Volume 3 PROVINCE O.F NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 3rd. Session VERBATIM REPORT WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1974 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 66

May 8, 1974 The House met at 3:00 P.M. ~-Ir. Speaker in the Chair. 'l>lR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Tape 1562 (afternoon) STATEMENTS BY MINISTFRS: rn-1 ~'R. SPEAKER: The Minister of "-lanpower and Industrial Re la ti on" · HF. J .G. TTOPSSEAlJ (~rnISTF;P, OF ~-'ANPOWF.R ,\'ID _r:~n_l'STRIAL RELATIONS): }'r. Speaker, yon recalJ last year durin)! the restructuring of government that there \'as a su~f.estion in there that the Apprenticeship Board he done mrn.y v•ith unless there WC"re represen tation1: made from the manaf(emen t anfl ] ahour in the province.

We certainly did receive representations from them. :Jn the basis of this we decided to contjnue with the concept of the ;\pprenticeship Board. i\owcver, we gave it some thought anc we tho1.1pht that the legislation and the concept of the board was prohah]v not in k eepini;! with the nec-ds of manpoPPr in the provincr tnrlay. So, as a rest1lt ,,e have come up with the foll0winP p,i_nistedaJ statement: "I am torlay announcing the appointrnerit o~ " !"'nnnower Training and Certification Hoard. The metrrers of the nf'"' 'Board are Mr. K.F.

J'\upgan, Prc>siflent, rollef\e nf Trades ann 1'echnolop;v,as the chairman; Mr. Horace Pve, t<anap.cr , Industrial P.el at ions, Chnr.chi J 1 falls, Lahrarlor Conmn,tion,rPpre!'entjnr, Pmployers: }~r. John Fury, general contractor , repr.esent1ng employers , r'r. Ralph Chippett, CC'lrner llrook, rcrrcscntinp employees~ and Mr. Jack Scott, Grand Falls, representing employees: Pr. Gilbert Pike, as sis tan t clepntv minister, . vocational erlucation, representing the Department of Education'. i 1r. William J.

May, assistant deputy minister ll'anpower, renresenting the Denartment of }<anpower and Industrial Felations: "'1r. C::eorp.e Marshall. a]ternate member, representinF employers· Mr. fsau Thoms, alternate mernhC'r, reoresentinp emplovees: ~•r. Aubrev Rose, the T1enartment of t~anpower and Industrial Relatjons,who will be the secretary of the hoard. This new board will be responsible for carrying out the duties assiimed to the Aporenticeship lloard unrler the Apprenticeship 5539

~<ay g, 19 74 Tape 15fi2 (afternoon) Act c>nd advising the government on new legislation to replace that act. 1'he government feels that the time has arrived to introduce new concepts to train and certify the labour force. Traininp. is still largely confined to the skilled trades and apprenticeship p1ans and are primarily based on time served and wi l1 not ne:nnit certification until certain time periods arc served. If Newfoundland is to create a qualified labour force of sufficient nt:mbers to meet the needs of our chan1-1,ing economy.

IB-2 we must begin to develop trends toward modular training and certification in areas of specialization, not only for the traditional apprenticeship trades hut also for other occupations.

The new ~•anpo..,er Trainjn!( and C.ertification Board will he given the responsibility of advising the government on these new concepts which will have a much broader application making training and certification services available to a much greater pnrtion of our labour force ,.,j th an increasing de-emphasis or ti m<> served reauirernen ts. ' I have some copies for the press and copies for the opposition to table. ~.:.'.....c'lf.:..~~X_:. f-'r.

Speaker, it seems to me that what the r:inister has more or less implied there in his mi.nisterial statement is that this hoard will he more of an advisory boart:l in the beginning rather than a certification board. They are goinii: to take the place of the Apprenticeship Board and advise the government on new le;!isl,1tjon. Well, I do not see too much wron!!'. uith th:tt, }'r. Speaker , exceot that the board seems to be a little top heavy. J!ow many members? Nine memher on the hoard? Plus a secreta.rvi ·, '"R.

ROPSSF.An: Seven members plus alternate members and a se.cretary. ~111. ~'<EARY: The hoard may be a little hit top heavv. Tha.t is the on 1 y thing, "'r. Chairman. I think the hest committee in the worJ d is a committee ,:,f three neople, one dead, one with one foot in the p:rave and the other one inactive. I think that is the only way we ..,ill P,et anything c'!one. NevPrtheless, I presume the minister has to balance 5540

r'av P. , 1974 rare 15n2 (afternoon) out the numher of emi:ilover representatives and the numt>er of rep re sen tati ves of laJ--our on th£' hoard. I beg your pardon? /\:ii PONOlWABU: "P'RF.11: lk tried that for twcnty-trree years. : n::_:._ f'\B/IFY_:_ Tri£'c it for twc-nty-three years and it did not work . \,Jell. at ]east we got some action in this province. We got somethjn~ done. That is more than we can say ls happening Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could tell me if there is still an agreement between the province and the r.overnment of Canada on apprenticeship training.

The Government of Canada rn-3 financec'I 1 argely I thin 1, the apprenticeship Programme in Newfoundland. Is that ai;treement still in effect? Will it continue unclc-r this? It will continue under this? 'What do they eal 1 it? ''annower Training and Certification Roard. Well, we wil 1 _inst hav<' tn wait and see, '-'r. Speaker, hm• j t t.•orl-:s out. It r,av T-.,e a gooc'I thj DP-. PE'1'1Tl0l -' S: MR. EVANS ~ }Ir. Speaker, I wish to rn:-r,sent a oetiticn siimed l•y sixty-five adult mrmhers of the nopulabon of T,a Poile in my district of Burgeo, La Poilc-.

The prayer of tJ,is petition is that a dentjst make perioclic trios to La Poile so that the dental heal th of the people and the children in the schools may be safeguarded. MR. NEARY: ThC' memher would 1:-e the first customer. MP. EVANS: We J 1, I do not know. ProbaJ-ily the honour ah 1 c TT1ember mi~ht be to if he ~ot too close. Regardless of that fact, a bit of supposed repartee injected by the memher from Rel] Isl and, this is a very serious situation. Of course it should have been done years a~o, abLut twenty-three years before we took office even. l'nfortunately it was not. '.'R. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please! 1/.R. EVANS: So, I certainly support this petition. As I say, the service is long overdue. It is never too late to do good. I hope that this petj tion will be passed over to the Minister of Health. 5541

May P, 1974 Tape 1562 (afternoon) I am sure that it 'l>'i 11 be given every consideration by the great man ve have today as J.Kinis: ter of Peal t~. ''~ :' . P.Ol\F.'?'l'S (LEAl'f'.t! o-i;- TllE OPPOSITION): Mr. Speaker, before the great man who is ' 'inister of l'eal th gets ur, and tells us what he is going to do ahout this, let me add a word of support to it. The memher of Bur~eo and La Poilc took quite a bite at the r,Pti.tjon hut I think lie missen the point of it entirely.

The point of thr petition is that it should have been corr.n]etcly unnecessary r-eca11se the current administration promised two years ago in the Throne Speech, the famous one day session, th.<tt they would bring in a system of rnobi 1 f' dental clinics. Well, Sir, I do not know if we will get to the healtl, estimates in this session because of the gag rule, the run l.otine rule. nf co,irse, no more had been rlone to hring j_n those clcPtal clinics th,m has heen ~one on so many of the other thin~s promised in thc health fielrl.

I 1,ope the neople of La Poile are given the opportunity to see a dentist when they need one. I notice with some interest that the member strPsser1 that this petition was sir:nerl by adults. That is right anrl proper hut of course the children~ health programme introducecl hy the Liberal Govermnent,extenc1ed by the T.iberal Government. provirles free dental care to children up to the age of eleven. their twelfth birthday. That is even more import;int, Sir. If we c;mnot afford to make dental services avai.lahle to all of the population, we should make them i'!Vailable first to the children. We all agree on that.

So. I would ho:re that when the dentist goes to La Poile r,e Pould :,ay special attention to the needs of the children, the chi1 rlren gettini, their second teeth. losing their first teeth, because thesr are tlle ones which they carry through life. Now, I do hope the prayer is ~ranted. I say to the member now, Sir, that it can he granted if tl1e minister wish to do it. We saw an exampJe of tllat last fall when there were some festivities under way in the sovereign District of Ticrmitage, immediately to the 5542

'fay R, l Cl74 Tane 1562 (afternoon) IB-5 eai,t of the constituency which the memhPr now aclorns. the Constituency of Burp.:eo Rnd La Pnilc. The Communities of •r<1ncois and V[cCal1mr, communities witl-i which the honc,ura1'le P1cmhcr is Jnuhtless intimately familar, receiveri I am told the attentions of a ,1enti.st at thcit time. I am sure, Sir, that that sudden attentic,n hy a dentist bi.d not1iiniz to do with the election that was then under way. I am sure it 1-1as part of a careful J y pl:mnecl lonp:-r anl!.e hC'al th nrop.:ramme and it was nart of thP mobjle dental clinics. I hnne.

Sir. that we wil1 see?. dentist maclP evailarlc to tl1<' nC'oPl e of La Poilr on a rf'gular '1->asi s. T hope that it Pill hcizin imme<1i ;,tcly anrl J n1ul cl ur~e the minist<'r vhen he st,mds tr> assure us th;>t tl•j_s Pi 11 hf" e;o. Th€'y cirl it jp l'emj tae:e riurin<" an c-lC'ctie11. 'rhrre is nr> reason that t 11 ey c?.nnot do it in J\urc>eo c1r0 La Poilc nn1'. T1,e Pennlc of le> 1'oi.lc rl0sf-rvc it. Sir. c>nc-1 I hoPn thry Pet it. !l(~?_. __ r,~n_. __ ~'._':_:_ 1'0!•'.I' (''lNISTP' OF PF!\LTl-2..:__ T Fis,', to ssurport the netition PrPsented J-,y my colleague froT'l P.ur~co - Lc> T'oi1e.

I am the first one to admit thnt therr is a rrc"t neucitv nr rrarth of den ta1 services within t':1e Province-. I arr. thP first one to armit thnt not ;is 1"lt1Ch hns hcen done as shoul c-1 hr1ve be!'n <lcinf'. T wot1ld say alsc t11at we have rr.Rclf' certain p:ains i.n improvements in hc-alth fadlitic-s in the province. 1 mn happy to announce that apnrovr.ment for a centa1 programme is on our immedinte list.

I '-'Ol'l cl have to say further that irrespective of the statements of th€' l10no11rnble Leader of the Opposition with rep,arcl to mobile clinics, T did make an announcement some two or three months ago that throufh the r,e.nerositv of the Lions Club of Weston who provided thC' CNIJ\ mohi le unit two years ago, three vears ago and as a part of the Silver Arniversary relcbrations of the Department of Heal th, we arc equipping a mobile dental clinic.

The ho] d up at the mol'IE'nt is that the General Motors C'ornoration have citerl it would he six months hefore they can get to build the special chassis or unit that is required to put thf' 5543

t'ay 8. 1974 Tape 1562 (afternoon) IB-6 dental clinic on top. So, as far as that is concernea it is on the road. The func"s are provided. The order has been made and that wi 11 represent I think a fair degree of improvement. As far as a travelling dentist for the La Poile area is concerned, there arc nany areas in the country and in the province where a travelling dentist is necessary. I hope that upon being able to recruit a few dentists that ~,e will he ahle to serve some of the under-serviced Rrc;is of which La Poile is ari example. So. "r.

Speaker, I have pleasure in supporting the petition anc:1 assuring them that I wi] 1 c!o what I can to see that the pray er of the petition is carried out. NOTTCE 0F ~OTTON: 110N . W. W. MA11Sl'ALL ( MI '. I!'TFR WITHOlrr PO~TFOLIO): Mr. Speal ,er, I give notice that I wi 11 on tornorrm-1 asl : leave to introduce the following bill, 1i hiJJ, .An Act P.espectin g Certain lluilaing Supplies.' !cON . T .A. Jll CK~lAN ("IN I STER OF JFSTICE) : ~~r. Speaker, I give n0tice that I wi 11 on tomorrm • ask leave to introduce a bill, 'An Act To .~mend The Motor Carrier Act. " N.

SWF:ns TO Ql'l':STIONS FOR 1-'H I CH NOTICE HAS BF.Et: CJVP,: ORAL O!'ESTIONS: '·fR. ~lEAR.Y: "r. Speaker . I noticP the J'!inister of Industrial Development is on his 1-•ay bad· to his seat , Sir. I ,mderstand, Sir , that the minj s ter is schec!uled to be in Otta, •a toclav. Woulrl the minister care to indicate to the House if th!' meeting with Prim e '-'ini s ter Trudeau is off or is it ~oing ahead? What is the meeting all ahout? Is it about the Lower Churchi l J.? The offshore m:1.ncral ri .~hts? noes the ll'inister care to make :'I statemerit to the House? 1•nx. W.

POOP.Y (1•'1NISTE'R OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT): t'r. Speaker, tl·ds is the oral ouestion period and not the time for ministerial statements. HR.. :,EARY: I thoug:ht the honourable minister was _jetting his way to Ottawa. t"R. noonY: We were planning to do so. Unfortunatelv thrre is a 5544

"!av 8, 1974 Tape 1562 (afternoon) IR-7 thick fog 0ut there now. /Is soon as PE' fi.nc:1 someone> i••ho can intercede for us - ~-- NE,'l!IY: The Minister of Transportatfon. MR. 00~ He does not Pant 1m answer, Sir, only wants to give me a had tir,e. Tt j5 foi;,gy. We were nn the> '-'ay. ?-1R. NEARY: Wou~ d the minister care to tell the House \•'hat the meetinF; - llf'. DOODY: I triecl to hut the honourable member interrupted me. '"1R. NF.A RY: Ne,, f'O ahead. MR. J)()ODY: No, no. I aM finishecl. I will not J-,e .ioustecl anc _ioke<l with. "IR.

NEARY: I wisl1 thf' minister woul cl !l'et off the p,ronnc'. ~N HO~~FABLE !IRMllEP.: There goes the minister, "IF. NE}RY: . "r. Spe;'l.l,.,.,r, I wonder if the rninjster coul<l tell the llom,r whether the transmission 11.ne from the Lower Churchill and the Trans Ll'lhrador llif'hway are two ser,arate and cljstinct projects? As far ,is Ottawa are concerr,ccl. is it either/or. Is it either thf' Tr;,.ns T.arra,~or Pi!'h~•ay or thC' transm:!ssion line? Would the- ministc-r in ,1i ente to the­ House .i ust what the situation is on that? ~rrr,.r_:__ Mr.

Speaker, <.'Ven to somebody with a t-ack~r01mcl in the Rrocery business like ~yself, it is rcasnnahlv clear that a transmj_ssion line and a hir;hway are two SPPar;a_te and cijstinct projects. That probably tares care of the first part of the question. The other

part is that Ottawa has indicated that it would he difficult for them to find money to finance all these projects on behalf of the province, both of these projects. However, si nee they are to a lar~e extent complementary the Goose Ray, r.hurchill,Esker road runs prettv well parallel to the transmission line in the Labrador section, one certainly would not preclude the other in terms of effectiveness and in terms of progress. I think they can both worJ<­ consccutively and together ~Tith each other. }IR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an interesttng piece of information.

Would the minister then tell us whllt the province is going to go for? The Trans Lal-rador Highway or the transmission line? As far as financing from Ottawa is concerned. which one is the province 5545

Vay f', ]974 Tape 1562 (afternoon) TR-8 goin~ to go for? ~~ _ooonY: The province 1s grdng for both, " r. Speaker. ~R. NF.ARY: ~r. Speaker, a supplementary question. nid not the minister just indicate to the House that Ottawa will not finance hoth? The y will only f:inance one pro_iect? M~. ~ODY.:. Sir, I said that Ottawa has indicated that it would hC' rl:i fficult for them to finance both. TJ,e honourable member from Labrador North told us that a little while ago. He sa:id that Mr. Pompkey had so informed hi~. We have not had a formal indicatior. of that, so we are going for both. ~ P~l'f.i:_~: _ Well, Yr.

Speaker, if - rloes my colleapue want to P.sk a question? If OttaPa says no , that trey 11re only ~!Oing to finanr .e one pro .iect, then which one will t~P prov i.nce izo for? Will ir be the road or the transmission linr-? Surely the mi.nister mm,t knm., the answer to that by now. MR. OOODY: ~r. Speaker, if the minister ~new the answer to that, he certainly wou1d not inform the memher from Bell Island. Y.F . 1.monWARD: ~ r. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. The Minister of Industria .l Development just stated that l-lr. Rompkey die inform me. I did not state in this House, Sir, that Mr.

Rompkey informed me if they would finance both those pro_iects or if they would only finance one. I said that Ottawa har1 in formed me. I would like for thf' minister to withdraw that statement, '-1r. Speaker. _ME_.'._ POOnY: I am sorry J mentionecl Mr. P.omph•y's ·name , Sir. I dic:l not realize the federal election was so close. I withdraw it and if 1 have offended the honourable member or "r. Rompkey, I apolo11:ize !ium1· ly. MR. \,OOl'WAPfl: C.ood. ---- ·--- I h11ve a question, ~•r. Speaker, for the same min:f.ster, t he 1,onourahlc •lintster of Industrial Development.

On the same line, could the honourable gentleman inform the House whether or not it is the government's intention that actual on-site work will begin on the Lover Churchill project t h is year or if it is only going to be preliminary planning? 5546

~lay R, 1974 Tape 1562 (afternoon) HR. DOODY: }Jo, "r. Spea1'er. Our indication and our pJ;:ms are that on-site work will 1'e done t t,is year. ORl'F.RS '1F TPE DAY : IE-9 l'IR. ROBERTS: A questior, 1 if T may, Fnr the llfojster of Health. I wonder if J,e has as yet met with ·the- delegation of doctors fr.om the Placentia area, the Placentia Cottage Hospital medical staff? ~ .owrs No, i'-'r. Snra ker, I h ,ave not met and I ha ve not had any officia} reouest to meet. MR. RORERTS: /I supplementarv nuestion. Th0 mj_r,ister said an official rc.quest.

Has he had an unofficial rronest? llecausc I am told some of the doctors in the area, ner.haps all, have TT1et with a public p:roui, ~!hich ohviously :Is the source nf my informatjon which said that they intend to see the minister and serv e on hin t--hat ;imounts to an ultimatum. -~ -1:'..0.!:::.'f:.:_ !'lo, '-'r. Speaker. thev have not vet said officiallv 0r 1mofficiall v tn !'1P that they want tn meet me. I have h;ad no information. ''R. \,'OODWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would lil<e to present a question to the ~inister of Fisheries.

I wonder if the minister can inform the House if his department has any nlans tn nut a flo?.ti .np service depot into T.abraclor th.is year to supply the fishermen? What tyne of particular craft this wi 11 h<' 11nd the location th11t the particular service depot will serve and what fishermen it will serve on the Lahr11rlor Coast? '111. P. COLLINS (~INISTER OF FISHERIES): ~r. Speaker. we are formulating some plans for the nrovision of a mobile servicing unit for Labrador. I woulc hOPE" to be in a position within the next few days to make a statement to the Rouse concerning that. l"R.

WOODWARD: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister inform the House if his denartment has taken any action on reserving the rights of local salmon fishermen havinp exclusive rjghts to the traditional grounds that they have fished, something along the lines that the federal government have taken as far as t~e char fishPry is concerned? Has his department worl ,ed 5547

May 8, 1974 Tape 1562 (afternoon) in that direction? Mil. COLLL~S: ~r. Sp Paker, as the honoura.bl e member well knowi,, the question which he poses should he posed to the federal minister who has jurisdiction of course in that particular field. We have discussed that particular problem on several occasions with the minister, most recently when 'f-?e was in the province meeting with fishermen. It is a continuing process. The minister is interested. Of course,when I say the minister, I am talking about the federal minister.

He is jnterested in getting the views of the people in that area as he is in gettin~ the views of people in different areas of the province to find out what they want done. Supposedly, they will make a decision after he has done that. MR. SPEAK..£:.~ As it is Private i<em.,ers' nay we shall procPecl with Motion 10 on today's Order Paoer. I am not sure who ad_iournecl the deJ:,ate last clay on the amenoment. The memher from J.abraclor North anjourned the dehate on the amendment last clay. ~- WOODWARD: ~!r. Sne:11".P.r. T h"v!' vr-rv little to ail<l to the mP.mher for St. John's East's motion.

I think that this particular motion has heen beaten around the House long enough. It seems as if the strength has gone out of the thinf, so I do not have anythinP else to add to that particular motion. 'fll .• FOBET'TS: What amendment are we on now? ---·--- AN HONOl1RABLE ''EMf\En : Witch-hun.t . '-'Jl. WOODWARD: "Hitch-hunt Willie's •; moti.on. '·1l. SPEAKER: T'oes anvbody else t-TiRh to speak to this amendment, so that T might put it? ~'...-~~~:RT~. Pr, Speaker, all I "'ant to say on the amendment is that we shall vote against it. I think it ,.,as brouglit in as a IB-10 dela,,jng tactic.

It fnrther waters rlown an already weak resolution. It js going to be unpl e asant. That is the ~,roni> word. We shall vote for the motion. the main motion simply hecause it is the lesser of tuo evils. It is better than no motion at al 1. I do wish it had been stronger. We tried to make it stronger but thf' rovernment majority, af t<'r a three or four ,-, eel'. fi1 ibuster, voted that '1mm. Well. so rC' H ! This amendment 1ntro<lucecl 5548

Mays. 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 1 - MW now by the gentleman from St. John's East, the Government House Leader, does nothing to strengthen the resolution. In fact, Sir, it does and is designed to weaken the resolution,to water it down further, to give it even less point than it had when originally moved by the Member for St. John's North. We shall oppose the amendment. Mr. Speaker, . I find it most significant that the government House Leader has brought in this amendment, not only in the amendment itself but in its sponsor. The amendment itself weakens the motion.

It would replace the words, "the government shall introduce." The exact words used by the gentleman from St. John's North are: "This House request the government to introduce legislation" This shall replace those words with some other words so it will read that the government consider the introduction of legislation. That weakens the amendment, it waters it down even further. Indeed it is so thin, tht gruel is so thin now as to be almost nonexistent.

I think, Sir, the fact that this was moved by the House Leader for the government side shows that the government have no intention of making any significant progress in this field. They say that they will do something before the next election. I hope they will. They have had two and one half years in office now. This is the third full session in which they have had the control of the House • The leadership of the House resting upon their shoulders, They have brought in no legislation. They have made no move. They have not asked the collllllittee to look into it. They have not sought expert advice.

They have not sought public opinion. All they do now when the gentleman from St. John's North raises the question - it is well that he raises it, when he brings it up for discussion, the government are frightfully embarrassed. They are embarrassed to have this matter come up and to have their own delinquencies exposed.They try now to water it down. Mr. Speaker, I shall oppose the amendment. I think it is a bad amendment. The motion itself as unamended will be better than no motion and therefore, I shall vote for that. I only 5549

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 2 wish, Sir, that the government had some of the courage of their convictions, would put some action where their talk is and would bring in legislation to deal with this matter of campaign expenses. It is the greatest potential source of abuse that we have faced in the democratic process. In too many cases . the potential becomes real. I do not propose to go over the ground that has been so well ploughed and so well trodden by the members of the House over the past seven, eight or nine weeks.

All I will say is that I urge every gentleman to vote against the amendment because a vote against the amendment, Sir, is a vote in favour of action, of 111eaningful action in this field. Equally I would urge all to vote in favour of the motion because although it is certainly not the motion which I would have liked to have seen, Hr. Speaker, it is infinitely to be preferred to no expression of opinion by the House. I can understand thea playing their petty little party gaaes. The gentleman from St. John's East has been an expert at that.

He seems to think that it is his role, his role in life and in debate. to play these petty little games. Let him indulge himself. It is his privilege. If it be his pleasure, so be it! I do hope that the government, having played their little games, will act meaningfully. I ean assure them that my colleagues and I shall support this legislation, if it be real legislation, if it be worthwhile legislation, if it should deal with the facts. If it should be just like the conflict of interest legislation the government brought in, we shall oppose it.

The conflict of interest legislation as we have now seen in a year or so of experience really, Sir, is not worth much more than the paper it is written on. It has been exposed. The gentleman from Trinity South has driven one of the loopholes through it. There are I am sure others that can be driven through. Honourable gentlemen opposite, I have no doubt, from time to time will have that brought to their attention. The Minister of Finance showed what can be done within the letter of the conflict of interest legislation and against the spirit of it. 5550

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page I shall oppose the amendment. I shall do so really because I hope that the government will act on this and that the quickest way to get them to act is to vote against the aaendment. MR. SPEAKER: On motion amendment, carried. MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I understand that if I speak now, I close the debate. At the beginning of this whole debate, I made it quite clear that I would be prepared to give way for any comments that honourable members might like to make.

If there are any points which honourable members have neglected to make in the course of this long debate, I would be more than happy to give way while they get up and make them ot if any honourable members opposite should like to deliberately mislead the House, Ishall gladly give way so that they may have an opportunity to do so. The Hon. Member for Bell Island is able to dish it out but I do not think he can take it. MR. NEARY: (Inaudible). MR. CARTER: I noticed that the Member for White Bay South 3 was surprised when I voted for the amendment.

I deliberately tried, when framing the main motion, to word it so as to avoid the possibility of any substitutive amendments. I was not completely successful and I do agree that one could interpret the amendment as an attempt to water down the main motion. However, I do feel that in the course of this debate various members have made the point and made it quite well that the whole matter is extremely comp·lex and cannot be rushed into and has to be considered very carefully. It is in that light that I view the amendment and therefore, was able,quite willingly, to vote for it.

I hope the government do consider legislation. I would say further to the opposition that I would urge them to vote for the amended motion. They may not be all that happy with it, As amended, the Hon. Member for White Bay South says that it is meaningless. I would counter by saying that if they are really anxious for the government to bring in some kind of legislation 5551

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 4 touching upon this very important point that there is nothing quite as coercive as unanimity. If this House were able to pass this motion,even though it has in the eyes of the opposition an obnoxious amendment or a delaying amendment, if the whole House together, unanimously, can pass this motion, I would say that this would have the same effect as if the opposition motion itself had been accepted and the motion were being passed as amended by the opposition, I think there is nothing quite so strong as unanimity.

Whenever this House does anything unanimously, I suggest that this is probably the most powerful action it can take. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), MR. CARTER: It will not appear so at present but if in the future any honourable member were able to get up and say: ''Why has not the government brought in this legislation? What is the matter with the government? Was this motion not passed unanimously?

Did not every single person want something to be done?" Therefore, if rhetoric or if urging has any force, I urge and beseech the honourable members opposite to support this motion as amended even though they are not all that happy with the amendment. The Hon. Member for Hermitage has asked a question and if I understand him correctly, he is asking:"What do we hope to achieve by an amended motion? Is it merely hot air? Is it merely just a platitude? Is it merely a sanctimonious wish that somebody do something about something?" MR. SIMMONS: _Sucked in! MR. CARTER: The Hon.

Member for Hermitage is saying that I have been sucked in. It is true that I have given way sOJRewhat in my desire to have the motion passed as framed,but I have given way deliberately to encourage unanimity, both on this side and. I am now urging unanimity from the other side. What I am saying will become a ' little more clear when I point out that implic _it iD. this motion are three streams of thought:

(1) Election expenses; there should be declaration of sources, 5552

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 5 - MW of arounts collected and of amounts spent. There should also be limitation, a limitation of sources, a limitation of amounts collected and a limitation of amounts spent. I feel that there should also be subsidization in case of a federal election by a federal government or in case of a provincial election by the provincial government and in the case of a municipal election.

Whereas a municipality is a creature of the province, probably the province is the right agency to ask for subsidization for a municipal election. Nevertheless, I do feel that election expenses should be subsidized to some extent. Now there have been some reservations expressed on both sides of the House, both publicly and privately, about the subsidization aspect of this motion. i think everyone agrees about declaration, everyone agrees about limitation.

They may differ to some extent therein, to the extent of declaration and limitation, that is the extent of the amounts but I do not think any honourable member in this House or any member of the public that I have spoken with disagrees with the idea of declaration or of limitation. If any honourable gentlemen opposite wish to now object to declaration or limitation of election expenses, I shall gladly take my seat while they make a comment or two. MR. W. N. ROWE: If the honourable member would yield for a second, I would like to make a short statement.

It is not exactly a question which is ordinarily permissible but I would like to uake a short statement,with the leave of the House and the honourable member. Our intention I must say was to vote against this motion as amended because it was considered to be wishy-washy, watered down, emasculated, no substance, straw rather than substance,but having heard the Hon. Member for St. John~s North, my colleagues and I have had a quick conference here and we must agree that it is better to have this emasculated, wishy-washy,straw-like resolution passed by the House than to have no resolution passed at all. It is 5553

May a. 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 6 better to have this. Therefore, owing to the eloquence, persuasiveness of the Hon. Member for St. John's North, we have decided that we will vote in favour of the motion as amended, although we have already put on the public record what our position is,that we want a much stronger representation made to the government, a command in fact by this House made to the government to introduce legislation. We have not been able to effect that.

We will gladly, since this is the last opportunity during this session opened to us to do so, go on record as supporting this weak resolution because it is better than nothing. As my colleague,the Member for Hermitage,just mentioned to me as we were discussing the whole matter, although a command would be better, certainly even a resolution which gets this government to consider anything is a step ahead. We are a step further ahead if we can force this government even to consider something because there has not been much considerationgiven to anything in the past.

If we can get this government to consider, just consider the introduction of legislation,that in itself is a victory.

If the honourable member speaking now, trying to get unanimity in the House, I would say that he can save his breath, he can save his efforts because we, for our part (I do not know what the Member for Labrador South will be doing) vote for it and hopefully we will have a unanimous request by the House to the government to introduce legislation and implicit in that, I think is•at the earliest opportunity." I am sure the government faced with unanimity in this regard from backbenchers and their own party, government members themselves, members of the opposition, would not think of taking the false step or would not think of r1.mning the danger of misleading the House by not introducing legislation at the earliest possible opportunity, possibly during the next session of the House.

With those few words, we can say with some gratitude to the honourable member that he often expresses some cynicism when he is speaking in debate in this House - it is a debating form and very 5554

May 7 • 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 7 little is done to persuade members to vote one way or the other by speech making in this House. I think I can say with a clear conscience today that although our original intention was to vote against this wishy-washy,weak amendment, the words of wisdom he uttered, conciliatory words. have succeeded in persuading this side of the House or at least this side of the House or members who are colleagues of mine to vote for the amendment because it is better than nothing. MR. CARTER: I would like to thank the Hon.

Member for White Bay South for his very generous remarks and also for his acceptance of the principle that progress consists of an infinite number of infinitely small steps.

Whereas we may not achieve all that we intended to by this motion, still half a loaf is better than no bread. Merely to conclude,I just wish to mention a couple of very, very brief points. There have been some reservations expressed, I think on both sides of the House,about the idea of retroactivit v , that they would hope t~at if a bill be brought in or if legislation 62 brought in that it would be continued as of the date that it is brought in and that there would not be any retroactivity connected with it.

They are also concerned that the subsidization of candidates would encourage frivolous candidates (there are enough frivolous candidates anyway, I suppose) but worst. it would encourage tlhe multiplicity of parties. I am a great believer in the two-party system and I do not believe in the three, four, five or multi-party system. I think this permits people to get elected with less than a majority of the vote. I think it can lead to all sorts of shakey bogs.

The Leader of the Opposition, I think made the point that subsidization on election expenses is -really a natural progression in that the government or governments in the last hundred years have been paying more and more and more of the expenses of candidates,that is to say free radio time has been given and some of 5555

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1563 Page 8 radio is government radio stations. The mechanics of voting itself are completely paid for by the government. Government very often will take upon itself to advertise the fact that people should go out and vote. They will not say which side one should vote for but they do suggest that one should go out and vote. They do advertise where people may vote. All this costs money. It costs money to advertise. Governments are already spending more money on elections than they did ten, twenty or thirty years ago.

It is part of the natural progression for a government to spend some more money on election expenses. How it should be done, I think is a very complex question. We just merely scratched the surface here. I do thank all honourable members who participated in this debate and I thank the opposition for their generous decision to support this motion, as amended. With those few words I would like to close the debate, sit down and thank all honourable members who have contributed. MR. SPEAKER: I shall now put the motion as amended. Those in favour of the motion, as amended, The motion is carried unanimously. It II aye.

Those against "nay." The next motion on the private member's motions is Motion No. 11 to be moved by the Hon. Member for St. John's South. MR. WELLS: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have come in since this motion was introduced and put on the Order Paper, I believe, somewhere around the early part of February, the last of January, I have come so many days, so many Wednesdays, prepared to introduce this motion but now that the time has actually arrived, it is somewhat anticlimactic. However, Mr.

Speaker, this is an extremely important thing in my view not simply because of the principle of a house for a house that I am going to enunciate in these remarks but it is also important that for the first time in this session of 5556

May 8, 1974 Tape 1663 Page 9 the House, the House will be touching on housing, I feel that housing is one of the more important problems, social problems facing Newfoundland today. I will ask now for the latitude of the House in expanding my remarks a little beyond the narrow concept of a house for a house and legislation ·involving same to somewhat broader remarks on housing because I think other members may want to do the same thing.

I think the public time in this House would be well-served,before this session ends, in having some remarks on housing because it is something that touches not only urban dwellers but rural dwellers as well. It is something that is vitallf important for some reasons which I may elucidate on in a few moments. So far as the city dweller is concerned, Mr. Speaker, when we think of housing problems, housing difficulties, we think of the city dweller first because the situation obtains now that with the increase in costs, the ordinary workingman living in the city, be it, St.

John's, Corner Brook or the larger towns in Newfoundland, is finding it more and more difficult to put together the requisite amount of dollars to make up a downpayment to buy a house.

I have a very great feeling of sympathy and concern for a lot of people,for ordinary workingmen, young men and their wives, their families who when they sit down and assess the matter of housing, when they start adding up the dollars •·>hich they can hope to accumulate in this era of rapidly increasing prices, when they add up the dollars, they do not see,even at ninety-five per cent financing,how they can manage to get enough together to get a home. I remember an official of Central Mortgage and Housing telling me, even ten or twelve years ago, Mr. Speaker, that to have, to own and to buy a mortgage put 5557

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RH - 1 the sort of bungalow that was being built in St.

John's ten years ago and selling for about $25,000 or $27,000 that a man would have to be making,at the prices that obtained then, $10,000 a 1year before he could realistically put himself and his family in such a house. $10,000 a year ten years ago was quite a high salary, Even today it is more than a great many working men are making, if not perhaps more than a . great many tradesmen are making, but there are a lot of people and the statistics show that in Newfoundland a very, very great many men who are working twelve months of the year are not making more than $6,000 or $7,000.

So if that situation obtained ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, how much more today when the average wage is far from $10,000? Yet the price of any new bungalow in St. John's is something of the order, I think I can say this without fear of contradiction, something of the order of $38,000 to $40,000. So what it really means, Mr.

Speaker, is that there is no way that a young workingman with a family can possibly put away the kind of money that is necessary to acquire such a home, Let us look for a moment at the outports and what happens; In the outports in the past with the seasonal way of life or the way of life which was determined by the seasons, time at fishery, time at the seal fishery, perhaps a time cutting wood in the lumber woods, all these sorts of things, it enabled a man to lay aside a certain portion of the year to build a home.

Very often a young man would cut timbers, cut logs, have them sawn on some basis, either pay or on a shared basis by a sawmill, get together wood and he would go ahead and he would build a home. A great many young men even twenty years ago in Newfoundland were doing that. That is not to say that some are not doing the same thing but the nU1Dbers have declined.

So now we have reached the stage where the young man in the outport is facing a similiar sort of problem to the man in the city except it is not so acute in many cases, The amount required is not so great but the essence of the problem is the same, that their is great difficulty in putting a roof over his head. 5558

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RH - 2 Now I think the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation with their system of mortgage loans in outport Newfoundland have gone some way to alleviate this need but they have not gone as far I think as they ought to go. Of course, when I say that I am bearing in mind that it is no good to talk about these sort of mortgage lr.ans unless the money is available to make them. So there we are, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing now with new housing.

In the question of older housing it is even more difficult because a lot of the conventional lenders are not in a position to or at least will not lend money for repairs to older homes. There are · people in St. John's today and I have received letters from hundreds of them, it is fair to say, over the past few months who are extremely concerned because they want to renovate and repair homes and they cannot do it because they cannot get the money from conventional sources.

J have received letters also from people in the outports with the same sort of concern and again unable to get money from conventional sources. The few conventional sources that lend moneY, particularly in the outports, for this sort of purpose require a very high interest rate. This makes it all the more important, Mr. Chairman, that the federal legislation,which provides for the repair and renovation of homes, provides for land assembly and things of that sort,be taken full advanta~e of in Newfoundland.

I intend to, if I 9hould be allm ;ed. if I may, I would like to briefly review some of the federal programmes which obtained here in Newfoundland and which we are trying to take advantage of, hut it is not always as easy to take advantage of a federal programme as the federal programme itself may indicate, MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, we do not mind the honourable member having a wide-ranging debate about housing generally in this matter and the federal programmes but we would like to have the opportunity to reply on this side. That is the only thing. I would like for Your Honour to take note of that. MR.

WELLS: I am sure. Yes. Well I said to the honourable member when 5559

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RH - 3 I was beginning my remarks - MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. WELLS: I hope so. I think this is important enough for members of this Rouse in this debate to be able to range beyond the immediate resolution. I was surprised myself this winter, Mr. Speaker, when I wrote Central Mortgage and Rousing and asked about some of the programmes which they had.

I will refer to them briefly; There is the Assisted Home Ownership Programme, the Non-Profit Housing Assistance, Co-operative Housing Assistance, Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme, Land Assembly Assistance, New Communities Progra11111e, Developmental Programme, Housing for Indians on Reserves Programme, and Purchaser Protection. The ones of these which interested me most, Mr. Speaker, were the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme.

I would like to refer to these for a moment: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.whose department deals with the Federal Government in these matters,is here, I would certainly appreciate later in this debate if he were to enter the debate and explain to us some of the details and some of the difficulties in dealing with the Federal Government on some of these programmes. Now the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, if I might refer to it briefly, they say offers a broad range of Federal Government contri­ butions, loans, etc.

The purpose of the programme is to encourage and support efforts of municipalities.in concert with neighbourhood residents, toward the improvement of their physical environment and th_e development of social and recreational amenities. They talk about eligibility. There are four qualifications. The area must be predominantly residential. Significant proportion of the existing housing • Si'r, must be in need of improvement and repair. Most of the housing in the neighbourhood to be occupied by people with low to moderate income and the available social and recreation amenities to be considered inadequate. 5560

May 8, 1974.

Tape 15~4 (Afternoon) RH - 4 Now the Federal Government will apparently contribute fifty per cent of the cost of the selection of neighbourhoods for participation and development of improvement plans, fifty per cent of the cost of acquisition of land, acquisition and clearance of land for recreational amenitie~, fifty per cent of the construction of new or improvement of existing social or recreational facilities, the development of occupancy and buil din~ maintenance standards, the relocation of persons dispossesse d of their homes by the programme and the Jocal administration of the programme,including the employment of staff, etc.

Then there is the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme, Mr. Speaker, which I think would be extremely important to Newfoundland if we could get more of the Province designated to take advantage of it. That applies to home owners earning Sll,000 a year or less which would certainly take in the great majority of our people. It would apply to landlords who agree to rent controls, to nonprofit corporations and co-operatives.

The programme applies to home owners and landlords in areas participating in the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and in other areas through special agreements with provinces and to nonprofit corporations and nonprofit co-operatives in any area. In this programme one will be able to repair the house. Priority would be given to the repair of the housing structure and upgrading of plumbing, electrical and heating systems. In addition, nonprofit cor­ porations may obtain funds under this programme for the conversion of existing properties.

The nature and quality of repair work should insure a further useful life of the property of about fifteen years. To assist him in improving the appearance of neighbourhoods,some work to enhance the external appearance of the dwelling unit and its immediate surroundings will be eligible. Now, Mr. Speaker, you come to the a~tual assistance to the home owner which is allowed under this programme. I think this could be--if we could get it in Newfoundland to apply to enough homes and enough areas, it would be one of the best things that ever happened to the home owner.

Assistance will be in the form of loans up to $5,000 per dwelling unit 5561

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RH - 5 at a beneficial interest rate of which repayment,up to a maximun of $2,500, may be forgiven if the housing continues to be occupied and maintained by the applicant. Home earners earning less than $6,000 are eligible foI' the maximun forgiveness of $2,500. The forgiveness will be reduced by a dollar for every two dollars of income over $6,000. For example, a person earning $8,000 would be eligible for forgiveness of $1,500. Now, Mr.

Speaker, can you think of a programme either in rural or urban Newfoundland which would be more beneficial to our people in this Province, most of whom earn less than $11,000, than a prograrmne where they could be forgiven up to one half of the amount that they borrowed to renovate their homes.

I remember in the past when I have been campaigning, I remember so well when I was campaigning in Bonavista North in the election which I lost and which the member for Bell Island loves to gibe me about but I can remember talking to men who were sitting down in the midddle of a summer day in their communities, men on social assistance and men looking at their homes dropping down and not having the wherewithal even to get some materials like nails to do what was necessary,or at least this is what I was told.

I might say on this question of the repair of homes that for people on social assistance the Social Assistance Department has I think a wise policy and it has had it for some time,whereby they provide building materials,because I think we have to recognize right across the whole spectrum of government activity that nothing is more important than main­ taining a decent standard of housing in this country, in this province. If we let housing go down below a decent standard,other things happen as well. It is not just that people are chilly. It is just not that people do not like their surroundings.

If you let housing go down then you invite illiteracy, you invite crime, you invite all sorts of social disorder and disease, This is something that I think we have to recognize. Far greater, far, far wider than the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we have to recognize that to assist reople to have decent housing is a fundamental responsibility at all public levels, 5562

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RR - 6 municipal, federal, provincial. It is something that we have to keep in our minds all of the time whether we ~re talking about fisheries programmes, educational programmes, whateve½ that one of the fundamental things that lead to a decent society is decent housing and in cases where it is necessary,the public have represented by their governments that the public should contribute to this question and to this provision of decent housing. So, on this and this is something that I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs will speak about and I certainly hope he shall.

These programmes and particularly the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme are programmes which on the face of it as they are set out in the federal brochures are programmes that would be of such importance to us. Perhaps all of us who are not directly concerned with negotiating with the Federal Government will wonder why the various areas of Newfoundland are not designated immediately so that people can take advantage of this sort of thing.

What I am told as t believe the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be able to explain to us,that it is not so easy, that there are requirements that the Federal Government impose which are not always written in its brochures and in its literature.which make it more difficult for this Province, I do not know about other provinces, to enter into these sorts of agreements which will enable people to get the assistance which these programmes purport to be offering. One thing I hope and I hope it very much, Mr. Speaker, is that t LL•s,, programmes are not in any sense a hoax.

I think it would be one of the bitterest, cruelest things for a government at any level to come out with programmes but at the same time to lay down -the conditions and qualifications which make it impossible for people to qualify and to take advantage. That I think would be ten times worse than if the programme were never in existence. As I say,I look forward to the remarks of the Minister of Municipal Affairs should he chose to take

part in this debate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am conscious the time is passing. I would be very unhappy if this motion were not dealt with in this session of the House. 5563

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RH - 7 I would like to see it fully debated and I would like to see everybody in this House who feel that they wish to express their opinion on it do so, but at the same time I would be very sad if it were to be just talked out and the session were to end or the sitting were to end and we were to all go about whatever other business we do without this House being placed on record with regard to the substantive part of this motion. So, Mr. Speaker, I will move on to the more substantive part of it,having made these general remarks on housing.

Now . a lot of people perhaps in this country and perhaps in this House hear the word "expro­ priation"every day of their lives. They hear it, perhaps they feel that they understand it but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, do they really? Because in my experience it is only perhaps the officials who are dealing with expropriation matters and the lawyers who are involved,and some of the people who are involved in the end,but it is only firstly these two groups I think and the courts which really understand the principles of expropriation and how they are applied.

Now before you can talk about something like a house for a house or before you can talk about the Family Homes Expropriation Act,I think you have to realize what the Expropriation Act is itself, what it does, what it means, why you can take peoples land, Now, the basic principle of expropriation, the reasons why are outlined and set forth in the Expropriation Act itself.which is part of the reviser statutes of Newfound- land. Essentially, without going into great detail, land can be taken for public purposes.

Of course, the ~overnment of the day, the department concerned or t ·he minister concerned has to decide what is the public purpose and if it is a fit public purpose or a necessary public purpose to come within the E~propriation Act so thatthey can go and take your house or my house or anybody's house or anybody's land because the public necessity of the circumstance overrides the private good, the private right to hold and own property,which we have in this country. I think it follows from that, Mr. Speaker, it follows and goes without say that anybody who is exercising this power to take private 5564

May 8, 1974. Tape 1564 (Afternoon) RH - 8 property ought only to exercise it in cases of very real and great need when the public need is obviously and clearly greater than the private right. In this regard I would say that in the past twenty-five years in Newfoundland,since Confederation,there have been many occasions of expropriation, some which have been brought to my attention as a lawyer practicing in this Province and as a citizen,when I thought that the public authority was a little too cavalier, too quick, a little too blase about taking private property from people.

I felt that there were times when the remedy or the right to expropriate as given by statute ought not perhaps to have been exercised but rather more effort should have been made to purchase the property or to find alternate property that could be acquired more easily. So I think it is fundamental to say that it is only in extreme cases, it is only when it is absolutely and clearly necessary and even then care should be taken in expropriating property because it is not something that should be lightly done.

I think that word of caution from this House and the members of it is worthwhile because not only has this Province the right to expropriate but creatures of the Province, namely, municipalities and other creatures of the Province have the right to expropriate also. Now people may not be certain what happens,~hen expropriation takes place, what it is. What happens is that the decision is made, the order is made and signed by the minister or the other responsible person. Whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, there is something of more interest . I believe going on in the gallery,almost. There are sounds. What is happening?

I hope nothing is going to fall on the heads of members. MR. CHAIRMAN (Stagg): If the honourable member would permit me, We have a group of Russian seamen in the gallery, forty-five in number, such that they outnumber us with their guide leader, Mr. Freeman. On behalf of all honourable members of the House of Assembly,for the Province of Newfoundland it gives me great pleasure to welcome you 5565

May 8, 1974. Tape 1~64 (Afternoon) RB - 9 gentlemen to the galleries this afternoon. I trust that your visit here will be interesting, informative and on hehalf of all honourable members again I welcome yot.i here. MR. WELLS: Mr. Spel!ker, you cannot say that I am not perceptive. I knew that something was happening in the galleries. I only wish that some member - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Ina1,1dibl.e. MR •. WELLS: What is that? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. WEU,S: Oh, no! I only w.ish that I were 5566

May 8, i974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) able to add my welcome to that of you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome these men in Russian,because of course I air sure they are interested in the proceedings in this chamber. It would be interesting to know if any of our guests up there this afternoon understand English or have familiarity with it. r.ertainly I am sure we a11 hope that they enjoy their brief stay in our legislature even if they are not cognizant of exactly what is p.oing on in the debate. AN HONOURABLE ?-1EMJ3Ell: Inaudible. MR. WELLS: Well, now that is not exactly true. I would ask the minister to retract that, ~r.

Speaker. AN HONOURABLE ~EMBF"R: With pleasure. MR. WELLS: Nm,?, on the question of assessing compensation; The rules for assessing compensation are set out in the Expropriation Act. So, after the notice has been signed and issued it is either served on the individual or posted on the land or both and within ten days of the doing of that,the service and posting, the land becomes the property of the crown. So that the land goes to the crown ten days after the expropriation. It may he that the individual may not bC' paid or compensated for months or even years. Thls is unfortunate.

Now, the ruJ es of compensation and the act itself set out that in the first place there will be negotiation. The land has been taken, the title rests in the c-rown hut then negotiation takes place. If the parties can agree, then well and good, there is no problem. In due course there is a further conveyance or release as the case may be to perfect the passing of title and the person from whom the land is taken gets his money and that is the end of it. It does not always work that way, Mr. Speaker, largely because of the rules of compensation.

The paramount clause in the rules of compensation and the award of compensation is that the compensation shall be an amount based on the fair market value IB-1 of the land and on existing use value at the time of the commencement o.f expropriation proceedings. No accotmt shal 1 be taken of the compulsory acquisition of the land, the disturbance of the owner 5567

May 8, 1974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) IB-2 or occupier or any other injurious effectuation, Now, there are sections later on in the bill which soften the blow of that but one can see the basic position. The land is taken as it was at the fair market value at the time of the taking. One can see the problems that arise. Negotiations take place. I will never forget the emotional content of an expropriation on which I acted for one of the parties seven or eight years ago in Mount Pearl when they were enlar~ing that town. The land was taken. It was raw land, little better than a swamp.

By the time the board sat down, approximately a year and a half later,to decide the question of compensation, there was a street there with houses. The people were extremely upset because the criterion for assessing that value was based on the land at the time of the taking. Here they could look at it in terms of so many huilding lots along a paved street. Now, I am not suggesting that the criteria be different but one can see, Mr.

Spea~er, that hecause the criteria are as they are there is a great emotional involvement, a great deal of upset and a great deal of bad feeling in any expropriation, We in this society and in this system have grown up over the centuries with the idea and the right of owning private property. For that right to be interferred with forcibly and for the rules of compensation not to agree with what we feel is proper compensation, is something which we do not like as a people. I am glad that we do not like it. It is that sort of feeling and that sort of instinct in people in our society that make for freedom.

It is that sort of instinct which makes it difficult for people to impose anything in the nature of a dictatorship on this country. It causes all sorts of difficulty when one starts to arrive at compensation for land which has been taken. So, wbat really happened, Mr. Speaker, was,with these rules of compensation for taking family homes, the situation became much more difficult than merely the taking of land, This became apparent and started to become apparent particularly in the early sixties and particularly here in St. John's when much of the whole 5568

May 8, 1974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) IB-3 center of St. John's was gutted for the area on which City Hall now stands and the adjacent land. I think everybody in this House even those of us who were not here at the time remember the honourable Membt>r for Bell Island was here at the time and the honourable Member for Fogo but there was a considerable fight put up by the now member for St. John's Center. Pe was member for St. Joh~'s renter then too, the honourable minister.

I may say at this time, we wonder how he is and I sincerely hope that he is recovering from his operation and I would hope that his convalescence has been achieved by this time, !-Ir. Speaker. · We all hope to see him back in this House. It was he around about 1962, when he and the honourable member from Bell Island I believe were elected, that led the fight for some sort of extra compensation for family homes. The reason is this, Mr. Speaker: If I were renting a house to somebodv and it wPrr- taken, fair market value is fine because I get the value that this investment would fetch on the open ~arket.

I can then go and buy a similar home or I can go and put my money into bonds or I can do anything with it hut it is an investment thin~. If T were living in a home in certain circumstances and i.t were taken from me, this is where thE' ruh comes. This is where the rub came down in the center of St. John's. This is where the difficulty is occurring in so many parts of Newfoundland today.

What happens is that if one were to take a home in an area in a healthy residential area, an area, well to pull one out of the air, it comes to mind to say Elizabeth Avenue - if one were to take a bungalow on Elizabeth Avenue from its owner and then give him fair market value for that particular house on Elizabeth Avenue at the time, he can take his money ard he can go to Downing Street or Exeter Place or wherever he likes. He can go and convert that money into another home. Therefore, aside from the dislocation, Mr. Speaker, he has not suffered too much. He is all right.

He is basically put back in the position in which he was. If one happen to be a retired man or a retired couple living upon Hillview Drive,on the lower portion of the Southside Hills - there 5569

May 8, 1974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) IB-4 was one such instance in the news recently, a man and his wife who worked and saved - MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand on a point of order. I would like to draw to Your Honour's attention that there are only seven members on that side of the House. I will have to call a quorum. , I do not want to be discourteous to my honourable friend because his remarks are most interesting but I woulc lil-·e for the member to come back into their seats, otherwise, I am going to have to call a quorum, Sir.

At least they should show a little respect and a little courtesy to the member who is speaking, Sir. MR. WELLS: Yes, '-l"r. Spea!:er. I was referring to the position and the predicament of a person whn - A."1 HONOURABLE '1E'MBER: rarry on. }IR. Wf.T,LS: So many people rising, one nevf:'r knows what to do. ' Anyway, Mr. Speaker, referring again to the position of a person such as this retired couple who have worked hard and put savings throughout a working lifetine into a small home which is taken from them. They have a lot of land around it so that they are not used to living on ;.i cHy building lot.

It is quite a different style of ljfe. It is perhaps a style of life and a style of living which we are more used to in the outports or in the smaller towns in Newfoundland. So, an expropriation comes. The land and the house is taken. What happens? Let us say it is valued at $10,000 or $12,000 because perhaps if you or I were to go up there and buy it we would only pay that for it because perhaps we would not want to live up there. But to them it is home. If they take the $10,000 or $12,000 that the standard Expropriation Act allows, if they take that money and attempt to move into St.

John's or attempt to move into one of the rapidly growing municipalities around St. John's, they find that with their $10,000 or $12,000 they cannot buy a comparable home to the home that they have built up over a lifetime of work. This is where the difficulty comes in. So, that what happens in such cases? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Even the Russians cannot stand the thought. 5510

t-lay 8, 1974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) IB-5 MR. WELLS: Well, it is a considerable compliment, Mr. Speaker, that they came here in the first place. It must have been reported in Russia some four months ago that I would introduce the resolution on this point. So, they are there. noes the honourable member see them? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudi .b le. MR. WELLS: Go back and my ideas will appear interesting. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the point is and the difficulty is that the rules of compensation when they are applied to such people do not make it possible for a person to huy a comparable home.

So, that the person with the type of home that I am speaking of may well have to come in to one of the older and more dilapidated streets in St. John's, put down his $8 ,00(1 or S9 ,00(1 and get somethi'lg, having regard to the amount of land and the amenities of the house itself, that is not nearly as good Ln comparison to what was taken awav fr rim him on the outskirts. Of course, this can also apply in the case of the 1 ow income person. This applied to some of the people who 11\·ed in the central part of St. John's bad in 1961 and l9fi2 when that development down there was undertaken by the city.

With the amount of money that they got for some of these homes, they could not possibly do more than raise a down payment for another home elsewhere in the city. In my thinking, Mr.

Speaker, on this it seems to me that when we take people 1 5 homes in this province - this should be a matter I believe of puhlic policy that when we take a home we should ro;,\·e it possible for that person - of course, this does not apply in the case of the $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 home - but when we take a home particularly of a man in the low income hracket, that we should not in any sense force him back into another home of low quality and low standard.

We come back I think to my original remarks about housing, that housing is so important to the well-being of our citizens that as a matter of public policy we should not allow people, especially when government and public monies are involved, to go hack to a lower form of home,to a shack, to something which is not going to allow them to raise their standard of living, their outlook on life and give their 5571

May 8, 1974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) IB-6 children a better chance. This was the thinking uf the honourable Ank }turphy when he was hack then a member of the opposition in St. John's Center, behind his pressing for the Family Homes Expropriation Act. I will saY, a credit to him, a credit to everybody concerned at the time that act was passed. MR. ROBERTS: In 1964, was it not? MR. WELLS: It was passed in 1964, yes. It is not fair to be unfair to the Minister of Finance who is not here to defend himself. AN HONOURABLE ~MBER: Inaudible. ~IF. \JELLS: No, the minister did not change it.

Now, let me speak if I may,to the honourable member now, cn that matter. The minister did not change it. It is unfair to say so. Let us please have the record straight. Wh,H happened was that the federal government at that time,bearing in mind that the feder al government was about to enter into major urban renewal schemes, the federal government said, "On that principle of the Family Homes Expropriation Act, we will not enter into the schemes and we will not compensate on that principle." AN HONOURABLE ~MBER: But the province could have. ~m.

WELLS: The province could have and I hope the province under the Conservative <'..overnment in the future will do so. AN HONOUR.ABLE MF.~1BEP: Inaudible. MR. WELLS: That is right. But the government at the time looked at the situation and bearing in mind all the considerations - I do not know what considerations were there at the time - but the government, not the Minister of Finance - ~R. CARTER: On a point of order. If Your Honour will permit me, I would like to say a few words of welcome to some Russian seamen who are visiting this House. MR.

SPEAKER: I know it is in order for the honourable member to do it,by leave I suppose. But my understanding is that they are no longer here. nR. CARTER: I understand they are still here in the corridor, Mr. 5572

May R, 1974 Tape 1565 (afternoon) IB-7 Speaker. MR. WELLS: Well, if I may I would certainly yield for a moment. I would love to hear my honourable friend speak in Russian. ~IR. CARTER: I have been asked to just extend a few words.out of courtesy. Oovazhae mee droozhbya, Oteemenee nashevo parliamenta me pozdravlaem vass s'voshem visitom k'nam. Zhelaem vam vcevo naeeloochshevo nasha droozhba s'vamee prohleeyayet na me~r vcevo sveta spoceebo. MR. WELLS: That, ""l'r. Speaker, was a most welcome intrusion into the debate, I am sure . ~- NEARY: Inaudible. "'R.

WELLS: Well, I do not know what it was hut all I know is that it received approval from those toward whom it was directed. I am very pleased. HR. SPEAKER: Of course the honourable member for St. John's North will provide a copy of that to our staff up in Hansard because I am sure they are not able to translate it on thejr own. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is only long years in court that have given me the ability, I hope, to carry on with all the interruptions that I have had, pleasant though they have been. AN HON. ME¥.BER: (Inaudible). MR. WELLS:, What is that? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

WELLS: Oh, that is right. I can ride right over it. Now, ~r. Speaker, I believe I have fallen into the trap. What with Russian and everything else, I believe I have. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. WELLS: What was I speaking of? There was some particular area that I was speaking of. Oh yes, I was explaining to the Hon. Member for Bell Island, who has now vacated his seat, that we must lay to rest his blame. I do not think in debate such as this we are here to lay blame on the Minister of Finance.

We are not here to lay blame on the Smallwood Government or anybody but we are here to look, I hope dispassionately, at a problem and see if we can correct it. What was done in 1967 was done 5573

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1565 Page 8 because the federal government imposed certain strictures. In order to take advantage of the urban renewal schemes as laid down in the criteria developed by the federal government, the government at the time and the House at that time had to or did at any rate pass the amendment. But, "-r. Speaker, I ·1-1ciuld like to go hack if I may to tl;e act i tsel. f. It is a very short 11ct. I am going to read some of it. It is only h,To pages in total, apart from the schedule. The language in it is excellent. The thinking is excel.lent.

There arc some things a House can be proud of. ~•ost cif us were not in the House at that time but I think it is something to he proud of that this type of thinking was enshrined in a particular piece of legislation. The

preamble itself is interesting in this regard_, Mr. Speaker. "WHEREAS it is deidrable to avoid hardship to persons and families whose homes are exproprtated under various statutes in pursuance of various public purposes;and n WJ-IEREAS it is thought right to afford special protection in cases where e.xpropriation disturbs a settled family life: and ' 1

WHEREAS it is recognized that in many cases compensation limited under various statutes to market value is not true compensation: " NOW Tt!ERF.FORE BF. IT ENACTED •• , " I think that that sets out the thinking that was argued and that prevailed at that time about family homes and expropriation. Now the act goes on. It talks ahout family homes.

It says in Section (2): "Whenever under any act enabling expropriatidn of private property it is decided to expropriate any family home, this act shal] apply." It defines a family home and one can go into that in great detail b.ut it is a house which is and has for a reasonable time been the home of a family unit, together with the appropriate amount of land.

It says: "In case of any such expropriation and notwithstanding any rules or provisions for the assessment of values set out in the statute under which the expropriation is made, , the principle of assessment shall be that the owner of the family home shall receive compensation as will at current costs and criteria put him in a position to acquire bv 5574

May 8, J 974 Tape no . 1565 Page 9 purchase or const r uction a home reasonably equivalen t to that which is being expropriate d. " Sometimes the language of the dra ftsman is excel l ent, ~•r . Speaker, and t his is such a time. It is s o clear, it is i;,eautiful " ... a posirion to acqu i re by purc has e o r constructi on a hv,1,..: reas onably equivalent to that which is bein g. expr opria t ed . " There is a final sec t ion which is wort h tal king about . the intent of the act. I t says: ''ThP 5575

May 8, 1974 Tape No. 1566 NM - 1 intent and purpose of this act is that where it is decided to expropriate the family home the owner shall receive such compensation as will ensure that the family unit is in no worse position as a result of the expropriation, it being recognized that strict market value is not in all cases a true compensation to a family unit which is dispossesed, since it may not provide equivalent accommodation.

But the protection given by this act is not to extend to any person in whose case the property or his interest in it is fairly to be looked upon as a money asset or investment and is not a family home." So that it draws a distinction, the distinction that I drew a moment ago or a few minutes ago in debate, that there is a distinction between a family home which is lived in by a family and a home in the same street or in the same location which you or I or anybody might have as an investment to rent to other peoplP. That person should not get the benefit and under that act he did not.

The act set out its true meaning and intent,that it was the disruption and dislocation to families that it was aiming to correct, not to provide an unjust enrichment for somebody who was not entitled to it. So, Mr. Speaker, this act worked and this act did a lot of good and it was one of the finer little pieces of social legislation on our books and of course,for reasons which I have outlined,in 1966, 1967 the Act number 1963 of that year, it was amended. Now the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and this is something - MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable member would permit me - MR. WELLS: I may say, Mr.

Speaker, you are getting just like a judge. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has approximately, according to the new rules, two or three minutes left. I understand - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Well he has been interrupted on several occasions and I am sure he could continue by leave. Is leave granted for the honourable 5576

May 8, 1974 Tape No. 1566 NM - 2 member to continue? Agreed. MR. WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had not realized that I had gone on so long. Now then, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the 1966-1967 amendment. MR. ROBERTS: It would be better if there were a quorum, MR. NEARY: Yes, let us get a quorum. MR. WELLS: Well why not stay? Why not stay? MR.. ROBERTS: There are only thirteen,including all of us. If somebody would step in we would have fourteen. MR. NEARY: Send the Whip out to bring the members in. MR. WELLS: The honourable member for Bay de Verde has made up the number, Mr. Speaker. MR.

HOWARD: Always on the ball. MR. ROBERTS: The biggest thing he has done in two and a half years of public life. MR. HOWARD: That is your opinion. MR. WELLS: Come on now, we were debating the - You see I am about to deal with something which I consider of conRiderable public importance. Mr. Speaker, that is that when the Family Homes Expropriation Act was amended and when the principle that was enuciated in the 1964 act was done away with, it had not done away with all expropriation of family homes in the province.

What it did and I will read the relevant section, what it did was say this; "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act where pursuant to any urban renewal scheme a family home is expropriated under any act, by, for or on behalf of the province -or any body, corporation or authority and the assessors or arbitrators referred to in

section (

S) are of the opinion that the family homes so expropriated is (

a) substandard by reason of its size, construction or deterioration or {

b) unfit by ordinary accepted property standards for human habitation, no compensation shall be paid in respect of such expropriation except such compensation to the owner as is referred to in subsection (2) • " Then they go on to say, ''Where public rental accommodation is available the person would be allowed to have a chance at that rental 5577

May R, 1974 Tape No. 1566 NM - 3 accommodation." But what it did, Mr. Speaker, was not do away with it but it just did away with it insofar as these urban renewal schemes are concerned. Here is the nub of the matter. Mr. Speaker, a great many people in Newfoundland thought that when the amendment took place that it did away with the Family Homes Expropriation Act. Therefore when their homes were expropriate~, they did not realize, if they were outside an urban renewal scheme, they did not realize that the rights of the act were available to them.

Now it is an easy matter to say that knowledge of the law, everybody should be knowledgeable about it, that everybody should know that only a part of the Family Homes Expropriation Act was amended. But how many members of the general public knew that? How many members of this House knew it? Not very many, I would suggest. Why should they? We are not dealing with this every day. We are not all of us dealing with the law every day so that what happened was that the amendment applied only to the urban renewal schemes because the federal government dictated in effect that it would apply.

The act itself still applied to all other homes but people did not know it and I suggest sometimes that officials did not know it. I am sure that every town council manager did not know it. Officials would go out and they would use the ordinary standard of expropriation which was fair market value and I suspect and suggest that a great many people, even those dealing with it, did not realize that the Family Homes Expropriation Act and the principles and the law enunciated in it still applied .

I believe that in Newfoundl~nd since 1966-1967, people have been shortchanged either advertently or inadvertently because of this. I think that if nothing else were achieved by this debate and I hope that more is achieved by it, but if nothing else were achieved by it I think that is one statement which I hope will be reported and it is this. the statement that the Family Homes Expropriation Act still applies to every part of Newfoundland which is not the subject matter of an urban renwal scheme.

I think to say that loud and clear and for it to be reported would do good because there are houses being expropriated, not every day but every week in Newfoundland,which are subject to this act for which people .can claim the kind of compensation that I am talking

May 8, 1974 Tape No. 1566 l\'M - 4 about if the market value does not apply to them or does not give them an adequate move or an adequate compensation. Now I have referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs before . in the course of my remarks. There is no question,! think with the problems of municipalities, the problems of housing, the problems of urban renewal and the various social and economic problems that arise out of these areas of life I think that that minister has perhaps in some respects the most difficult portfolio in the provincial government. I would like to hear him speak on this also.

But I will say now that I think the management of these urban renewal schemes is one of the more difficult things that has ever had to be undertaken by a minister and his officials and deputies, etc. I think it is extremely difficult to handle an urban renewal scheme because the very nub l'ltl.d guts of a renewal scheme is that you are taking people's homes, you are transplanting them, you are moving homes, you are tearing up a conununity and making a new co11D11unity out of it.

What I am saying is essentially that the princ1ple of the Family Hames Expropriation Act ought to be brought back and ought to be aoplied to every family home expropriation in Newfoundland, includin~ family homes expropriated under urban renewal schemes but I cannot and I have thought about this a great deal -Mr.

Speaker, if I could in conscience say that we ought to rewrite the law, that we could change the previous a~reements with the federal government that we could ~o back to 1966 and 1967 and pretend that this had not happened and if we could recompensate people it would be marvellous,but I do not think that that is the way it can work. I do not think we can go back that seven or eight years and undo something that was done at the time largely because of the federal participation.

There is no law that we can pass here that can make the federal government provide money that I think it should have provided seven or eight years ago. We cannot do that. I have given a great deal of thought to this and I have given a great deal of thought to tt particularly because in my own district is Blackhead Road which was one of the major urban renewal projects. 5579

May 8, 1974 Tape NO. 1566 NM - 5 I know there has been hardship. I know there has been nuisance, I know there has been upset. I was talking to one lady - let us see, I think it was last Friday. She was one of the first people to have her home expropriated. She is an elderly lady now and hers wa,; one of the first homes expropriated on Blackhead Road, She was not able to get another home. She got $6 1 800, She could·not buy another home. She was treated as fairly as the law allowed.

She was found another home belonging to the scheme and she has rented that home from the scheme and has lived in it ever since and now she has a married daughter and son-in-law living with her. f,ut they were turned from home owners into non-home owners as of that date. You know she said to me and there was a certain amount of pathos in it when she said to me, "You know, ever since that expropriation, every since my home was taken, life has not been the same. I have had a feeling of anxiety and uncertainty, because I had lived in my own home ever since we were first married some forty years ago.

But in these last few years my husband is dead, I have had a feeling of uncertainty and I felt ill at ease." There is the human side of the problem that I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if we can correct, I do not think we can go back to 1966 and 1967 and put right these things.

I do not know how it could be done but my main concern is that from here on in and I hope that on both sides of the House we can say this, that from here on in,whatever happens, we will ensure in this province and the government and the House of Assembly of this province will ensure that this will not happen to people again, that if urbaa renewal schemes are conducted in future, whatever schemes,whether they be federal, provincial, joint partnerships, municipal, whatever they are, I want and I am asking this House to say that in future the principles involved in the Family Homes Expropriation Act will apply.

We cannot solve all of the things that have happened in the past. I do not know how we can go back and provide money out of current taxes and borrowings to rectify something involving another government,six, seven, eight years ago. But, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hop~ and I 55b0

May 8, 1974 Tape No, 1566 NM - 6 sincerely ask my colleagues in this House, on this side and on the other side, to ensure,and we are the only body in Newfoundland that can, we are the people who have the power, the power to make law in this province, and I would ask my colleagues as I say , on this side and the other side, to ensure that from now on, that from 1974 on that no family home will be taken without this concept being involved in the compensation so that ~eople will not have to suffer what some of the people in these urban renewal schemes suffered in the past.

Now I am more familiar obviously with the Blackhead Road scheme It is now called Shea Heights after I suppose one of the finest and most civic-minded spiritual leaders that have ever been in a parish in Newfoundland and that is the late Father Shea after whom Shea Heights has now been renamed; from Blackhead Road to Shea Heights. Some of the stories of the work that man did and the sacrifices he performed are worth telling and perhaps they will be told in another place and perhaps they will be put into print. But this man was a fine spiritual and community leader.

I am glad and I am sure we all are and I know the residents are that that area has now been called after him. But, Mr. Speaker, in the last year and a half, two years, considerable effort has been made to try,by means of a review board, to solve some of the problems that were left as a result of the urban renewal scheme in Shea Heights.

The review board in a lot of cases went and offered a little more compensation, tried to put right wrongs and in fact did a very, very good job I feel,and that some of the evils which I believe that this amendment to the Family Homes Expropriation Act, some of the evils brought about by that I think have been rectified - not all can be rectified.

But I would say again to this House and the members of it that we ought to take a stand now, that we ought to say that in future, from 1974 on, this sort of injustice will not take place and that we will change the law and we will when the time comes vote the monies to make sure that the law can be followed and that people who for the greater public good 5581

May 8, 1974 Tape No • 1566 NM - 7 have to give up their homes will be compensated along the principles that I have enunciated this afternoon. Because,Mr. Speaker, it is not only a matter of dollars and cents, it is not only a matter of clapboard and shingles and a piece of ground and a lawn and all that, it is a matter of the home, in my view at least, being almost the cradle of our society.

If children can be born into a home of a good physical standard, a better physical standard perhaps than their fathers, then it is my hope and I think should be the hope of all of us that we can benefit our community by the wise expenditure of public monies to benefit housing, to bring housing up, to bring it along and thereby to help our people in one of the most fundamental ways that I feel we can help them. Mr.

Speaker, I thank the House for the indulgence in _letting me go on longer than the time allowed and I do ask,as I say, all my colleagues on both sides of the House for support in this motion which I am proposing. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you! Well, Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate the honourable gentleman on what I thought was a most excellent speech. I know that I speak for my colleagues, four-ninths of us are here.

I can on1y express the wish that more of the hc;,nourable gentleman's political soulmates as it were had seen fit to hear bis speech because I think that the topic which he has raised in this resolution and the points which he has made in bis speech are probably the single most important points to be made in this House in this session, Somebody, I am not sure which honourable member it was, but one of the honourable gentlemen in the House, it may have been somebody on my side or it may have been somebody on the other side, made the point recently that the House of Assembly is irrelevant.

I think,Your Honour, with all due respect to the assembly over which Your Honour presides, I think that if the truth were to be known,in the eyes of most of the people in Newfoundland . the House of Assembly is largely irrelevant. ~ost of what we talk about has no real bearing on the problems that concern the average person. In particular the little party games that we play 5582

May 8, 1974 Tape No. 1566 NM - 8 back and forth,and all honourable members are guilty of this, if there be guilt. I am not so sure it is guilt. It is part of the system. It may be an inescapable ar.d an unavoidable part but the party games which we play do little to make the House any more relevant. Because of the faults in the procedure under which we operate, it is difficult to raise subjects unless the government choose to raise them. The government by definition seem afraid to raise many important matters.

It may well be that matters such as the one now before us can only come up through a private members motion and I think the gentleman from St.

John's South is to be complim~nted and congratulated for having brought in this motion, I thought he spoke not only sincerely, the honourable gentleman is usually very sincere, he does not talk with tongue in cheek as a number of honourable members on both sides have been known to do on occasion, but he is usually very sincere, I thought he spoke not only sincerely but with great eloquence because what he was sayinf touches him deeply, the subject matter is obviously one about which he has thou~ht a great deal.

Now, Sir, for our part we shall support the motion and do it quite happily and quite gladly and with conviction and with enthusiasm. The 011.ly complaint we have is that it is necessary to bring in this motion at all. It took a fair amount of political courage on the part of the gentleman from St. John's South to bring in this motion and I know he did so only with regret. Because, Sir, not matter what may have happened in the past,and I will come back a little later to deal with the 1966-1967 amendment to the original legislation, 5583

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 1 - MW no matter what may have happened in that far-distant past, the fact remains that the administration which presently forms the government of this province, the political party supported by the gentleman from St. John's South, stand committed and have stood committed to exactly the principle which the honourable gentleman advocates in his motion. Indeed, Sir, they have gone so far as to put that commitment in the form of a throne speech.

If Your Honour would cast your mind back to the famous or infamous one-day session when the people of Newfoundland were treated to a throne speech with one or two good things in it, Your Honour will find therein enshrined (As Your Honour knows,there is no pagination in the throne speech but it is quite near the end) the following paragraph: "Mr. Speaker and members of the honourable House of Assembly, my government believe that decent shelter is one of the basic rights of human beings.

My ministers realize the needs and aspirations of our people in terms of housing and have already commenced studies aimed at finding aolutions to these problems. At the same time my government maintains that when a person is removed from his home through any urban renewal development that this person has the right to have his home replaced by a comparable home." It goes on, Sir," We will, therefore, be asked to repeal the Family Homes Expropriation Amendment Act, 1966-1967." Sir, that commitment was made March 1, 1972. As we know that session ended precipitously.

I do not need to go into it now but shall we say that some arrangements were made for shelter for an honourable member, no longer an honourable member, and the session ended quite precipitously. The government cannot be faulted for not having acted at that session in this way. Sir, the 1972 session, April, 1972, came and went and there was no bill introduced to repeal the Family Homes Expropriation Act. Sir, the 1973 session came and went and no bill was introduced to repeal the Fauily Homes Expropriation Act. 5584

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 156 7 Page 2 Sir, the 1974 session has come, it has not yet gone although it is obviously getting towards its closing days. We have been given notice of seventy-eight separate bills, some of which are so crucially important as the bill which removed a coma. AN HON. MEMBER: That one passed. MR. ROBERTS: That one passed, Sir. The ministry put the full weight of their authority behind that one and it went through.

We still have not seen any bill to repeal or even to amend the Family Homes Expropriation Amendment Act, 1966-1967, The ministry cannot be heard to plead that the reason they have not done it is because of difficulty with draftsmen. It may be that they have difficulty with draftsmen but the Family Homes Expropriation Amendment Act, Sir, is a simple act to repeal. It can be repealed as simply as any act can be repealed, as a bill in its entirety would read: (I will get any bill to get the exact wording} "Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in-Legislative Session convened, as follows:

(1) This Act may be cited as The Family Homes Expropriation (Amendment) Act, 1974.

(2) The Family Homes Expropriation (Amendment) Act, 1966-1967, is hereby repealed." Sir, that is all that is needed to implement that promise. That is all the legislative action that is needed, a bill which would read in its entirety the words that I have just used. It is that simple. It is not a matter of drafting or anything else. It is a matter of will power or more explicitly,in this case it is a matter of "won't" power. The government made the commitment. Now they can sway what went on in the past,if they wish.

They can say that the Liberal Administration brought in a piece of legislation in 1964 which was a good piece of legislation. Indeed, Sir, it was one of the best pieces of legislation of its kind in Canada. They can then say that in 1966-1967 that act was amended. I was glad that the honourable gentleman from St. John's South pointed out the purport and the effect of the 1966-1967 5585

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 3 amendment. It has been misrepresented deliberately or negligently by many honourable gentlemen opposite over the years. In any event, that is history. The point I make is simply that in 1972 the administration stood pledged to that. They were returned to office quite handsomely and they have not moved in aqy way to implement tnat promise. I do not know what it wouid cost thea. Perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he speaks, as I hope he will, will have some words to say on what it would cost to implement that principle. Obviously, it will cost something.

Sir, presumably that was calculated in advance. Surely, when the administration wrote the 1972 throne speech, they knew what it would cost them to implement the principle. Indeed, I suggest that it would cost them very little because at present we have no urban renewal areas in this province. We have some in effect but we have no new ones.

As I understand the current Government of Canada policy, no new ones are contemplated.because they have switched their emphasis in the housing programmes away from the concept of urban renewal as we saw it in the Blackhead Road and now Shea Heights and as we saw it at Mundy Bond and as we saw it in Corner Brook, in the Crow Gulch and on the west side area. That concept has gone. It may well be that the amendment would not cost them a plug nickel. It is highly unlikely, as I understand t~e Centraf Mortgage and Housing Corporation approach now and the approach being adopted by Mr.

Basford and his associates and his officials at Ottawa, that we will ever again see an urban renewal scheme of the type we saw in the Shea Heights Area and the type we saw in Corner Brook and in Mundy Pond. That concept is gone. They are now using different concepts, different approaches. In other words, Sir, the gentleman from St. John's South put it into perspective. Be had to stand and make an eloquent plea for something which was promised to have been done two years ago, which could have been done with very few words. It was not 5586

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 4 as if a draftsman had to be found to draft a one hundred

section piece of legislation. I read the full bill. It is all that would have been needed, all that will be needed. He has to stand and plead in this House to have enshrined in legislation a principle which his colleagues - he was not in the House in 1972 when that throne speech came down, neither was the gentleman fr~m Placentia East. The gentleman from Placentia East at that stage was still a Liberal. He had not yet declared his true colours. However, the Member for Gander, the Minister of Fisheries,was in the House. He was in the cabinet.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs was not in the House when that throne speech was brought down. He was enjoying a brief respite from the cares and duties of public life, a temporary holiday at the request of the voters of Fortune Bay. He will be getting a longer one in due course. The point is, Mr. Speaker, the government have not moved, They could have moved. I say now that they should move. I go further and it is a point which I did not hear the honourable gentleman from St.

John's South raise and it may be a new point to him, that is that I doubt if the amendment would ever have any effect because the present Section(6)of the Family Homes Expropriation Act, which is the one to which the objection is quite properly taken, applies only in urban renewal schemes. Urban renewal schemes are not defined so they obviously would have to bare the meaning of the words. There is no special definition of them. There are to be no more urban renewal schemes. It would not cost anything. Ottawa, as I understand it, have abandoned that concept.

They are now talking of a different type of approach altogether than the approach of sending in the bulldozers to remake whole areas. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs will speak to that point. It may be that I have not completely understood the Central Mortgage concept. They do change them quite frequently. It may be that I have not understood them, As I understand them, the 5587

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 5 principle enshrined in that 1966-1967 amendment is no longer relevant to the tack being taken by the Government of Canada through their chosen agent, Central Mortgage. The fact remains, Sir, that we saw a commitment made in the throne speech two years ago and the government have not honoured it. They have not made any move to honour it, They have not given any reason why they have not honoured it. I think they should be heartily ashamed of it. As I say it was

an act of political courage for the Member for St . John's South to raise it. He knew it would be embarrassing to the administration which he supports. The points I just made, which were obvious points to make, are correct, relevant, accurate and truthful but they are obvious . I could go further to let Your Honour know that this was not just a casual commitment that was put in the mouth of His Honour the Governor.

In February, 1972, just before the House met, when presumably the administration were thinking that they might soon be appealing to the people, according to a report in that scurrilous rag of yellow journalism, "The Evening Telegram," (we know it is a scurrilous rag because our Premier has told us so) the following story appeared which was headlined, "Home for a Home on Hill , " The story reads, Sir: "Premier Frank .Moores met with representatives of the Blackhead Road Householders Union on Thursday and promised that legislation would be introduced this year to provide a home for a home in future expropriations in the area.

Ed Harlick, president of the unton,said that the organization members had worked closely together over the past eight months since the group was formed and their one main aim was to secure a government conmitment for the house for a house concept. Mr, Harlick said that it was a tremendous step forward and that the union was enthralled with the reception they received from the Premier. He described the Premier's commitments as tremendous." Sir, I will read the part that is unfavourable to my side as well as the part that is favourable: "The union president said 5588

.:. May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 6 the group had held meetings with former Premier Smallwood and other Liberal Government representatives in the past but had always come up against a stone wall." It was a stone wall embodied in the 1966-1967 amendment. "Premier Moores also t1romised to form a committee, once the public hearings on expropriations were over,with representatives of both the union and the provincial government representatives, 'to clean up the mess.''" phrases. It is another of the Premier's eloquent AN HON. MEMBER: There is no quorum. MR.

ROBERTS: I was going to go on and say that, Yes, the gentleman from St. John's South reminds us that the committee was formed. It was not enough but it was formed. It has been brought to my attention that there are really only thirteen in the House, counting Your -Honour. Ah, the gentleman from St. John's South has returned. I a~, glad. It is impor tant enough that there should be some honourable gentleman present. The story goes on: "Mr. Moores will also visit the Blackhead Road personally to make an assessment of the problems." I do not know whether in fact he has. If he has not, he should.

Sir, the point of that is that this was not a commitment lightly entered into by the government. Here you had the Premier,a week before the House met.with a public statement that the legislation would be introduced; a commitment. Then you had the throne speech itself. The commitment was not kept. It was so many empty words. I suppose when the Minister of Municipal Affairs gets to his feet and gives us his side of it or the current position of the administration,he will tell us that they are studying it and that they hope to have a task force report shortly and that in due course we shall have legislation.

I really expect that he will say that 558~

May 8, 1974 Tape no. 1567 Pa ge 7 and he will probably even be able to say it with a straight face. Sir, nobody will believe him. The honourable gentleman is not misleading us but nobody will accept those reasons or explanations. There can only be one explanation. There can only be one reason why the government have not moved and that is that they have changed their minds. They do not stand behind that commitment any longer. There cannot be any excuse for inact .ion, none. We have put through J ,:~islation in this House, Sir, that is of infinitely less importance. Lhan this matter.

Sir, I know that the gentleman from St. John's S,)uth brought in his resolution only after repeated representation amounting almost to importuning of the administration to honour their: promise. Then when he saw that they would not honour it, that they had no intention of honouring it, that they had not the least sd"~ i 11 a o f Jf•sin, to live up to the commitments which tlif''' had made, Lilt> only thing he could do to show his good faith to the people who elected him was to bring in thi.s amendment.

It will be very interesting, Sir, to see who stands to vote in favour of this. l will be interested to see if any cabinet minister votes in favour of this motion, Sir, when the time comes. For a cabinet member to vote for it would be

an act of sheer hypocrisy. Anyone of them, Sir, who votes for this will be guilty of hypocrisy in the extreme. They stand conunitted to bringing in a policy. It will not be an expensive policy to implement. That reason does not stand up. It will not be a difficult policy to implement. That reason does not stand up. The only reason there can be is that the administration do not have the courage of their convictions, that they made the promise, garnered a few votes with it, sucked in a few people and then when the crunch came, they could not live up to it and would not live up to it.

It is a shameful and degrading performance. MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: The Minister of Fisheries is part of it. He was in that 55~0

May s. 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 8 cabinet. He wrote that throne speech. He was Minister of Municipal Affairs for a year until he was driven out of it. At the unanimous request of the municipalities of Newfoundland, he was taken out of it. MR. COLLINS: MR. ROBERTS: I was the only minister who ever received a plaque. That is right. He did receive a plaque. They certainly have been sending the honourable gentleman plaques ever since. Most of them, Your Honour, have been delivered at the point of the toe.

The h~nourable gentleman left Municipal Affairs because the municipalities made in quite clear to the Premier that the honourable gentleman was the biggest disaster to hit Municipal Affairs since the honourable gentleman from St. John's North hit Education, and that is saying a great deal. MR. CHAIRMAN (Mr. STAGG): Order please! The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is probably digressing into matters which are not relevant to this resolution. I suggest that he address himself to matters which are relevant. MR.

ROBERTS: I thank Your Honour for directing me to the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as the event was, is not relevant to the resolution and I shall attempt to honour Your Honour's ruling. As I was saying, Sir, the present cabinet, this is a shabby performance. We all know that promises are made and we all know that promises are not always kept, Sometimes there are even valid reasons why promises are not kept. The administration's record in this field has been shabby and shoddy and second rate and altogether beneath contempt. As men they should be ashamed to stand for this.

Now, Sir, the subject raised by the motion, the one to which the gentleman from St, John's South spoke, I assume that I shall be allowed exactly the same latitude as the gentleman from St. John's South. The subject raised by the motion is really one of housing. It deals with an aspect of housing, I think it is 5591

May s. 1974 Tape no. 1567 Page 9 entirely appropriate to direct a few rein.arks towards a solution. I think, Sir, in working towards a solution, we should begin by doing something that no government of this province has done. The Liberals did not do it during our first_twenty-three years in office; Dr. Carson did not do it; Sir Phillip Francis Little did not do it; Sir Robert Bond did not do it; Sir.William Whiteway did not do it,;John Cabot and the fishing admirals did not do it and the present government have not done it. MR. CARTER: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: The honourable gentleman from St.

John's North is once again at his best with his silly grin and once again making it obvious that every time he opens his mouth on this or any other motion why it was the Premier dismissed him so ignominiously from the cabinet,and in so doing confirlling the wisdom of the Premier's decision. The only thing I regret, Sir, is that the honourable gentleman did not have the wit when he came out of the cabinet room or the Premier's room that day to say,as did his colleague from the South Shore of Conception Bay, the gentleman from Harbour Main, in that eloquent phrase, 5592

May 8, 1974. Tape 1568 (Afternoon) RH - 1 "I was shafted.'' If the honourable gentleman had not been quite as honourable but had been less willing to be shafted he would probably still be in the cabinet today. Newfoundland would then have had good reason, Sir, to sing our national anthem, "God Guard Thee Newfoundland." MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: I am speaking about housing, speaking entirely about housing, Your Honour. MR SPEAKER: (Mr. Stagg) If the honourable member were speaking about housine it certainly escaped the Chair. MR.

ROBERTS: If it escapes Your Honour that surely is Your Honour's problem. What I was saying was that we should lay down in this country, in Newfoundland and in Canada,a prin~iple. I would like to see it enshrined in statute law and made a policy accepted by the people of this Province, by the society as a whole, a principle that people as a right shall have decent and adequate housing. We do not have that. No government has done it and I can find 1,422 examples this day of instances where people in Newfoundland do not have adequate housing.

If every honourable member spoke to the point we could find not more than 20,000 or 30,000 people in Newfoundland tonight who byanv standards have access to adequate and decent housing. I say now to the administration that the time has come to adopt a policy that states as a right a person is entitled to a decent and an adequate home, a home adequate to his needs, a home that is adequate for the climate in which we live, that is adequate for his needs, the size of his family,and a payment for which is related to his income and his assets. That is the principle. We have accepted it with education, Your Honour.

Maybe the Tory Government have not fully implemented it but we have accepted the principle as a society in Newfound­ land that an individual has the right to an edqcation and it does not really matter whether his father is making $100,000 a year or $100 a year. We have accepted it with an education. Mr. Speaker, we have accepted it with medical service. Fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, twenty-five years ago medical services were a matter of either money or charity. My father practiced medicine in St. John's 5593

May 8, 1974 . Tape 1568 (Afternoon) RH - 2 for thirty years. In the days when he started,in the late 1930 1 s, a doctor either collected the fee on his own or did it out of charity. Like most doctors,he did his fair share of work knowing he would never be paid and not begrudging the opportunity ~tall. It was considered in those days an obligation to the medical profession.

Now we have accepted the principle that people are entitled as of right, as of a birthright, the very fact that they are Canadian citizens gives them the right, the very fact that they are here and alive gives them the right, the right to medical services. It does not matter whether they are rich or poor. In Newfoundland, Sir, I can recall at least one case when an individaul citizen, the hospital and medical bills came to over $100,000. I do not think we should begrudge a cent of it. We accept that with medical services. If a person is sick today he gets the medical treatment he needs.

It does not matter whether he is rich or poor, whether he can pay or not, he is taken to a doctor or to a hospital. There is no question that the doctor is payed for his services and payed by the state and so is the hospital. The first principle that was accepted was welfare. We have come a long way from the Elizabethan Poor Law when the parish had to provide sustenance for the paupers. We had the spectacle described by so many of the great English historians of paupers being chevied over the parish boundary, out of the parish and on to the next parish . Why? To get them off of the poor rates.

It is the origin of course of the well-known phrase, "If you are down on your luck you are on the parish." Well that was four hundred years ago in England. We have come a long way since then in Canada and in England.needless to say. Today a petson who has no income, who has no assets, who has no means to feed himself and to clothe himself gets that assistance. He may not get as much as he should.

He certainly will not get as much as he would like to have but he does get help, not because of his political affiliation nor his academic standing _ nor his creed nor his height nor his wealth nor the place where be lives. He gets it simply by virtue of his 5591

May 8, 1974. Tape 1568 (Afternoon) RH - 3 birthright. It is his birthright, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to get into a serious discussion with the gentleman from Bonavista South. Every time the honourable gentleman opens his mouth it is quick easy to see why the Human Rights Association twice defeated him for president. MR. W. ROWE: Rejected him. MR. ROBERTS: Rejected him. The honourable gentleman, Sir, speaking of a house for a house, is in this House now and he has five times tried to be elected to public bodies and made it once. MR. W. ROWE: Once and last. MR.

ROBERTS: The Tories turned him down in Bonavista North. The people of Bonavista South turned him down and the people were fooled by him. MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Order, please! Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Am I out of order? I am sorry, Your Honour. I am trying to make a very relevant point. If the gentleman from Bonavista South should want to do me the courtesy of allowing me to make my point in the silence to which I am entitled to speak,then he can be quiet. Mr. Speaker, the only problem in Bonavista South is the rush to get the nomination on the Liberal side. MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): Order, please! Order, please!

Before honourable gentlemen talk themselves into a battle royal either verbal or otherwise, I suggest that all honourable members observe the rule of courtesy and parliamentary procedure that the member speaking has the right to be heard in silence. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Sir, and I would certainly not engage in a battle royal with the gentleman from Bonavista South. Any battle in which one engages with him has to be based,by definition- AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Put in on the Order Paper, please. I have had enough of the honourable gentleman's serious questions.

Put it on the Order Paper, please. Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from St. John's North has the right to participate in the debate. If I really thought he had a serious question - I have had enough of the honourable gentleman's serious questions • . 5595

May 8, 1974. Tape 1568 (Afternoon) RH - 4 AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: No, Sir, the people of St. John's North will not take a chance on him and neither will I. I say to him,let him write it out and I shall have it checked out by my counsel. Let him send for a page. He can write it in Russian if he wish. My colleague from White Bay South will be happy to translate it. We will have a theologian check it out· and then we shall deal with it according to its merit.

Sir, what I was saying before the gentleman from Bonavista South inserted himself into the debate was that I believe that the right to · housing should be as much a birthright as the right to medical care or the right to education or even the right to food and shelter, the rights gauranteed under the basic welfare legislation. That is a new prinicple, Sir. It is not a new thought but it is a principle that is not enshrined in any law of this Province or in any policy of this Province. The Welfare Department, the S.S.

Department they call it now,will tell you that they have a policy that any person will have his house waterproof and windtight. Well that is a damnable misleading statement. I have run into a case recently in my diatrict where the welfare officer signed a letter saying,"Well, so the lady's house is damp!" A window, with ten children, eleven in the family,and they are living in a house to which they have to close the upstairs in the winter. Why? Because it is damp and the welfare officer, bless him human little heart, sent me a letter in which he say, "Well, it is true. It is damp.

Ice forms on the walls in the winter." That is the result of the present welfare policy. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: It did not happen ovemight, did it? MR. ROBERTS: No; it did not happen ovemight. It happened last October. The house was built in 1973,by the government,for this lady. That is how well they built it. I have already written the Deputy Minister a very stiff but proper note about it. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: personal. 5596 No, the problem is, well, I cannot go into it. It is Now, Sir, the honourable gentleman's question has been passed

1 May 8, 1974. Tape 1568 RH - 5 upon by the Policy Committee. It reads, "Re: house for a house" That is what we are on in case Your Honour has lost track of it, in case my colleague has lost track of it, in case I have lost track of it. It is "Re: house for a house." The honourable gentleman from St. John's North will be well advised to remember the old saying of Ms. Polly Addler; "A house is not a home." I would rather talk about a family home but he woul~ rather have a house for a house.

"How" it starts, underlined not once but twice for emphasis, "How could you implement the suggestion that the rip.hts to housinJ1; should be a birthright?" It goes on, "The fact that welfare pays $150.00 per month rent is a step in this direction." It is signed, "St. John's North." Muc-h the sort of note one would get in the House of Lords, Your Honour, where if the Duke of York were to drop Your Honour a note to ask Your Honour to drop around to the Duke of York's for tea tomorrow, it would be signed "York''.

If the Earl of Cholomondley were by some misguided thing, some utter aber ration to ask the gentleman from Bonavista South for~ cup of tea or a meal,in a spirit of Christian charity, in a spirit of good works, the honourable gentleman from Bonavista South would get a note signed "Cholomondley". Well, I have one signed "St. John's North", in exactly the same spi r.it. I want the honourable gentleman to know that I pay due heed to him. He is at least, Sir, a marquess if not a belted earl. Now, Sir, let me deal with this ~uestion. The way to implement the principle is to first of all establish it and accept it.

Secondly and I am going to speak a