VOL. 4 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. MONDAY, ~AY 7, 1979 NO. 26

May 7, 1979 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape 1078 MR. SPF.AKF.R: (Mr. Ott.,nho>imPT) EC - 1 I would like to welcome to the galleries on behalf of hon. members, Miss Yolande Bannister, who is Chief Parliamen:ary Counsel with Barbados, who is presently visiting Newfoundland and the Division of Parliamentary Counsel in Newfou~dland and is visiting other jurisdictions in Canada as well. I know hon. members join me in welcoming Miss Bannister to the House of Assembly. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: Before calling the first routine proceedings,hon. members will recall that a point of order was brought up in the last few minutes before adjournment on Friday and the gist of it was whether the parliamentary rule which requires hon. members to refrain frcm imputation of unworthy motive vis-a-vis members is operative with respect mformer members during the period of time that they were members and concerning actions during that period of time; in other words, whether that rule has a retroactive effect. I cannot find any authority that it does. In my opinion, that rule does not have a retroactive effect.

The one specific exception that Beauchesne points out, Page 114, that is people apart from members who may not be criticized in debate- and we are not referring here to a substantive motion - are those who are listed under the heading of 'Protected Perso•s'. It refers to judges- a judge acting as a Royal Commissioner - and people in the diplomatic service, representatives of the Crown. And,obviously, such former members are not contained in that category.

Another parallel suggested itself, and that is, for example, in Ottawa it would be unparliamentary for a member of the House cf Commons to make such referecces to members of the Senate,

May 7, 1979 Tape 1078 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER: (M r. Ot tenheimer) and the same ~ould happen in Westminster, whereb y the rule of abstaining from any im?utati on of un~orthy motive works recioroeally bet~een the two Ho uses. And I think the distinction there is that the two Rouses form one Parliam e nt,

whereas here, the Legisl a ture of Newfoundland and the Rouse of Commons in Ottawa are all separate !arliamencs. So that analogy would not appear to be operative.

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1079 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) The only thing I can say there, therefore,is that that rule of the necessity of refraining from a retroactive affect and does not operate with respect to members of other Parliaments in Canada. The general rule of freedom op~rates. It is, of course, as hou. members know,a rule of freedom • not licence, one to be exercised with responsibility but a responsibility which each member imposes himself , not one which the Chair is in a position to impose. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member for Baie Verte-White Bay. MR. T. RIDEOUT: ~~.

Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,101, I believe it is, residents of the Roddickton, Englee, Bide Arm, Conche, Main Brook, Creque area, three or four of those communities being in my district and the others being in the district of Strait of Belle Isle. The prayer of the petition is very serious so I will try to do it within the confines of the five minute rule,but if I run a second or two over time I would hope that members would not object too s tJ:enuously. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is to the han.

House of Assembly, "we,the undersigned residents of Roddickton, Englee, Bide Arm, Conche, Main Brook, Creque do humbly request, one, that in view of the fact that practically all of the commercially exploitable timber resourse in the Roddickton and Main Brook area is controlled by concessions to Botwaters Newfoundland Limited and Canada Bay Lumber Company Limited; two, that in view of the fact that neither of those companies are presently nor have recently operated an intergrated saw log pulp operation in the area; and three, that in view of the fact that the Canada Bay Lumber Company in particular will not permit private operators to operate within its concessions unless such 280B

May 7. 1979 Tape lio. 1079 SD - 2 :1R. T.

R!DEOUT: operators specifically agreed to sell their produce co Canada Bay ~umber Company; and four, that 1.n v1.ew oi cne face mac 1..overnment .''ll.nis cers nave statea publicly that e.cellent pulp markets exist in the European market; and five, that in view of the fact that a good, modern sawmill currently exists in the Roddickton area but is not being operated because Canada Bay ~umber Company refuses to provide logging equipment; and six, and finally, in view of the fact that Roddickt:on and ~lain Brook in particular but the area in general is suffering from a ~taggering unemployment rate t hat has crtppled the local economy , no...- :o~e t herefore urge that the aouse of Assembly direct the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to move illllllediately to reclaim the timber concessions of Canada Bay Lumber Company ~imited and Bowaters Newfoundland ~United so that loggers

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1080 m~- 1 XR. T, RIDEOUT: in this area might therefore be able to cut timber off Crown limits to take advantage of the European pulpwood market and any saw lumber markets that might exist now or in the future." Now, Mr. Speaker, let me begin in supporting the petition by saying that I realize that under the new Forest Management Taxation Act the Bowaters limits in that particular area will~! would suspect,be taxed to the point that a lot of it may eventually be turned over to the Crown.

However~that brings the situation of Canada Bay Lumber Company.! have said in this House on a number of occasions in this present session that there is a feeling existing in the community of Roddickton because of past experiences with the Canada Bay Lumber Company that is not going to dissappear overnight. We know that another company, Northern Logging, is interested in operating in the Roddickton. The residents themselves are quite happy to have Northern Logging,or any other company for that matter,operate and provide employment and provide jobs in the Roddickton area.

But the crunch of the matter, Sir, boils down to the fact that the loggers will still be,if that deal were to be approved and go through, the loggers would still be under the crunching umbrella of Canada Bay Lumber Company. And the experience of those people over the last number of years have been such that they feel they cannot live under that situation any longer.

The men are anxious to return to work; the men feel that the timber resource is there, there is no doubt about that;~ the skilled labour is the~e, there is no doubt about that, the European pulp market,according to ministerial statements back in February,looks very good and that area could take advantage of that and they therefore see there is no reason why that timber concessions given to Canada Bay Lumber Company back in 1974 ought to continue to be tied up.

Nobody wants to get rid of Canada Bay Lumber Company as a company, but if the concessions were taken away from them and returned to the Crown,then any private operacor or company who wished to operate in that area could do so. And if Canada Bay Lumber Company wanted to buy the saw log material~they could do so and the problem thereby would be resolved. ZSiO

May 7' 1979 Tape No. 1080 Ma. T . RIDEOUT: But nobody in the area,with a few minor exceptions,want anot her company to come into the area under the ove rall auspices and cont rol ot Canada Say Lumber Co111pany. OW - 2 Now, Mr. Speake r, I already indicated that I re fe rred to ~is matter in the House on a number of occasions , Roddick t on in particula ·r, but also Main Brook,which is not in my district,are currently suffering a very serious, economic crisis. 28ti

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1081 NM - 1 MR. RIDEOUT: I have been through it before and I cannot go through it in the five minutes allotted to me in petition period. But the simple facts of the matter, Sir, are that there is no labour union in that area so the men are fighting a company on their own. They have no recourse to labour and to the arbitration procedures of labour. They have no recourse to that. So they have been fighting this company who have been stifling the growth of the Roddickton - Main Brook area for the last number of years. Now I do not want to get into a match of calling down the company.

That is not what I am here for. They have made very bad friends in the area. Rightly or wrongly it is not for me to say. I do know that the men cannot work under the conditions where every man who has ever worked for them before went bankrupt and that is the whole situation, Sir. That is the kit and caboodle, and the residents see the solution simply of the government taking back the timber concessions, passing it over to the Crown and then letting anybody who wishes to operate in the area do so and if Canada Bay wants to buy the logs and cut it into sawlog material that is their business. Mr.

Speaker, I support the petition, lay it on the table of the House and ask that it be referred to the department to which it relates. MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): The hen. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: r1r. Speaker, I support the petition so ably presented by my colleague on behalf of 1101 of his constituents who live in the communities of Roddickton, Englee, Bide Arm, Conche, Creque and I believe one or two other communities. Z812

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1081 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: The people in these communities, Sir, are now resorting to the court of puplic opinion to try to get support for their cause to have the government take back the logging and timber rights in that area so that the people themselves who want to continue logging can make applications to the Crown, get their permits and cut the sawlogs themselves either for export or use here on the Island of Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague pointed ~~t, Sir, that this company, Canada Bay Lumber Company, has a bad track record in Roddickton, very bad indeed.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if Canada Bay lived up to the spirit of the agreement right from day one, that they never did directly get involved in logging in Roddickton, never did. They contracted it out. They farmed it out and every contractor who went to work cutting logs for Canada Bay Lumber went bankrupt and now another company called Northern Logging is about to move in and the people are so discouraged that I doubt very much if they will go and cut logs for this company.

I have had a conversation with a number of loggers, a number of people in Roddickton and they are so fed up and so discouraged that first of all they do not want this company in, They will do nothing to stop the company from coming in, but 2813

May 7, 1979 Tape 1082 PK - 1 Mr. Neary: they doubt very much if it can survive. They will come to the government, they will get theirhandouts from the Public Treasury as the other logging companies have done, through Rural Development grants, and Newfoundland Development Loan Corporation -~~es,Newfoundland Development Loan Corporation, and other forms of assistance from the government. And as soon as the loans and grants are exhausted they go belly up, and then we are right back to square one again, and the people in the area do not want that to continue.

It is about the worst case of exploitation, I suppose,that you could point your finger at in this Province, Canada Bay Lumber Company have gone in and exploited the people in that area and it is time, Sir, to put it to a halt. And the only way it can be stopped is for the government to take back the logging rights, take back the timber rights from Canada Bay Lumber Company. And if the people want to make applications to cut logs themselves then by all means give them a permit and let them do it. We are told by the ministry that there is a good market now for exporting pulp.

The price is very good, and the market is excellent. And I believe that is the direction that this operation in Roddickton should take. The people themselves maybe could form a co-op and start marketing the wood themselves, if it cannot be used on the Island, and obviously it cannot. Some of it may be able to be used to keep the lumber mills going.

There is an excellent sawmill ~n that area, and I would not be a bit surprised but it was put there by the Provincial Government, I would not at all surprised, Perhaps my han friend can tell me whether it was or it was not, but I believe it was put there with assistance of the taxpayers of this Province and DREE. It is just laying there now idle. It cannot be used. Perhaps the people would like to form themselves into a co-op and look into the possibility of reactivating that sawmill. But it is a very grave and serious situation, Sir.

The unemployment, apart from a few people who are working for the Highways Department, and maybe a few retail clerks and a few teachers~that there is 2814

May 7, 1979 Tape 1082 PK - 2 Mr. ~eary: no other source of employment in that area, in Roddickton. What is it, 90 per cent unemployment in the community? AN HON. MEHSER_: ~1R. NEARY: Ninety per cent. Ninety per cent. Is th i s a 1 is t of promises I have in front of me? AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. MR. NEARY: A list of broken promises by this administration. A modern sawmi 11 operat ion at Roddickton. "Steps have been taken by the government to make it possible for Canada Bay lumber to start a modern sa~IITlill operation which should employ in excess of 100 people:' R.;.u~io address September 15, 1972, By who~?

The Pr~ier. AN HON. ME~mER: The Premier. MR. NEARY: By the Premier of this Province of that day. Another broken promise. 2815

~ay 7,1979 Tape No.l083 AH-1 MR. NEARY: I am glad my hon. friend reminded me of it. But it is ave~ serious situation, Mr.Speaker, and my hon. friend is to be commended for the battle that he is fign~ing for these peopLe botn 1ns1de and outside ot the House of Assembly. I heard my hon. friend when the House was closed going to bat for his constituents in Roddickton, Sir, the likes of which I have never heard in my life. The eloquence of the hon. gentleman is to be admired for the way that he is fighting for these people in Roddickton.

If there was ever a group of people, Sir, on the face of this earth who are wide open to be exploited by the socialists it is the people of Roddickton and I am hoping that that will not happen, that they will not be exposed to that faith. But, Sir, something has to be done and the only something that can be done is the one recommended in the petition and that is for this government to have the courage to take back the Canada Bay Lumber Company from their buddies. I know they are not going to do it, Mr. Speaker. I am not allowed to debate this but I wish I could.

They are not going to do it because some of their buddies are involved. That is why they will not do it. In the meantime,the people in that area will have to suffer. Well, Sir, I hope that everybody in this House, on both sides of the House will support this petition to try to resolve this very serious problem that is facing the people in Roddickton. MR. SPEAKER:(Mr.Ottenheimer) The hon. minister. MR. ~ORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments on the petition without being in opposition to the petition or supporting the petition.

I want to bring a few facts out regarding the situation in the Roddickton area. Eleven hundred residents in the petition are asking for the government to take back the timber rights from Canada Bay Lumber so that the people in the area will have access to the timber accordingly. The situation is, Mr. Speaker, that back in 1972 legislation was passed in this assembly giving the permits to Canada Bay Lumber to 2816

l'.ay 7,1979 Tape No. 1083 AH-2 MR. MORGAN: cut in the area and under that existing legislation government cannot take back the timber rights without taking over the operation of that mill. We have been looking at that situation for the past number of weeks. Presently there is a petition in from thirty loggers in the same area, into the Department of Forestry, asking that Northern Logging, a new logging operation, a new company establish in the area and they would go to work for that company. However, the majority of the residents in the area apparently are opposed to Northern Logging because they are affiliated somevhat with tanada Bay Lumber. The fact is that at the present time the 2817

May 7, 1979 Tape 1084 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: only option open to government is for takeover of the operation of that mill or to find on by my colleague, the Minister of Industrial Development (Mr. Maynard). With regard to the timber rights, there is some possibility that we, as the government, can look at allocating timber rights to the residents of the area which is now being held by Bowaters,and that is the management area known as Unit 18 under the Forest Management Taxation Act, there is a strong possibility I will know more tomorrow.

Tomorrow morning, in fact, I am meeting with the senior officials of Bowaters at Corner Brook. That is one topic I will be discussing with them, the possibility of that Unit 18 being made available to the residents of the area, or sections of that unit. I would like to point out to the bon. gentleman on the opposite side who last spoke that we did not pump government money in this operation. It went in there without government assistance. The operation is without government assistance at the present time. We merely gave them the·permita to cut timber in the area. Mr.

Speaker, in closing my comments, I will way to my good friend from the area that the Premier has been involved and is involved now, my colleague, the Minister of Industrial Development, and myself. We are still working on this matter and I am sure my colleague will have a further statement on the situation within the next number of days.

With regard to the timber rights, that matter is under my jurisdiction and responsibility, and after tomorrow's meeting with the company concerned, Bowaters, I could be in a position when I return on Wednesday to indicate to the House, to bon. gentlemen, exactly what the status is 2818

-·· May 7, 1979 Tape 1084 EC - 2 MR. MQRGAN: of allocating additional timber rights over and above what is being held now by Ma. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) the Oppos;t.tion. The bon. the Leader of MR. W. N. ROWE: Mr. Spea.ker, I, too, would like to add my voice in suppcrt of the petition received from over 1,100 residents of the Roddickton area, five or six communities in that area, who have now for a long time been voicing their complaints over the airwaves and through their elected representative and other people in the Rouse as well, Mr. Speaker.

I doubt if there is anybody in the House of Assembly who, at one time or another, has not been contacted either casually or officially in order to deal with the very vexatious problem fac.ing the :residents and the workers of that area. The member for the district, Mr. Speaker, as my hon• friend has said, has been loud and vocal and eloquent in his desire to try tQ re.medy the problem in a way which is in the best interests of the reaidents of the area - not a couple of companies, ao~aters and Canada Bay Lumber Company, but the people of that area. 281.9

May 7, 1979 DW - 1 MR. W.N. ROWE: It happens to be one of a number of areas in the Province Which I suppose suffers one of the higher unemployment rates in the Province a5 well, ~!y hori. friend is not presently in his seat to indicate what th~ unemployment rate is in the area, 3ut I would venture to say, Sir, that it matches, unfortunately it matches any other area in this Province in terms of high unemployment rate,which is a aad thing. In some areas of the Province where there is a high ucemployment rate,it is because perhaps the natural resources do not exist in great enough quantities.

It may be because of an industrial slow down or close down which has contributed,or a mining close down which has contributed to the unemployment in an area. But in this particular,area, Sir, we are talking about an area which has some of the best timber resources in this Province and it is nothiag short of scandalous, that loggers, sawmill operators and the people involved in the lumber industry, the woods industry generally are not able to beco~ gainfully employed in the harvesting of that tremendous resource. The petition, Sir, is short but to the point.

It asks that loggers be allowed to cut on the Crown limits the concessions concerning which have been handed ~ver to Bowaters and to the Canada Bay Lumber Company. I understand also from the petition~ although it has also been on the air and it is generally known that there is a large logging operation in tte area presently gone either defunct or dormant as a result of not being able to get at the natural resource, and the people of the area quite naturally ask the government to step in and do what is necessary.

We do not have a corner on all the wisdom in the Province, Sir, and perhaps minds may differ as to what the remedy is here in this particular case, out the government should step in and do .rwhat is necessary to make sure that the dog in the manger attitude which is presently being displayed by these two companies is done away with~and whatever proper use can be made of that very valuable raw material,whether in fact we get into the export market for the European pulpwood market, the export market generally for logs,whether we get zszo

~lay 7, 1979 Tape No. 1085 DW - 2 MR. 1~ .N. ROWE : into that or whether there is a systematic sawlog operation encouraged and permitted to oper<~te in the area on those· concessions, Sir, that may be a matter for expert opiniGm. But the point is, Sir, that the valuable resource does exist, t .hat there has been a hue in cry now for many months~ the govermnent ceru.inly, as the hon. minister has indicated, is well aware of the situation, nobody can claim that it is a situation concerning which there has not been adequate time to deal With it, the zsa

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1086 NM - 1 MR. W. ROWE: member for the district has been on the airwaves every day, or every second day concerning the matter. Everybody is aware of it. And the time now, Sir, is for action in an area in which there is no excuse for inaction. The government may have some excuse in areas of high unemployment where there is no readily available raw material upon which an industry can be based. But in this particular area, Sir, there is no excuse whatsoever.

And the government should step in and do what is necessary to allow that abudant raw material, that wood,to be harvested and to be used for the economic and financial benefit, Sir, of the people in that area who now have one of the highest unemployment rates in this Province. I support the petition, Sir, whole-heartedly. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES: MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): The han. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DOODY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for 1978 of Newfoundland Hydro. MR. SPEAKER: MR. W. ROWE: ORAL QUESTIONS: The han. Leader of the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker, if I can get the attention of the hon. the Premie~ I would like to direct a question to him concerning this fuel shortage which is reported to be in existence at Gander. Now I realize, Sir, we are talking about an international airport under the operation of the Canadian Government. What information does the provincial gover~~ent through the Department of Energy,or through the Executive Council generally,regarding the fuel shortage there and the likely ~mpact it may have 2822

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1086 NM - 2 MR. W. ROWE: on the flights, international and charter flights and other flights which may be using Gander Airport? MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheirner) : The hen. Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Energy are in the process of trying to get factual information concerning the whole question of fuel shortages at Gander az,d we should be in possession of some.

You know, we hear all kinds of stories - diffierent people tell us differen~ things-but we are trying to get at the heart of it and just see what the facts are, whether it is short-term, long-term, who it will affect, will it have any long-term affects on Gander, this kind of thing and as soon as we have it we will let the House know. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. W. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, in the general area of this,because this is a very disconcerting piece of news to receive that at an international airport there may be fuel shortages, can the Premier indicate whether there has been any prospect that this Province may be subjected in any way to a fuel shortage or fuel rationing as a result of a fuel shortage or gas rationing as a result of gas shortages in the foreseeable future, as I understand is happening in the Easter United States right no\>·? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: There are two different issues here, Mr.

Speaker 6 One has to do with the supply of aviation fuel for planes at International Airport at Gander, 2823

May 7, 1979 Tape 1087 PK - 1 Premier Peckford: which is one problem, one set of circumstances; the other one is a much larger question and it has to do with the domestic supply of fuel products to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the two are not necessarily related because of various contracts of one sort and another, as the Leader of the Opposition no doubt under­ stands. We have had no indication that there will be any shortages as it relates to the domestic supply of fuel products to the Province, so that is the position at the present time.

I think the Leader of the Oppostion might be aware that today,I understand,the Minister of Energy for Canada is to announce a new deal with Mexico as it relates to the supply of fuel products to Eastern Canada. We do not know the details of that announcement because we were not consulted about it beforehand or informed about it beforehand, but we understand through the grapevine that there is an announcement already made or about to be made concerning that.

But to answer him directly,there is no indication right now that there would be any domestic shortages of fuel products in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. W. N. ROWE: A further supplementary, Sir. MR. SPEAKER ( ~1R. OTIENHEIMER): A supplementary. MR. W. N.

ROWE: If,as,anc' when the Come By Chance oil refinery comes onstream,could the Premeir indicate whether the existence of that refinery here in Newfoundland,producing presumably airplane fuel equivalent to kerosene and so on, and also perhaps some other petroleum products,will the existence of that refinery here have an effect on the supply of fuels in this Province or is it envisaged that all of the production from that plant will be committed elsewhere and exported out of this Province? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, twc points on that~ one is that at the present moment in the Province the Holyrood oil refinery,as the Minister of Energy (Mr. Doody) could perhaps better indicate to the Lfader 0f the Opposition and to this House,provides a lot of fuel to the Eastern part of 2824

May 7, 1979 Tape 1087 PK - 2 Premier Peckford: Island of Newfoundland, as far as Gander or Grand Falls, as understand it. But after that it is not economic for the refined product to go on acr~ss the Island,that it is more economic for tankers to come from Point Tupper, New Brunswick or Montreal and bring the fuel products into places on the Northeast and ~l est Coast than it is to transport the refined product from Holyrood. Believe it or not, that is the situation.

So that in ta lking about the reactivation of the Come By Chance oil refinery one has to view it in the light of the present ex;lerience as it relates to the existing refinery here on the Is~~nd which dictates a parameter of transportation of so~~here around ~ couple of hundred miles. The whole question of whether other fuel products or fuel products from Come By Chance could be 2825

Jofay 7,1979 Tape No. 1088 AH-1 PREMIEF PECKFORD: used in other parts of the Province,or even on the Eastern part of the Island,is a question that will be discussed lJith the First Arabian Corporation in the ongoing negotiations as it relates to the reactivation. MR.W!ROWE: supplementary. JofR. SPEAKER:(Mr.Ottenheimer) Oppositi on. MR. W.ROWE: Mr. Speaker, a final Hon. Leader of the While we are en the subject of the Come by Chance oil refinery~! was particularly interested in the jet fuel side of it in that question to the Premier.

But assuming that it does have some effect, advantageous or otherwise,on the availability of fuel, jet fuel and other fuel in the Province and the importance of getting it onstream for other reasons as well, Xr.

Speaker, there seems to be some speculation around, some scuttlebutt around that the government negotiators, perhaps the very team that was over in Europe, Britain and France recently,that the government has given some undertaking to the First Arabian Corporation, that the government may be willing to assist them, is the way I have heard it, assist them by way of guarantee, commitment, comfort letters - I do not know how- but assist First Arabian Corporation in the raising of its money to reactivate the Come by Chance oil refinery. Would the Premier address himself to that,Mr .

Speaker, whether the gove~~ent has in fact committed itself in any way regarding the raising of money by First Arabian Corporation for the Come by Chance refinery? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is clear, simple and without any qualifications, absolutely not. The Government of Newfoundland has not participated in any discussions with First Arabian Corporation along the lines of guaranteeing, financing or any other sort to First Arabian to make that one of the major reasons why it could get back into operation. No, we are not participating in that kind of arrangements Z826

May 7,1979 Tape No. 1088 AH-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: with First Arabian Corporation. We are now as a government, as a people, $50 million or close to SSO million in debt,if you will,or owing to us as a result of financing arrangements put Ln place for tne reiLnery in tne first instance and we are not about at this point in time to participate in financial arrangements with any company to develop a resource or to participate in a manufacturing facility in this Province on those terms. MR. SPEAKER:(Mr.Ottenheimer) Opposition. The han. Leader of the ~ROWE: This time it , really is a final supplementary, Sir.

Would the Premier indicate in view of what he just said when he is going to be in a position to make a more or less definitive statement on what has been going on with First Arabian Corporation, the crude oil supply, the financing arrangements and everything else that rr~y have some effect on either stop or go with regard to the Come ~y Chance oil refinery? MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD : The hon. Premier. Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows this is a fairly complex matter.

We are into talks with First Arabian Corporation, I am pleased to report that the group that were in Paris and London last week had what I would consider to be a fairly successful meeting in the sense of getting additional information from the people involved in the refinery, the First Arabian Corporation and the other people at the table, the British,and the way they look upon the proposal. Later on this week there will be people from First Arabian Corporation and from Ashland Oil visiting the Province to talk to myself and to members of the ministry in ongoing discussions as it relates to the proposal.

And there are a lot of areas~as the Leader of the Cpposition pointed out; there is the whole question of supply of the crude itself, the finance ability of the mark~ts, the operation, Z827

Ma 7,1979 Tape No . 1088 AH-3 PREMIER PECKFORD: refurbishing of the refinery, the equity participation or the amount of money that the First Arabian Corporation intend to put into this, the kind of refined product they are going to have, the whole thing becomes complex and there are many, many important factors to be considered. Additional information is becoming available every day and the discussions to date have been moving forward.

I would describe the point in time right now as that ve are on the. road to fairly fruitful negotiat.ions and it is starting to 1110ve quicker than it had in the last six or seven months. So I am looking ~th cautious optimism on the meetings on Friday and hopefully we can 1110ve the thing along as the· ·we'eks progress. I do not know if we can meet our June 30th deadline but let us hope we can.

Things look fairly positive and we are eager to participate in further discusslons with them and to that end they have agreed to come quickly to the Province to get on with the job of seeing whether in fact we really want to approve all the details that they have in their minds for the reactivation of the refinery. MR. CALLAN: Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) MR. CALLAN: A supplementary; Mr; Hen. member for Bellevue. The Premier has dispelled any suggestion there might have been then in the media this morning that the government, ZS28

May 7, 1979 Tape 1089 EC - 1 MR. CALLAN: the provincial government was going to back First Arabian if necessary. The Premier I think there was also a suggestion in the media this morning that the receivers were going to get out of this operation, wipe their hands clean unless an agreement was or could be made with First Arabian Corporation. Is there any foundation to that speculation as well or is that the same kind of trash as the other possibility? MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely new to me.

I did not hear the news reports this morning because I was on my way in from my constituency and I did not hear any news reports or the speculation. That is totally new to me and I am totally unaware of it. And therefore, being unaware of it and being up to date on the latest negotiations concerning the refinery, I would have to classify it as being totally untrue and just speculation. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary,followed by the hen. the member for LaPoile. MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, it is common knowledge, I think, that the British are paying the bills for the mothballing operation, the employees' salaries at Come By Chance and so on. Is it also fair to assume that as part of that mothballing would be considered the receivers? Are the British paying the receivers' bills as well, or does the Newfoundland Government play any

part in that? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, the first mortgagee is paying, of course, the rec~iver as it relates to the ongoing costs. 2829

May 7, 1979 Tape 1089 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) LaPoile. The hon. the member for of Gander, my bon. friend raised the matter about the international airport, Sir. I saw the Minister of Tourism (Mr. Power) in his seat there a few moments ago, but I believe he just stepped out for a minute, so I will direct my question to the hon. the Premier. Something that has concerned me for some time, since the international airport was renovated -in the process of renovating that international airport - AN RON. MEMBER: It is not finished yet. MR.

NEARY: I know it is not finished, and I am not at all pleased with the renovations that took place as far as the treatment of domestic passengers are concerned. I think it is scandalous the way they are treating domestic passengers in that terminal. It is more like a barn than it is a domestic airport. But I do not want to talk about that at the moment. I want to talk about the aviation museum in that airport. That aviation museum, does it come exclusively under the jurisdiction o~ Canada or does the Province have any input in it at all , the aviation museum in the international airport in Gander? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) - I have to say I was in Gander the other day, and I kind of agree with your opening statements about the domestic travel that is in Gander; it is not in very decent shape at all. With regard to the aviation museum, I really am not familiar with the answer but I will be more than glad to get it for the member tomorrow and bring it in if you wish. ZS30

May 7, 1979 Tape 1089 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: The point that I am making, just for the benefit of my hon. friend, is that that museum, whether it comes exclusively under the Government of Canada or the provincial government has any input in it, the museum was put there by the taxpayers of Canada and when they were in the process of renovating the terminal they made the security so tight in Gander International Airport that the tourists coming into this Province do not now have access to that aviation museum. And that is the point I am raising with my bon. friend.

If my hon. friend discovers that it a under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, will my hon. friend write a strong letter of protest to whatever minister up in Ottawa is responsible for that aviation museum and get it opened up to the public and to the children in Newfoundland before the tourist season opens this year? School children go down there to go in and see the aviation museum, doing projects and so on, do not have access to it and cannot get in.

Security is tighter there than it is behind the Iron Curtain, and I want my bon. friend to look into it and try to do something about it and get it opened up for the public and have it used for the purpose for which it was built in the first place. SOME RON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. POWER: Oh, oh! Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Tourism. In answer to the first part of the question, if the museum is totally under the federal government,then certainly I will be more than glad to put a very strongly worded letter to them.

If the museum is partly under our jurisdiction or totally under our jurisdiction, 2831.

May 7, 1979 Tape 1089 EC - 4 MR. POWER: I will ·take immediate steps to have it opened up to the domestic public, which is where .~ . -""- · ·'~ \,._, - ... .a 4-.• v ...... ""' .., .... • MR . SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) Th e bon. the member for Bellevue, followed by the bon. g entleman from Trini ty - Bay d e Verde. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I wan~ to ask the M-inister of Finance (Dr. J. Collins) when be thinks h e might be in a pasition to bring down the Budget for 1979 - 1980 and whether or not the ongoing talks regarding the Come By Chance refinery are in any way connected with the delay in bring down this year's Budget? Z83Z

May 71 1979 MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) DR , J, COLLINS: Tape No, 1090 SD - 1 Hon, Minister of Finance, Mr, Speaker, I think it has been already said in this House that the hope is to have tne ouaget ready towards the end of this month or early next month and 1 do not think that that timetable has changed appreciably, The question with regard to Come By Chance, the work is going forward in regards to the budget, quite separate from any consideration of Come By Chance MR. W. CA11.AN : MR. SPEAKER: Bellevue. MR. W, CAI.LA..'II : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, hon. member for Mr.

Speaker, it is interesting to notice that the budget will be brought down about the same time that the moose hunting licences will be awarded,either the last week in May or the first week in June. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the civil servants, in the different departments, they say, "Well, we .:an not tell you anything about roads.

The ;ninister is in Question Period." Or they are saying, "We do not know anything about this road programme and we can not tell you until the bud get is brought down, water systems and so on." Let me ask the minister this; why is it taking so long to bring down this budget? Is this budget any different from regular budgets or what is so spectacular about this one? AN HON, MEMBER: MR. SPEAKER: DR. J. COLLINS: It is an election budget. Hon. Minister of Finance.

Mr, Speaker, this House passed an Interim Supply Bill which carries the Government forward to the end of June, I believe, so that there is no hold up in Government programmes from that point of view. In terms of delay, I do not know if there is an undue delay. The estimates-or the proposed departmental estimates are being given very careful scrutiny 2833

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1090 SD - 2 DR. J. COLLINS: by the Treasury Board, departmental officials are coming in and commenting, I do not think there is .. .. ...., consideration, MR. SPEAKER:(Ottenheimer) Hen. member for Trinity-Bay de Verrie, ~· F. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indicate to the House whether or not there are current negotaticns going on with any firms for the purpose of constructing offshore concrete platforms within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier. PRD1IER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to answer that question.

I do not know if there are any private discussions going on. There might be some preliminary discussions going on with members of the Industrial Development Department and prospective companies who might be locking at Newfoundland as a possible place for some construction of platforms under the assumption that there is a commercial discovery of oil or gas. But a firm, definitive proposal as it relates to that would wait some time, I would think.

If there is any movement on the way it is strickly preliminary at this time, I would suggest, although I can not answer the question totally because there could be some private negotiations going on. MR. F. ROWE: Supplementary. MR , SPEAKER: Supplementary. Hen, member for Trinity - Bay de Verde, MR. F. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker; in view of the fact that the former Premier indicated in January 1965 that two foreign firms are examining or were examining the possibility of constructing huge offshore concrete platforms in this Province, I wonder if the present Premier could indicate the names of these two firms and where in fact they were planning to construct such platforms? ZS34

May 71 1979 MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) PREMIER PECKFORD: ~ l~bJ, the hon. - MR. F. ROWE: PREMIER PECKFORD: Tape No. 1090 SD - 3 Hon. Premier. Hr. Speaker, I have not a clue. '75. '75. I think the hon. member said '65 in his question, I am not aware of the names of the companies. I was aware sometime ago of companies that had called and had written various Government departments interested in construction of offshore apparatus or one sort or another but I am not aware of the names of the two companies that the hon. member. refers to. MR. F. ROWE: MR. SPEAKER: Trinity - :aay de Verde. MR. F.

ROWE: Supplementary, Supplementary.

Hon. member for I wonder if the Premier would undertake to, Sir, find out the names of the two companies to which the former Premier referred who were examining, actually examining the possibility of constructing huge offshore concrete platforms in this Province and also indicate to the House or table before the House any reports that may have been made by these companies to the Government and what steps the present administration is now taking to approach these two companies, if indeed they do exist,to see what they intend to do with respect to building concrete offshore platforms in this Province? MR.

SPEAKER: Hon. Premier. PREMIER PECJ.Q'ORD: I will pursue the matter, Hr. Speaker, as the hon. member wishes but whether I can release the names of the companies is a matter which I can not undertake to do definitively today because I do not know if these companies were dealing in confidence with private Z835

~.ay 7. 1979 Tape NO, 1091 DW - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: entrepreneurs here or with the government here on a private basis. The government 'itself did initiate a trying to isolate areas around the Province which might be suitable for such offshore platform development. The companies I do not know, but I will ,pursue it for the hon. gentleman, MR. SP'EAK!R(MR. OTTENHEIMER) : The hon. member for Terra _, Nova. MR. T. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn).

The minister no doubt will recall that in the last session of the House of Assembly we passed a bill relating to nccupational, Health and Safety and this related specifically to miners in Labrador City, l<labush and Baie Verte. This bill was to be strenghtened by rules and regulations that were to be drawn up after the bill was passed here in the House of Assembly. My question to the minister now is what is _ the status of these rules and regulations? ,\re they done at this stage~ Just what is the situation on them. MR. SPEAKER: Ron. minister. MR. DINN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the regulations have been just about completed. I have referred them to the Occupational, Health and Safety Cammittee.!hey are reviewing them and when they have made their comments on the regulations I will be bringing them forward to government for approval and it should take a week to two weeks to have them approved • MR. T. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER: MR. T. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary. My impressions, Sir, were at the time when this bill was done that this bill would have the effect of making the work place safe for miners.

But in view of the fact that the minister set up a co-ordinating committee to look into the dust control problem in Labrador West 1 I am just wondering now how effective these regulations 2836

}lay 7. 1979 Tape No. 1091 DW - 2 MR. T. LUSH: indeed were and I am just wondering whether there is any provision for this co-ordinating committee now to have an input into these rules and regulations that were to be made because the minister has indicated by his answers that this is already in process and indeed at the final stages. So is there going to be any provision for this co-ordinating committee now to be able to make some suggestions re: the rules and regulations? MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): Hen. minister. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the bon. member has obviously touched on a very difficult situation.

The problem with Labrador City/~abush is a very serious problem, the dust levels etc. down there, t'y latest report indicates that the dust levels about 88 per cent of the time are below the TLDs which indicate that it is relatively safe but it is not safe. If I were to!as a responsible person 1 go down to Labrador City and look at the readings of the meters down there,I could virtually close the mines. The fact of the matter is I have been talking to the unions,I talked to the companies; the unions certainly do not want the mines closed. I talked to the companies, Government is very concerned about it.

We have set up a committee for both the Iron Ore Company of Canada and for Wabush ~ines I will be talking to Wabush ~~ines,both union and company,by the end of this week 1 and we are setting up that committee to solve a particular problem.It is not a matter of looking at gauges and saying it is above the TLDs, the dust levels are above,therefore the mine closes down MR. SIM!"'ONS: (Inaudible) mines (inaudible). MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to even answer the question if I cannot get silence 1while I am answering the question~ from ·.the hon. member for Burgee - Bay d' Espoir (Mr. Simmons). MR. s.

NEARY: Go back to the telephone company. MR. T. LUSH: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, original questioner. 2837

May 7. 1979 Tape No • 1091 DW - 3 }IF.. T, LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister did not answer the question at all, the important part which was relating to whether or not there is any provis1an made ior chis commit ·t:ee now to lD8ke recoi!IIIU!Udations re the drafting of the rules and regulations affecting the Occupational, Health and Safety Bill, Whether these people will be given au opportuni~ to have au input into the rules and regulations or whether this ~ill be after the fact. We will do ~hose rule$ and regulations and then we will ha.e to make rules and regulations again or either draft extra legislation.

Is there any provision for immediate input by that cO'IIIIdttee? MR. SPEAKER (}IF.. OT'l'ENHEIMER): Bon. minis te~. MR. :J. DINN : Mr. Speaker, I do. not know what committ:ee the bon. ~~~ember is t:alkUlg about. !he co-ordinating cOII!IIlittee has already had 2838

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1092 NM - 1 MR. DINN: input to these regulations. The regulations have come forward, we are asking for comment now from the - as a result of making the regulations upon suggestions of these various committees, we have got the regulations in place now just about, there is some crossing of t's and dotting of i's and the various other little problemsthat I have gone back to a committee on. They are looking at them now, when they are finished that they will come back to me a~d I will take it to government and the regulations will be approved. MR.

SPEAKER (Ottenheirner): I will recognize the original questioner for a further supplementary. MR. LUSH~ Mr. Speaker, again this seems to me to have been a matter of putting the cart before the horse 1 because we drafted certain legislation, made certain rules and regulations 1 and it looks like we do not know for what reason 1 so we have set up this committee to now go about in an almost reverse manner. But anyway the question to the minister now is relating to the cost of that co-ordinating committee, the committee set up to look into the dust control problem.

Either the minister or somebody else has indicated that the cost for this study will be in the vicinity of $1.5 million, so I am wondering if the minister can inform the House as to what arrangements he has made with each of the parties concerned for paying that bill? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker 1 I indicated to the han. member late last week that I was meeting with the President of the Iron Ore Company of Can~da and the Z839

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1092 NM - 2 MR. DINN: president of the union. I have to now meet with the President of Wabush Mines and the president of that union,and all of the negotiations have not been completed with respect to financial arrangement for completing the studies that are needed to identify the problems and to make recommendations as to the solutions to those problems. I will be meeting before the end of this week 1 as I said 1 with Wabush Mines.

I have an indication from the company, the Iron Ore Company of Canada, that they will get involved financially in this study, that they will get involved substantially in the financial arrangement for this study. I have asked the union, the president of the local for the Iron Ore Company of Canada has indicated that he does not think the union should be involved. Well 1 it is my opinion that they should be involved. Government certainly will be involved. The Iron Ore Company of Canada will be involved, or I have an indication now to that effect. I have to see, as I have already said, Mr.

Speaker, the people in the Wabush Mines operation and the union for Wabush Mines and they will be giving me an indication by the end of this week as to whether they will become financially involved in the particular studies that we are talking about for the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines and the environment in the towns of Labrador City and Wabush. When I get all that information, when I get it together, when I get it compiled, I will make a ministerial statement here in the House to inform the House of what arrangemen~and agreements we have arrived at and I will, Mr.

Speaker, be keeping the House fully informed of the ongoing progress as we go down the road. 2840

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1092 NM - 3 0 0 0 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour that hon. members of the House would not like to let the opportunity pass without taking special note of a story in today's Daily News involving a major breakthrough at the children's Janeway Hospital here in St. John's. The story in today's Daily News, Sir, gives a MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order. M_~. SPEAKER (OttenheL~er): A point of order has come up. MR. MARSHALL: I do not know what the hon. member is about to bring up,but there is an order in the House.

We do not mind from time to time members opposite getting up and proposing appropriate notations of the events that have happened from time to time but I do think this is now becoming a habit and it is getting out of order. MR. SPEAKER: There is no doubt that, as hon. members know, they can only speak when there is a motion before the House and to speak otherwise is by unanimous consent and when I am aware that an hon. m~~er objects,then obviously there is no unanimous consent 1 then there is no motion before the House. So I now have to put motion one. MR.

NEARY: Could I move, Sir, that Your Honour write the Administrator, the doctors - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The rules do no allow me to recognize the hon. gentleman. When there is no motion before the House- I mean 1 the hon. member can speak when there is a motion before the House. When there is no motion before the House it is by leave, and when an hon. member gets up and starts to make a point 1 2841.

May 7, 1979 Tape 1093 PK- 1 MR. SPEAKER(Ottenheimer): then it is by leave. But until it is by leave I cannot recognize anybody. ORDERS OF THE DAY': Motion, the han. Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture to intrcduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Objects, Sites and Records Act, 1973", carried (Bill No. 32). On motion, Bill No. 32 read a first time ordered read a second time on tomorrow. MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SIMMONS: Order 13, Bill No. 15. Order 13, the adjourned debate on Bill No. 15. The han. member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir. Hear, hear! Mr.

Speaker, your ruling earlier today brings to mind the subject on which I ended my few remarks on Friday, I was talking about the involvement of the former member for St. John's West, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. John Crosbie. I noticed during the weekend he took a bit of his venom out on me, he thought, and he made what I feel was a rather shameful attempt in the press to connect me to one John Doyle. Crosbie's attempt is one of the most cowardly bits of innuendo I have ever seen exhibited, Mr.

Speaker, in public life and I take exception to it. have never met Do~le in my life, I have never talked to him, I have never written to him, and, thank God, I never want to. As far as I am concerned he is a fugitive from justice, and the sooner they get him back here the better. And Crcsbie had that within his hands too, Mr. Speaker. I understand from the Federal Depa~tment of Justice that neither Crosbie nor any other member of this administration has even requested Ottawa to extradite John Doyle. Crosbie's attempt over the weekend, his smear attempt on me over the weekend in the press, Mr.

Speaker, was a clumsy effort on Crosbie's part to hide his real relationship with Doyle. It was Crosbie, Mr. Speaker, not me 1 it was Crosbie who let Doyle off the hook on Stephenville, and who paid him $5 million to boo~ 2842

May 7, 1979 Tape 1093 MR. W . N. ROWE: At least. MR. SIWvlONS: At least $5 million. Check the legislation Crosbie who let him off the hook, not me. It is Crosbie who sounds l i ke the buddy with Ooyle,not me. Crosbie had a lot more going with him than I ever want to have going with him. So if Crosbie gets a little offended, Mr. Speaker, because I am here knocking his buddy Doyle a bit,well,that is toe bad,I say to John PK - 2 Crosbie. He is going to have to find some other issue to explain his defeat two or three weeks from now in the federal election in St. John's West.

And he is going to need more than the child hater from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall),whom we just saw in action a moment ago, to defend him. He needs more than that down there now than spurious points of order that Mr. Speaker has to rule out. The member for St. John's East is becoming an embarrassment to Mr. Speaker. Every day now we get another ruling as a result of some antic by that han. member. Well,enough, Mr. Speaker, about Crosbie, and enough about the member for St. John's East . Let us talk about what went on over in Stephenville. was talking about the mismanagement.

I have only got a minute or two, but we will get into it in Committee. And I give notice to the Government House Leader now that in Committee we are going to scrutinize and ask a number of questions about this whole agreement and so I have deliberately left in abeyance any comments about the agreement itself, because we will have opportunity enough to analyze that in Committee. But, Mr. Speaker, while we are on the principle of the bill itself I think it is fair to make a few comments about the mismangement that went on when this mill was owned by government.

And why there was such mismanagement. mentioned the other day, Mr. Speaker, the illegal activity itself, the incompetent management. am out of time, Mr. Speaker, but we will come back at another time. Thank you very much. SOME HON . MEMBER: Hear, hear! 28-13

May 7. 1979 Tape 1093 PK - 3 MR. SPEAKER (HR. OTIENHEIMER): The hon. Minister of Lands and Forest. MR. tilRGAN: Mr. Speaker, r have 1 is tened to this debate on Bill 15 ratifying the sale of the Labrador Linerboard mill. r have listened attentatively to the Opposition spokesman in particular. And r find it, first of all, r woule say, rather amusing that here we are selling a mill to a finn well known in the industry, with a good reputation. We sold it for $43.5 million . And it is going to mean,after the first machine is installed t860 new jobs, 260 in the mill and 600 in the woods operation. 28-:14

May 7, 1979, Tape 1094, Page 1 -- apb MR. MORGAN: Not only that, but the mill is going to see the installation of a second machine which will see double the number of people employed in that area of the Province, to a total of approximately 1,700 people. Yet, of the Opposition spokesmen to date, not one person with the exception of the somewhat qualified support of the member for Stephenville (Mr. McNeil), all other members who spoke in this debate are opposed.

It is obvious from their comments and statements made they are opposed to the sale of this mill and to the achievement of government in doing this to establish and create jobs in the St. George's Bay­ Stephenville area. The member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) stood in his seat and spent the full forty five minutes trying to find scandal, corruption, innuendo, charges of scandal. The member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) stood in his seat and said we gave away the timber rights to Abitibi, we are giving away the timber rights, giving away the rights of Newfoundlanders. He was opposed to it. He was against it.

It was a bad deal. And Friday afternoon the man who just sat down spent most of his time trying to castigate by innuendo the former member of this hon. House who was then Minister of Finance, now an M.P.-and will be an M.P. for a long time to come. He stood in his seat and cast charges and innuendo against the bon. gentleman. And I say to the same hon. gentleman who made these charges, if you have the courgae of your convictions,do not hide in the House, hide behind the curtain of immunity. Do not do that; accept Mr. Crosbie's challenge and go outside this House and make the same statements outside the ZS45

May 7, 1979, Tape 1094, Page 2 -- apb MR. MORGAN: House of Assembly as he has made here. But I would say he does not have the courage of his convictions because he merely wants to, again, use his smear tactics and cast innuendo, trying to stand in this House and say the reason why the mill was closed and taken away from John C.Doyle and taken over by government was strictly for one reason, because of the vested interest of the Crosbie family in the linerboard operation. That is ti1e charge he made in this House on Friday afternoon.

The gall of the hon. gentleman, the gall, after the taxpayers of this Province backing up every way possible this ill-conceived and poorly planned venture in Stephenville in the be~inningl Construction costs were $155.4 million alone. The operating losses for the first four years of that mill, $142.3 million. The taxpayers of this Province put into the operation at Stephenville $300 million.

And here we are now with a reputable company coming in, Price Abtibi, taking over the operation, making it viable, creating jobs, all to the overall benefit of our Province, and not one person in the Opposition benches stood and had the courage to say, Yes, the government was right, it was a right decision to do what they are doing. Not one, with the exception of my good friend from Stephenville (Mr. McNeil) who stood and said, Yes.

There were some aspects of the close down of the mill he •~as opposed to, but now this bill, this legislation is good legislation, it means jobs for his riding, it means jobs for the general area and it means a boost to our 2846

May 7, 1979, Tape 1094, Page 3 -- apb MR. !>!ORGAN: economy. There was no special deal, Mr. Speaker. There was no giveaway. The only reason these charges are being mace in this House in the last few days is simply because of the close liaison,the almost like family-type relationship between one certain gentleman in the Opposition and John c. Doyle . John c . Doyle is a fugitive from justice in this country and he has been that for a number of years . Anc the gall of the same gentleman to stand in this House and cast inn uendo!

Yet he has the nerve at the same ti me to admit to the general public he travels to Panama every second or third month of the year. What for? Not for vacation 1 not Eor a holiday, but to confer. To confer with his colleague and friend,the criminal, the fugiti ve fro m justice, John C. Doyle . And it is only because of John C. Doyle's bitterness that this hen . gentleman and his friends in the Opposition are so opposed Z847

May 7, 1979 Tape 1095 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: to the sale of the mill at Stephenville. They are portraying and venting the bitterness He was opposed to government takeover and he wanted the mill back again. Let me ask the bon. gentleman in the Opposition, one in particular, a certain question, and I will ask it in the form of a question without making an innuendo or charge. Is it true that when the hon. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) was seeking the leadership of his party, aspiring to become Premier of the Province, is it true that he promised John C.

Doyle if he ever became Premier and the Liberal Party became the government that they would give the mill back to John C. Doyle? Is that the main reason for the bitterness? - that they would oppose legislation to sell, they would oppose government actions to do that? Is that the only reason? Mr. Speaker, if it is, it portrays very badly on the more intelligent members of the Opposition to fall into that kind of a ttap by a man who is a good friend of John C. Doyle, by a man who confers more with John C.

Doyle than his own leader in the same party, listens to his ideas and views and suggestions, listens to his so-called stories of scandal and corruption and comes back into this House and stands and brings them forward accordingly. Surely, the gentlemen on the opposite side are not going to fall into that kind of a trap, to merely be standing for the rights of an individual, as I mentioned earlier, who is a criminal in this country and I think will never return to this country. Mr.

Speaker, the fact is, there is no giveaway, not even any subsidies - not even subsidization to get that mill going again in Stephenville - no subsidization, not from government, not from the hydro cost, not from the 2848

May 7, 1979 MR. MORGAN: the town council. Tape 1095 EC - 2 local government in the area, There are no concessions of taxes, no couc~~&iuh$ ln the cu~t uf el~ctticlty, aud thete is no government direct assistance. So what is the big giveaway the Opposition is saying? The big giveaway is, according to one member in the Opposition who spoke on the timber rights in the Province, we are giving away the timber rights to Abitibi. Mr.

Speaker, for the first time in the history of this Province, Price Abitibi,when the mill is in operation in Stephenville, will be charged stumpage charges on the timber they cut, For the first time in the history of our Province. We are not giving it away to Abitibi, we are charging them and taking revenue from them. There is no giveaway. In fact, a few weeks ago I sat down with Price Abitibi officials and discussed with them the timber required to operate the mill.

One of the concerns I had as Minister of Lands and Forests, and also one of my predecessor's concerns as well, is to make sure that we have an adequate supply of timber for the operation of the mill. And for the first machine, 150,000 cunits of wood is required. That amount has been assured to the company for the first machine and we are now looking at and allocating sufficient wood supplies for the second machine. But one of my concerns was also, How would the granting of these timber rights affect the general forest industry, like, for example, a sawmilling industry in that part of the Province?

And I would never want to see while I am Minister of Lands and Forests - and I am sure my colleague will agree with me - for any company to move into an area and take over all timber rights, the rights to cut, and to prevent other people from going in and cutting as well, like, for example, small family-ow•ed sawmill operations we have. And in my meetings with Z849

May 7, 1979 Tape 1095 EC - 3 MIL MORGAN: Price Abitibi woods managers, Mr. McKelvie, in fact, a nd Mr. Johnson, two distinguished ~entlemen, they clearly indic~ted tn m .. th•t r~~y unuln h~ willing to arrange to grant th e requ e sts of sawmill operators in the are a to mak e sure they have a n adequate wood supply . ZS50

~ay 7,1979 Tape No. 1096 AH-1 MR. MORGAN: So it is not a situation of going in and closing out all cutting operations to anybody else in the area. The company has also agreed to look at giving and making sure there is a timber supply, a wood supply for small sawmill operators in the general area. So we have not given away anything. We have given them sufficient wood supply to keep the mill going. We will allocate sufficient wood supplies for the second machine and in return we expect to work in a good spirit of co-operation and co-ordination ~etween government and the company concerned. So, :-fr.

Speaker, I am not going to take my forty-five minutes, like the members on the opposite side of the House, to say things over and over a number of times; I am going to merely say that for any individual to stand in this House,to look at this piece of legislation and to say that the Newfoundland Government is giving away timber rights, the Newfoundland Government is making a bad deal, the Newfoundland Government is giving away an operation, is selling out is not being truthful with himself or the House of Assembly, in his own mind.

Because irrespective of the Opposition's statements the fact is that there were forty proposals received, forty companies asked to give submissions and proposals. It was not as the Opposition member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) said only two or three submissions, a total of forty. The government did seek out and find the best possible deal available and in this case it was from Price Abitibi. We have not given away any timber rights. We have not sacrificed the rights of people to cut timber in certain areas of the Province. In fact,we are going to get revenue from our agreement we have made with the company.

So why be dishonest? Why not support the piece of legislation? Why go back in the past and try to find some kind of a scandal or corruption or innuendo about the companies involved when the mill was taken over by government, companies that I knew nothing about? I was 2851.

May 7,1979 Tape No. 1096 AH-2 MR. MORGAN: ----- not involved but companies that I would say, in their operations, were not scrutinized totally by government. Digging in and trying to find out things that went wrong and blaming government for it. I certainly wish that l~st week, Mr. Speaker, the people in the St. Georges Bay area,in the Western part of the Province could have been able,through the means of cable television , to watch the proceedings of this House of Assembly. Haw does the member for St. George's (Mrs Mcisaac) stand or for the Port au Port Peninsula (Mr.

Hodder) or from the Stephenville area (Mr.McNeil)? Do they support the statements made by their bon. friends from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) and Burgee Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons)? Are they opposed to the Labrador Linerboard mill opening up in Stephenville? Are they opposed to almost 1700 jobs in Stephenville? Are they opposed to revenue for our Province? Are they opposed to boosting the economy of that region of the Province? Are they opposed to these things? Surely they are not. Surely they cannot be.

Well if they are not I would say they should disassociate themselves completely and totally from the negative attitude taken by these two gentleman I just mentioned in particular. They should stand in their places in this House of Assembly and not do as was done last week, stand and stand and say, "Yes, it is a good legislation. It is a good thing government is doing." Do not always be negative. Nobody can look at this legislation and say, "Oh, no it is a giveaway. It is a sell-out." Surely they cannot but they are doing it for one reason, one of two reasons and the reasons I mentioned earlier. It is a bad deal.

It is a bad deal for the Province. It is a bad deal for Stephenville. It is a bad deal for St. George's . It is a bad deal for Port au Port and for the general area. It is a bad deal for the Province. I said it earlier ZSS2

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1097 NM - 1 MR. MORGAN: and I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, the only reason why it is a bad deal is because it is a bad deal in the eyes of one person who is living in Panama and that is John C. Doyle. It was more than a coincidence last week that Mr. Doyle met and confirmed he met with the hon. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary). Mr. Doyle confirmed that, that the member of the House of Assembly from LaPoile district was in Panama meeting with him.

He ca~e back in the House of Assembly no longer than two days after that and condemned the sale of the Linerboard mill, condemned it, opposed to it, bad deal, give-away. MR. MARSHALL: Would the han. gentleman say that Mr. Doyle speaks for the Liberal Party? MR. MORGAN: The hon. gentleman who in most cases speaks for the Liberal Party, the member for LaPoile, speaks on all matters, a spokesman on all matters no matter what it is, finance matters, forestry matters, transportation, fisheries, any matter~ he is the official spokesman.

The unofficial leader in the Liberal Party, always on the news media talking about the policies of his Party; but. his policies, in my view, are those of John c. Doyle. He is controlled by John c. Doyle. And what I say in this House I will say outside the House of Assembly anytime. And the only reason why he is condemning the legislation, condemning the goverment for doing something constructive and positive, creating more than 1,000 jobs in a short period of time in construction and operating, is because he is venting the bitterness and portraying the bitterness of one John C. Doyle.

And I would say if the members of the Opposition disagree with that kind of tactic they should stand in the House and say so. As I was saying earlier, 2853

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1097 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: I was only hoping that the people in Stephenville and Port au Port and St. George's could see the official spokesman in the Opposition speaking on this bill last week. And again the deputy official, I guess, spokesman, the member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons) as well, his debate, his speech, his words of wisdom in attacking the government in creating jobs in that area of the Province. So, Mr.

Speaker, I will close my comments by saying that I was more than pleased to be involved in a small way in this operation now,as the Minister of Forestry,no longer than two weeks ago, working out with this new company, working out with them to make sure they do have an adequate supply of timber for that mill. And I say that the legislation should be voted on unanimously, supported unanimously by all members of the House. Not only voted on and supported unanimously,but also spoken in favour of in a unanimous way. Because it is not only going to benefit the area of Stephenville and Bay St.

George, it is going to benefit the overall economy of our Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (MR. CROSS) : MR. W. ROWE: Thank you. Hear, hear! The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will have a few remarks to say on this bill which is good in many respects and bad in other respects. ~'le have heard some excellent speeches. I do not think everybody in the hon. House will be speaking at great length. I believe we have a couple of more speakers on our side of the House, particularly those 2854

Tape No. 1097 NM - 3 MR. W. ROWE: who are directly concerned on a day to day basis , the hon. member for St . George ' s (Mrs . Mcisaac ) , who was preoccupied last week and who is here now and who in all likelihood wi l l be saying a few words tomorrow. And the hon . member for Port au Port district (Mr. J . Hodder ) , who has been preoccupied in other matters as well in the last week or so, who I hope will be here tomorrow and will be able to say a few words . Mr.

Speaker , before touching lightly on the history of this pro j ect and some of the strengths and weaknesses of the bill before the House let me say ~~is, the hon. member who just spoke and some other hon . members who spoke in this House and asked the Oppos i tion and other members of the House to support unanimously t his bill are apparently not aware of the fact that we are being asked to vote on an agreement, the principle of which we can agree with unanimously and wholehea r tedly, but we are voting on an agreement which is not even before this hon. House 2S55

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1098 SD - 1 MR. W. ROWE: in its entirety, that there are very many serious matters referred to in this agreement which the Government has had the contempt to leave out, not to taoie in tne House and not to allow to become public at all, and I will refer to that a little later on, Hr. Speaker.

But very briefly now let me refer to all the financial statements concerning the mill in Stephenville, the linerboard mill, all the financial statements concerning the past history and the present financial status of that mill which are referred to in this Act as forming part and parcel of the agreement which the Abitibi Paper company has had the benefit of analysing and getting copies of,other matters referring to assets and equipment and other vital considerations which could affect the way people vote in this hen. House, the Government has not had the decency, Mr.

Speaker, to even provide to members of this hen. House. And then they stand up here, Mr. Speaker, and say that we should be here genuflecting and getting down on our faces and praising the Government and saying,"Yes, pass it through without critizing, without probing, without trying to find out what the true situation regarding the Linerboard mill is",Sir. Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend wishes to rise on a matter here and I will resume my speech in a moment. MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) ~IR • S. NEARY : Han. member for LaPoile. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand on a point of personal privilege, Sir.

When I was outside of the House, so I am told, when I had to do other business, Sir, I am told that the previous speaker made the most vicious attack, made the most serious innuendo that has ever been made in this House, and deliberately attempted to try to smear my good name and my integrity in the form of a question, Mr. Speaker. And Your Honour k..""lows, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot 2856

May 7. 1979 Tape No. 1098 SD - 2 MR. S. NEARY: do or say anything unparliamentary in this House via the back door that you cannot do via the front cioor. Now, this same gentleman, Sir, recently attempteci to soear the reputation and the honour of the former Premier of this Province unsuccessfully and now today in this House, Sir, in the form of a question- that is a new technique, Sir, I hope the press are taking note of who is stooping to the smear tactics and the character assassination in this hon. House. I have to stand here and defend myself.

And tomorrow morning we will hear the croking bullfrog saying there is a controversy between me and the minister who just spoke.when in actual fact that is not true. MR. J. CARTER: What is the point? What did he say? MR. S. NEARY: I do not know what the bon. gentleman said. It is in Hansard. It had to do with my promising somebody the Linerboard mill which is completely untrue, Sir. It is nothing only a smear tactic,an innuendo,by a low down rattlesnake. MR. W. MARSHALL : That is, first of all,not a point of privilege because we do not know what the point of privilege was.

It was just a tirade about certain statements that were allegedly made in de course of debate by the Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. J. ~~rgan). There was no point of privilege alleged. In any event a point of privilege has to be taken up immediately when it occurs.aut there is another point of privilege that we will be dealing with after as the procedure reads you can only have one point of privilege or order before the Chair at the time.so immediately afterwards ! will be rising on a "' point of privilege of referring to a hon. gentleman as a rattlesnake. MR. S. NEARY: A low-down rattlesnake, MR. W.

MARSHALL: Apparently the hou. gentleman must have stung the hon. member for LaPoile (Xr. S. Neary). But you are not allowed to refer to people in that way and I shall Z857

May 7, 1979 l'ape No . 1098 so - 3 MR . W. MARSHALL: be rising aiter01ards . PresUI!la ·bly the ~nember for LaPoile (Mr. S . Neary) loo'ill t"hink it over in the meantime and hopeiully withdraw. MR. S. SEARY: You pious Judas! You would support a low-dowu rattlesnake wno would do somethir.g l.ike t.hat? NR . SPfu\KER: (Cross) There i .s no !"lint of MR. S. NEARY: MR. SPEAKEB.: privilege . The bon. member - MR. S, NEARY: To t.hat point of personal privilege, You will regret that, 'Bill' . Order, please! There is no point of personal You mean, Your Honour, he can smea.r members of this House by asking questions?

MR. • SPEAKER: The bon . member was asking a question and not 111ak.ing allegations, I do not see any point of personal privilege. And I vould ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue. MIL W. MARSHALL: On a point of order , ~lr. Speaker, in the matter of the point of privilege brought up by the member for Lal'oile (Mr. S. Neary) he referred to the hon. gentleman from Bonavis ta South (Mr. J. Morgan) 2858

May 7, 1979 Tape 1099 PK-1 MR. MARSHALL: the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, Lands and Forest (Mr. Morgan) now, is a rattlesnake. This is clearly contrary to the rules of debates as shown in Beauchesne. There are many lists there from Page 104 to 114. And I would ask that Your Honour require a withdrawal by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who raised the point of privilege or order whatever it was he raised, Sir, should point out to Your Honour where rattlesnake is listed in Beauchesne. Is it listed? Is it one of the - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

NEARY: Excuse me, Sir, excuse me, I have the floor, I have the floor - Your Honour is thumbing through the pages there. Perhaps the hon. gentleman who raised the point of order or whatever it is he raised could tell Your Honour the page that it is on. MR. MARSHALL: Well there are many references, Mr. Speaker, Paragraph 360, page 104 and 105 of Beauchesne. "It has been ruled unparliamentary to refer to a member as etc. etc. "There is one instance here as a blatherskite, I think you could apply that to a rattlesnake as well, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: (Inaudible) called him a rattlesnake. MR.

MARSHALL: But the point of the matter is here in Beauchesne and it is taken it is not permissible to refer to a member of this House in an insulting manner and in a manner like that. And we have, you know, a reference to the hon. member as a rattlesnake. That is not parliamentary language, and not the type of language that is aliowed to be used in a House of Assembly or in a Parliament. And I think that the han. gentleman should withdraw his reference to the hon. member as being such. It is here in Beauchesne. MR. NEARY: It is not in Beauchesne.. The hon. gentleman cannot find it. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. gentleman has said. I would not compliment the hon. minister, Sir, by calling him a blatherskite which would be unparliamentary, but would call him low-down rattlesnake, and that is not one of the Z859

May 7 , 1979 Tape 1099 PK - 2 Mr. Neary: unparliamentary words that is listed in Beauchesne, Your Honour. MR. SPEAKER (MR. CROSS): To that point of privilege. Certainl y there is a whole list of words in Beauchesne that are listed as unparliamentary, and it is true that I cannot find the word 'rattlesnake' mentioned. But I think there are a number of words that are unparliamentary that are not as bad possibly as rattlesnake. I know the hon. member might have been perturbed,but I would ask him to withdraw the remark. MR. NEARY: No, Mr.

Speaker, I will not withdraw the remark. think the hon. gentleman is a low-down rattlesnake and until he apologizes to me and this hon. House I will not withdraw that remark. My integrity and my honour have been questioned by the han. gentleman and I shall not withdraw, Sir. I think the hon. gentleman is a low-down snake in the grass, and a rattlesnake. MR . MARSHALL : Mr.

Speaker, the procedure we are now into unfortunately -~nd I had hoped that the han. gentleman would withdraw­ but I suggest to Your Honour that we are now in a position where the hon. gentleman has defied the ruling of Your Honour which is in a much more serious vein. And do not know if Your Honour wishes to adjourn to determine the procedure, but the procedure to my mind is quite obvious. Hopefully the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) would;on reflection , withdraw it. But if he does not withdraw it the remedy is there and the hon. member has to be named and moved from the Chamber.

Because we are at the stage,,no~t where Your Honour's authority and the authority of t!lis l! ouse has been challenged. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I ~o u l ~ submit that if Your Honour is going to adjourn for a few minutes that ¥our Honour send for the tapes. Because this is a very grievous and serirus matter in this hon. House, ':then a member's honour has been questioned, his integrity has been brought into jeopardy by a low·down innuendo in the form of a question asked by another han. membe~ I believe Your Honour should rise the House and send for the tapes and let Your Honour and the Speaker ZS-00

May 7, 1979 Tape 1099 PK - 3 Mr. Neary: hear the tapes and consult and see, Sir, if I do not have a strong case, Your Honour. I do not intend to 28G1

May 7' 1979 Tape No. 1100 DW - 1 MR. S. NEARY: put up with that kind of innuendo in this hon. House and I do n9t have to, matter it will be necessary to adjourn for maybe five minutes. ~ MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before we adjourned for the minute or two certainly a ruling had been made that the words used by the hon, member for LaPoile (Mr. S. Neary) were unparliamentary. The hon. member for LaPoile was then asked to withdraw the stat~nt, he refused to do so and in refusing to do so he was disregarding the authority of the Chair.

I will now call upon the hon. member again to withdraw these remarks, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. s. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I do not have the transcript of what the hon. gentleman said in front of me and in order that the seriousness of his charges and his allegations will not be lost because of what Your Honour considers to be an unparliamentary term that I used,I withdraw. But I want to give Your Honour notice that when I get the transcript I will be raising a point of privilege tomorrow when I get a chance to study the transcript overnight. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has withdrawn.

I will call upon the hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue. MR. W.N. ROWE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always nice to have a little spell from one's remarks. Perhaps the member will come in in about an hour's time and raise another point of privilege. Mr. Speaker~ I was mentioning ·the fact that there are a number of very important matters in this Z8S2

May 7,1979 Tape No. 1101 AR-1 MR.W.ROWE: agreement which the government has,with unprecendented contempt for the members of this House.not even included. not made pnbli~, nnt: r"l,]~<l :iro the House, not made available to the members and I will be dealing with those in a little more detail later on . I do not intend, Sir, to go into any long-winded speech on the history of the Labrador Linerboard mill. The member for LaPoile(Mr.Neary), the member for Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons), the member for Windsor-Buchans (Mr. Flight), the member for Stephenville(Mr.

McNeil) have given us the benefit in excellent speeches, Mr. Speaker, excellent speeches, have given us the benefit of what they perceive to have happened with regard to the Linerboard mill and have given us their ideas on this bill itself. Government members have also risen in their places and have made speeches concerning what they see to be the history of the Linerboard mill. Mr. Speaker, and their view of history in this matter certainly is very different from the reality of the situation.

Henry Ford when he made his famous utterance that, "P.istory is bunk", must have been listening to some speeches similar to those, Mr. Speaker or some rendition ~f history similar to that given by some hon. members opposite concerning the Linerboard mill. Now I do not intend to belabor the matter at all but there are one or two salient points which need to be touched on for the record, which need to be emphasized and which need to be reinforced, Mr. Speaker, in this hen.

House so the people, the members present, the people of this Province do have a clear idea as to what exactly the government's role was in Labrador Linerboard mainly, Sir, because what the government has done in the past six or seven years regarding Labrador Linerboard has a very important bearing on this bill and the agreement they have entered into with Abitibi Paper Company concerning the disposition of the mill and its assets and the amount 28G3

May 7,1979 Tape No. 1101 AH-2 folR • W. ROI•TE : of maney that the government will be getting in return for the mill and the amount of money which the government ~vill be still liable for and the people of this Province will be paying out for many years to come. It would be kind, Mr. Speaker, it would be putting it at its most charitable, its most generous and in the kindest way possible to say that this government has made a number of disastrous blunders in its handling of the Labrador Linerboard mill. That would be charitable.

Other members have gone further than characterizing the government's handling as blundering, disastrous blundering and have touched on the very real possibility of actual wrongdoing. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe they have good evidence for ~king that kind of an allegation as far as the government's handling is concerned. I will satisfy myself for the present, Sir, by saying that the government made a mumber of disastrous blunders. They can be boiled down to two really with a number of mistakes and mismanagement in two major areas.

The first blunder was in the manner of the takeover of the Linerboard mill from Doyle and the subsequent management or mismanagement of the mill thereafter. That is blunder number one. And disastrous blunder number two concerns the close down of the mill by this government in 1977. Let me just deal very briefly, Sir, with the takeover of the mill by the government and the subsequent management by the government under government auspices and control of the mill for some four or five years thereafter. The idea of the government taking over this mill from Doyle in the first place, Sir, may have been a sound idea.

There were opinions pro and con at that time as to whether that should have been the method used by the government. A number of serious daub ts ~~ere raised about the governments taking over the mill from Doyle in the way that they did. Perhaps at the time and in retrospect - Z8G4

May 7, 1979 Tape 1102 EC - 1 MR. W. N. ROWE: The best thing for the government to have done with regard to Labrador Linerboard mill was to hav~ allow~rl th~ mtll to go into receivership, Because there was no way without government support and without pouring additional government money into the operation of the mill that it could have carried on at that time. Let it go into receivership, That would have been the way to get rid of the owners at that time, Mr. Doyle and anyone else who had any interest in it with him, Let it go into receivership.

The government may, in fact, by that method have lost some money 1 - money which had been put into the mill at that time, but, Sir, it would have been nothing near the hundreds of millions of dollars which the government subsequently poured down the drain, public money of this Province that the government poured down the drain in the succeed ~ ng four or five years of mismanagement of that mill. The government may have lost money.

It might not have be~n able to recover all the money the government had sunk into it up to 1972, but, Sir, it would have been almost a negligible amount of money compared to subsequent losses.

The company then would have been into receivership or bankruptcy, and as has happened, Sir, with other paper mills in the history of this Province, there would have been a bidder from the receiver in bankruptcy with respect to that mill at that time, who would have been able to take over the mill at a market price, a price that they deemed by bids from the receiver in bankruptcy, and private enterprise would once more have been involved in that mill right at the beginning. ~y would have bought it for a price which was viable and they would have then operated it in a manner which is best characterized by all private enterprise operations in Canada and in Newfoundland, such as Bowaters 28G5

May 7, 1979 MR. W. N. ROWE : which preceded it. Tape 1102 EC - 2 or Price or A.N.D. Company But, Sir, it would not have been the first t1~~ that that ha~ ~~,,•n@~, a~d_tbat ~~obably would have been the best way to do it. But no, Sir, Mr. Crosbie and others at the time 1 with Mr. Crosbie leading the way, decided that the government would take it over and the government would operate the mill.

It probably would have been a matter of indifference whether it went into receivership or whether the government had taken it over if the manner of the takeover and if the methods of operating that company subsequent to the takeover had been in any way proper and in accordance with good management principles and good concepts of operating a gigantic mill such as that one, It has been indicated and it should be reiterated, Sir, that the manner of the takeover was characterized by vindictiveness against the previous owner, vindictiveness against the former Premier at that time, Mr. Smallwood.

The manner of the takeover was characterized by an attitude of suspicion of every kind, The idea that there vas nothing good whatsoever about Labrador Linerboard mill. Simply because it happened to be an industry which had been started by the previous administration, by Mr. Smallwood and the Liberal Government of that day, therefore it was bad. No other arguments were necessary, Mr. Speaker, as far as Mr. Crosbie and the others who were involved at the time were concerned.

No other arguments were necessary to persuade or convince them that the whole concept, the whole idea, the whole mill, the operation of the mill, was bad, evil in some way. And an attitude of total suspicion was associated with everything connected with that mill. And that was the psychological attitude, that was the attitude of the government at the time. And then for the next four or five years we saw a lack of management and a mismanagement Z8GS

May 7, 1979 Tape 1102 EC - 3 MR. W. N. ROWE: ~e aaw la~k of controls, which some have called apparent rip-offs and skuldug gery for friend from Burgeo- Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons) has called conflict of int erest and vested interest by ?eople concerned with the mill and the running of the mill, vested interest in conflict with the best operations of that mill. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, conspired together to make sure that Labrador Linerboard from its beginning 2867

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1103 ow - 1 MR. W.N. ROWE: was destined to be a failure, a total failure in the rgovernment's hands; A total failure! We saw in the field of marketing, the marketing of the product itself where there had been an agreement,and a contract with this agent, Ernst Heinzel was a marketing agent in Europe. Apparently there was a contract between the~ mill and this agent for the marketing of the total production for the first five years at economically feasible prices.

We saw that after the government takeover, simply because this person had been in place before the government took it over, I would say with very little inquiry as to the merits of the situation or what was in the best interest of the Province and the mill itself, we saw this agent thrown out and the marketing was turned over ta a small American firm totally unknown to the industry, apparently formed for the purpose of marketing for Labrador linerboard . . and, Mr.

Speaker, subsequently thence have indicated that that process) the marketing arrangements which w~re entered into by the government with this small American firm, these arrangements were verJ questionable! Very questionable, Sir! And some evidence has come to light recently which shows that the principals of that firm were perhaps acting in their own interests first and not in the interests of Labrador linerboard.and that regardless of whether there was a conflict of interest there or something even worse, it was an age3t who was completely devoid of any experience in the field of marketing the linerboard.

And we wonder why the market situati~n was dismal and why the mill did not make money. Perhaps it could not have made money. But, Sir, I would say that there is very strong evidence from that fact alone that there was not a best effort made by the government or by anyone in eonDection with the mill at that time in an operational capacity, policy making capacity. there was not best efforts made to get that mill produce, marketed in the correct way.

May 7. 1979 Tape 1103 IB-2 MR. W. N. ROWE: The shipping contract referred to by my lh.h'L f .Liet.1.d, the utt:ut.lr~r fcJl' La.puile \)U. l-i~ary), I Oellt:Vt:, and also Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons) which was cancelled because it had been entered into previously, cancelled and apparently again renegotiated with the same shipping firm at higher prices, higher costs to the mill than had originally been entered into.

These are a couple of examples, Sir, of the kind of vindictive action taken, suspicion shown by the government and unwillingness to even admit that anything in connection with the mill up to that date was in any way sensible or sane or viable. The whole takeover, Sir, as I have said and the management thereafter was steeped in vindictiveness and incompetence, probably worse than incompetence and anything good associated with the mill was viewed with such suspicion that it was changed by the government of the time led by Mr. Crosbie and the former Premier and others, most of the time changed for the worst.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for anyone to be questioning themselves as to why the mill failed in government's hands. Every effort was made to make it fail, Mr. Speaker, and every effort was made to try to prove by this government that the mill was some kind of a piece of chicanery _ Z8;59

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1104 GH-1 MR. W. ROWE: or complete partisan politics by the former administration and there was very little thought or effort put into the pqsitive idea of making that mill succeed. In the meantime, scores of millions of dollars of public money went down the drain. I will not belabor it, Sir, I will just comment on that and pass on to blunder number two, major disastrous blunder number two committed by this government with regard to the Linerboard mill. we had the mill closed down in 1977 by this government.

Apparently the closedown was forced by the credit rating agencies of the government in New York, or at least that was the impression given at the time. The government once it was confronted by some statements,loose or otherwise by the credit rating agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor in New York,to the effect that if they did not cut back on their outlay of cash and their borrowing then the agencies may be forced to give the government a lower credit rating in their reports in the future, once that happened, the government went to its knees, Mr.

Speaker, the government turned to jelly and the first thing they could do to show apparent good faith in the matter of cutting back on expenditure was to close down Labrador Linerboard. In spite of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that the best evidence available at the time indicated that there would be a turnaround in the fortunes of that mill by 1980,which was just three years down the road from the time of the closedown itself, there was going to be a projected turnaround and that has been born out by recent events. ~here was going to be a turnaround in the whole papermaking field, Linerboard and otherwise, within three years; yet the govern­ ment went to its knees and closed down the Linerboard mill 28't'O

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1104 GH-2 MR. W. ROWE: with the loss of some 1,200 jobs directly. And Statistics Canada at the time, if my indicated that 5,000 jobs would be totally affected by this closedown directly and indirectly, 5,000 jobs at a time when this Province was in the throes of unemployment and suffering drastically as a result. And what was said at the time by my friend from Stephenville (Mr. McNeil) and by others in this hon.

House that in direct costs alone it would probably cost more to close down that mill for a two or three year period in terms of the built-in costs, in terms of the mothballing costs and the maintenance costs thereafter, it would probably cost more to close down the mill than if the mill had been kept open for the two or three years which would have been necessary before the turnaround in the paper markets happened and the mill became viable once more.

It cost more, Sir, in actual direct costs to close down that mill than to keep it open, but the government wanted to have some kind of a symbolic gesture to show the credit rating agencies of their seriousness and their intent to cut back and they did so at the loss of some 1,200 jobs directly, I suppose, 1,200 jobs directly affecting adversely directly and indirectly perhaps 5,000 jobs in this Province.

Whether it cost more or not, it is hard to say, ·the government will not give us any figures and I will deal with that matter a little later, but from what I can gather the cost of closing down the mill was at least as great as the cost of keeping it open would have been. And indirect costs, indirect costs, . Mr. Speaker, not direct but indirect costs as well

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1105 GH-1 MR. W. ROWE: - the loss of income tax revenue as a resul~ of ~he job losses, other tax revenue, the co::;t of unexu~lu.)/m~nL in::.u.rc..n<.:e anO. -welEare ]:Jd.ymtouLs, the cost to individuals of having to move elsewhere to find jobs, the social costs, the losses to individuals in the field of housing, the disruption of lives, the agony of unemployment~ all of these social costs, Mr.

Speaker, were never, as far as I can determine, ever entered into the government equation as to whether it was going to be a sensible thing for the economy of this Province and the benefit of the people of the Province to close down that mill. But they went and did it anyway and that, Sir, to me and to most other objective individuals looking at the situation comprised blunder number two by this government; a blunder which they have to answer for, Sir, to the people of this Province; a blunder, Sir, which has had very adverse effect I would say and I submit and my hon. friend from Stephenville (Mr.

McNeil) has said, "A very adverse effect on the ultimate disposition of this mill to the Abitibi Paper Company"; a blunder, Sir, which showed a callousness and a weakness on the part of the government and certainly a government which was addicted to balance-sheet policy making and policy making which did not take into account some of the other important matters which they certainly should have. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not belabour that either.

Other members have spoken on the history of the mill and I just wanted to point out these two major, perhaps disastrous, blunders which were committed by the government and to reinforce and emphasize the mistakes which were made so that we can learn from them and also so that we can cast the light of the morals to 28'12

~~y 7, 1979 Tape No. 1105 GH-2 MR. W. ROWE: be learned from these mistakes on the bill which is presently before the House. So, ~ir, l will -~urn without £ur~ner ado to this sale to the Abitibi Paper Company of the Liner­ board mill. Let me say, Sir, that we are totally in favour of the takeover of Labrador Linerboard by private enterprise. We are totally in favour of the takeover of this mill now by private enterprise as exemplified by the Abitibi Paper Company. We favour, without any demur whatsoever, the principle of this bill. The principle of the bill is an excellent one. Sell the mill to private enterprise.

Sell the mill to Abitibi Paper Company. Abitibi Paper Company is a fine corporation. If the mill is going to be sold to private enterprise, the government would have found it hard to find a better company. It is a fine company, a good company, a good representative of private enterprise. But, Mr. Speaker, simply because the government is selling the mill to Abitibi Paper Company does not mean that all of us in this hon.

House have to fall down on our faces and kiss the feet of Abitibi, nor does it mean, Sir, we have to genuflect to them and thank them for this tremendous favour they are bestowing on the Newfoundland people without any probing, without any criticism of the government's actions, without any questioning of whether this is a good deal for the people of Newfoundland or not. If Abitibi Paper Company, Mr. Speaker, is buying Labrador Linerboard, it is because it is worth their while to buy it. They are not doing any favours to us. They are not doing it because they think the people of Stephenville or the Bay St.

George area are fine people, as fine as they are. They are not doing it because they love this government or the Newfoundland 2873

May 7, 1979 Tape No . 1105 GH- 3 MR. W. ROWE: and Labrador people generall}". They are buying it, Sir, because they think it is a viable opportun1t:y ror tnem to gee 1n t:here and mal<e a pror1t, a good risk, a good investment of money, a good mill in a good location with a market to take the produce at a price which can provide a decent revenue, a decent return to Abitibi Paper Company • . 2874

May 7, 1979 MR. W, ROWE: Tape No. 1106 JG-1 And they would not be buying it, Mr. Speaker, if they thought as the hon., the former Premier and Mr. Crosbie and other members of the hon, ~use opposite, some hon. members, not all.

They would not be buying it if they shared the views of the member I just memtioned; that the mill was in the wrong place, that it was worthless, that markets were disastrous, that there was no future for the mill, they would not be buying it, My hon. friend has already made that point but it is worth making again, Sir, Abitibi is buying this mill because it is a good deal for Abitibi, not because they love Your Honour or anyone else in his hon.

House, And so, Sir, it is a deal which is being made at arm's length by this province and a capitalistic free enterprise company owned by shareholders interested in making a profit. It is an arm's length deal. And like any deal W·here the future of this !?rovince is going to be affected, it is a deal and not ouly private concerns are involved, it is a deal, it is a public deal, a public arrangement which must be scrutinized and looked into and sized up and examined and questioned to see whether in fact we are getting the best possible deal for this province, And let us look at sene of the matters, Mr.

Speaker, that comprise this deal between the government and Abitibi Paper Company, First of all let us look at the price paid, or to be paid, by Abitibi for the mill. The price is $43,500,000. Sounds like a lot of money. It happens to represent about one-tenth, ten precent, one-tenth of the replacement cost of the Linerboard Mill. Is that correct? About one-tenth of the replacement cost. And when you see something being sold, Mr. Speaker, for one-tenth of its replacement value, that in itself without further ado, that in itself must be looked at. It must be questioned.

It must be decided whether that is a good price or not on the evidence available to us as members of this hon. House. On the surface it does not appear to be a very good price from the government's point of view. It is an excellent price from Abitibi's point of view, I am sure, but it does not on the surface appear to be a good price,

May 7, 1979 Tape No . 1107 JC- 2 MR . W.N. ROI.fE: $43, 500,000 , about one-tenth of the r~~,~~em~nt ro~t of th~t mill. ~ow. ~r. Speaker. one may say. Your Honour may say,other members of the Rouse have said that the replacement cost of the mill is largely irrel evant, the cost of building the mill is not the question that sho!.!ld !le asked. That may be so. It may he that the only question which should be asked with regard to the mill is what is the m.ill worth on the market.

What is it worth in the free market? wnat is i t worth to people who will size up the mill itself, size up the market for its product? !.'hat is it worth in te!'111S of the money that will be invested in it and t!le project ed pro fit which is likely to acc:rue from t.hat investment? What is its market price, if it is to show a profit as a result of efficient operation? That may !le : he only question to ask. So, Sir, I will ask t hat question. I will ask whether S43.5 million is a pric:e whic:h is reasonable in terms of ttarket value and profitability.

Ther e is no way for :ne as a member of the Rouse to determine that because I am no expert when it c:omes to looking at all the aspects which would have co be looked at. So the only evidence Z87G

May 7, 1979 Tape 1107 IB-1 MR. W. ROWE: that I can go by as a member of this House, Mr. Speaker, the only evidence we can qo by as members of this House, backbenchers on both sides, the only question we can ask is can this government be trusted to have negotiated with a company like Abitibi Paper Company a good, sound market price based on the true market value of that mill? The only way we can determine the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is to look at this government's record very briefly, in a couple of other matters. This is not the first time the government took over something.

When it took over the Labrador Linerboard Mill it was the first time then but subsequently the government has taken over other assets belonging to private enterprise in this Province and I am referring to the BRINCO assets in Labrador which the government took over, the BRINCO assets including the Upper Churchill power development which was then about ready to go on stream. Mr.

Speaker, you only need to ask anybody who was associated with BRINCO, not anybody outside of BRINCO but ask the persons who benefited from that purchase of the BRINCO assets, people who were affected, who were associated with and concerned with BRINCO themselves at the time of that takeover by the government, ask them what they think in their honest judgement of what the government did with the BRINCO assets and they will tell you, Sir, in private if not in public,that the government takeover of the BRINCO assets was in terms of the price paid to BRINCO, one of the greatest sell-outs ever perpetrated by any government in the Western World.

The price that the government paid for the BRINCO assets, Mr. Speaker, was so highly inflated compared to the actual value,that members of BRINCO and the former associates of BRINCO are still chuckling, Mr. Speaker, at the amount they got as a result of this government's so-called negotiation with Brinco. My han. friend from Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Simmons) knows whereof I speak. We sat in the office of a gentleman who had been connected in an indirect way with BRINCO at the time of the takeover and he stood to benefit from the takeover and he chuckled, 28~7

May 7, 1979 I_ape 1107 IB-2 MR. W. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, he laughed at the amount which was paid by this government to 3RINCO. ·ihey had ~u inucl, oOuu.;,y, ,.. ~ ·- .I.. I..-·. L.- .J - .J II t l,.llr;;;.J IIQ\.& U problem, they did not know what to qo with it. It gave them a problem. It became a company which was suddenly top-heavy with cash, too much money. Certainly their shareholders did very well at the expense of the people of this Province because the government borrowed that money, Sir, from a bank in order to pay BRINCO for its assets. That was an indication, Sir, of hard-nosed negotiations in those days.

BRINCO became so wealthy they did not know what to do with their money. They had a real cash problem the opposite of the usual cash bind companies find themselves in, too much money, more money than they ever dreamed possible, Mr. Speaker, if they were ever to liquidate or convert their assets into cash. MR. F. ROWE: (Inaudible) they are looking for another BRINCO to do the Lower Churchill. MR. W. ROWE: That is what the government's record was there, Mr. Speaker.

Look at the government's record with regard to another industrial enterprise that they were associated with and I am referring to the Lower Churchill venture where this government showed how good it was at spending the peoples' money in industrial ventures when it lashed out $110 million more of the peoples' money for a premature, abortive start up of the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker, in 1975 which went on for a few months, the construction start-up and then following the 1975 elections suddenly stopped, $110 million of the peoples' money down the drain, Mr.

Speaker, at a time when there was no feasibility study which indicated - 2878

May 7, 1979 Tape 1108 RT-1 MR. W. ROWE : any markets for the power that the additional money needed would be able to be raised or, in fact, whether the whole thing was technically feasible or not at that time. These are two examples, Sir, of this Government's ability when it comes to negotiating, or when it comes to getting involved in various industrial enterprises, And in each case, Mr.

Speaker, it has cost this Province and the people of this Province scores of millions of do~lars, tax dollars and borrowed money, as a result of their ineptitude, their incompetence and their blundering, and as my fri~nd from Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir (Mr·. R. Simmons) would say and has said, worse than blundering and incompetence and mistakes. So, Mr. Speaker, there is an example of the hard-nosed, rational negotiating that this Government might have done with regard to the Abitibi paper company.

But we can also relate back these two blunders to the Linerboard mill in another way as well, something which I do not think has been mentioned here to date. If these millions, Mr. Speaker, tens and scores of millions of dollars had not been wasted with regard to the high price paid for the BRINCO assets, and if these tens of millions had not been wasted with regard to the premature construction start-up of the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker, then there would have been no need whatsoever for this Government to have to close down Labrador Linerboard in 1977.

It was the throwing away of these millions of dollars of public money and the borrowing needed to do so that caused the credit agencies in the first place to force this Government to take the kind of action which they did take as a symbolic gesture, and that was the closedo~n of Labrador Linerboard. Symbolic perhaps for the gnomes of Wall Street; somewhat more than symbolic for the people of the Stephenville area and the Bay St. George area I would submit. - 2879

May 7, 1979 Tape 1108 RT-2 MR. W. ROWE: So, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the record of the Government in negotiating good prices and in spending public money sensibly regarding industrial enterprises, and that record, Sir, is dismal. It is a dismal record. And we have nothing in this Government's record, Sir, that we can take any comfort from whatsoever to indicate that the price negotiated with Abitibi paper c~mpany is any better than in the case of the BRINCO assets.

And so, Sir, we have two pieces of evidence; the fact that the mill is being sold for one-tenth of the replace~ent cost and the fact that this Government's record in negotiating good prices is all so disastrous to lead us t,o the conclusion that this price that Abitibi is paying for the Linerboard mill, while good from Abitibi's point of view- and I am not blaming Abitibi Paper Company- this price is not in the best interests of the people of this Province. It is probably far too low. When you add, Sir, the statements already referred to by the member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. R.

Simmons), the member for Stephenville district (Mr. w: McNeil), and other members in speaking in this hon. House­ when you add the statements of Mr. Crosbie and the former Premier, now the member for Humber West (Mr. F.

Moores) that the plant was in the wrong place, that the wood costs were far too high, there would never be any economic way of getting wood to the mill, that the mill was put there solely for political purposes with no economic viability, that the mill was not economically viable in its own right and that the mill was not worth a dollar, not worth a dollar to anybody, then as my hon. friend from Burgee-Bay d'Espoir said yesterday and as my hon. friend from Stephenville district said, "Is there any reason to doubt that this Government could not negotiate on behalf of the people of this Province a good price for that mill?" I do not care how many proposals were Z880

May 7, 1979 Tape 1108 RT-3 MR. W. ROWE: in, Mr. Speaker, forty, fifty, or a hundred and fifty, the fact of the matter 2881.

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1109 GH-1 MR. W. ROWE: is that the atmosphere had been created by this government, an atmosphere that they l .lJ.t:: J.Ttill • J - • ., ,e . -- - ..L..L..~e.J....L.. we.;::. worthless, a psychological atmosphere that the government itself had closed it down anyway and that there was no way they could open it up because the whole operation was characterized by incompetence and perhaps worse. No wonder we had forty or fifty proposals made.

Everybody was trying to buy it for a song, and we have a good company, Abitibi Paper Company, which has come in here and which>in fact , did get the mill for a song or the next thing to it, and that should not be treated as in any way a criticism of Abitibi Paper Company, it is solely a criticism, Mr. Speaker, of this government and the way ithas managed and mismanaged and botched the Linerboard mill from start to finish. The people of this Province should be well aware of that and are well aware of it and any who are not, Mr. Speaker, will be made well aware of it before too much more time has passed. Mr.

Speaker, let me turn to the bill itself, Bill 15, "An Act To Ratify The Sale Of Labrador Linerboard Mill And To Convert The Mill To A Newsprint Mill", and let me look at some of the particulars of the bill for a moment. The agreement, of course, was dated and is ratified and confirmed and adopted from the date November 16, 1978, which is a fair time ago now, Mr.

Speaker, and that in itself together with the fact that the act is deemed to have come into force on November 16, 1978, that in itself, Sir, shows the esteem with which the government holds the backbenchers on their own side and the members of this side of the House. 2882

May 7, 1979 Tape No. 1109 GH-2 MR. W. ROWE: Again, Sir, that indicates a certain contempt for this han. House. There is no way agreement clause by clause as the schedules of this act, that agreement will be passed holus-bolus. There will be no scrutiny of any of the clauses of that agreement Even when we get into committee in this House before third reading, we will be going over only the clauses of the bill itself. It is a fait accompli, Mr. Speaker, and no member of this hon. House was ever given an opportunity to analyze before the fact any of the matters contained in that agreement.

As I said earlier, we can agree with the principle of this bill and we can vote for the principle of the bill and vote for the principle of the agreement itself, but there are one or two things, Sir, that have to be scrutinized and looked at with some care and some questions raised because they affect the people of this Province. One of the things, Mr.

Speaker, which raises my suspicions right off the bat has to do with Clause 4 of the bill which has a side note attached to it or by the side of it saying, "Avoidance of doubt", and which reads in part that, "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that northwithstanding any other Act and so on, all acts of the Comptroller, the Deputy Minister of Finance, including the issuance of public money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to meet the goverr~ent's obligations shall not be deemed to have been in contravention of any Act or law including The Financial Administration Act, 1973, and The Stephenville Linerboard Mill Act, 1972".

We have in this bill a clause 2883

May 7, 1979 Tape No . 1109 GH- 3 MR. W. ROWE : whereby any acts of the Comptroller are ratified. Mr . Speaker, when I get to board mill, that clause becomes a little more revealing than it would appear to be on :~ e surface . Further on in the act itself, in the bill itself, Clause 5, Sub- clause (iii ), we have a provision where the provisions of the agrea~ent are not in accordance wi th the Crown Lands Act, "The agreement will not be held to be in contravention of the Crown Lands Act" . Now 2884

May 7, 1979 Tape 1110 IB-1 MR. W. ROWE : why would that particular clause be put in there, Mr. Speaker? Why ....................... .