saying is that upon your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon making a ruling, Mr.

Speaker, I feel that it is of the upmost imoortance that no member of this House of Assembly be allowed to have hanging' over his head the charge of deliberately misleading the House of Assembly. So what I am saying, Sir, is that the documentation in itself can surely prove to Your Honour and to all members of this House that there was no agreement, that the Premier and his ministers concerned did not mislead the House, did not mislead the

May 9, 1978 Tape 2003 l'K - 3 Mr. Morgan: House innocencly, and surel~, Mr. Speaker, surely did nor deliberately mislead the Rouse . Theref ore, Mr. Speaker, the statements made of chat nature from the Opposition must be retracted It must, not onLy your ruling in ruling on a prima facie case as the Leader of the Opposition put forward in the House, whether it is a prima facie case or not, Mr. Speaker, your ruling must also entail whether a member of the House of Assembly can stand and charge another m.emoer of deliberatel y misleading the House . !hank you, Mr. Speaker. - . ~· I l ~·

!-fay 9, 1978 Tape No. 2004 ~- 1 MR. NE.<\P..Y: Did you ever see the document? ~!R. H. ROHE: If I may, Sir, it is a matter which I brou~ht up myself originally, very briefly, Sir, mention one or two little point~ here.

First of all, Sir, let me say t~~t I am a la~·ryer, that: I have practiced law and that I have studied hundreds ~d hlli<dreds of legal documents and Sir, that agreement, as signed by a member of this government, holding himself aut as signing it on behalf of the Government of this Province, backed by a Cabinet directive, Sir, I would advise any client anT-<;ler<:, Sir, that is a legally binding document. ~1?... NEARY: liear! Hear!

At the very least, Sir, it is - at the very least- it would b~ a we~orandum of agreement which is required under the statute of :rauds rn prove that an agreement or a contract exists. ·- Legally, Sir, I would give that advice to any client of mine, Sir, anywhere in this land if that document was presented to me. Secondly, Sir, the matters laid on the table of the liouse by the Premier relate,as I understood it •men he was talking,to various pronosals that have been made and nobody has denied that. Hundreds and hundreds of proposals are made to a government all the time to get various things done.

None, Sir, I "ould submit, is a legally binding document in the same •Jay that the agreement between the Hinister of Industrial Development presently and this Mr. Dobbin is a legally binding document. MR.

NEARY: That is right. [ ... ' ~!R. 1·7. 3.0WE: Secondly, Sir, let me say that the Premier has :10" laid an the table of the Hause something which augments and adds to my original case,because denials were made, if indeed there were agreements between Trizec and the government similar to the Dobbin one,which I doubt, Sir, that matter has also been denied continuously, I do not have the references to Hansard but that question has been asked and denied continuously by the government and the question if there is i j •

::ray 9, 1973 Tape )To. 20Q4 t~. '..7. ROWE: an agreement beb.reen the governcent and Trizec. Remember the words, Sir, that I mentioned from Hansard ~'hen I ~~as mal•ing my original case, '):'he Pre.'llier in one instance said, there has absolutely not been any agreement between t~e govenment and any developer regarding office space. And, Sir, whatever that document was that I presented it certainly is an agreement and it is a signed a2re~ent, signed, Sir, by a ~1inister of the Crown, a very unusual thing, witnessed by the Premier of !:he Province.

Sir, I would say that is unprecedented in the annals of any signed document. The Premier, Sir, mentioned that this has been rescinded. I defy him, Sir, to present to this hon. House a document ,yhich is not of a current date, showing w·here the Cabinet has rescinded the Order-in-Council, the directive w~ich they made earlier. And, Sir, if they have rescinded it, Sir, I •,;ould lil•e to know ~'he '·las present at such a Cabinet meeting. Sir, I ."would also sutmi t that there is not before a current date any agreement from Xr. Dobbin which unilaterally rescinds an agreement that has been made.

The other documents, Sir, I have been informed by my colleague, are not in fact signed - M!t. NEARY: That is right. ~IT.. H. ROWE: ~by any member of this governme~t and cannot compare ~·lith the document which I tabled in this hon, House, not signed, Sir. It takes t1.ro make agree!:lents. '!B.. FLIGHT: How does the han. ~·!inister of Tourism feel about that? ~. H. ROWE: And, Sir, I do hope that the press of this Province do not allo,; the red herring to be dragged over it as has been dragged over it, that t;1is matter is a serious one ~"'hich must - • I L J ' • ; ' L

~<~Y 9, 197S Tape :\o . 2004 ~IR . ' • ?.OWE: be ~tone i:1to , and if there is ~ r~scission let us see it, let t he ?re~ier table it in this llouse and let us see ·hen -it ~:as rescinded and who ~ras around at t!le title . Sir , if ~,e Premier is g o i~ to let the truth 'bang out , as one of my collea gues said , he t~ould also t able in this Souse, Sir , a document hich I ~o~ the Secretary of t he Cabinet woul d have, be cause I was i::: a Cari:1et one tL~e ~yself, sho .'i!'lg ~-rho "-'as r:!sent: at the Cabi:1et !!:eeti:1g th a t app roved this agreement e~~en the g ove~~ent acd ~t" .

Dobbir. . lfuo 1~as pt"esen t at it, Sir, oce t:ee.· uefore a 0 o;meral electio n? • \·,'Oul be very in::eres::cd, Si-:::, in :o::!eing wi':o t.ras prese:-t at t!to.t meeting . And I ~~ould .;llso li..'te to k:loli , Sir, fro!'l ct!:!er mnisters,,;h o ·rere n.ot U! t!".e Cabin e t at ::!Je ::ime or were not present, :L: t: C."J ~"'lqu i=i ·2S conc.er::i.:1.g it . .'w~e !ir.ally~ Sir, let :ne say t1 is, -- the !too.. the Premier in his usual manner rose ar:d made :1e~ I consider ~o ~ e a g ross L.sinuation concerni;.g a l~· partner of oi-r.e , Sir, •,<hom I used to practice law >~ith .

Let me state '1ere, Sir, publicly in t~is hon . Rouse and ::o the Premie!" , let: u:e say to the Premier, Sir, it ·,.as a gross insinuatio::: . Let Ee tell him , Sir, he ::news :he gentle=. abou t as ,.;el.l as ! do, that nothing . ,. u •I t ... " 5

:1ay 9,1978 Tape No. 2005 AH-1 }IR. W. ROWE: that has been raised here today had anything to do with any lawyer, Sir, in this Province. MR. NEARY: Apologize,the same as you did to Ur. (inanrlihle) HR.W.ROWE: Certainly no partner of mine or no law partner of any other member of this hen. House, let me make that statement, Sir, categorically. The mat~er has never been discussed, Sir, with any law partner of mine or with any other lawyer in this Province as far as I know.

The documentation which I have received, Sir, was considered to be by the person who gave it to me a current, ongoing matter and not a dead issue in any way, shape or form, a current,ongoing matter was received from outside off this Province. I will not go any further, Sir, because I would the.n be divulging my sources. It was not received from inside the Province.

So, Sir, the points at issue are a signed agreement which is different from anything tabled by the Premier in this House, an agreement which I would consider and any lawyer wou~d con~ider to be an ',actionable agreement in a cour t of law and therefore, Sir, on any broad -and certainly within. the spirit of any idea of the law,an agreement as defined-and not defined in any kind of a narrow way by the member for Green Bay (Mr.

Peckford) over there· but an agreement which is signed between two parties, Sir, and this was eeferred to in a number of questions which were asked to the Premier by numerous members on this side over t~e past ~hree years and other ministers, Sir, and the House,I would submit, Sir, was treated with aeliberate deception. It could have been easy enough if the Premier wanted to be open with ti1is House to say "Yes.

There was an agreement but we have now rescinded it 1" it but no mention was ever made of that, or, .We aave a document which some people might consicier to be an agreement but which this government does not:' But, Sir, in fact the thing was obfuscated, the ttrlng was twisted arouud and no honest answer was given to the question as to whether there is an agreement or was an agreement. -

day 9,1973 Tape No. 2005 AH-2 HR. W. ROllE: TI1e Premier said there aas not been, absolutely not any agreement concerning any office space and that is a deliberate misleading of the members of this House, myself included and my· colleagues, Sir, not to mention members on the other side. raat is a breach of the privileges of tnis House, Sir, and must be dealt with severely by the House. SOME HON. HEl1BERS: l:iear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: I will reserve a decision on this matter and give it as soon as I can. Back to statements by ministers. TlJe hon. Minister of Transportation and Comlllunication. ~IR. DOODY: Hr.

Speaker, I llave been asked by my colleague, the Hinister of F:lnance,to announce that today in Paris he has finalized the negotiations and signed the agreements for a nine and a quarter $50 million U.S.-Euro dollar issue for the Province of Newfoundland with a group of nine leading European bankers managed by the province's , .. · European fiscal agents,A.E. Ames and Company Limited and Credit - Commercial de France. The issue is priced at a hundred and a half of par in light of the continued strong acceptance and demand for the debentures of the Province of Newfoundland.

The issue is for a term of twelve years with a purchase fund,which is'the European equivalent of a sinker,and at the issue price will yield 9.17 per cent. This is the fifth successful issue floated in the Euro dollar market, Sir, by the Province and with the total indications now from the full investment syndicate being in excess of demand of U.S. doll.ars of $110 million. That is the European book, the order book was in excess of $110 million. The issue was a $50 million issue and I was speaking to the hon. l'linister of Finance this morning on this matter.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING A."'D SPECIAL C011MITTEES: ~IR. SPEAKER: The bon. minister. !!R. DOODY: Nr. Speaker, I would like to table on behalf of the !1inister of Finance the copy of the reciprocal taxation a~reement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland.

f Nay 9. 1978 Tape No. 2005 .m- 3 NOTICES OF MOTION: MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker • I think there is a slight error, if I may be allowed £o,in Motion 1 that I have been advised to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to coillSider certain resolutions relating to the linposition of a ,.. tax on income. In other words,I tbink "tb:eof and corporations" those words are to be deleted from the motion and then the motion reads as it was intented to read when it first was given notice of, if I may be so bold as to end a sentance with a preposition. --

May 9. 1978 Tape 2006 EC - 1 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. HR. H. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. yesterday the hon. the member for Buchans raised a question about some severe damage which had occurred in the new Health Sciences Complex which I had not heard of then and no one in the department had heard about it. The assistant deputy minister checked this out for me. and I have a piece of paper here which he gives me.

It says. 'Notes for the minister regarding report of a flood in the medical school portion at the Health Sciences Complex' and he tells me that he has checked with the Genera~ Hospital people. It appears that the alleged flood in the medical school at the Hea~th Sciences Complex was merely a dribble. We have 3een lots of dribbles turn into floods - this is another one. I suppose. Over the last few days the sprinkler system was being tested with air to insure that everything was in order and in readiness for full occupancy of the b~ilding.

When the testing had been completed one of the valves within the sprinkler system was not completely closed so that when water was put into the system. several of the sprinklers controlled by this valve leaked. The leaks occurred in a corridor and stairway. The amount of damages was less than $~00. and it involved replacements of some ceiling tiles. Within several hours the water had been vacuumed up and everything was in normal operation again. The incident was more of a nuisance than a problem. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. W. N.

ROWE: I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Premier. -

r .. ' ~ I. .. May 9, 1978 Tape 2006 EC - 2 MR. W. N. ROWE: · .. Sir, a news report recently ove~ the last ~. during the last day or so ' . quoted the Pr~·ref·erred to the Premier either erroneously or~y as saying that he would be willing appar.allll\lllf:.ae -11 Gull Island power below cost in order to s~iudustry or encourage industrial development a~ Was that a correct statement of -..... < policy by the...._ and if not, what is the situation with regard to...ae of Gull Island power, Sir? MR. SPEAKER: ~. The bon. the Premier. '· PREMIER MOORES::;(}· Mr.

Speaker, at the time I was interviewed b~..-. people I have made exactly the same ·' answer.

I sa~tions of the Province were fourfol~ - first of all ..... nothing with the development of Gull Island p ...... '·vait for· its value or bargaining l, position to ~ uumber one; number two, we could develop in cu .. ft· .with the federal government, as would allow ~- whatever area through the federal government an-~incial government operating together; the~tion was to sell to Quebec if negotiations ~-auch as to give a proper return for the power ~PTovince; and the fourth option, Sir, was basically ...... . ibly, industry could be attracted ~- to the Provin~vould provide employment,obviously, without rates.

I c~ad: not say sell at a loss, but basi..call ' · what I was s~•et an industrial base for the Province, "' ' .. look at that -~~ utilizing the power and see how t the employme~ · · , _' z ' ' benefits and all the other indirect f' benefits apply ...... aed to just cash revenue. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

May 9, 1978 Tape 2006 EC - 3 MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Would the hon. the Premier indicate to the House whether or not it is correct that the hon. Mr. Gillespie, the Federal Minister of Energy, has publicly stated, and has the Premier and the provincial government been notified that no work can start on the Lower Churchill Falls project in Labrador until Newfoundland can negotiate an agreement with Quebec to move surplus power to the market? Is this statement correct and has it been communicated to the provincial government? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, we have been advising M~. Gillespie of that position for quite some time, because Quebec happens to be between us and any other customer other than Quebec unless we utilize the power ourselves. I think Mr. Gillespie was the one at the New England Governors and Atlantic Premiers Conference - I am not sure if :rast year or the year before - who made the grand announcement that the federal government would declare an international interest to make sure these developments were developed.

So, Sir, as far as we are concerned, as I say, we are looking at all the options and hopefully we will be doing it in conjunction with all the governments and all those who can play a part. MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. NEARY: Would the hon. the Premier then indicate to the Rouse as a result of the answer he just gave to my question, whether or not negotiations are going on at the present time between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of the Province of Quebec either to t l I ·I _, ·-

I f May 9, 1978 Ta pe 2006 EC - 4 MR. NEARY: sell the power or transmit the l !· power through the Province of Quebec, or is there a stalemate? Is the thing just a dead issue at the present time? '. -

May 9,1978 Tape 2007 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES : No there is no stalemate, Mr. Speaker, we met with Mr. Levesque here as everyone knows. Since that time we have been doing,as I said just in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, looking at the four options, trying to tie Ehem down in a specific manner .so that when the decision is made it is made with the ultimate interest of the people of this Province in mind, so that it is . of the most benefit to the Province.

In that context,obviously,we know what Quebec's position is, although it has not been publicly announced yet nor do I think it should be until we are reaQ.y to<:sit down and negotiate with them. I do not think it is wise to negotiate in public. But we will be obviously sitting down and talking to them about the maximum position they would be prepared to look at as we will with the other three options that I mentioned. They are aware of that, Sir. MR. NEARY: A supplementary. MR; SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR.

NEARY: Will the hon. the Premier indicate whether or not an agreement has been reached with the Government of Canada, (1) to get a make work project going on the site this year, cutting the wood on the site as in accordance with an offer made by the Government of Canada sometime ago7 And would the Premier also indicate whether or not the government will be upgrading the Freedom Road this year leading from Goose Bay to the Upper Churchill? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: To answer the first part of the question, Mr.

Speaker, to my knowledge, and I think it is accurate, the proposal that the federal government gave on the clear cutting of the Churchill reservoir was totally unsatisfactory. tVhat they said was that they would share so-so, but .then when it was isolated as.to what so-so was, it boiled down to between $8,000 to $10,000 per job for the people who would work 6n the development,or for the clear cutting. The cost of the clear cutting would be approximately $14 million, if I remember the figures correctly, over a two year period I f I .I J

' . May 9, 1978 Tape 2007 PK - 2 Premier Moores: of which by that criteria the federal government's input would be $4 million, which is certainly a very low, in our opinion, a very low share of the total cost, two-ninths of it, har~ly 20 per cent of it. What we did was go back to the federal government and ask them- this was not a plan, by the way,under Canada Manpower that was available to many types of industries. As I was saying there is nothing unique about this particular offer for · Gull Island.

The cost of setting up the camp sites, the equipment, and all the rest that had to go into that particular project,there was nothing allowed for that. We have talked to federal ministers about it, one senior one no later than just a couple of weeks ago, explaining that it was not a so-so deal, or what we had hoped to be a 7S-2S deal, but rather an 80-20 deal with the Province taking the 80 per cent. I think there was some misunderstanding in this in Ottawa. It has been resubmitted, and hopefully I will get a more favourable report when they have had a chance to looK at it.

Secondly, as regards the so-called Freedom Road - MR. NEARY: Do you think it will start this year or what? .PREMIER'MOORES: Hopefully it will, yes. I mean,it depends on whether Ottawa comes along or not, we cannot afford to do it ourselves. But as far as the Freedom Road is concerned there is some work scheduled this year by ourselves, I think, in a minor way. What we would like to do is to see DREE get involved,for obvious reasons,with ourselves because it is a resource development road, it is a road that is going to be very depended on for employment, and for industrial traffic in the future.

And once again we have requested a federal consideration . of that, not just for Gull Island and for Churchill Falls, but also as part of the Trans-canada arrang~ent. And one of the things, Sir, I think should be realized is that we are not looking for a new road through the wilderness herei -

May 9, 1978 Tape 2007 IB-3 PREMIER MOORES: There is~in fact,a road from Churchill Falls to Goose Bay-Happy Valley which was built at tremendous cost by Brinco originally and by Newfoundland Hydro secondly. And when you take the amount of dollars that are in that road already . by the Province indirectly or directly certainly I would think that the federal government has every reason to be co-operative in the future. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. member for St. John's West followed · by the hon. gentleman for Terra Nova. DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

During the Hvdro hearings last Fall, tremendous extravagances ; were revealed in the manner of operation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, some of which extravagances were recommended not to be passed on to the consumers by the Public Utilities Board but others we~e not singled out for cutting. Instead of cutting the government quite properly, I beiieve, eliminated the sales tax on electricity bills but in doing so sort of obscured the fact that these extravagances persisted in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

But now Newfoundland Light and Power is asking for increased tariffs based largely on these continued extrava~ances 1n 1 Newfoundland Hydro which are being passed on to Newfoundland Light and Power. So my question to the minister is, I ' i ~ :j --

May 9, lc:'78 Tape 2008 C'P - 1 DR. KITCHEN: 'lrl!at steps is the !!inister of Hines and Energy currently taking 1 or what steps has he already taken to eliminate known extravagances within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, '_and thereby to reduce the charges to Newfoundland Light and Po~rer and thereby head off increases by Newfoundland Light and Power in the household electricity bills 11hich are, in effect, caused ?Y continumis extravagances within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? SOMF RON. !'ID1BERS: ~ear, hear! }ffi.. SPEAJ.<ER: The hon. ~anister of Mines and Energy. MR.. PECKFORD : Mr.

Speaker, I disagree with the assumption or the premise under which the question was asked in the first instance and that is that the only reason for the increase of Newfoundland Light and Power at 'this time is to cover extravagances in Newfoundland Hydro and hence why Newfoundland Light and Power needs their increase now. I disagree with the premise on which this question was asked. After saying that I can go on to sa,- that I am fully reviewing with the president of Hydro ,