PROVINCE Of NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND ============ ===== ===== ======== ==-cc• Volume 2 2nd Session Number 51 VERBATIM REPORT Wednesday, April 11, 1973 SPE.AKER: TH E HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL

April 11, 1973 The P.ouse met at 3.00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape 1155 IB-1 ~~, SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Provincial Affairs and Environment. FON. T.V. HICKEY: (~INISTER OF PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRON~NT): Mr. ~peaker, the matter I raised last night while in committee I would _iust like to briefly deal with. A point of personal privilege to correct a statement made by the member for Bell Iclend in connection with the use of government aircr~ft.

The memher corrected a previous statement that he had made and in making his most recent one he included me with some others who used the government aircraft. I would just like to correct that statement and say that my use of the government a:1.rcraft frotn Goose Bay to St. John's was returning from a trip on government business having toured Northern Labrador. My one day and a-half in Labrador South I used a private aircraft and the rest of my stay in Labrador,something like seven or eight days,was on government business. QUESTIONS HON. DR. A.T.

ROWE: (MINISTER OF HEALTH): This refers to the question asked yesterday by the honourable member for Labrador South regarding the rumour of the Forteau Nursing Station. This has been checked out hy my officals with the IGA and with Dr. Thomas. The rumour is completely unfounded and without truth. There is nothing suggesting to our knowledge that the Forteau Nursing Station is likely to close. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Spe~ker, I have the answer to question 233 as asked by member for St. Barbes North. The member directed his question to the Minister of ~unicipal Affairs and Housing.

The rent control board is under my department so I have ~he information for him. Also the question 238,as asked by the honourable member for Twillingate,in connection with the Nomenclature Board. I have the information on that,I would like to table. 4357

April 11, l n3 Tape 1155 IB-2 J'ON . !,FO . D. BARRY: (MINISTER OF ?-'INES .A~

T) ENER<:Y): ~r. Speaker, I have the anRwer to question 212, aRked hy the honourable member for White Bay South,which was orginally directed to the honourable the Minister of ~conomic Development. Question (1), "What are the names of those persons who as of a current date are Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commissi.on, showinp, in each case: (

a) the date on which. he was so appointed; (

b) the term of his appointment; (

c) the title of the position held. 11 The answer to the names of the persons on the commission is; G.P. Hobbs, W.S. Reid. C,A Sheppard, C.H. Ballam, P.J. Canning, W.P. Saunders. Appointment on January 2, 1966,for Mr. Hobbs; May 18, 1968,for Mr. Reid; August l, 1964, for ~r. Sheppar1; November 18, 1966. for Hr. Ballam: September 16, 1965,for Mr. Canning; June 1, 1969 for , Mr. Saunders. There !s no term stated in any of the above eppoint~ents. The positions are; Mr. Hobbs, chairman. Mr. Reid, chief executive officer, Mr.

Sheppard, deputy chairman and deputy chief executive officer and the other gentlemen members respectively. Second question:"What is the value of any amounts payable to a Member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission in respect of: (

a) per diem allowances; (

b) travel, meal and accommodation expenses; (

c) annual ;alary in connection with the performance of his duties in this respect?" Answer to (

a) and (b), as per the standard policy; it is published by the Treasury Board for public servants. A copy is attached. That is for Yr. Hobbs and Mr. Reid. As p~r the annual salary; it is nil for Mr. Hobbs and ~r. Reid or Mr. Sheppard and $6,540 each for Mr. Canning, ~r. Ballam and Mr, Saunders. t Raid $6,500 before. I do not know where .,_. 4 3 5 8

April 11, 1973 Tape 1155 the other forty dollars came fro~. It must be a raise. Merit bonus. IB-3 Question (3) "What is the value of any amounts payable to the the Chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission in respect of: (

a) per diem allowances; (

b) travel, etc. (

c) annual salaries?~ Per diem and travel as per the Treasury Board travel policy and annual salary; the ~erson holding the position of Chairman is paid as the chief executive office of the commission and not as a memher of the commission. . u "What is the value of amounts payable the Vice-chairman? On the same basis. ~asically the same answer. A member while in the position of deputy chairman is paid as the deputy chief executive officer.

Next question:"What is the value of any amounts payable a person being a l'lember of said body for per diem allowance, travel and annual salary." Again as per the standard policy published by the Treasury Board for public servants. The salary of the chief executive officer is $35,540. The deputy chief executive officer, $25,000 and the mana~er of services, $18,500. None of the above officers receive any remuneration as members of the board. They are paid in those capacities.

Next question: "For each ~ember, Chairman, Vice-Chairman or othe~ise of said boa~ and for the fiscal year which began April 1, 1972,as of a current date, ·what is the total value of amounts that have been paid him in respect of: (

a) ner diem allowances: ~ (

h) travel an<l (

c) annual s11l arv? 11 4359

April 11, 1973 Tape 1155 IB-4 Answer to (a), nil. (b), nil. (c), nfl for Hobbs, Reid ~ ~ and Sheppard nnd AP,Bin $6,540 for Rallam, CannfnR nnd Saunders ~ For the fincal year which began April l, 1972: (

a) the total value of amounts that have been paid in respect of salaries and waRes for part-time and full-time staff employed in the service of said body; and (

b) the number of persons that have been so employed at any time within that period of time? 11 The answer is $5,533,307.35 and (b), 1667 the nwnber of persons employed for the calender year of 1972 not the fiscal year. The figures for the fiscal year, 1972-1973 are not "resently available. There would be some expense involved in making a special computer run in order to get them. If the honourable members will wait, they can be supplied in due course.

Question: "For the fiscal year which began April 1, 1972 as of a current date, what is the total nwnber of occasions on which meetings of the said body have been held?'' The answer, three. Question:"For each member, chairman, vice-chairman or otherwise of said body and for the fiscal year which began April 1, 1972,as of a current date, what is the number of meetings which he attended and in which he participated during the said period of time?" Answer; Mr. Hobbs, three. Mr. Reid, three. Mr. Sheppard, three. ~r. Ballam, three. Mr. Canning, two and Mr.Saunders, three.

Question:"To what Vote of Votes and under what Heading is the cost of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (2) through (7) chargeable? The answer:"Part of the CO!;lt C?f the amounts is shown under head 15, Department of Economic Development, subheads 15-13, 15-14, 15-15. TheRe amounts al'! desip,n~ted are paid into the separate ooeratinR bud~ets of, firRt, Rural F.lectrictty Authority and secondly, 4360

April 11, 1973 Tape 1155 IB-5 the commission. The main costs are paid out of revenu~ received by the commission from its sales of electricity; I am sorry they did not supoly me with any copies. We will get some copies for the honourable members ~nd we will table them. ORDERS .OF THE DAY MR. N·EARY: I would J;ike to direct a question to the honourable the l're111ier. Would the honourable th.e Premier . info .rm the Bouse of the details o.f a 4361 •-

April 11. 1973 Tape 1156 PK - 1 transport~tfon policy presentrd to thr r.ovrrnmPnt of r.AnAda the dny h('fore yC'11tordny thnt 111 1111ppn11t- tn nf fret rlit• coat of 11v1np, in t!<'wfonncU nncl, as outl tned hy the> Prenier in rt'ply to two questions that I put to hiM in this House. _!ll'N. F. n. MOO_!,!,_~ (Pll'F:MT'f".P.): Mr. Speaker, when the final details have heen put tor,rther I shall only be too ~lad to make it available to the llousP.

The situation is now that the federal and provincial assistants are ,;till in Otta1-1a )llt'et1.np, and as soon as the final detailB have been arrivecl at I :.hall be only too r,lad information available. to make the MR. NF~RY · 1fr. Speaker, a supplementary question, could the Premier then just. r,ive us a renc>ral outline of the province's presentation? ~ IJ! • ~•nORE S • First of all, '"r. Speaker, it was not the province's ------ presc>ntation it was the> area presrntation of the Atlantic r.anada Area. There were respresentat1on11 n,adc hy thP four Premiers of that area tor,i:-ther w:i th Mr. t-'archand, 11r.

Jamieson, at a meetinp: in Ottn•,,m• on t-'onday morninr, r guess it was. The general ~ist of it is manifold and I would rather wait until I pet all the details of it so that it coulcl he answered properly and in dei,th rather than just r.o at it pircet:!eal with impressions as would have to be the case ri~ht now. l-'F_. ___ NT.A_!)!.:_ A supplementary quC'stion. perhaps th£' Prc>mter could answer this specific question.

Hould th£' Premier confit"ITI or deny that the four T'rPimers in thC' /ltlantic Provincc>s h11ve ar.reed to drop thC' f1fteC'n and .1-hl'llf per cc>nt fr<'ir,ht ratl' s11hsidy for frefp.ht movinp: points within the .Atlantic Per.ion. ~IP. ~.!"!1!'.I:£.:.. T will not r.onfirll' or deny anythinr until - I have said I will tar](' the total rC'port on the meC'tinps. ur. ~pC'aker. r'l?. ·~. prinnF,~ rn: --- -· ·-- -· - - . ~.fr. ~prakC'r. I would J He to ni r<'ct a qul'stion to the honourarle "inist<>r of Tran!'lportation and Cor:ur.unications.

I wond<.'r if hC' could inform th<' l1ow,;e of the nc>r,oti.ation!'i that h:we takC'n placf'> r('tWC'PTI thC' Prov-fnc:C' of ~1C'wfoun,Hand, nuc-ht'c and Ottawa 4362

April 11, }Q73 Tape 1156 . PK - 2 concE"rninp: the Trans-Labraclor lli1thway· and if the road from Churchill Falls to r.oose Bay will be upgraded and made. passable this summer? HON'. DR. T. C. FARRr.LL (~!INif:TP.R OF TnAl':SPOPTATION Af.ID COMMUNICATIONS): Hr. SpeakE"r, as for the honourahle the memher I would direct his quest1 .on to the honour ah le the Premier, on the Labrador Fip;hway, Sir. ~!R. t'OOP.E~: Hhat was the question a11:ain? HR. wnonHARD: The Labrador Hi~hway, the negotiations that are now takinp: place and the details. ~. MOORES· I would hope, JI.fr.

Speaker. that the Trans-Labrador Hir,hway, which is a discussion together with Quebec and ourselves, actually is the Trans-Canada Highway, the no.rthern section. will be something where Quebec and ourselves can mAke a joint presentation to the federal p,overnment and also some thi~g that m1i he a part of any nerotiations we have with BRIPCIJ. This was very much a real issue with us and it is very much followed through with. ~- tmODWARD'. A supplementary question. Mr.

Speaker, according to the ··naily News " today there is a meeting taking place with the 'Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Quebec Government and Ottawa,within one month,concering the proposed Trans-Labrador Highway. I was wondering if possibly the Premier or the minister can tell us what negotiations have taken place to date on that hir.hway? 'l,fR. MOORES : Ifr. Speaker, I have met with 1-!r. Levesque, the Deputy Premier of Quebec, in nttm.ra on this subject •.

The two Ministers of Transport~tion will be ~ettin~ topether very shortly and the officials as well, to start to draw up a finn proposal to present to the federal government. JI.IP. E. lHNSOR · Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the honourahle the Premier in his acting now as !tinister of Fisheries'! \·:'hen can we expect a deputy minister of Fisheries to be appointed. I know it is his preror:i.tive to apooint both ministers and deputy ministers. If there is not r,oinr, to he one soon,who is actinr as denuty minister? 4363

April 11 1973 tfR. f-'O()Rf.S_: !{R. SPF.A KF.R: Tape 1156 It will he done very ,.hortly, Mr. Spr•nlrC'r. "'T PK - 3 Todny hcinp: Private HcmbC!"rl'I Dny,wc nrC' dE'nlfn~ with !lotion

(7) JT1oved by the honourahle mcmrer for White Bay South. When we rose last day the honourahle the Minister of Finance was speakinP-. The honourahle the !'inister of Finance. HON. J. C. Cl'OSRU:. (HI!'IISTf.R OF FI A:rc_r:2...:. Mr. Speaker, I only had a chance to speak briefly on this very important motion last week. I know that all r.ieT'!hers of the !louse 11.re pleased and deliP-hted that the honourable r,entleman has brour,ht this suhject up for particular debate in the l'ouse and for particular consideration.

I had not spoken earlier in the debate hecause, of course, I wished to listen to all points of view and to hear what every honourable ~entleman had to say on this topi.c and in particular, of course. the contr:fhution from m<'IT'hers across. r,ow havinp, done that and havinr, researched the subject extensively since last ~eek,I thourht that r mirht attempt to ,;peak for a few hrief moments at least on this topic. althou~h it is not one with which any particular department is concerned, but one which we all as citi?.ens of this p.reat country should concern outselves,whether from Pahana. from Labrador, fro"' the South of rlewfoundland, fror.i the East of Newfoundland, from the ls'est of Newfoundland or the ~Torth of Newfoundland.

Now having said that, 11r. Speaker, and I know tl1at all mernhc-rs are now endeavouring to ascertain what rnraninr lurks hehind those few introductory r:;entences. I would like to -examine the resolution. ~ow the resolution. ~fr. Spc-aker, is onc> calculated to strike alarM into the hearts of all members of this honourable Fouse because indeed and indeed and indeed and I!'-ffif.ED it sounds like a very serious situation. 11

Whereas durinr, the past ten yc-ars-• (Mr. Speaker, the honourable- r.entleMan has to lurch hack tc-n y<'ars to pC't statisttcs that mir.ht frirhten us C'nourli) ''!'hc-rf'as dur:fnr thC' !'ast tc>n years over fin,nnn ncciclr.nts have occur<'<! on our hi.rhwnys, ,111<1 "t.nwrf.'n!'I tliN1P .1cdcl<'nts h,1v,:, rrsult<'•l in p<'rsonal inJury to 4364

April 11, 1973 Tape 1156 P1C - 4 over 25,0nn people"(that is over the ten years and indeed that is a large number of people.) • "Hhereas those accidents have resulted in 800 P,eople being killed (this is over the ten years still the ano people) and, 11

Whereas records for the year 1972 indicate an increase in traffic accidents and injuries of between twentv-five and thirty per cent over year 1971, the highest in our history.• [ will dispute that in a moment because 1971 was not the hiphest in our history and one wonders uhy the

preamble says,"Whereas records for the year 19 72 indicate an increase." Either the records show that there is an increase, Mr. Speaker, or they do not show there is an increase. How can they just indicate an increase? l'y own research 1:!.as revealed that there are no complete statistics available for the year 1972 as yet. MR. FARRELL: Up to June, Sir. MR. CR0SBIF.: There are statistics up to June but the final statistics for the whole year are not yet available. Why an increase of between twenty-five and thirty per cent?

Either it is an increase of twenty­ five per cent or it is an increase of "thirty per cent or it is an increase of twenty-nine point six per cent or it is an increase of twenty-fo~r point eight five per cent or it is an increase of some percentage, Why between twenty-five and thirty per cent over the year 1971? The honourable gentleman,when he concludes this debate in a week or two weeY.s time, should indicate to us why he used that phraseology in his

preamble, pre~mblation to his resolution? Then he ~oes on to say, "Whereas records she'll that 108 Mewfoundlanders Fcre kilfod in traffic accidents during 1972,the highest nlD!!ber of fatalities in our history-" That :1,,ndeed is a 11erious number, J n~ ~IC'wfoundlanders. I presume they are all 't:ewfotmdlanders. Some miii:ht have bee-n l'lainlanders but there were l()R person11 killed,arparently,on our roads in 11)72. 4365

April 11. 1973 TapE' 115fi PK - C 11 Anet whrrPaR thr Newfoundland ~afrty r.ouncil has 11uhmittt"d a brief to the r,ov~rnment supported by a petition of nearly 10,000 licenced drivers requesting amony other thin~s a royal commission to he set up to examine all aspE'cts of this problem," Now there we p.:et to the meat of it. Nr. Spe3ker, apparently thr Newfoundland Saf<'ty Council suhmits a brief; there in sot:1ethinS? wronJ; with the ~overnmt'nt f.f it does not iMT!lediately do everythinr: that is in the brief if it comes from the Newf.oundland Safl'ty Council.

ThE'y want a royal cor.ill'ission set up. ,,,ell I am p;oinr, to come hack to royal cor,missions, I will a~v<'rt to royal coTTll"issions, I will enwneratP the discourse on, ~ive some statistics in conn~ction with the disease of royal co111T11ission1tiA heforE' I finish this aftE'rnoon. Then the honourable ~entleman went on to eet into the real meat of the matter. "'!ow therefore he it resolved,. - indeed a formidable set of words• "Now therefore

be it resolved" gives an immediate aur3 of ~reat r.ravity to the words that follow. The words that follow say that this Pouse direct the i:i:overnment to establish immediately,without a sE'conds delay, without hesitation, without momentarily con~1drration a commission of enquiry to examine and ~nquire into ancl investip,ate all aspects of hip,hway safety and that such n coll'mission he directe<l to report back to the government thrir findinp:s and recolTT!'1c.>ndations without undue delay. Hell, of couse, !'fr.

Speaker, you can direct a royal commission to report without undue delay but royal commissioners'definitions of undue delay and honot rable igentleman 's definition of undue delay can be quite different. As the Housl' remember .there was a royal commission appointed in December lQ~S to examine into and to report on the rl"venue RourceR of the City of ~t. John's. 'Mr.

Frazer was the cor,missionrr. (1-•i thout uncluc- del;iy) As ;i matter of fact. when it was nppointecl the honour3hJ" tl1" Prc-!'iiC"r of th;1t day, T hr] irve it w;is the JtrntlC'mAn 1,,l,o .1rn,t visi tNl th<' province ar:1.fn Inst WC'C"k, said that 4366

.:.. April 11, 1973 Tape 1156 PK - 6 there would be legisti!:tion introduced in the Fouse in the coming session of 1966 and that this royal commis1ion wae going to consider the matter and report back and there would be legialation before the House in the session of 1%6, That h how quickly that royal commission was to act. There was to be no fooling around with that commission. no delay, certainly no undue delay,becauae there was going to be le~islation in 19660 What happened? There was no legislation in 1966. There was no report. There was no legislation in 1967 and there was no report.

There wa1 no legislation in 1968 and there was n_o report. There was no legislation in 1%9 and there was no report. There was no le~islation in 1970 and there was no report. There was no fo~tslation 1n 1971 and there was no report. }IR.!~ That does not sound like Joey. t,qt, CROSBIE: I believe that now the honourable gentleman has discovered the secret. The royal commission finally reported,! believe in the early days of 1972 -that would be six years, It took six years. Would the honourable gentleman when he closed the debate let us know whether he considers six years to he an undue delay.

Hecause if we could get assurance that royal commission would take six years, we wo_uld have to consider appointin~ them. Does the honourable gentleman consider six year an undue delay? But in any event that was ,a royal commission that waa to report within a couple of months and it lasted six year3. What could the government do about it?

The governme~t could do nothing except cancel . the commission. lt could cancel the commission but that is an extraordinary thinp, to do, So I do not believe, }tr, Speaker,'that the quick way to do anythinr about hip,hway safety is to appoint a royal commission, in fact it mirtit he exactly the orrositC'. And in any event,l-•hy appoint a royal commission when WP have a hrilliant, capablC' minister 4367

April 11, 1973 Tape 1156 PK - 7 in chnrp,r nr 11 Tlapnrtm<'nt. nr Tr11n"portntfnn m11l r.nmm11nfrntfnn. Ry tlw w11y. •1r. :;p"nl-l"1'.•lunt lwc :1111"" ynu hAVt" 11 roy11l commf11ston,docK that mean i th11t the- r,ovemnrnt of the <lay ia poinr. to carry out its recomMend11tionf>? Does it? It noes not. no honourable 1entlemen realize, do they appreciate, do they understand the sirnifiance? r.an they comprt>hend what happened to the report of the Royal Commission on Transportation appo:fnt<'d in 19~4 by the then Liberal Adm1nistration? Th<' Chairman was the honourahle P.J. Lewis, Q.C.

A p:roup of '",rflUant Mewfotmdlanders composed the memhership. They were 1111 brilliant in those days. There was a host of royal commisRions. a veritable covey of royal col'llllissions. There wns a pride of royal coMmiss1ons, therP was n gag~le of royal commissions appointed. They WPnt on a royal commission rampar;e and one of them wa~ the P.oyal r.0Jr.111ission on Transportation. That colTll'lission reported in 19f'i6. Do you know, •fr. Speaker, that they reported that there should he a Department of Transportation. That is .,,hat they reported in 1966. And you know when it was done?

It was <lone :In 1973,under the aegis and the leadership and with the initiative of the honourable the Premier and the honourable minister. How is that for royal cot:nnissio~ For six years the honourahle gentlemen opposite diddled alon1. They did not know whether they _ could make that hir;,1bantic decision, should it stay the nepartmcnt of P.1P,hwavs or should fthere he a reorranization.

I rememher the Leader of the Opposition a few months ago,in his usual jovial, · carefree. humorous way.sayinr, that he could have thou~ht up the whole restructuring of the ~overnment, all of it ,in a jolly weekend with a couple of his buddies and civil servants, that they could have come up with the who1£> restructuring of the r,overn~ent over one weekend. 4368

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 Yet we learn that the honourable gentleman was in the cabinet in 1969, 1970, 1971 and eighteen day~ in 1972 when he was clinging there and his cohorts clinging to power. Despite their rejection by the people of Newfoundland, they were clinging there. Remember how they clung,and still the honourable gentleman could not restructure the Depart~ent of Highways. They could not decide whether there should be a Department of Transportation or not. It took the Liberal Government six y~ars to consider that question and still they did nothin~.

Yet they have the gall to suggest in the media that they could have restructured the whole government in a weekend. Hell their track record does not disclose that and their next chance, Mr. Speak~r, to restructure is goinr, to be around the year 2001,and· we hope that they make a better fist of it then than they did in the twentieth century. MR. NEARY: To a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the rule of relevancy being observed now, Sir, in the House? ~ffl.. CROSBIE: I do not want to ------- MR. NEARY: Sir, I made a point of order. MR. CROSBIE: I see. MR.

SPEAKER: With regard to the point just made,the point is my understanding of the honourable the minister's speech is that he is s~eakinp, about the Department of Hir,hways and the Department of Transportation,which appears to be completely in order with regard to anything concerning highway safety. MR. NF.ARY: Thank you, ?-fr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, we have had to endure for long, these many days,the affusions, the diffusion, negatious, gaseous emissions from honourable p.entlemen opposite.

On private members' day at least we should be able to stand in this House and speak from the heart and give our own opinion on matters that come up,without being interrupted on silly points of order. AN HON. MEMnFR: Do not make a mockery out of it though. MR. CROSBIE: There will be no mockery here. Hhen the honourable 4369 JM - l

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 ,.,mtlt'man hC'nrn thl.' nt11tiatl~n t hnve ha wi 11 11ee -no he will never Bee. I take that back, he will not see, he will refuse to see. He will blindly refuse to see what should be seen by anyone who sees what I saw when I saw these statistics. Now where was I? Yes on gaseous emissions. Yes, so the Department of Transportation and Communication is now set up. Do honourable gentlemen want to give it a chance to get into these issues? No, immediately they race in with a resolution indicating we should have a royal commission. Let us have our department first.

I.et us have our little department sit for the next year or two to do somethin~ about hir,hway safety and not have a royal commission to delay it. Now let us look at these statistics, Mr. Speaker, because surely the implication of this resolution is that Newfoundland is far outsteppinJ!' all other Canadian provinces in the seriousness of the hiJ!'hway safety situation. That is the implication of this resolution that things are in Newfoundland particularly bad with respect to hiy,hway safety. That is the impression I had when I first read that resolution. I quailed when I read it first.

I thought, my heavens is this province sg much worse than the other nine that we must have a royal commission to investi~ate hir,hway safety? I have not ~one outside the city in my car since the resolution was tabled in this House. That is how seriously it struck me because I gathered from the resolution that this province indeed was a much more danRerous place to drive than Ontario or Quebec or New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island or British Columbia or Manitoba or Saskatchewan,(! think I left out· one or twoJ than any of the . others and the North West Territories.

So havin~ been very alarmed by this and with the help of those we have in this huildinp to help u&- they could not help the last ~overnrnent as they were beyond help but they are helpinP. where they can, thPy are helptn~ us, I looked up the 4370 JM - 2

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 statistics and what dfir·we find? Is this province so far behind, such a dangerous place to drive compared to the other provinces? Now the complete highway accident statistics for 1971 and 1972 are not available from Statistics Canada so the statistics I am giving were assembled by the Canadian Safety Council for 1970 and 1971. We will deal with 1970 first. In 1970, and I am going to speak slowly so that all those listening can get the full import of these figures.

In 1970 there were 8,090 accidents in Newfoundland, hirhway accidents and in Canada in the same year, 1970, there were 556,427 in Canada as a whole, in our great dominion, in the whole nation, in all ten povinces and ·the North West Territories. Well, now it immediately cropped in my mind how does the nwnber in Newfoundland compare with the other provinces when you compare our population to the population of Canada as a whole? Wha·t was the answer?

I am quite a mathematician in my own right, a little quick doodling and I came up with this,that 8,090 accidents in Newfoundland as compared to 556,421 in Canada meant that we had 1.5 per cent of all of the accidents in Canada in 1970 on the highways. 'this little province, this one of the ten, this smallest one of the ten, this second island one of the ten,had 1.5 per cent of all these accidents in the Dominion of Canada on the highways. Well, then I thought to myself,what percentage of the population, JM - 3 MR. NEARY: What percentage of the population is the population of Newfoundland? MR.

CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman anticipates, he has a rapierlike mind. rt is like the speed of light from one brain cell to the other. The question occurred to him just as it occurred to ~e. Now what percentage of the total Canadian population is the population of Newfoundland? 2.4 per·cent. we have 2.4 per cent of the population of Canada. So if we have 1.5 per cent of the accinents and we have 2.4 per cent of the population that means that we do not even h3ve the same number of Rccidents in comparison 4!-171

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 to thP rP111t nf r.11nadn 11111 w" tfo poflul,.rfnn tn the, ro•t of r.nnnc1110 which would tndkate that th~ fl.llff"ty in Newfoundland muat be a bit better than it is in the rest of Canada. MR. NF..ARY: (Inaudible). MR. CROSBIE: It means that, yes. The honourable gentleman when he speaks can completely make a fool of himself but that is what it means. MR. NEARY: I intended to speak after the honourable minister, but I have already spoken. MR. CROSBIE: Well, in that case I am ~oinr, to p.ive you an opportunity. I will merely move an amendment so that we can hear from you al!'ain.

Now that is 1. 5 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, in 1971 ·what was the situation? In 1971 there were 8,106 accidents _on the highways in Newfoundland. In Canada as a whole there were 554,230. What percentare of the total accidents were in Newfoundland? 1.5 per cent again. What percentage of the population do we have? 2.4 per cent again, So in 1970 we were better than the rest of Canada and in 1971 we were better than the rest of Canada and I venture, Sir, to predict that when the statistics are in for 1972 we will still be in the same ratio and better than the rest of Canada. Now that is accidents.

What about personal injuries? In 1970 there were 2,492 personal injuries · in Newfoundland as a result of these accidents. In Canada there were 177,930 personal injuries. What percentage then of personal injuries were in Newfoundland compared to the rest of Canada? 1.4 per cent, a little less than the accidents. JM - 4 What about 1971? In 1971 there were 2,500 personal injuries in Newfoundland caused on .the hi~hways. What was the total for Canada? 191,472.

What was the percentage of personal injuries in Newfoundland as compared to Canada as a whole? 1.3 per cent, even less than 1970 and better than the accident rate itself. So does that indicate that Newfoundland is n more danr.crous place for hir.hwny safety than 4372

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 the rest of Canada? No, it does not but it indicates the opposite. All right then let us look at deaths. In 1970 the total deaths in Newfoundland connected with highway accidents, sixty-nine in Newfoundland. Canada as a whole 5,030 and that meant that deaths in Newfoundland were 1.4 per cent of the total in Canada. Again much less than our population as a total of the Canadian population. What about 1971? In 1971 the total deaths in Newfoundland were eighty-seven while in Canada they were 5,440. What was the percentage?

The percentage in 1971 was 1.6 per cent still not equivalent to our population as compared to the rest of the Canadian population. Was Newfoundland a more dangerous place to drive in in 1971 than the othei- provinces of Canada? The answer is no, not at all. Now there was an increase,;!pparently,last year. We do not have the statistics for the whole year but we know that there were 108 fatalities. I do not have the figures to show what the number of fatal fatalities were across Canada but I do not think those proportions are going to chan~e very much. MR. NEARY: Fa tali tie!I ~ . MR. CROSBIE: Fatalities.

The honourable gentleman has to get . JM - 5 on to the language. Some say fatalities and some say (fa-til-it-ies). MR. NEARY: A new word, aye? MR. CROSBIE: Rip.ht, keep listening and there will be a few more before we are finished. ~ow last year there were apparently 108 deaths as a result of highway accidents and that is 108 too many. ~ut no matter what you do in life you take a chance of an accident, accidents in the home, an accident at work, all kinds of accidents.

You may be in the House of Assembly here and be overcome and collapse as a result of having to listen to the gentlemen opposite hour after hour,and that is just the chance you take in life. But there were108. Well, why mi~ht they be up last year? What you really need to know, Mr. Speaker, if you are J?:Oinp: to have accurate ~t11tistics,is what is 4373

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 JM - 6 the numher of vehicle miles drfvPn in th!" provlncr in 1972 "" comp11.rt'rl to thft numb11r of Vf'hidt'! mtle11 driven ln 1971. Unfortunately we do not have the statistics,as they nre not available. But to see whether the rate of highway accidents was increasing or decreasing that is the kind of information that you n~ed. Now why might there be some more accidents in 1972 than there were in 1971? One reason is that there are more paved roads. Have honourable gentlemen ever thought of that?

If the roads are paved you drive at a higher speed and it seems that there is a tendency to increased accidents. In 1971 this province had 1307.2 miles of paved roads. It took twenty-three years for the Liberals to lay that little bit of pavP.ment, 1307.2 miles. At the be~inning of 1972 there were 1684.2 miles, an increase of 377 miles, twenty­ nine per cent increa11e so we had twenty-nine per cent more paved road11. At the bepinninp, of 1973 we had 1911.1 miles of paved road, an increase of 226.9 miles of paved road, an increase of thirteen per cent in our first year.

We laid 226.9 miles of pavement ~nd you have not seen anything yet. By the time we get to our fourth or fifth year we will be slashing down a couple of thousand miles in that particular year. The asphalt machines will be ~oing berserk, the spuds and cabbage and turnips will have to be hidden again as they were in the fall of 1971. But in any event there was an increase in pavement of thirteen per cent last year and twenty-nine per cent the year before, This has a tendency to lead to more accidents,because people drive faster.

Now what other statistic mi~ht we look at to explain why the number of deaths increased last year? We do not know whether the number of accidents increased, at least we have not heard the statistics or we do not have the final statistics yet. What else might one look at? Wel~, you can see what returns there are perhaps from the ~asoline tax.because if there is more gasoline beinP, sold then there is likely to be more vehicle miles beinr. driven. 4374

April 11, 1973 Tape 1157 MR. NEARY: H~w much more liquor is sold? MR. CROSBIE: I do not know. I do not like to get into that. MR. NEARY: (Inaudible). MR. CROSBIE: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker. There is note after note here, extensive research, day after day, night after ni~ht spent getting ready for this. In 1970-1971 the gasoline tax revenues were $21,271,000 (.I will give it in round numbers). In 1971-1972 the gasoline tax revenues went up to $23,668,000, an increase of 11.3 per cent.

Last year, the year that ended March 31, 1973,the gasoline tax revenue went to $26,824,000, an increase again over the previous year of 11 .• 1 per cent. So that in two ye3rs the amount of gasoline tax taken in has gone up 22.4 per cent. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was no change in the gasoline tax rate in those years,so we can take it that the number of vehicle miles travelled in the province must have gone up somewhere between twenty and twenty-five per cent_ because of the extra gasoline that was sold. People do not buy gasoline just to pour it out on the ground.

They buy gasoline to put it in their motor vehicles to drive along the highway or the city streets or to use in th~ir skido~ Some of us are 4375 .JM - 7

April 11, 1973 Tape No. 1158 NM - 1 MR. CROSBIE: usin~ ski-doos. So we can as~ume then that the vehicle miles travel haa p,one up twenty per cent in those two years. Well the foct that more people are travelling in their vehicles on the highways means that there are going to be more accidents, more injuries and more fatalities. So, Mr.

Speaker, when you look at that, when you look at the background, when you look at the environment, when you look at what you should look at before you move a resolution like this,you discover that the situation is not as alarming, not as frightening, not as terrifying as the resolution would have us believe. Now why appoint a royal commission if this indeed is the situation? There is no dramatic increase at all in the number of fatalities, injuries or accidents. so why have a royal commission? We already have a rlepartment that is -functioning well, functioninp, as it never functioned before.

Since 1949 that department has not functioned as it is today functioning under its chief functionary, our colleague,the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who has this matter well in hand you may be sure. Now what else will we look at in this background of this? All right,what were the number of motor vehicles registered in 1971? Anybody who can give me the answeT will get a prize. In 1971 the total number of vehicle - I would have thought that this·is information the honourable member for White Bey South would have given the House before asking us to consider this resolution.

Why did not his friends in the Newfoundland Safety Council give him these figures? Where were they when hew.ts beinr, prepared for this great debate? Were they r,azinr, at their reflectorized plates? Were they so dazzled by the reflectorizatir,11 of their plates that they forP,ot to get toge~her some pertinent statistics? 4376

-. April 11, 1973 Tape No. 1158 NM - 2 MR. CROSBIE: In 1971 the total number of motor vehicles registered was 139,119. The number of new vehicles registered in 1972 was 19,967. The total increase in new vehicles registered in 1972,the total registered became 148,798, So in 1972 we have 148,798 vehicles registered and only 139,000 the year before, a seven per cent increase in the number of motor vehicles registered. That would also be a ~enson, ~r. Speaker, for any increase in accidents if tl--ere have been an increase. We do not know that yet, whether there has actually been an increase.

The number of new motor vehicles registered has increased. Now you might say that 19,000 and 139,000 add up to more than 148,000 and if you said that you would be perfectly correct unless you use the new mat'!-£ The honourable gentleman from St. Barbe :forth uses the new mat~ I do not know what he would get if he added those figures together but I say you are rightt you are one hundred per cent right, you are correct, you are perfect in your conclusions if you say that 139,000 plus 19,000 is not 148,000 and y.ou would be right to question me and say you have made a mistake.

You have rushed in where fools would fear to tread: What is the explanation? The explanation I assume, ~r. Speaker, is that during the year while new motor veh:lcles got registered, sor,,c defunct, defective, de~encrated, unusable motor vehicles r,ot disrer,istered. Therefore we ender'. up with 148,00" . or a seven per cent increase. ~fow the only fir,ures we were able to r:et in 1972 are figures that relate just to the fir:.t six months and are just about useless because the:,, do not include Ontario or nanitoba. These fii?ures are all th.it I have been abl c- to r,et.

Pe have not got the final firu!'E's for 1972 and we clo not know whether thP. ~inistcr's resolution - well we inow pretty well by now that his resolution w:i.s not neressary, but WC! do not knc,w wh~thr.r there has actually heen an increas-" or not in 1972. 4377

Apr ll 11 , 1 'l 71 T111w Nn. 11 'HI :!Tl_._ CP._0_Sn_rt: W•ll "the re11olut ton ay, Mr. Speaker, let us check the accuracy here, let us just check it out, let us NM - 3 see does it total up, let us see does it make sense, let us see is it logical, let us see if it is rational, let us see if it is reasonable. Now

whereas records (wait now, where are we here) I am so dazzled by this resolution,

whereas this and

whereas that and resulted and records indicated, the highest - this is it, this is the very point. Thia is the very point I wanted to make. Thia is the point I was looking for,I hope, Yea it is. Yes. Right again, For a 1110ment I had a slight bit of doubt, I thought,my gosh, I might have made a mistake} The honourable gentleman will jump me. He will thrash me. He will row and he will denounce me when he concludes the debate,if I have slipped.

I do not think I have slipped so now we will just look at this, He said, ''Whereas records for the year 1972 indicate an increase in traffic accidents and injuries of between twenty­ five and thirty per cent over the year 1971, the highest in our history." So his resolution says that 1971 was the highest year in our history, Now was 1971 the highest year in our history for traffic accidents and injuries? Was it verily? And verily does research indicate that it was? Or can that unsubstantiated statement be substantiated? It cannot. Now let us look at the figures. I will not look at every year.

I have them from the year 1960 onward but I will not give them unless the House demands it. AN HON. MEMBER: I demand it, MR. CROSBIE: Well I am limiting my time. I have only one and one-half hours to speak. I wilf come back to this if I have not covered what I should cover in my allotted hour and a-half.of which I used up five minutes last Wednesday. We must watch the clock because honourable gentlemen opposite me 4378

April 11, 1973 Tape No. 1158 MR. CROSBIE: have a tendency to try to get me counted out before I have made some of the major points that I would . like to make,because this, Mr. Speaker, is only warming up. It is only getting warm on this unsubstantiated resolution put before the House. Now what are the figures? In 1969, Mr. Speaker, we had 74 fatal accidents, the number of victims were 94. The non-fatal injury accidents totalled l,82~. The number of persons injured was 2,754. The number of accidents involving property damage was 5,951. The total accidents was 7,848. 7,848 total accidents in 1969.

NM - 4 Well the honourable gentleman's resolution says that 1971.was the highest in our history. Therefore, if that statement is to be fom1d correct, 1971 should show more. What in fact does 1971 show? Here is what 1971 shows: In 1969 there were 1,823 non-fatal injury accidents. In 1971 there were 1,699. Now I have not subtracted there but that is 124 less, so in 1971 there were 124 less non-fatal injury accidents than in 1969. Then let us look at the number of persons injured. In 1969 2,754 persons were injured on the highway. In 1971, 2.,500.

Now 2,500 in my reckoning is less than 2,754, Lmless the new maths indicate that I am incorrect. I say 2,500 is 254 less than 2,754. So 1~71 was a better year than 1969. Then let us look at property damage: In 1969 - 5,951 accidents involving property damage. In 1971- 5,527,less than 1969. The number less,424 less, not more, less. Now the honourable gentlemen in the opposition have been making this mistake constantly during the session because the honourable member for St. Barbe North the other day got up and he said that more was less, ~ore money in education was less. New think, new speak.

George Orwell described_ it all in his book ul984~But it is only 1973 and still we have the new think and 4379

April 11, 1973 rape No, 1158 MR. CROSIHF.: the new peak,"More 1 le,• That h what he aid the other day, NM - 5 Now the honourable gentleman from White Bay South, verily his younger brother has caught the same disease, new think. "Less is more: His resolution says the highest in our history - if we discover that 1969 was the highest in our history, Now let us look at total accidenta. In 1969 total accidents were 7,848. In 1~71, the total number of accidents was 7,303, less - 7,303 from 7,848, that is 545.

We had 545 less accidents in 1971 than we did in 1969, therefore and verily I say that 1969 was a higher year than 1971,and we have .1ot got the final statistics for 1972. So, Mr. Speaker, I say that the resolution is incorrect, I do not say deliberately incorrect.

I believe the honourable gentleman really thought that he was being correct when he made this resolution up or when he followed the highway council's brief for records. so it should be , "Whereas records for the year 1972 indicate an increase in traffic accidents and injury as between 7.25 per cent and 30 per cent over the year 1971 the highest in _our history," he should have said the year 1969; the highest in our histoey,not 1971. 1969 was the highest in our history. I have not got all the records for 1972 so I do not know, AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: Yes Sir, MR.

WM, ROWE: There is room certainly for misunderstanding in that but rather than wait until I get a chance to speak myself, I should point ~ut that the intention was, and it is clear from reading this that the highest in our history refers to the rate of increas~ rather than 1971, Mr. Speaker • . That point should be made before the honourable minister confuses it any more 4380

April 11, 1973 Tape No. 1158 NM - 6 MR. WM. ROWE: ''WhtK'eas records for the year 1972 indicate - " All the records ~re not in but the indications are an increase in traffic accidents and injuries of between twenty- five and thirty per cent over the year 1971, the highest in our history, The highest should relate to the rate and in my mind it did relate to the rate. I can see where there .is an opportunity there at least for ambiguity but the intention was that ''highest in our history•refers to the actual rate of increase in highway traffic accidents and injuries. MR.

CROSBIE: Well I am glad to be asked that question, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what answer to give it. But I am glad the honourable gentleman sees that there is some room here for clarification but I think that when all the statistics are in, I do not think that this increase will be the highest in our history and I doubt that 1972,~s a year.will be the highest in our history for all of these. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: It is a very dim indication. So the fact is, Mr. Speaker, th&t rather than.as the resolution appears to indicate, 1971 was not the highest year.

We do not know about 1972 yet. 1970 was not the highest year. 1969 was the highest year for all of these matters, except for traffic deaths,in our history. Another peculiar thing that the statistics seem to show, Mr. Speaker, is that the number of fatal accidents for example or the number of victims varies from year to year. There is no way of correlating it. For example in 1963, 69 persons died on the highway and in 1964, 63 persons died. There was a decrease of nine per cent and in. 1965., 64 died and in 1966, 78 died, a twenty-two per cent increase. Well a twenty-two per cent increase is only fourteen people.

Then in 1966, there was 78, it dropped down to 73 in 1967 and 61 in 1968 and then went to 74 in 196q and 61 in 1970 and 77 in 1971. 4381

April 11, 1973 Tape No. 1158 . NM - 7 MR. CROSBIE: Nov none of this indicates any kind of a trend and if we had 108 in 1972, that does not indicate.a trend either. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, all of these at•tistica do not show that there is any out of the ordinary danger in driving in Newfoundland, that highway safety ia less in Newfoundland than it is in the other nine pTovincea. 4382

April 11, 1973 Tape 1159 IB-1 • It is just not so, In fact the statistics show it is safer to drive here in Newfoundland than it ·is to drive in Ontario or some of these other provinces. So, why have a Royal COllllllission? Are there Royal Co11D11issions on highway traffic safety in the other nine provincesl AN HONOURABLE ME!'IBER: Yes. MR. CROSBIE: How many of them? The honourable gentleman does not know. That is as precise as his information usually is. No, there is not, ~r. Speaker. Why should we have one in Newfoundland? Why indeed? Now here is another fact.

The number of new driver'a licenses issued in Newfoundland last year was 18,364. There were 18,364 new driver's licenses issued. Well of course that is another reason, Mr. S?eaker, why you might have your accident rate up a bit. Every year you have more new drivers, you have more cars, you have m~re paved roads, more miles driven and therefore, one would expect more accidents proportionately, more injuries, more ·fatal accidents.and it is a serious problem that is being dealt with. It does not require emergency treatment.

It does not require panic and it does not require the resolution that is now before the House. The roads are still the same size except that more are paved. When the honourable minister really gets going on his paving programme - you know, he i~ working up to it, this year so much, the year after, the year after that quite extensively more and the year after that look out. There will be pavement going out into the bays when he really gets going. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: T~e honouratile member should know. Unfortunately the 1972 figures do not add much so I cannot say any more on them.

Casoline 'tax? No, that is all right. We are 4383

... _ April 11, 1973 Tape 1159 IB-2 .111,.t warmtnp, up to lt p,rnclunlly here. WC! h11v" p,ot tn ,11,.cu"!' thh delihrrately. We have to tnke our time. Thia i• a mntter I .think, Mr. Speaker, that should engage the attention of th1s House for several ~eeks yet. I would not like to see honourable gentlemen vote on this hastily without considering the issues raised and giving full effect to what we have heard in the House. Now, I am going to come to royal commissions, Mr. Speaker. What about rovRl commission?

Would honourable gentlemen like to know what royal commissions have coat the people of this province since the year 1966? Would anyone 11ke to know? Does anyone want to know? AN HONOURARLE ME~F.P: Yes. !om. CROSBIE: Good. The member for St. John's Center wants to know. Well, Sir, in that case you shall know. the truth shall be out, facts will be placed before you. The honourable gentleman says, "~ilch cows for the lawyers". Well, he is on a lawyer's hinder at the moment. He is glad enough to have a lRwyer acting for him at the moment and we are glad to see him get the best assiatnnce there is.

Now, this is interesting, ~r. Speaker. This is interesting indeed. Indeed and indeed and verily this 1s interesting. I have only gone hack to 1966. In February of 1966 there was a royal commission on the oractice of accountancy. What do honourable gentlemen think that cost? "JI. NEARY: !,Then was that.when the minister was in the Carinet? :M'R. CROSBIE: It sure waR and he was responsible and it did a matvelous .1ob. What did it cost? Only $16,362.64. That was the Royal Commission on Accountancy. That was anpointed on February of 1966 • AN HONOl'RABT.E "fEMRER: Where you in the Cabinet? f-fR.

CROSIITE: No I was not 1n the r.abinet. l did not go into the ~~hlnet until July of 1966. I take it hack. I was responsible 4384

April 11, 1973 Tape 1159 but I was representing the accountants and the govermnent appointed a royal commission, $16,362.64. IB-3 Then on March 3, 1966 women of Newfoundland "Hear ye! Bear ye! Ding dong", you used to have on that open line. They were worried about food and drug prices. Why? That Liberal admini tration looked after food and drug prices. They had nothing to worry about, those food and drug prices that they worry about today. It is ridiculous. There was a 'lbyal commission on that ap~ointed by the Liberal administration.

March 3, 1966, Royal Commission on Food and Drug Pricea chaired by his Worship, Mayor W.C. Adams. What did it cost1 Well, they sat during the two years the.re. What did it cost? $136,068.98. That was the Poyal Collll!lission on Food and Drug Prices. Despite the report of that very valuable royal commission food prices continued to go up. Drug prices continued to go up. The world did not change •. The province was no better off. It was just a device by the government of the day to quieten down expressions of discontent about food and drug prices. That was March 3, 1966.

AN HONOURABLE 't-1EMBER: Members of the commission, would they have been better off? MR. CROSBIE: Well, they had certain prices which the government paid them. So, they were satisfied with the food and drug prices and doubtless they did their best ~nd did all that they could do and more besides. Now, on April 20, 1966 there was a Royal Commission on Pensions for Civil Servants and Teachers. That royal ~ormnission cost $40,943.89. As a matter of fact I was briefly secretary of it. When I forsook private life to go into public life - it was the worse mistake that I ever made when I did that.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Resign. MR. CROSBIE: I just cannot. I am too stubborn. If the honourable 4385

Aprtl 11, 1971 IB-4 gentleman did not want me to RO, I would RO. Only my conscience and the public duty oersuades me to stay on in the face of what I have to listen to in this House. Now, what is that Royal Commission on Pensions? $40,943.89. They reported. They made a report. It did not do much good but they made a report. Now, February, 1966 there was a Royal Commission on "inimum Wage Rates. Why would you need a Royal Commission on Minimum Wa~e Rates? You would need a Royal Commission on ~inimum Wage Rates lf you did not want to raise the minimum wage.

They did not want to raise the minimum wage so they appointed a royal commission,because that would put off any increase in the minimum wage for a year or two. So, that royal commission was paid altogether $18,450.63. Did the Progressive Conservative Government, did this administration, did the.Premier request a royal commission last winteT when we raiRed the minimum wage? Not likely. We just said that the minimum wa~e is too low, $1.10 per hour, too low. It should be $1.50 and the same minimum wage for men as well as for women. It was done. When it was done, it was done quickly. There was no royal commission.

We did not want to stall it off for a year or two years and honourable gentlemen opposite talk about the governments of the rich and all that drivel and trifles and nauseating nonsensical effusions we have to listen to. We needed no royal cemmission on our minimum wage. Now, I do not want to occupy the time of this House any longer than I have to. The last commission was $18,450.63. Now, "r• Speaker, let us come to how much for le~al fees. I do not know. For lawyers (Cod bless them), they ~et little enough. We do not know what they are ~oing to c~arge to defend the honourable gentleman but it will be nuite a hit.

Now, Au~ust 9, 1966 - it will be little enou~h, one hundred 4386

April 11, 1973 Tape 1159 IB-5 dollars an hour. It will be a mere nothing to defend the honourable gentleman. I would request a retainer of $5,000 an hour to put up with it. I heard that the sleeve is gone off an honourable lawyer's coat fro~ the honourable gentleman tugging his sleeve. The worse client .a lawyer can have is a sleeve-tugger. You know, you are in court and you are trying to question the witnesses and your client is there tugging your sleeve asking this and asking that. The honourable gentleman is a "tug-sleever". I do not know what monthly check that is.

If he wants to get me to represent him, he is going to pay for it. Re cannot get me now because the public has me on a retainer and little enough it is as honourable gentlemen know.but we are glad enough to do it. Now, on August 9, 1966 a royal commission was appointed on the Charter of the City of St. John's. What was the total cost of that? $44,987.45. Well, little enough for the work that they did. It did not all get enacted but some of it did. That was $44,987.45. Then we come to the one that I have mentioned already. December 28, 1965, City of St. Jo~n•s Taxation and Revenue Commission.

What did that cost, the Frazer Commission on Revenue Sources in the City of St. John's? f know some honourable gentlemen will say $10,000. Some will say $5,000. Others will say $50,000. Some will say $79,000. A few odd balls, a few crackpots, a few nuts will say it cost over $100,000 and we will all pooh, pooh them, say, "Not at allt Pow could it?". Well, what did it cost? It did not cost that much. It only cost $88,386.06. A mere $88,386.06. How long did it sit? One , two, three, four, five, ix years it sat, The Commission on the Revenue Sources in the City of St. John's.

There is one bili still unpaid,for $23,557.96,but I have included that. The total cost, $88,386.06. That was the cononission that was ~oing to report and~he legislation which would be enacted by ~arch, 1966. 4387

April 11, 1973 Tape 1159 IB-6 N111tt romml,11ifon, M11reh 6, l11t,7,nr1 tho ia. l.11wr11nctt Mtno11. Now, th•ro wnn n pln1!9 wlu•rc> n rny11l comm!IHlon watt nttedl.'ld. There " royal commh11ton could do n .toh and there n royal Commission did a job. It certatnly did a joh. The cost of that royal commission - MR. ~EARY: Mr. Sreaker, I am just checking to see if we are still relevant. MR. SPEAKrR: The honourable member wants a ruling on this. The honourable member is dealing with the practicality of appointing a commission. It is relevant. MR. CROSBIE: Mr.

Soeaker, we know that the honourable gentleman has a tendency toward foolishness. So, we will not chastise him. There is a new atmosphere tn this House, Mr. Speaker. After watching "Here and Now" last night three honourable members of this House discussed decorum end by 11:olly the soul of decorum vas the honourable member for Rell Island,so he said. He hurt my feelings by making 1ibeaat me and accusing me of disrupting the House,but the people of Newfoundland know better. Now that one cost $103,789.52. It was worthwhile because they dug into the situation that required study and made an indenendent report.

One of the members, the chairman, was a member of this honourable House, the member for Placentia West. It was a ~arnificent job, well done, worth the money. So, not evecy royal commission is useless. That one was useful. Then we had a commission on August 8, 1967, the Royal Commission on Forestry appointed by the Liberal administration. That was a dismal flop. What a report it out in. It ~as pitiful the report that that commission eventually put in. Appointed on August 8, 1967, they were a year that year. They were a year the next year. They were a year the year after. That is four years.

I believe they were soJ11ething like three or four year ·s before they submitted their final report and the total cost was $62,481.88 AN HONOUP.AIIU'. ~t..qlf.R: Who was on the commission? 4388

April 11, 1973 Tape 1159 ~. CROSBIE• I fo~g~t •• The chairman was somebody from the. Mainland, Rousseau was it? Some ~entleman Rousseau from the ~inland, not the honourable gentleman from Labrador West. That gentleman,if we do not put the clamps on him, try to IB-7 control him, he is going to outspend every other member of the honourable House, every other minister. Every day he is hopping up with a new request. Subsidize this, subsidize that, lreight here, freight there. Well, he has got to be moved. He has got to go. The one on the forestry was $62,481.88.

Then we had a commission on September 19, 1967.on family law. A valuable commission, a lot of useful work done. The honourable Minister of Justice of t~day is seeing that some of it gets implemented. That royal commission cost $140,939.87. Well, was that enough commissions for the honourable gentlem2n opposite? No, that was not enough commissions for the honourable gentlemen opposite because they went on to put in more commissions. AN HONOURABLE MINISTER: Who was in the cabinet at this time? MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Smallwood. Every side you looked was Mr. Smallwood. We were surrounded by him. 4389

April 11, 1073 Tape 1160 PK - l You p:<'ntlem<'n should not intt>TTupt mr. it ,tet~ 1111!• 1111 confu11r,l. April 4, ]'H,R, J?oynl r.0111mimafon on 1!0111.tnp,, Pfr. Kor1tn1u;c-k wn11 11ppolnt..-d to 11tudy th" thorny qu<'11tion of ho11,1inp,. Whnt clid thnt co11t. t1r. Srenk('r? On·<-' hunclrt'd ,md fiv<' thouAand and sixty-f'ir,ht dollarR and sixty-seven cents. ''r. Vostaszek's report is a very good report. I do not think Much of it has evt'r been implemented hut he has done a good job. lie did a izood job hut little action taken on it. So that was the> Pousini? Royal Co111JT1ission, SlOS,000.

Then in 19~R we had a Royal Commission on Labour Legislation and that sat for four y<'ar. First it was Chief Justice Rand then it was Professor Cohen. What did that end up costing? One hundred and twenty-seven thousand three hundred and forty-three dollars and eip;hty-eight centR. T think. '1r. Speak<'r. that a royal coMmission on that subject really was not necessary. What is necessary is a couple of people in r.overnment service to sit down and revise our labour lep,islation and look at what thry have in other provinces and receive submissions. Anyway there it is, that was done,$127,343.

W~ll then we had to have another royal coml!!ission, this one had a good purpose, October 28, 1970, a royal commission into the situation in Bay Roherts. ~Ayor Adams was appointed to look into the Bay 'Poherts situation. That only cost S3,157.45 and it did not take too long to do, and it got into the situation of the ~unicipality of ~ay Roberts. Then we had,in 1971,a 'Poyal Commission on the St. John's Arterial P.oad.

Gentll'men And memhers of th<' Jlonse will r<'merr,her how r,entleMen opposite Rtarted this arterial road that p,oes from the Trans-Canada and up and down the Southside Hills. tremer,douR. it ends nowhere at the momP.nt.S7 ,199.40 '!,•as the cost of that royal commission. Well the honourahle p,entlemen opposite must have thourht when they rot the h1.1 ls for thosl' tuo comMissions, therr ts i:;o"'eth1.11r wronr hl'Tl' '1--oy t·I' ,,rr not lashinr out l'nourh in royal com!'lf.ssfons. That ii; ~•hat tJ,c>y munt hnvr thour,ht.

Sur<' thr-sl' h•o ::irr- only ~1n.nnn hrtwr-rn tJ,,.,m. l'Jrnt. 1,1f 11 wr ,Jo to coTr<'r.t it? Thrn th<'y r.ot n p:oo•I 4390

Ay,ril 11, 1973 Tape 1160 PK - 2 idea. they apy,ointed one on Blackhead P.oad Urban Renewal. That vas the next commission , oaoher 1, 1971,and that cost $1Rl,220.72. Also a good study. chaired by Mr. Kostaszek,did an eKcellent job going into that thorny situation on the Blackhead Road. lt cost $1Rl 000. The situation should have never arisen if there had been proper plannin~ in carrying out of that project in the first place. Then on February 9, 1972,the honourable gentlemen, you know they were in power then iller,ally, they had been rejected by the Newfoundland people - AN PnN. Ht?'BF~'.- Fehruary 1972? Yes.

AM HON. !-TIBF.R · --- - No, that is wrong. In January of 1972. This commission was appointed by honourable gentlemen opposite and it had to be confirmed by µson Fehruary 9, 1972, the loyal fo=ission on Nursing. AN HON • MJJ'nER : Inaudible. MR. CRO~BJF.: Ah, but look at how reasonable the cost of this one is, $1,02~ to date. Now we get do~m to another royal commission,on the Ruth Thompson case. Row much? ~- CROSBIF.: This is very. very reasonable, $948.00 to date. We are not finished with it yet.

Now we get to a royal commission and a subject that deserves a royal C0!!11!1ission, that cried f~r a royal connnissiou and it is worthy of a roJal commission, it affects the whole province, the Royal Co111111ission on Labrador,now underway,headed by Mr. Snowdon from the University.with three residents of Lahrador on-it. The cost to date S26,52R. That is a royal col'llllission which should be reportinr. by the fall on an ilTlT!lensely important suhject to thl' whole province. It is a subject that deserves a royal col'!Mission.

The structure of mlmicipal p.overnment, thrre is a royal commission on that July 12 - 4391

April 11. 1973 Tape llM PK - 3 AN HON. l'T':'.'-f?.FR • Inaudible. '!P. FI'·.~.s_P.!!..:... Ah. we are cominr-; to that. tm. trFi\PY· I am afr,dd we> 1,•ill not hc-ar al:-out that one. HP-. cpnsnrr.: Gettinp, to know you. "IKR. NFAT'Y: Inaudible. ~·111. _r.P.O~!HT-':..:._ Thc-- structuT'e of municipal p,overmnent, a suh.1ect that deserves a royal commission, one of the most important, one of the most tanpled. one of the most J,notty problems in the island to date, the cost to date $7,RS3. The Royal Conmission on t},e Magistracy appointed I believe by the honourahlE' r:entlr.>man oppoRitc.

ThP coflt to date $1,000. Now a vc>ry pert1.nc>nt ro;,al comrnission,appointed on July 31, 1973, Bc>ll Islnnd Enquiry. the- cost to date> S10,5R7.00 - Hm!. MF.MP,FJ>S: ShPrnC' ! Shame! "'R. CP.OSJIIF. • A Royal Co1Tl111iss1on on Ler.al Work Stoppap,es, a very pertinent an~ topical suhject, the cost to date $1,00(). On WorJ,nen's r.ompl'nsation. well it 1s not really a royal commission on ',lorJ,men 's r.oll'pensation it is a commission of enquiry, the cost to date $522.

And a Poyal r.ommission on Liquor Store Leases, a royal commission that p:ot to the- hottom of that situation. that we could not p.et to the hottom of in two or thrc>P years of tryin~ in this House, That cost ~44,407. Tt provC'd who owned them. It exposed the wholt> situation, and anyhody who reads ft, se~it, the evidence iR there . So the total of all of thosl", '.'r.

Speal-:c-r is $1, ,. 70,865.56 as the total of those royal commissions ~o which we should add royal corr.-;issions that were paid since l~fifi, althour.h they started hc>fore then. ~o 111st to top it all off , so that t1e can properly survey the whole scenery of royal commissions. the Royal Commission on Transportation that the honourable pentleman r.ur.ied,that cost 1;25, sn1. 71. It w.:ls appointr.>d in nl"cenhl"r 1°r,4. 'Tnr>n 1n Dc>cemher l<Jfi4, the '!'loyal r.ommissfon on F,lur..'.ltion anrl Youth, ~Rl,55(),Q2 4392

April 11, 1973 AN HON. MmIBF.R • MR. CROSBIE: Tape 1160 PK - 4 Inaudible. Yes, I am coming to tbat one. Another toyal commission that did good work, that had a subject worthy of it, education. A Royal Collll'liss1mi 011 flectrical EnerJey",appointed December fL 19i;4~ the cost was ~2.Ml.83. Thank heavens it did not cost very much, It was a spavined, measly little docU1T1ent, it was buried quickly and - AN F.Qrl. HF.HBF.R : lt must have had a short circuit. MR. CROSEIF.: It must have gotten short circuited. Rip.ht! Short circuit! It got the quick circuit.

Then a royal co1l!I!1ission that was a .good royal connnission, an important royal c:01111T1ission that told thin~s as they were, which displeased the past administration i=easurably, the Royal Commission on Economic: Prospects,chaired by Gordon Pushie. It was not a bad job at all. They told things as they were and as a result of their report there had to be another bunch appointed to report on the report, Bonnie, Hatson and Jason. AN HON. ?{FMBF.R: Inaudible. MR.

CROSBIE: If the honourable ~~ntlemen do not like the facts, the honourable gent]e~~n do not like debate in this House, they orily· like gettin~ in here day after day in the estimates and getting on with maw-mouths. mawinp. away, jaw-maw, the same point aftet the same point, standing up wasting the time of the House,when it comes to debating in depth the resolution they do not like it. The honourable gentlemen do not like it. AN FON. !'f!'RF.R: Inaudible. ~'R. CROSBIF.· An excellent suggestion. F.c:onomic ProspPcts ~2qR.9t-6.SO. mult was it that was said ahout it?

That this was - i\N 1-'0;J. ~rr.•JWP • Trash. :~. r,roSRir-: Trash. Nin~ty per cent : trash1 ninety per cent ·trash, the leader of the last arlministration said. But anyi.ray the trash 4393

April 11. 1973 Tare 1160 rK - 'i rn11t $7'lf\ ,nnn. Wl" h"d n Royal r.01111111!111 ion on flrn I th wh I ch I guel'ls wa111 1.ord Rraina,in 1965, The last hills were paid in the period that I am ~oing over. $2R.557.42. So that the total paid out for royal commissions from 1966 to date is Sl,607.533.9/t. ~Tow that is royal co11111issions. The honourahle ~entleman wanted to appoint another royal commission. '1-"hat are we to appoint the royal co111r.1ission for?

Well we are to appoint it hecausP the Newfoundland Safety Council thouizht we should appoint it, The honourahle ~entleman jumped to align themselves hehind the '!ewfoundlancl Safety <'.ouncil without any thouizht of whether a royal col':'lllission is neeclerl in hiRhway safety. Without any thought at all, they hurriedly put together a resolution when they received a copy of a hrief that all members of the Pouse wt>re sent. !-!R, POWF.. W.N. A precis. MR.

CFO~RIF.: A prj(cis of a brief p,iving the results of over ten years, ten years there was this, and ten years there was that.and making it all sound hig and like an eMergency, 1ike we were all in -danger, like you could not put your tootsy on the highway without you would be ~noc~ed down and assassinated,and therefore, they want us to appoint a royal commiAsion. Well. ~r. Speaker, I know it is p,oing to surprise honourable ~entlemen but men,bers on this side do not feel that we should have a royal commission on this. They think it would be a waste of time, They think the • resolution is misdirected, is misguided.

The honourable gentlemen opposite just did not have the facts.and now they have the facts ve are fully expecting honourahle gentlemen opposite to vote with us against this silly resolution. ~ind you we still conp,ratulate them for hrinring up the topic hecauAe the topic itself is worth diacussin~. Now I clt"art'd awRy Aever:il prt"Uminary !!.sues. T have clearerl away thP undt"rbrm1h with a m:1chrtr, wl th a vc-rhal m11chetc> T clt'arrd 4394

April 11, 1973 Tape 1160 PK-6 away the underbrush. Mow let us look at some other things that were said in this debate where honourable ·gentlemen were misguided, misdirected. Licence plates - do honourable gentlemen remember the licence plate issue? A hurricane that went on about licence plates and reflectorized licence pl~tes and everythinr. there last fall, the abuse that the honourable the T!lernber for Hmnber tlest had to endure. television, radio, newspaper",. a hurricane of ahuse and criticism about reflectorized licence plates.

All the honourahlc gentleman was doing was carrying out a policy adopted by the Liberal Administration. That is all he was doin~, carrying it out becau:3c ,.,e tr.ought it l••as the rip.ht policy, carrying out a policy decided by the very gentlemen across the House who were in the provincial cahinet at that time. The hon. ·member for White Bay South, the honourable the member for White Bay North, the honourable the member for Bell Island, all three in the cabinet, this was their policy.

This was be.in~ carried out to do away with reflectorized plates because the policy was sensible and yet there was a tirade of abuse about it. One hesitates to nention it but still it is worth mentioning. Now I want to quote to you, ~r. Speiaker, '"Neither Nova Scotia nor Ontario uses reflectorized plates.

There is no technical infonnation available to show that reflectorized plates are an effective aafety feature "For these reasons and because of the appreciable saving in cost it is recommended that three year non-reflectorized plates be ordered for the years 1~72, 1973, 1974ifor these reasons it is recommended that three year non refl~ctorized plates be ordered)• It is further reconrrtc>nded that the order be placed with ~-laldalei Limited of Amherest, Nova Scotia,at a cost of approximately $fil.OOO,as compared with Robert Neal's teinder of $180 ,Ono for a two year reflectorized plate•, R.ohert Neal did not quote on Any non-reflectorized plates." Whose reco~~endation is this?

A~l PON. Hf~mr.R. Harold f:tarkes. - ------ !_~ .c''~_f:_R.!~ l'arold St;irkf"s ,the itfoister of l!ir.hways. That is his rrcorrcndation , thP puhU.c recoMrnendatiori, An ordc>r-in-cotmcil to carry it out. The> decision 1 }'r. Speaker, w;i.s, ordered that the propoi;al of 4395

April 11. 1973 Tape llM PK - 7 ,, the honourable ~'inister of l-li~hways to tc-rminatl.' thl' 111sue of annual .-:. motor vehicle licence plates and commencinp, in 1971 to Ruhstitute therefor n Multi-yenr plnte syste:-m, three yr11r pl11tra, unreflt'ctorizt>d, he.as it is hereby approvt>d, ordered,further that tenders be sour.ht fror, Robert rlPal Lirnited. St. John's for the supply of such plates.'' ~o his policy was to do away with reflectorized plates and to ~et unreflectorized plates. Inaudible. HR. cr.nSRTF· Three year multi-year plates. That was the policy. !fo matter what the details, '-'r.

Speaker, the details are unimportant. The point was that the past administration had decided reflectorized plates were not worth it, that they did not do the job, that they were not what they were said to be and that they cost a lot more. There is no technical information available to show that reflectorized plates are an effective safety feature. AN HON. t-frr-1JH'R, What date is on that? ---------- AN JfON. ••nqn:R · InWldihle. ---- ------- 1-'R. f.R9.:.'HUE: That is riv.ht.

Here is a policy, The horourable gentlc>man can squirm, they can squi~~le, they can wiggle, they can turn this way and that way, that was the policy and a sensible policy that was carried on by the present administration and to our surprise the honourable ~entleman for Bell Island and others opposite attacked it 4396

• April 11, 1973, Tape 1161, Page 1 -- apb They attacked it, they attacked it like savage,mad dogs. If yeu looked at T.V. or listened to the radio or read the paper, you tho~ht; ''¥y God, what are the government doing? Are we all going to risk our lives if we go on the highway at night without these great reflectorized plates?" Then we had the C.B.C. showing a film on "Here and Now•· about reflectorized plates and how good reflectorized plates were. What a 1ob they did. Who made the film? It was not George ~cLean. ~IR. NEARY: That is right. MR.

CP~O..§BIE~ No, the film was made by the 3M Company, the company whose urocess was used by Robert Neal Limited. That is whose film they showed on C.B.C.,without saying it. They never said on the programme; "What we have to show you now is an advertising film from the 3M Company that sells material that goes into reflectorized plates." They showed this film. Now they showed it a second time,. The second time they may have said it had something to do with 3M but they certainly did not the first time, the first dramatic night on "Here and Now" when that film was shown.

It was a film prepared by the manufacturer who wants to see reflectorized plates but honourable gentlemen opposite, so anxious to attack the govermnent, so anxious not to give it a chance, foaming, foaming at the mouth wanting to get back into power, they are only out a year and three months yet still they are foaming. One of the honourable gentlemen said that he ~id not mind being o~t of power because he wanted to consider the future. What was his word? He wanted to draw up, conceptualize, he wanted to conceptualize.

There was no conceptualizing in that mad-dog attack on the ~•inister of Highways over reflectorized plates. There was no thought given to that, just an anxiety, s1eze a.nything to beat the government with. "t·ntat little issue can we ~et today to attack them on? What little thin!? tomorrow?" There is no conceptualiziDJ? there but cheap, unwarranted attack so the people of Newfoundland 4397

April 11, 1973, Tape 1161, Pnp,e 2 -- npb will think thnt Wf'I 11re dofn~ """'Y with rrflectorfzr<I plntea and -- think tlint n•flectorlzf'd plntt.•11 an• 110111<' p,rcat 1111rety dt'vfce. ThPy are not. If reflcctorized plates nre such a great device, then obviously the place to use reflectorized paint or whatever it is, is on the back of the car somewhere, you know, on a larger area of it. The car manufacturers should be required to do it, to use it. It should be used on the cars bUTT1pers or on what ever. Defective pl11tes. Have you heard, ~r. Speaker, all the nonsense we heard about the new plates?

How they were defective. The p11int waB cominr, off, they were peelinY,, they were wearinp,, they were dentinp,, they were dissolvinr,, they were dissipatin~, they were dep,enernttnr,, the colours were p,otnp,, I never heard the likes of what was wronp, with those 1973 plates. >-'JI. A .J. MJRPHY: The decomposin~ plates. }m.. CROSBIE: They were decomposing. What is the number of the complaints received by the department, by goverrunent,on these plates? How many complaints? The latest records I have are up to ~arch 7, 1973.

The Corner Brook office had eleven complaints regardinp, paint on the numerals bein~ of poor quality. The Grand Falls office had eight complaints and had to replace plates in one instance and in St. John's, there were twelve complaints and in seven instances plates were replaced. That makes thirty-one complaints,and eip.ht plate~ had to be replaced. Does that sound like this load of plates was worthless, that they were fallin~ apart? ~- ML'RPHY~ How many thousand? DR.FARRELL:__ We ordered 180·,ooo !~ ._J:P..OS~J_~_:_ One hundred and eighty odd thousand plates.

They were better plates than the denturists could produce, these .plates were. That is the number of complaints. Yet _ t~e people of this province heard these ferocious attacks on the Hinister of Transportation and Communic11tions ahout his plates bnin~ no ,:!ood, they were not reflectorized 11nd they were peeltn~. There is nothin~ wrong with his platcB 0 JI U1 upper pl:tte is numher one there. 4~98

April 11, 1973, Tape 1161, Page 3 -- apb DR. 'FARRELL: They showed a few on T.V. there. MR. CROSBIE: Oh Yes, they had a couple of plates on T.V. I do not "know who scratched the paint off the plates but they had a couple of plates on T.V. Every stop was pulled in this desperate attempt to destroy the ~inister of Transportation and Communications who was just attemptin~ to do his job for the people of this province,as he was elected to do, who gave up a lucrative medical practice- DR, FARRELL: General practice.

MR, CROSBIE: Instead of looking after a foreign born re~ugee.who fled from the Emerald Isle, he was abused because of his plates,of all things. I can understand it if he were a dentist, ~r. Speaker, being attacked about his plates, but ·he is not even a dentist, That is one of the major points the opposition has brought up in the last - I would say it is the major point the opposition has brought up, ~r. Speaker, in the last fifteen months,as is shown by this resolution.

Their most savage attack on the governrnent, their biggest criticism, their reason why they are against us, why they are fighting tooth and nail to put us out, why they are trying to wear us down in this Rouse, why they are keeping us here afternoon and evening with their endless repetition. The whole reason for it, apparently,is because of these reflectorized plates. It is the main issue, it is the only issue really ~hat they have brought up this year, the plates. In co~nection with the plates, we are only doing what they were going to do and had decided to do.

The honourable minis .ter was carrying it out and he thought that he was going to get praise and loud hosannas from gentlemen opposite but instead of that, what happened to him? He was practically sacrificed, he waa worn down. his nerves went,unused as he was to l"Ublic life and the abuse that you have to take. You see, ~r. Speaker, I am used to it. For year after ye~r I have taken abuse and now I do not even notice it, I 4399

April 11, 1973, Tape 1161, Pnp,e 4 -- apb 1tuJt itip,ple. F.xr.1111r mr p:rntlrmc-n whf111 I r1rnr my thro11t. Nnw, what do they nny in llrtt1nh f'olumhl11? The nff1c111ls out th,.rf! II.RY thf11· ''If six inch times twelve inch reflectorized area on the front or the back of a vehicle is an effective safety feature, then manufacturers should have it installed at the time of manufacture. All safety features on motor vehicles are prescribed by the Department of Transport under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act regulations.

A reflective sheet or band is not one of their requirements.'' That is what they say in British Columbia and they are going into lifetime plates, non-reflectorized. What do they do in Ontario? In Ontario they are going into- DR. f'ARRF.LL: 't-'P.. CROSBIF.: They did go in since then. They havegone into non-reflectorized plates, five year. They say that fr the strip of reflectorization were indeed important, then there are l!IUch cheaper ways to achieve it than reflectorizinP, plates.

Yes. because you would put it directly on a vehicle, you would not bother reflectorizing the plates, you would put it somewhere else on the vehicle. I could go on and discuss reflectorized plates but it is not necessary because l can see I have the sympathy and the support of every member of the honourable House on this point. t'R. !-!EARY: On a point of order, Hr. SpeaJ.-er. I believe the honourable minister haSPone over his time limit, Sir, of ninety minutes. rip. r.ROSJH F:: ~. NEJ\P,Y: '.fR. il!O''S: vp. NF.ARV: }l'R. C.ROSP. rn: 1~. ~!EJ\.PV: No, no, 1"r. SpPnker. five minute11 last WP.r.k. Fifteen.

Fifteen minutes last week. I have only been an hour this wee~. so far. No, ~•r. Snr.aJ,er, the honourahle riinister is more than an ho11r, he :Is an hour ;ircl twenty-five l"'in11tPs. AN HO?-:. '-ff'.'-ffirP : Cnll in the ti~cr. ___ ,. _____ .. . - 44110

April 11, 1973, Tape 1161, Pare 5 -- apb ~. CROSBIE: Call in tliat great timer from the slc.y. ?-fR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister should take his seat when I raise a point of order, Sir. Would the honourable minister please sit down and control himself? Could we have a ruling, Mr. Speaker? ~- CROSBIF.: The truth shall set them free. l-1R. SPEAKER __ (D~'?~..E_ I have been informed by the Speaker that the honourable gentleman, the minister of Finance,has another ten minutes to go. 'MR. CROSBIE: ~r.

Speaker, I have the distinct impression that the honourable gentlemen opposite want me to stop talking. Now, Mr. Speaker, I mn going to move an amendment, because. if I mov~ this amendment I can talk endlessly. I am going to move, Sir, this amendment. I move,seconded by the honourable member for Placentia West, that all of the words after "now therefore

be it resolved" be removed and we substitute the following; "that this House direct the Department of Transportation and Communications to continue to enquire into and investigate all aspects of highway safety and to continue to adopt all such measures as are feasible to improve safety on the highways of the province." I have the amendment here, Mr. Speaker, and a copy for honourable gentlemen opposite. This amendment means that we would do away with the concept of having a royal c0111D1.ission. I believe all metnbers of this House now and the honourable gentlemen from White Bay South. are agreed on that.

This should be done. I think that we are going to reach unanimity on this issue. Forget the royal col!Dllission. The House has now discussed for several afternoons problems of highway safety. We have a Department of Transportation and Communications which is enquiring into and investigating all aspects . of highway safety at all times,and that the House therefore just go on record as asking the department to continue to do this and to continue to adopt all such measures as are feasible to improve safety on the hir.hways of the province. 4401

April 11, 1973, Tape 1161. Pav.e ~ -- apb This will mean that all honourahle members of the House will -~ have expressed their concern as to this serious problem and will be encouraging the department, directing the department to continue doing what they are doing and to adopt all such measures as they find feasible from time to time to improve safety. I think, Hr. Speaker, in all seriousness. that this would be a happy resolution of the resolution.

Honourable ~l'ntlemen opposite l';et the credit for introducinl'; it and for having brought the subject up, even if their resolution had a few mistakes of fact in it, Various honourable r,entlemen have made a contribution to the debate, we are all concerned about it but on this side of the House we quite frankly do not see any necessity for a royal commission on this subject,for the reasons I have already pointed out. I do not want to monopolize the time of the House, I do not want to take too lonp,, therefore, .I do not intend to speak on this amendment very lon~.

I have a few observations of my own to make now on motor vehicle safety. What are we p,oinr,.to do about motor vehicles, Mr. Speaker? What are we roinr. to do about highway safety? As more motor vehicles and more drivers ~o on the hir,hways, we are going to have more accidents. There is no way, ~r. Speaker, of keeping up, no possible way of keepini up with the increase in the number of motor cars and drivers.

Honourable members I am sure have been to Ontario, some honourable ,.entlemen have been to California, some honourable gentlemen have been to Japan, some honourable gentle~en have been to Russia, s0111e honourable ,.entlemen have been to Norway, AN HON. ~ER: China? . ------·-- .. -- ~-•-!"RO~ftE_:_ No traffic problems, all hicyc]e!'I. ~~---1!0~YJ_T~: Any royal collll!lission on ~icycles? °l"R. r:ROSRIF.: It wnuld be 1ust ns sensihle as a roynl co"1fflis11ion on hip.hway snfety. You r,o to Ontnrir,, t(r. Sr,eahr, and look at the situation there.

They have mar:nificent hlp,hways, they 120 thh way llnd that way and crosswise and expressways. You ~o to Tokyo in Japan and 4402

April 11, 1973, Tape 1161, Page 7 -- apb they have the same, go to Europe, in Get'lll&ny and EnRl&nd,and they have the same. Yet, you go to any of them on a Saturday or Sunday and you are stuck in a traffic jam. I remember chugging along the express-y from Tokyo to ¥ount Fuji on"me"public duty,with my savoury in my hand, looking for a field to plant some savoury given me by the St.John's North me~ber,with a Bell Island mushroom. Here we were on this magnificent expressway, four rows of traffic all going along at five miles per hour. AN HON.

MEMBER: In the same direction? -~· CROS~IE:_ Yes, in the same direction on that occasion. It is the same in Toronto, it is the same everyt~here you look. It is going to be the same in this province, Mr. Speaker. There 1s not enough money in the Dominion of Canada to build all the roads that would be required to be built here to service all the cars and drivers that there will be in the next few years. What are we going to do about it? That is the problem. What are these areas ~oing to do about it? They are going to have to tum to public transportation systems. This is what they have to do.

It is the only sensible thing to do. What are they doing today in San Francisco,in the Bay Area? They are just finishing the construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, "BART," known as "BART." That is a system of suhways and trains that will take you all around the Bay Area,because they are choked with motor vehicles in San Francisco 4403

April 11, 1973 Tape 1162 JM - 1 California ,despite all °their hir.hways, and hip;hway safety is not in it. You are one hundred times safer on the roads here in Newfoundland th11n you are in C11lifornia,11nd the Rnmc kind of thlnr. will h11vl" to be clone on a smaller scale here in !'l'r.wfoundlnnd. St. John's has to have a proper public transit system to save all the motor vehicles that ;ire coming into it now. Any road you get on; any intersection, ;iny time of the night or day in St. John's you have to wait,if there is no lip.ht,five or ten minutes before you can pet on the ro;id .

St . .John's is choked with traffic, choked. Try to ~o from East to Hest, North to South, Southwest to Northeast, Northwest to Southeast and it is the same problem, too many cars for the road system . Wh;it have the honourable rentlemen opposite done about it? Nothinp, except move this resolution,which has not been much help. So, Mr. Speaker, my propnostication of the future is that the North American Continent, f.urope, Japan, we cannot afford this increase in motor cars and that we have to put more of our resources into public transit systems.

Now is there anything else I should touch on to ensure - There is just one other special point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker. We have a perfectly splendid Minister of Justice, a reformer, Sir, in the great tradition of the bar. That honourable minister has a great career ahead of him yet and he has a great one behind him too. He is not here this afternoon but I know that our House Leader is listeninr, attentively, makinr. notes so he can pass on to the responsible minister all titbits of information that are requested. I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, why we cannot turn rip,ht on a red lip,ht.

Why can we not turn rip,ht on a red light? They do it everywhere else, stop their car and if tnere is no traffic coming they turn rir:ht. What is wrong with Newfoundlanders that we cannot turn right on a red lirht? I knt•w that red lights are anathema of course in our fair province but at least the ones that mark 4404

April 11, 1973 Tape 1162 stop and go on the streets you sho4ld be able to tum right on the red light • . MR. ROBERTS: The honourable minister is MR. CROSBIE: Well, in my younger days I debated that subject and I came to conclusions which I have to keep to myself being in the political business. Now that has been adopted unanimously by the members of this House ·and I hope the Minister of Justice, that great human being, that wonderful human being, he the connoisseur of leral reform that he will see,together with our colleague,(the great Dr.

Far-Rell) he will see that these amendments are made and that we can turn right on a red light. Now there was one other suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to monopolize the time of the Rouse but there is one other thing that I would like toe honourable Minister of Justice and his committee to look into when they examine the no-fault insurance system and that is a suggestion made in an

article by the former Chief Justice Mc'Ruer of Ontario,three or four years ago,which I gave to Jim Channing,and he may still have it. It was an

article on the whole subject, Mr. Speaker, of highway accidents. }IR. SPEAKER: If the honourable minister would permit me, his ninety minutes of debatin~ period has now expired. The honourable minister is now speaking to the amendment or the time subsequently he will be speaking to the amendment on which I understand he has unlimited time. MR. CROSBIE: This is my last point anyway, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Also I understand from my officials that the amendment has to be put at this time,so I will read the amendment.

The motion of the honourable member for White Bay South is on th~ record and the honourable Minister of Finance has moved the followin~ amendment: It is moved and seconded that the cotion be amended by removing all of the words after "Now therefore

be it resolved" and substitute JM - 2 the followinl! '' that this House direct the Department of Transportation 4405

April 11, 1973 TRJ)C' 1162 nncl r.ommunfr.1t lorn,; to conttnur to c•nqul rr• Into nnrl lnvc-11ttp,11tt• nll 11apectR of htp.hwny snfc,t.y ,me! to continue to 11,lopt all such measures as are feasible to improve snfety on the highways of the province." HR. CROSBIE: ------ Seconded by the honourable member for Placentia West. Now my last point, ~r. Speaker, because I know there are others who wish to enter into the debate and perhaps we can vote on this before six o'clock. ~. ROBERTS: This week or next? MR. CROSF!IE: Oh, any week at all.

My point is this,that it was a very interestinP. study of what should be done about accidents on the hiS"hway. ~fow,as honourable gentlemen know.today if you are injured 01 the hir,hway and it is the other party's fault,you take an action ar:a:lnst them for the damage to your car and for your personal in1uries. The member for 5t.

John's South spoke most eloquently of the effects of that system where each individual must take his own action for his damage or if he is injured personally or if it is a fatal accident his dependents through their lawyer have to take a fatal accidents action ar,ainst the driver of the other vehicle and so on. The member for Placentia East mentioned an anomaly - the passei:ger in a motor vehicle must prove pross nepli~ence to collect ar,ainst the driver of the motor vehicle if he is driving the motor vehicle when he is injure~ which is in_just and which should be changed.

You have all these cor.,plications and you have, Mr. Speaker, our courts today blocked up with highway accid~nt cases. The whole burden of this

article by Chief Justice McRuer, one of the preat Ontario jurists who afterwards die! a study on civil rir,hts and civil liberties in Ontario, he sur,p,csted that the whole subject of hir,hw,1y acctclents shoulrl be removed from the court!! an<l should be <l<',11 t wl th iyi a Rfml lar system to Workman's Compen!l,1tion. In other words.if you ~uffcr injury on the hirhwav or clcath or property dam.,r.c that you Rhould be compcnsatecl no matter 4406 .T~ - 3

April 11, 1973 Tape 1162 whose fault it was, that the question of fault is immaterial, that this should be a social cost, this should be a cot to society the same as workman's compensation is for the employer and the workman and to the public and that all this litigation should be .taken out of the courts and the whole matter dealt with in a system similar to workman's compensation where there would .be for example a highway compensation tribunal -which would deal with all claims and what you got would not depend upon who was at fault but would depend on what injury you suffered, what damage you suffered, It would depend,if your husband•,ere killed,on what his earnings were and so on,the same principles that app·ly in court now.

There would be no need to litigate whose fault it was. The only litigation would be what·is the assessment of the damages,and that cannot be agreed. Mr. Speaker, it struck me when I read that

article three or four years a~o that this was a tremendous suggestion well worth looking at, to take this whole subject of death and injury on the highway out of private litigation, take it out of the courts, discard altogether the law of negligence in relation to highway accidents and put it under a special tribunal. The motorist of course would have to be assessed, Drivers would be assessed to get the funds to go into say the highway compensation fund and perhaps governments also would have to put some money from the gene·ral revenue and the whole rnatter would be dealt with in a similar principle to workman's compensation. Now I have only read this

article and I have never gone into it in any depth to see what problems there would be or whether it is practical or not practical but I would suggest my colleagues, the Minister of Justice, the ¥inister of Mines and Energy and the Minister of Transportation and Co111111unication,mir,ht consider that when they are looking at the suh.1ect of no-fault insurance this summer,hecause it apnears to me to he~ far more rational and reasonable system if it be practical. Perhnpe we coulrl lead the 4407 · JM - 4

April 11. 1973 Tape 1162 way in this province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken all I should speak in this debate. I think it has been 3 useful debate and private members' day is a good time for issues like this to be discussed. I think, as previous speakers on this side have said,it was a good subject for the opposition to brinr, forward, the member for White Bay South.

We have the same concern as they do about this subject but we feel that the Fouse should direct the department to continue to do what it has been doinP, and to adopt all feasible measures and that a royal col'll"lission is unnecessary and would not serve a useful purpose and therefore I helieve that members on this side will be votine for the amendment. We will see whether that carries or not. MR. J .A; CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment and to speak to it and I would like to make a few points.

First of all I think I would like to make it absolutely clear that I welcome the opposition's concern and the concern of honourable members who feel that it is necessary to debate such an important and vital issue as hir,hway safety at this time. However I find myself in agreement with the amendment moved by the honourable Minister of Finance in that the Department of Transportation and Communication.as it is now called, be empowered to look into this and to suggest remedies because I feel. Mr. Speaker. that we know what the problems are, we know what the causes are and I think we know many of the solutions.

This is not to say that the solutions are easy or can come very quickly but we do know many of the solutions and therefore it is unnecessary to take the time of this House or take the time of a royal commission or a special commission or to set aside special funds for that purpose. I certainly would say th,,t hi~hways and roads are the most political possible area. T well remember the flurry in 1965 in the attempt to finish the Trans-C,,nada l!ir,hway and as one who drove ovt>r th:1t hJ ghway many, many timc>s before . it w:is finished I c~rtainly welcnmerl its cnrnnl~tion.

However I did not welcome the 4408 ~ JM - 5

April 11, 1973 Tape 1162 ~ undue haste with which the pavin~ was finished late in the fall of 1965 and I myself was an eye witness to pavement being laid over snow and frost. Of course it had to be removed the next year as it hardly stood the winter and the extra cost I presume was absorbed by the federal government on the "formula "90 - 10" which was the basis on. which that highway was finished, In fact I imagine that was the only way it could have been finished at that time. Sut there is no need to be wasteful of money even if it is other people's money.

Now a few observations about the highways in general around Newfoundland particularly the condition that they were in when we took over the govermnent. First of all many of the curves are not sloped. They are practical level and if you drive around them at any speed at all,you find your car pulling over towards the ditch and many of the new highways have the roadbed itself perched high off the ground. Now I understand that this has something to do with making it easier to clear them of snow in the winter. Nevertheless,if you go off these roads in Newfoundland you are going to suffer ~rievous injury.

I think that this is probably one of the biggest causes of injuries on the highway, second possibly only to actual collision. The shoulders in many cases are either nonexistent or unworthy of the name or far too narrow. In fact if I did not know better,I would be forced to the conclusion that certain districts in Newfoundland were favoured to the exclusion of other districts because it is certainly true that the road system in Newfoundland is not equally good all over.

I think this probably resulted from the attitude of the previous administration and their leader because I think we can say that if that honourable gentleman beiieved anything he believed that if he won a debate he had solved a problem, To digress ever so slir-htly for a moment,I well r~member th~ celebraterl debate about the location of the chip mill and how the then Premier s3t 194409 JM - 6

April 11, 1973 Tape 11~2 down Rppcnrinp, to he d~fentcd by the noi~y crowd thnt he was addreBsinr,. However,! suppose he had a drink of water and went back into the fray and soon had everyone talked down and he ended up the eveninp, hein~ cheered. I honestly feel that he felt at that mo~ent 4410 JM - 7

April 11, 1973 T~e1U3 IB-1 that that problem was solved, that he need not think about it any more. He had gotten the cheers · of the crowd and therefore there was no further need for any action. This was what he had been playing for, what he had been aiming for and thia waa the conclusion. Now, I think it was that attitude especially applied to highways that caused many of our problems. Our highway system is not adequate, was not adequate and will not be adequate until many,many more dollars are spent. Of course we know that this will take a number of years.

I feel that this attitude that existed over the first twenty-two years of confederation is largely to blame for many of the inadequacies that we still see today. We know that the previous ~overnment observed no priorities whatsoever unless it was to keep themselves elected-This in itself is perhaps understandable even praiseworthy but in the long run can prove disasterous to the public interest. It is not enough to want just to be elected. Unless you want to do a reasonably good job you do not deserve to be in public life. Now, we do know what some of the solutions to the highway problem are.

One of the first solutions is the increased co-operation between local roads boards and Department of Highways.

Now, I know that I am perhaps putting the cart before the horse, I am discussing secondary roads before primary roads,but I am very encouraged to note that in my own district the P.ortugal Cove Roads Board has been getting in touch with the Department of Highways and Department of Highways have assured me and them of their co-operation in that they will see that they do all that they can to put those secondary roads into such a condition whereby the maintenance ~rant that is allowed per year.on the formula of four hundred dollars ner mile and one dollar per head of population,will maybe not be adequate but certainly should be sufficient to see that those roads are kept 4411

Apr-f.1 11, 1973 Tn11e 1163 IB-2 1n reaeonnhle condition. Another cause of dangers on the highway - many, many people have referred to it time and time again and I have had occasion to mention it to the honourable ~inister of Transportation and Connnunication - and that is that this sign "Keep Right Except To Pass" causes a great deal of trouble. I am sorry "Slow Drivers Keep Right" causes a gre11t deal of trouhle. No one likes to think of him11elf as a slow driver except possibly someone driving a very large truck or tractor trailer. Therefore the slow drivers tend to stay in the middle lane.

This sign should be removed and substituted for it should be "Keep Right Except To Pass" w':iich is the sign posting used in other provinces and in other countries or many of the other countries. However, the minister says that this has not been done yet because these slow lanes, so called.are really just too short to allow for traffic to move over. It is not really a three lane highway system that we have. They are merely fairly long paved shoulders allowing heavy vehicles to move over and to allow the faster traffic to pass by. Now, I myself do not entirely accept this.

I feel that some of those so called shoulders are long enough to permit that tvpe of sign posting, "Keep Right except to Pass". However, I am assured that as funds become available and these shoulders or third lanes,as they are called 1 are len,thened that this type of siP,n posting will be brought in. All that I can say is that I hope that it is done very soon. Another solution is the highways, especially ~eavily used hi~hways,should he lit.

Now, I know that this is costly and perhaps to some extent not practical in that it cannot he done this yeflr or next ye.tr hut T think thnt it is a solution that we should work towards. Tt ts a definite solution.· Tt will 4412

April 11, 1973 Tape 1163 IB-3 certainly cut down on some of the hazards of driving particularly on the Trans-Canada Highway which is subject to fog and storm and varying weather conditions. I would like to see the day when the Trans Canada Highway acrops Newfoundland,particularly in the more foggy areas or the areas more susceptible to fog,are lit by a system of street lights that are probably twn or three hundred feet apart but still street lights there that will allow the driver to be fully aware of where he is when weather conditions restrict the visibility.

Of course, as the honourable Minister of Social Assistance pointed out to me just now,that especially whPre over- passed are concerned these could and should be lit. certainly be a step in the right direction. This would 'The reason that many of these solutions are not in effect is because the previ?us government did not do it. Why did they not do it? One of the reasons is that they did not observe any priorities that I could decern.

I feel that they wasted our substance and I feel many of the problems that we are struggling with can be directly traced to the-ir mismanagement of them by particularly their previous leader. We have to run a tight ship and if we do nm a tight ship, I think that we can bring about these solutions that I have outlined. Of course, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, the traffic problems will not go away, they will not get better, they are only going to get worse and the long-term solutions are in the realm of public transportation.

I myself w~uld like to point out that perhaps an overhead monorail system particularly for the more urban areas in Canada is prohahly the most workable solution. Subways requiring vast amounts of excavation and disruption seem to be prohibitively expensive

whereas an overhead monorail system can be put in an existing urban area without too much disruption. Unce put there the transportation can be rapid, effective and safe and free from the vicissitudes of the weather, 4413

Aprfl 11, )1)71 Tllfl" 11'11 So, Mr. Speaker, these are a few obRervntion~ I hnd " to make. I do feel myself quite alarmed at the statistics of fatalities on our roads. I realize that if you ;in:iln:e it by terms of passenger miles it may not be much worse this year than it was last year. We may even look forward to some imnrovements in p~r passen~er mileR hut ae the density and frequencv of traffic increaReB we are r,oinr, to see more deaths in absolute terms. ThiR te to he deplored and I chink that we Rhould nll try nnd do what we can to bring about some of the eolutions that J have outlined.

These are only a few. I am TR-4 sure honourable memhere here can think of many more. Therefore, I support the amendment to the resolution and I certainly support the spirit of the resoluti~n as moved hy the honourable member for White Ray Sout~. Thank you. ~- W. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I 1ust want to rise to give our position on the amendment itself. These are very few words on the amendment, Sir. I intend to have a few more remarks to make when I clue up the principal debate or the debate on the principal motion. We have listened to the Minister of Finance rep,ale ns today for a cou1>le of hours.

J must say, Sir, that we have very had luck in this House. As I mentioned a couple of days ago.under the New Mental Health Act it takes two doctors to certify a man in this province. Last day when we saw the ~inister of Finance dance a jig merrily across th~ floor here, unfortunately only the Minister of Health was present and the Minister of Hi~hways,who is also a doctor,was out of the House. Today while the minister was ~iving every sign and evidence and manifestation of somE lnner malady,unfortunately the noctor of Health was not in hiR n]R.CE' and ;,ll we had \rnR the noctor of HiF!;hwavR.

So, leJl!n11y we rlid not hnve enouph to com!"it the honour:ihle p.entlem:m either last rb,v or thi11 d:w. ~:iyhe one of this days, Sfr, we will h:ive a lur.ky hre:ik :ind hoth mf'clicnl doctors will he in thPlr seats at the same tfme and we will, 4414

April 11. 1973 Tape 1163 IB-S for the protection of honourable members and perhaps for the_ protection of the minister. we will be able to have him nabbed once and for all. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: The new wing will be ready. HR W. ROWE I hope so. So that he will be more comfortable than he otherwise might be. There was a time. Sir, when we could expect a relatively reasonable, sober-minded display from the minister during the afternoon sittings (by sober-minded I mean serious.) and then, in the nighttime, after a long, leisurely. semi-liquid supper, he used to really regals us in those days.

Now, Sir, I am getting fearful for the honourable minister. because these antics of hie have crept into the afternoon sessions as well as the evening. I hesitate to say what he is doing during his lunch hour. AN HONOURABLE. MEMBER: No lunch. HR. W. ROWE: No lunch today. You mean, it was on a empty stomach. That is why, Mr. Speaker. undoubtly the honourable minister could not carry. Now, I just want to say something on the amendment and then I will sit down because I want to save the bulk of my remarks for when the debate closes.

This amendment, Sir, must be the moat s~upid, most ridiculous amendment ever brought into this House. I would submit, Sir, that if we searched through the rules~that procedure is probably out of order anyway. Here is an amendment which directs the Departl!)ent of Highways to do what the Department of Highways under its act is supposed to be doing in any event. All that we are asking in the main resolution, Mr.

Speaker, is that . the Department of Highways be assisted in this onerous job by some outside expert opinions, investigations, ideas, collation of material,all that sort of thing, people who have no Axe to grind like perhaps the minister might have or the department, the officalF. of his denartment. people who are not overly concerned about the 4415 .

April 11, 1973 Tape 1163 cost aspects of implementing certain safety measures. That is the type of persons who should be making recommendations to the government on this whole situation of highway traffic safety, ~r. Speaker.

Here is the honourable ~inister of Finance in a desperate attempt to try to get some political kudos - God knows he has had little enough in the past number of months - get some political kudos on his side, in a blatant political attempt, ~ir, trys to confuRe.the issue by bringing in an amendment which directs the ~inister of Highways to do what the Minister of H1phways is supnosed to do legally. If he were not doinr,, Mr. Speaker, what this am~ndment asks him to IB-6 do, I would submit, Sir, that he would be falling down pretty badly, dismally in his job as ~inister of Highways.

I know that the honourable minister whom I do not know too well but I know him well enoup,h I think to be able to say that the Department of Transportation and Communication will continue to iquire into and investigate all aspects of highway safety and continue to adopt all measures that are feasihle,or try to anyway,within the financial constraint. If he is not doinp, that all of the time, if Ministers of Highways have not been doing that for the past number of decades, Mr. Speaker, they have not been doing the job they are supposed to be doing. So, I suspect that the minister will do that.

You do not need a resolution from the House of Assembly directing him to do what he is supposed to do in ariy event. How ridiculous and stupid is that. EncouraP,e: If the honourable minister needs encouragement from a resolution of this House,well then he should submit his resignation, Mr. Speaker. Tf he is Minister of Highways, Transportation and Communicnt1onR he will try to do everythinr, within his power and his department's power ohvious]y to try to cut down on highway traffic Accidents.

What we are suggestinP., Sir, is that he resort to some out­ side expert advice on the situation, people with no axe to grind, people 4416

April n. 1973 Tape 1163 IB-7 who will not he involved in the politics of the aituation, people -~ who - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. W. ROWE: $100 1 000. Do not be so ridiculous, Mr. Speak.er. $100,000. Some people who can bring to the attention of the public the problems which are now in existence and make recommendations and dramatize the situation so that members of the public will be in a better -.,osition to know what is going on here compared to other provinces in Canada.

The Minister of Highways will have some public pressure brought to bear on him,hopefully,to implement some of the recommendations. No minister likes to have that happen. I did not like to have it happen when I was minister, public pressure to make you do something which perhaps you did not have money enough for and that sort of thing,but that is the essence of democratic government_, Mr. Speaker, that the public try to make its interests known to the people who are governing and the minister trys to do. whatever he can. .It is not encouragement.

The minister is encouraged enough now I hope to try to do what he can. What he needs and what any minister needs to have kept before his mind and the minds of his officals are these problems that are with us and which we would like to see if not disappear at least diminish in their serious impact on our citiz~ns in this province. That is why we need a Royal Commission. I will go into that a little later on but just suffice it to say for the moment, Sir, that an amendment which directs the Minister of Righwa~s 4417

April n, 1'171 Tape 1164 PK - 1 to do uhnt hC' i!-1 m1ppoRC' to he> cloi~, 1f h1• IH .!otni,: hts joh llt all, is the hc-ight of nonsE>nse. it is ridiculou!I, Listen to the honourable memher for Green Bay over there, Go down and assist the Premier. '!r. Speaker . ask the honourahle member to go down and assist the Premier; he needs soml" assistance. Pell,to encourage the Prc>mier to do his .1oh. llhy do we not pass the rc>solution for the ~•inistc>r of Justice.

Sayinp, "nc:>ar '!inister of Justice, you are hereby encounwC'd to do your .1 oh properly." Then to the l~inister of ~linr-s anri Enc>rP.y; "l'inister of HinC's and F.nerp.y, take no notice of the ahusC' that you m1.rht p.et in this honourah1e !louse of Ass<:>mbly, you art' hc>r<'hy c:>ncour;i1'erl to carry on rPr:ardlt>s!I. Do your .1ob," nr.

Sr,<'a1'<'r,''<lo yo11 joh, do not f.:iltC'r in it , do not lc:>t a little ahuse or a little critic1.!lm rC't you upRet." So her<' we arr now directinJ!; the "inister of l'lr:hways who nc>eds no encourar:cmc:>nt in any sphere of activity in life, I would suhmit, Sir. no encouragement at all. I would say he is tryinr to do his .1oh, 'le may nec>d some help from out­ side sources but he may n<:>ed some pressure broup.ht to bear on him to do what the public considers to he necc>ssary rather than perhaps what some narrow p.roup of civil servants deem necessary or some othc>r narrow-i.ntereRt r:roup.

That is the on] y rc>ason we are askinp; for this. He cloes not nec:>d any encourarf'mrnt, no mini.ster neC!d!I any encourap:ement. ~!r.

Spc:>aver. no rc:>solutionR ncC!d to be paRsed saying to a minister, "Minister, do your .1oh." Tf the minister is not cloinp: his job,theoretically he 1-1ill he thrm,m out of the cah-/net hy the Premi.er, and if the govern~ent as a whole are not doing their job, they will suffer at the hands of t~is l'ouse in a vote of no-confidence or in a general election they will he thro~m out hy the prople or the party will not have a ma.1ority :i.ftr>r thc- next reneral elPction. '.lo encoura?rmc:>nt is nc>cded. l'hat l!C' n<'C'rl is some• prP s s11re , SOl"'C' aclv1 ce, soMe 'i.nfo~.,tion.

SOT!1C' col Jntlnn of rr,,tC'rl.71 . sorr<' T<'cop,r,<·nrl :1tfn11,,; 1n ordC'r tn c11t rlcnm on thC' th<' ,7J,vsm.-il s:if<'tv prohlc•r ·,s ~,hlrl, H<' ar•• 11:ivinp , in th1s rrovinrr .,nd In ntlit-r l"rnvlncp~; nf f'.;m.,d:1. T:,._., st:i.tis t lcs ,.,JJid1 T. 11111 hri.np: into tlr,• J'n11•;" latrr ' 1r. Sn<:>.,J,rr wh<'n T clue up th<' clehat._.,,.,111 show 4418

April 11, 1973 TapC' 1164 PK - 2 that our rate of increase is in fact relatively higher thall any province in Canada, notwithstandin~ the ~obbledygook and rnumbo-jUC1bo which the Minister of Finance regaled us with today. That is all I will say on the amendment, Sir, we are against the amendment hecause it is useless and it is a political ploy on the part of the 'Unister of Finance.

What we would like to see is a Commission of Enquiry with no axe to grind, carrying no brief for anyone.who can lo~k at it dispassionately, objectively and then expose the recommendations to the minister of the government and the public and let us see what comes out of that. That is what I would like to see. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, many of the points raised by the honourable members on the other side of the House in course of this debate I would have to agree with, as strange as it may sound.

I have to agree with some of the points raised but I cannot support the resolution and I cannot understand the logic of the honourable members in proposing such a resolution. We have heard so tl'.any times in the last weeks and months the honourable members on the other side of the Fouse lambast the govermnent for the amount of study that was being done, the nUC1her of committees, the number of commissions that were looking into different aspects. How many times have they said; we do not need committees, we do not need commissions, they are a waste of money? Now what do we see?

We see a resolution that the House direct the government to establish i?:!lllediately a C=ission of F.nquiry to examine and to investigate all aspects of hip,hway safety. Now, f-'r. Speaker, if we look at some of the points raised by the honourable members themselves,in previous sessions of this honourable House,we will see that by the very points that they make themselves they clearly establish that this is not a situation for the appointment of a commf.ssiori. For example. the honourah le the ll'einber for Fhite Ray South,in introducfog the resolution on llednesday.

Uarch 21. stated such a royal commission does not have to be expC'nsivc and it does not have to be t:imP.-consuming. They should do,as T have said,not any orip:inal 4419

April 11, 1Q73 PK - 3 rl?Rl':tTch tnto proh] c-ms which hnve 11] rrncly hrrn l'.'xnminrrl hy thl' . . 1ur1sc11.ctlons throur.hout the 1-•orld, thC'y should he> ahlP to collnte this' informntlnn . r,nther in this lnfornwtion. look flt recommendations of other jurisrlictions to BC'C' what they havr done in other jurisdictions and to see what the results have bc>en. They do not have to do any ortr,tnal rr?search in rr?snect of that kind of information. Now, t-•r. Spc>aker, T think that point in itself indicates that thts ts not thl' tync> of prohlem which rc>rftiirl?s a commission.

The prohler.s hc>rr nrr clPar nnrl many of the solutions to these prohlems hecornr? fnirly ohvi.ous. !'TT._ P.OHT'., \1.M. Hell would the minister not ap,rl?e that if he again read on in Jlansarrl ,m;iyht> on the s;ime pap:P or a little further on, I have r.ent1onl"rl that this commission should certainly collate information ,:,1hich ·is rcarl11y available elsewhere and deal with some unique or peculiar problems, prohlc!T's which are peculiar to ~'.ewfoundland ,and that would he an additional term of reference of the commission obviously. ~oes not the> minister aRree with that? '-'P. J\Al'P.Y · Yes, l'r.

Speaker, I ap:rec there may he some unique probl<.>ms but thC' types of prohlC'ms the honourahll? mc>mh<.>r referred to. they can do some rl?se.'lrch into our d:1.stinct, uni(Jue and peculiar Province of Nevfounrlland !'luch 11!'! a road system whicl, is very extensive, the dirt . roads, the P,r;wel roads we have, the pavr.d roads and the Trans-Canada Pi?,hway. ~r. fp1>alrer, thc1,e are thinp;s which any meMher of the civil service,which , any mel!lher of cabinet are familiar with. There is no ~reat research investip.ation r~uircd into ~atters distinct to ~,ewfoundland, pc>culiar to !'ewfoundland.

The problems that arE' set out here. th!' Major prohlc>ns are universal ones, thl?y are not peculiar to our pro v1 n ee , in SOT"!e slip.ht ways we have> - I wi 11 r,o :l,!'to thC'IT' in some d('tail - in sorr sltpht ways thrr,-. /\Tl'.' un:lriue prc11l iarities in the province. 1'.ut thP m., 1or proh lrl"s, thr m:i 1 or pn1.n ts t-1hi ch have> to h<.> att .,cl ·rcf .,r<' nn1.nts whlc 11 nrr 11nivrrs .1l, on t-}iich th,...rr has ,1lr1?ady hPC'n E'Y.tC'nsfvr !'lturly clonf'. on which thrre Is ennur.h of a consensus, I 4420

April 11, 1973 Tape 1164 PK - 4 would submit,to enabl~_J.he honourable the Minister of Transportation and Communications Department to ta