f Province of Newfoundland THIRTY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XXXIX Third Session Numbe r 63 Monday VERBATIM -REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable ]ames Russell 10 December 1984

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement on the recent Housing Ministers' Conference in Ottawa. MR. NEARY: Table it. MR. DINN: That is exactly what I will do, I will table the information for all hon. members, because we have very important things to discuss in the House today. So I will just table the statement. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Agricultural Development. MR. GOUDIE: Minister and of Rural, Northern Mr. Speaker, through this hon.

House I wish to inform the general public of the Province, and particularly those residents of the East Shore area of Labrador, of a programme initiative being undertaken in that area by the Department of Transportation in connection with the East Shore Labrador Development Association, which organization is, of course, supported by my department.

For the past several years, the East Shore Labrador Development Association has been operating L5673 trail grooming equipment in the East Shore Labrador area as a means of improving the Winter transportation system by snowmobile, which, other than by air, is the only transportation link between communities in this area during the Winter months. Mr. Speaker, this government has supported this activity since its inception by providing funding in the amount of $60,000 for the purchase of the equipment and through the provision of operating grants in the order of $25,000 to $30,000 per year.

This is in ~ecognition of the fact that there are no connecting highways in the area and that these snowmobile trails are in effect the highway system. But during this past Summer, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) met with representatives of the association • to discuss the merits of this programme and to assess its future. Government is most impressed with the programme and as such is supportive of the association's and the resident's desire to expand and enhance it. To this end, Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce that government has decided to support the association in the acquisition and operation of a second trail groomer to be in place for this coming Winter. To facilitate this, government has approved an increase in the grant to the association of approximately $62,000, bringing the total funding for this project for the coming Winter to approximately $92,000. The provision of the second machine will allow for faster grooming after snowfalls and will provide back-up capability in the event of December 10, 1984 R5673

mechanical problems with either of the machines. In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation has provided some 130 signs to the association for trail marking and safety purposes. As well, a Name the trail contest was conducted among local school children and government provided some small prizes to the winners. Mr. Speaker, it might be suggested that ·in the overall scheme of things the sum of money involved here is not that great. Now that may be true, but to residents of this area of Coastal Labrador it represents significant and welcome improvements to their Winter transportation system.

Government commends the East Shore Labrador Development Association on their initiative and efforts relative to this project and is pleased to be able to provide the requisite financial support. We look forward to continued co-operation with the Development Association and the residents of the area in this and other transportation related matters. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. member for Torngat Mountains. MR . WARREN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say at the offset that we are quite pleased to see that the minister is moving in a positive direction by providing $92,000 to be spent this year by the East Shore Development Association for a very vital means of communication on the Coast of Labrador. I should also remind the minister that there are some 3 7 communi ties which need to be connected. Although this is only just a drop in the bucket , I assure the L5674 minister that he will have the support of this side if he keeps corning up with such initiatives as this. Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon.

Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader could tell us whether it is intended to file the Public Accounts and the Auditor General' s report on these accounts before the House closes? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that for the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry). I do not know whether the Auditor General's report has actually been received by the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) as yet. I know it was in the course of preparation. I will certainly take notice of the question.

I can say, however, that as soon as the report has been filed with the minister, within a reasonable time thereafter it will be tabled. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) knows, it is customary for the government in recent years to file a response at the same time as the report is filed. But certainly it will be filed very shortly after its receipt. But I will have to take notice of this question to answer it more specifically. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: December 10, 1984 RS674

Mr . Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister on another topic whether he agrees with the approach that seems to be taken by Mrs. Carney that before any public hearings are set up on the Mobil Environmental Impact Statement that it is necessary to arrive at a decision, a final decision with respect to the one mode of development which will be adopted for Hibernia.

And I would like to ask the minister would he not agree that in deciding upon a particular mode of development, the environmental aspects are very important and, therefore, the people af the Province should have an opportunity of having input before the final decision is made? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in relation to that, the old cliche comes up, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Quite frankly - MR. TULK: In this case we are caught in the middle. MR.

MARSHALL: I do not know how one can formulate a sensible Environmental Impact Statement unless one has a firmed up idea of the preferred proposal that is being made for the permanent type of development, the mode of development or the development plan, which, Your Honour, as will be appreciated by all members, is going to impact greatly upon the Environmental Impact Statement and its effect on the government and on the Province.

Now in the present situation the Environmental Impact Statement that had been prepared, apparently, by Mobil, but which we L5675 have not received a copy of, and asked that it be postponed, was prepared without any adequate or really any reference at all to the Province, and was prepared under a regime that just ignored completely the Province's wishes.

So between the time of the preparation of that Environmental Impact Statement under another regime, an oppressive regime which was affecting this Province as contrasted with the present way in which development is going to occur, that is, the Province is going to have the ultimate decision on the mode of development or the development plan, it seems perfectly logical and reasonable, I would submit, that the Province should have an input into that development plan before it is presented to the public.

Then when it is presented to the public, of course it will be open for the public to have input into it, and any adjustments that might be necessary as a result of those hearings will be made in the final report. But the fact of the matter is that we were faced with a situation where an Environmental Impact Statement was to be made without us having any impact at all into the development plan. Now that we have an impact into the development plan I am quite happy, Mr. Speaker, to have the support of the Federal Minister (Mrs.

Carney) who, as you will note in her every statement is supporting provincial rights in this Province in connection with the offshore development. MR . SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary. MR. BARRY: December 10, 1984 R5675

I would like to ask the minister to indicate whether the approach he is now taking is not a significant departure from the approach that has up to now been taken by the Government of Newfoundland, an approach as set forth in the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Regulations, 1977, specifically regulation 62, subsection (1), sub-subsection (n), which requires that every development programme submitted should include a description of the technical and economic feasibility of alternative methods of development? Now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Minister of Energy (Mrs.

Carney) is saying that a decision must be taken upon the mode of development, a single mode of development before this report must be filed, yet the petroleum regulations of this Province have always required and still require that there be a description of alternative methods. What is the purpose of having public hearings if not in order to permit government to get input from the general public before deciding upon the mode of development? Is that not a significant departure from this regulation? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentleman indeed has to go into circuitous routes and alleys and avenues to try to justify his position with respect to the offshore and he shows this by his every statement and he is showing it by that particular question. Now the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it is the preferred mode of development. Obviously if you are going to have a development plan and environmental impact statements there are going to be L5676 avenues for alternative considerations because that is really the purpose of it.

But we are talking about the preferred mode of development, and the very, very much preferred mode of development of this government is the fixed concrete platform, and the position taken by the government has been that for some period of time on the basis of safety and economics, but we have a caviat to that and the caviat is that the companies are placed under notice that they have to have very cogent proof to show that another means is preferable. I mean that is the situation. What is the purpose, the hon. gentleman asks, of public hearings?

The purpose of the public hearings is to get public input into the situation. MR. TULK: It is already decided. MR. MARSHALL: No? The preferred mode of development is the one that we want to have put before the general public. The preferred mode of development will hopefully be the development plan that will have to be followed.

Now the hon. gentleman there opposite can get his surrogate, his predecessor on the other side to come to his rescue as much as he wants to, but I repeat my first words,, that the bon. gentleman is getting on rather shaky and quaky grounds indeed where he has to go into these circui tious areas to try to continually justify his flight to the Opposition, which flight has been shown to be completely unjustified as a result of the events that have transpired and particularly as a result of the co-operation we have received from the Federal Minister of Energy who continues to insist that the December 10, 1984 R5676

ultimate mode of development is to be determined by the Province of Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to release the Mobil Environmental Impact statement to show some respect for the common sense and good judgement of the ordinary men and women of this Province, to understand that this is a preliminary report, to understand that it is something that will be updated and, to quote the federal minister "reformated", whatever that means?

And would not the minister agree that to do otherwise than to release this report shows that there is something on the part of the provincial government and the federal government which they wish to hide and not have revealed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? MR. TULK: Now that is the question. MR. SPEAKER: The han. President of the Council. MR. NEARY: Give us a straight answer. MR. MARSHALL: The poor old Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has to call his predecessor to his rescue. Mr. Speaker, nobody is trying to hide anything. In the first place we have not got that report in our possession.

That report was not L5677 filed. It is not in the government's possession so how can we release it? And on the second point, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to pursue this development in a way that is beneficial for the people of this Province, and surely the most beneficial way for a development plan to be first presented to the people of this Province is after the Government of the Province, their elected representatives, have had a chance to look at it, have had a chance to look at the entire situation and put before them, and have an input into putting before them what is the preferred mode of development.

Because then and only then can we assure the optimum benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador which is really what has been our aim and objective all throughout this very troublesome issue. Now the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we are on the threshold, indeed we have resolved that issue, we have obtained for the people of Newfoundland the right to participate in the joint management, the right to establish and collect taxes, and, Mr.

Speaker, we are seeing by this action the working of that agreement, that agreement in operation, where the people of Newfoundland have a say as a result of the present federal government's agreement with this Province

whereas before with the government of the party that the bon. gentleman scurried over to, we had no say at all in the whole proceeding of filing an environmental impact statement without any reference at all to the Province is a manifestation of that as well. So I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that this course of events has occurred because it shows that the Province of December 10, 1984 R5677

Newfoundland is going to have some real power and the government will exercise that on behalf of all the people in this Province. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am going to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) also, and I hope I get a straight answer from the han. gentleman, and I do not want any game playing like the hon. gentleman just did.

Three years ago I asked the han. gentleman this question, and two years ago and last year I asked the same question in connection with claims that were made by a company that worked on the Upper Salmon, Viking-Sintra?. Dobbin's company here entered into a joint venture on the Upper Salmon with a Mainland company and because they felt they did not get enough for the contract they had they made a claim against the Newfoundland Hydro and against the taxpayers. Now would the hon. gentleman indicate to the House if that claim has yet been settled? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, that claim was submitted, and it was a legitimate claim from the point of view of the claim itself. The measure of the claim is something else. MR. NEARY: What about the government? MR. MARSHALL: L5678 It was submitted to the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and it was put out for independent assessment. Mr. Speaker, I will check the actual resolution, but I know that it was on the throws of a resolution by an independent assessment.

But as to whether or not that decision has actually been made by the independent assessment and the nature of the settlement, I will have to take notice of it and I will advise the House accordingly. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supp 1 em en tary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the claim was for a substantial amount of money. I believe the hon. gentleman indicated the last time I asked a question about Mr. Dobbin's company that it was probably going to go to court. Now the hon. gentleman is indicating to the House that the matter has been settled.

Now let me as the bon. gentleman a couple of questions in connection with that. Did the matter ever come before Cabinet? If so, what did Cabinet do with it? Could the bon. gentleman indicate to the House the amount of the settlement of the claim? $9 million was a lot of money over and above the contract amount that was let to this company. Would the hon. gentleman indicate the amount of the claim, if settlement is indeed made, and will the bon. gentleman undertake to table all documents in connection with this claim in this hon. House? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. President of the Council. December 10, 1984 R5678

MR. MARSHALL: It has not been before Cabinet. Many things when they are before court are subject to negotiation for the purpose of settlement, and this was one such claim. I said it would have to go before court because there was no progress.

But it certainly has not come before Cabinet as yet, it may not come before Cabinet because of the fact that it is a matter of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro adopting the usual procedures for a settlement of a claim of this nature, but certainly any relevant information with respect to the settlement of the claim ! would certainly be prepared to table in the House when it is available to me. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A final supplementary, the bon. the member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: Would the bon. gentleman undertake to get this information for the House at as early a date as possible so that we can look at this? Because the taxpayers are entitled to know, Mr. Speaker, why a contractor who was given a fixed contract for work on the Upper Salmon, now comes back with a claim for $8 million or $9 million, and the minister is indicating- that it may have been settled for a substantial amount. The taxpayers are entitled to have this information. Would the bon. gentleman undertake to table that information in the House at as early a date as possible? MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. L5679 MR. MARSHALL: Kr. Speaker, I will undertake to table it at the earliest date possible when I have all the documentation because we see an indication by the way the bon. gentleman is asking his question as to why we need all of the information. Because I am not going to have the bon. gentleman twisting things and turning things as he did right there when he got up and said, 'There is settlement.' He would give you the impression there is a settlement for $8 million or $9 million.

I said I was not aware that there had been any settlement, but that they were near a settlement. And, as to the business of a fixed contract that the bon. gentleman talks about, in all construction contracts of this nature, it has not been unusual for unforeseen circumstances to arise, and there is a term in the contract that provides for unforeseen circumstances that there is a claim for extras under the terms of the contract.

And I can guarantee the bon. gentleman that any settlement that is reached with respect to this claim or any claim will be purely and simply on the basis of the contract, purely and simply on the basis of fair, assessment and arbitration, if necessary, or court, if necessary, of any extras that may be payable for it, and that goes not only for this contract but any other contract but any other contract that this government or any Crown corporation enters into. But, in answer to it, Mr. Speaker, so the bon. gentleman will know it, I will give the information when I have the full and complete information.

I will not be giving partial information that the bon. gentleman can twist at will. December 10, 1984 R5679

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn). I understand that today the Premier has issued a proclamation on the 36th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I further understand that he has said in this proclamation that 'The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador desire to reaffirm its faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person' and he has further urged all residents of the Province to show a personal concern for human rights. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour would he please, for the sake of all the people of this Province, withdraw all anti-labour measures before this House? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Labour. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted that the Premier signed a proclamation on human rights in this world, and I am also delighted, as Minister of Labour in this Province, to be able to bring forth the best labour legislation in Canada - and Canada has the best labour legislation in the world. We have the best labour legislation in Canada. We have the best Occupational Health and Safety legislation in Canada. L5680 SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. HODDER: That is not true. MR. DINN: The bon. member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) just chimes in.

He has not said a word in this House since the House opened, but now he chimes in, breaks the rules of the House, but he does not have the courage to get up and state his position on anything. He has been out in his district hiding since the September 4 election, I understand. MR. HODDER: Where have you been? MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I was in Ottawa once, but otherwise I was here every day, every minute, every hour that the House has been open. Mr. Speaker, we have the best legislation.

If the bon. the member for Port au Port thinks there is a government in Canada that has better legislation, I would like to see him produce that information. Because we have checked all across this Dominion, the Territories, B.C. to Newfoundland, and we have the best labour legislation bar none in Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before the House that is going to improve the situation in Newfoundland for temporarily laid off workers, and we intend to make sure that that labour legislation is still the best in Canada. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. December 10, 1984 R5680

MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Well, - I was going to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn) a question about housing, but now that he has brought up Occupational Health and Safety, I have one for him there. Given that we have such tremendous legislation, by the minister's account the best in the world, I would ask him why are we then getting complaints lodged with the Department of Finance over Occupational Health and Safety violations? I have a copy of them here.

The minister insists we have such great legislation, but the fact is that the Department of Finance is still violating that very same piece of legislation he is talking about by not having its joint management-labour committee in place in order to oversee the elimination of saf .ety hazards in the Department of Finance. My question for the minister is, Is he going to get in touch with the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and make sure that he starts living up to this fantastic legislation that we have? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. the member for Menihek asked a question about Occupational Health and Safety. He has made several statements about Occupational Health and Safety which make it obvious that he is not aware of what goes on with respect to enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act. He has stated, for example, that we do not have all the workplace committees set up, L5681 government are not following the regulations as they should. Well, let me just inform the bon. member about how this thing works, what we do. We do not drive people into the ground, that is not what it is all about.

The act is basically centered around a fairly democratic process. Now, the bon. member may not understand democracy in this sense. But, what we do with Health and Safety committees, as an example, is we have the union people elect representatives for Occupational Health and Safety committees. Until they do that, we do not enforce it. We do not go and grab hold of them and say, 'You had better appoint these people or we will throw you in jail. ' We democratically allow them to elect people for Occupational Health and Safety committees.

We have over 100 Occupational Health and Safety committees in government right now. The hon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), about whom the han. member asked a question, is currently, through Treasury Board, attempting to set up a co-ordinator of Occupational Health and Safety who will be responsible for making sure that these Occupational Health and Safety areas have all the equipment necessary so that they can comply with the act.

The hon. member says, 'You are not living up to this,' and 'You are not living up to that. • out in Grand Falls, in my bon. colleague's district, the Minister of Forestry here (Mr. Simms) - there was a problem with the laboratory out there, and the Occupational Health and Safety division got a complaint about that. There was a committee set up out there, I inform the bon. member. We got a complaint about that, we investigated the complaint and found it to be a legitimate December 10, 1984 R5681

complaint. MR. SIMMS: Under pressure from the member. MR. DINN: Pressure from the member, obviously, who is concerned most in Newfoundland and Labrador with Occupational Health and Safety. As a result of that we built a new laboratory in Grand Falls. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DIIDJ: That is what this government bases itself on. We have

an act; it is the best act. There is no labour leader or company man or employer in this Province who will say that the act is not the best. We all know it is the best. We have 827 committees, all volunteers, who spend their time to make sure that the workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador are safe. · Mr. Speaker, I, as a member of this government, am proud the government brought in Occupational Hea lth and Safety. MR. SIMMS: What is it like in other provinces? MR. DINN: I would not want to go near the Occupational Health and Safety legislation in other provinces.

There are several other provinces that come up near to our standards but are second class in Occupational Health and Safety. And I say that in Workers' Compensation we lead this country and this country leads the world. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CALLAN: Mr . Speaker. L5682 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the lady Minister of Education (Ms Verge).

I want to ask the minister is she aware that in Grade XII, that is level three, in these courses, students who have to register, sign on for the public examinations in level 3000 courses have to pay a $3 per course fee to sign on, even though they are not writing public exams in some of these courses? For example, in level 3000 courses such as Home Maintenance or Career Education or Phys-ed, the students who sign on for the public exams have to pay even though they are not writing public exams. Is the minister aware of that and, if so, what does he plan to do about it? MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr . Speaker, as far as I know, fees are charged for public exams for only those high school courses for which the exams are required and are, in fact, given. I will review this matter with my officials to ascertain that that policy is being followed.

The policy of the Department of Education, in a general sense, is to require public exams for level 3000 courses, which is the most advanced type of high school course, and which now may be taken by students in any of the senior high school grades, although they are usually taken by students in their last year of high school. The public exams count for half the final marks, with the other half being determined by the school evaluations. December 10, 1984 R5682

MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. - -the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that she is not aware of that. Let me ask the minister, then, has she not received any letters from any school principals around the Province complaining of this? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I personally have not received any such letter of complaint, although it is possible that such a letter has been addressed to senior officials of the department.

I will review the matter with the staff of the department to make sure that the policy of the department is being applied correctly, because it is the policy that fees be charged and collected from students for only those situations where students will be writing public exams for the level 3000 courses. MR . NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Social Services. The question is asked, by the way, when the House is in session every year around this time.

In view of the fact that the federal family allowance cheques were distributed to mothers throughout the Province today and, L5683 in view of the fact that the cheques for old age pension and veterans' allowance and Canada Pension and so forth will be sent out early so that people can have the money for Christmas and New Years, would the bon. the minister indicate to the House if it is his intention to send out the cheques early to people on social assistance so that they can enjoy Christmas this year? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. the Minister of Social Services. MR. HICKEY: Mr.

Speaker, last year we mailed the cheques early so that the recipients could have them in time for the New Year. I cannot answer the bon. gentleman as to what the plans are for the Christmas cheque. I will check with my officials and see what is being done and I will report to him. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I thank the bon. gentleman for the information, Mr. Speaker. I presume that we will have an announcement in the House on this matter in due course. I have another question for the Minister .of Communications.

Will the minister inform the House if her department intends to assist in allowing communi ties or individuals throughout the Province in locating satellite dishes in remote communities, in remote parts of the Province? I think the minister's predecessor indicated that that was a December 10, 1984 R5683

possibility. Would the hon. the minister tell the House whether or not they have yet taken a decision on whether the government and the minister's department --- -will allocate funds to assist remote communi ties of this Province that want to get a second channel or want to get television other than CBC T.V.? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Communications. MRS. NEWHOOK: Hr. Speaker, this matter has been looked at, but I would have to tell the bon. member that there has been no decision made as yet. It may be a matter for the budget, I am not quite sure, but there has been no decision on it yet.

MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. Leader of the HR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if he could inform this House whether there is any serious problem developing with respect to the loss of medical specialists in this Province and whether he could give us any update on the numbers of specialists that have been lost over the past year in the Province? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Mr.

Speaker, emphatically specialists this moment L5684 yes, I can say quite that there are more in Newfoundland at than ever before in the history of our Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! DR. TWOMEY: Yes, there are specialists corning and going. They come for many, many reasons; some of them are personal, some of them are professional. Some like the type of life they can have in other parts of this North American continent, but definitely there are more here now than there has ever been before in our history. MR. BARRY: Hr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER ~Russell2: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. HR.

BARRY: Would the Minister of Health indicate, where Newfoundland has enjoyed the services of specialists for a number of years, whether we no longer have access to the same specialists? Have we lost specialists in certain areas where we have had them for some time? HR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Yes, we are losing them, but we are also gaining them. There is a shortage of specialists, not alone in Newfoundland but all over Canada.

We would like to have more anaesthetists, we would like to have more physchologists, we are trying to get more obstetricians and gynecologists, especially for the periphery of our Province. We are looking for a few surgeons at the moment, we are looking for dermatologists at the moment, and I think that is December 10, 1984 R5684

.:!J. about the list. If there are any more, I will be glad to inform the House. During the last two weeks I have made very definite attempts to get in touch with people who have these qualifications. As yet I have not received a reply. I have been talking to deans of universities and talking to other physicians who might be in a position to direct those particular people who are qualified to come and stay in Newfoundland. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The time for Question Period has expired.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the galleries a delegation from the Twillingate - New World Island - Change Islands Development Association with their President, Mr. Albert Canning and members, Mr. Malcolm Anthony and Mr. Wayne Anthony, and the co-ordinator of the association, Mr. Winston Jennings. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, bear! Orders of the Day MR. MARSHALL: Order 19, Bill No. 52. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order 19, Bill No. 52, a continuation of the debate on the Kruger agreement. I believe it was adjourned last day by the bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my initial legislation, I L5685 comments on the indicated that, given the time constraints and the ideological bent of the government, I was quite pleased to see this legislation in the form that it was in, since it seemed to me that it was somewhat better than I had anticipated. Since we are the Kruger bill, Bill 52, and we are discussing it in principle, I would like to enter some comments on the whole concept of development of which this bill is a manifestation and, in my comment. argue for a possible different direction in terms of development that we should proceed with in the future.

If we look at the bill, we can see that there is a commitment by two levels of government for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million to $50 million. The exact amount, of course, will depend on what kind of a loan has to be put in place and what the interest rates are; it will depend on a lot of things that we do not really know about now. But, on a base line, we are talking about a commitment of federal/provincial money in the neighbourhood of $40 million or $50 million.

In return for that, we have received, I guess, a reprieve in the sense that the mill will continue to operate, or at least we hope it will continue to operate, for a good, long period of time. But, if you look through the agreements, and you look through the legislation, and you look through the Statement by the Minister, there is no real overwhelming guarantee that that will actually occur. What we have is the best efforts on the part of the new owners, we have commitments that they will try to do such and such, and so on, but we really do not have anything December 10, 1984 R5685

that we could tie them down with and say that the decisions that they will make over the next number of years will be consistent with keeping the mill there for an infinite period of time.

What is obvious is that this $40 million or $50 million represents somewhere around 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the total cost of the modernization of the mill, perhaps a little less than that when we take out the actual cost of the mill itself, because from my reading of the agreements, it looks like the mill sold for about $30 million, but it depends on interpreting British pounds to Canadian dollars and so on, and it is difficult, at this point, to be sure of it.

But, nevertheless, irrefutable thing that about it is that considerable amounts the one we can say there are of dollars coming from government that have gone into this mill, and in the long run we really have very little in the way of assurances that our priorities and the priorities of the federal government will be paramount in the operation of this company. We have a limited number of guarantees and assurances and so on, if it goes bankrupt we end up with a power plant and so on, but we really do not have the kind of assurance that I would think would be useful in terms of going on in the future.

But this is not a unique situation. We are looking at the operation that we will be discussing later on, some legislation about the fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence. I do not want to talk about the bill because frankly I have not even read it, but what we do know at this point is we are talking about L5686 perhaps something in the neighbourhood of $7 million being put in there by various levels of government in order to get that operation viable as well. And that is not a unique situation.

We are looking at massive subsidies that were provided, for example, in power for ERCO at one particular period of time, which have been reduced, thank _ God. We are looking also at subsidies that were given for a whole bunch of other companies. In other words, if we had to define our economy, what we have is the free enterprise economy in which a chunk of the money seems to be provided on a very regular basis by government, either federal or provincial. From our point of view, perhaps it is fortunate that more of it comes from the federal level than the provincial.

But, indeed, a considerable chunk of money goes to most of these large enterprises that come here. I would even argue in offshore oil that the same thing is true given the massive write-off depletion allowance that they had there as well, but I am not going to extend it that far right now. One of the problem that our economy has, and one of the problems that Western economies have had over the last decade or the last fifteen years is that we are not getting the kind of investment we need in order to modernize the machinery that we have. Corner Brook is the classic example.

What we have is machinery that was put in there forty or fifty years ago. It obviously produces · the kind of paper that is not particularly suited to the markets that we are looking at today, and as a result we have to be modernized at great December 10, 1984 R5686

expense. The question that we should ask ourselves right now when we talk about the principle of how we developed this economy is what should have been done with Bowater? I have listened to the Premier in the times when he has yelled at me for being a Socialist, which is questionable because I am not entirely sure that that is exactly what I am, but when I have listened to him yelling that way - AN HON. MEMBER: TNhat are you then? MR. FENWICK: - I wonder about the fact that we may be having some other way of looking at this particular thing.

Fifteen years ago if we had had some sort of representation on the Board of Directors of Bowater, either at the CoLner Brook level but preferably at a slightly higher level, maybe Bowater Canada, which I think we could have argued for in terms of the resources we turned over to that company over the last fifty years or sixty years or so that we should probably have had, we may have been in a position to influence the investment decisions made by that company.

Because it is obvious now that the investment decisions made were to invest the money in several American mills, Calhoun being one of them, and in the mill in Nova Scotia. And unfortunately we did not have the leaverage or the ability to force the kind of investment in the CoLner Brook mill which would have left Bowater there. The Premier says we do not need that, that we have labour legislation, we have other things that we could use in order to make sure these L5687 corporations act as good corporate citizens.

Yet the important decisions, I would argue to you, although labour legislation is important and we will be discussing that, I would suggest probably later today on the other bill, but the most important decisions that are made in a company are decisions such as where does your investment go, when do they modernization their machinery, what kind of markets are they going to develop, what kind of products are they going to produce?

These are the most critical decisions any company can make because they are the ones that will make the company viable in the future or will lead them down the path to ruin and not be able to go on in the future. I suggest to you the decisions on the products produced in the Bowater mill, the decisions on what to invest in were made by people who had no concern whatsoever for Corner Brook, otherwise, we would not have such a despicable situation there to this very day.

And I argue with you that we are perpetuating the same mistake with Kruger, in the sense that we have, as near as I can make out from reading all of this material, no presence whatsoever in the Board of Directors. And that is where the important future decisions on investment will be made, the kind of products that they will be looking for, where to market it and so on. And these decisions, these important decisions make all the other ones pale into insignificance.

The ones on occupational health and safety and labour legislation and all of that, as the minister will argue later on, are as meaningless if we do not have a mill there that is viable and can continue to December 10, 1984 R5687

operate. And yet we have no leverage at that level. And that is why I argue to you that it is important that we have that presence at the Board of Directors level. And having invested $40 million to $50 million in the operation between the various levels of government, it seems obvious that we had the opportunity to extract some sort of presence at the Board of Directors level to make sure that those decisions were made in the future. By the way, that is about as far as I go in terms of being a Socialist, that I would expect some representation at that level.

Now that is not really a foreign concept to the government opposite, because I just saw them last year restructure an entire fishing industry in which they appointed a number of Board members to it. Admittedly, they had a higher proportion of the investment there than they do here, but a 27 percent investment in the fishing industry versus about 18 percent or 20 percent in the paper industry does not seem to be a huge difference. Yet they followed one principle with the fishing industry and another completely different one in this one.

As I preceive it, the problem of development in this Province - and the problem is not unique to us; it is the same problem that Canada, the United States, Western Europe and so on has - is that there appears to be better investment opportunities in Third World countries, such as Brazil, if you use iron ore as an example, if you use paper as an example, the Southern United States and other places.

What happens is a capitalist who has $100 million or $200 million to invest can see a L5688 much larger return for his money in a place where his workers are willing to accept $2 an hour with no occupational health and safety regulations, I admit that, where there is no minimum standards of working conditions that have to be enforced and so on. I think it is important for us to realize that on a straight dollar for dollar basis it is going to be difficult to try to compete with places that are willing to sweat, in a sense, their labour and allow their resources to be ripped off for nothing.

Although, quite frankly, looking at the amount we get for our resources, we are not far distant from getting nothing for them already. But given all of that, it is going to be extremely difficult for us to compete with these investments that are made in Third World countries. Again I say it is not only our problem, it is Western Europe's problem and the United States' problem. So how then do you get investment? Well, our provincial government has made a decision.

What it has decided to do is along with the federal government, to put in enough money to lower the investment costs in the particular mill, and that is exactly what is happening in this particular case so that with the money that the investors put in they will be able to get something closer to what they would get if they were to invest the money in a Third World country. That is the procedure they have taken.

I do not argue that it is not inconsistent with their thinking, but what I would argue is that it provides us with a company which may be all right for a couple of years, maybe five or ten years or something like that, but it does not give us what we really need, which is the long-term security that the December 10, 1984 R5688

•. c investment decisions that will continue to be made are in the best interest of the people who work in the mill, people who reside in that community, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in general. And that to me is the oversight in this particular piece of legislation. I do not expect the members in the government to have even thought of that, because it seems like the kind of thing that does not occur to them. But it seems to me a rather rational thing to do in this particular case. I would argue also in reactivating the St. Lawrence fluorspar mine that it would be a reasonable to take an equity position.

There is a considerable amount of money going in there that we have advanced in that direction as well. You see, I do not disagree with the government's approach in the sense that they understand that we have to compete with places that have enormous advantages over us and therefore we have do something in order to induce this kind of massive investment here, but what I say, and I repeat it again and again, is that we are foolish if we put in the money and we do not take back some sort of control that the important decisions made are in our best interest and not in the interest of these corporations solely.

And that, I think, is where the major error has been made here. Anyway, that is by way of summing up the substantive objections to the overall concept of it. I would like to look at some individual comments of the Premier's statement in general, some of which point out why this is an accurate assessment of what is going on there. On the first L5689 page of his statement he says, 'The company have been attempting for the past two years to sell the Corner Brook mill.

On that day the government was informed by Bowater that the company had been attempting for the past two years to sell the Corner Brook mill. ' Which meant, if I read his statement correctly, that for the previous two years the government knew nothing about the attempt by Bowater to sell the mill, which I think shows you how much control the government actually had over Bowater operations if they did not even know they were trying to peddle it to somebody else at the time. Our initial reaction was to try to find some way of persuading Bowater to stay in Corner Brook and to continue to operate the mill.

It was probably a good idea except that we had seen over the last fifteen years only a minimum amount of investment and not the kind of investment that was necessary in order to modernize the mill. But I am wondering why the government though that they could convince a company that had already run the mill into the ground, so to speak, to stay there and try to rebuild the whole thing when it was obvious that their investment decisions were made in a different direction.

But I am supposing that the government would have gone there and got down on its hands and knees, as the Premier very often describes, in order to try and get them to stay. Another comment: .. We had to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that a new operator would be willing to remain in Corner Brook for a long time and would be capable of bringing the mill up to modern standards... And the question I have is what real guarantee do we have over a long period of time that they are going to stay December 10, 1984 R5689

there? The answer is we have really none. All we have is what limitations are built into those covenants. The other thing I ask is a question and that I have to ask because it continues to amaze me. If this is Kruger Incorporated of Montreal - and I know it is being naive - but I got the impression that if it was Kruger Incorporated of Montreal it was a Canadian company, and why did it have to go to the Foreign Investment Review Agency? I find that difficult. I have heard that and I am not sure of it, so I would ask someone. MR. DINN: Bowater is not a Canadian company. MR.

FENWICK: Does it have to go through the ex-FIRA when it is coming back? MR. DINN: It had to get out to get in. MR. FENWICK: I thought that the actual eventual owners of Kruger were in Ireland. If it is not, I stand to be corrected on that. Anyway, I just bring it up because I have not had an answer for it and I was not quite sure. I would really like to know where the owners of the mill reside, whether it is Kruger of Montreal, whether it is someone in Ireland or somewhere else. The other comment in that same

section of it is, the Premier says, "I am not at liberty to describe those put forward by the four unsuccessful bidders." I realize his problem and I realize where his priori ties lie, that is with the four bidders to make sure that there offers are not divulged, but it does make our job, as the loyal Opposition to the government, particularly difficult when we get L5690 an assessment package from across the House with all this stuff with it and we have nothing whatsoever to compare it with in terms of finding out what the other bidders were like.

And even if it had to be done in some sort of manner which was kept confidential, it would have been helpful to have had a look at what else was available in terms of making a comparative decision on what exactly is going forward.

There are, going through the Premier's statement, a couple of comments that he puts forwards which I must take extreme exceptions to. • These were not final agreements but were dependent on certain conditions being fulfilled before closing of the transaction.' And, (a), the first one and probably it is appropriate to put it up there, 'Negotiation of collective agreements with all the unions involved,' is one that I find particularly objectionable because what essentially is being said by the September 18 agreement is that the mill unions are told you have a choice, you can accept whatever Kruger gives you or you could have no mill, and that is a heck of a way to ask people to negotiate.

And I would suggest that it should not have been a precondition of the whole operation because what it does, of course, is put the mill unions in an extremely disadvantageous position and we saw what kind of things happened as a result of it. In a sense the people who are really paying for the neglect that Bowater demonstrated over the last number of years are the mill unions, because they are the individuals concerned who had to make concessions and had to backtrack from their collective agreements and so on in order to get the mill in there.

So what we have seen are bad decisions by Bowater December 10, 1984 R5690

well, not bad decisions; but very good decisions from the Bowater point of view but bad for the Province, bad for Corner Brook - supported by the government, or at least not opposed by the government because they did not do anything to oppose it, and when the final tab came in for the modernization of the mill it was laid at the feet of the unions and the actual workers themselves are the ones who basically had to pay the piper for what was done. I find that a particularly reprehensible way of transferring the mill ownership.

I know the mill unions did take a lot of beating in the whole operation and it is unfortunate that that had to happen, but it is the kind of thing that they were set up by this particular government for and I must say that I object very much that that is the way in which it was done.

One of the things, though, ·! would agree with, and it is one of the things I would put forward as a position that I think would be reasonable in circumstances like this, is if the unions were expected to bear a lot of the costs of this particular operation, somewhere in the whole negotiations there should have been some means of compensating them in the long run for the kind of sacrifices they are puttin in there.

And where we have seen this govenment endorse the idea of a social contract, admittedly on a small basis with the fisheries restructuring, it is unfortunate that under the circumstances they did not allow some sort of entry like that for the actual workers and the union itself.

I would argue that if they had to give it up, when the mill becomes successful, as I certainly hope it does become successful because it L5691 is the last thing that I would like to see happen to Corner Brook, but if it does become successful and it continues to prosper and make a lot of money, it seems to me that the mill workers, who have suffered as a result of this transfer should be the people to benefit by it on the upswing.

I think it is unfortunate that the government did not have the creativity to go into that particular aspect of it because if you are asking people to make sacrifices I think they should receive some long-term benefits at the end of it other than just keeping this operation going. These are pretty well the comments I have in terms of discussion on second reading on the principle of the thing.

I hope Kruger is better at living up to its undertaking than Abitibi-Price was in Stephenville. 'Kruger has agreed to use its best efforts to reduce the period of time required for modernization of the four existing machines.' I must admit I went through there and started underlining the times I saw, 'best efforts', and I think 'best efforts' does appear quite a hugh number of times which, as I recall when I was negotiating collective agreements, 'best efforts' means just about nothing, all it means is that you have to make some sort of effort towards it.

Now I am hoping that that does not happen in this case, but I would suggest that those are not overwhelmingly secure kinds of agreements to have there. The other thing I would mention also is that the Stephenville mill, of course, is supposed to be building a second unit right now in terms of its agreement which has its 'best efforts' in it and so on and December 10, 1984 R5691

so forth, and I suggest that since nothing is happening there it is likely that some of these 'best efforts' may go by the wayside as well, but we will see. The other thing is, of course, the ancient act, the Bowater Act of 1938, 'To improve the provisions of the act with respect to forest management,' which I would entirely endorse. I think our forest management, although in small areas where it has actually been done has been reasonably good, but it has been nowhere close to adequate, I think, to give us the kind of wood stock in the future that we would like.

It has improved substantially over the last number of years but when you are going from zero and you are up around one or two you are not really that far towards your objective. But it almost seems to me that with the transfer over of the assets there may have been a better opportunity to work out something a little bit better than, 'has agreed to review the provisions of the Bowater Act to improve the provisions with respect to forest management,' which sounds like a very soft condition in the sense that they wi ll look at it and say, 'Well, we cannot improve it much, ' and that will be the end of it.

Hopefully some sort of stronger teeth than that could have been put into it in the transfer over because as we know Bowater does have the lion's share of the woodlands in the Province and, when we actually look at the condition of them, a lot of them are in particularly bad condition because not enough time and money has been put into them in order to bring them up to standard or to make sure that we get sustainable yield year after year. L5692 The last

part I would like to mention before I sit down is to refer to the tactics that we have been subjected to on the Opposition side here with respect to this Bill 52 which, as I said, I have a lot of objections to in terms of my basic philosophy and how I preceive our problems and how I perceive the solutions to it, but given the perceptions of the government opposite it is obvious that this was as far as they could see at the time. What I object to specifically is being called one of the - Is it the socialist Liberal cohort or the Liberal socialist cohort?

I have forgotten which one it was, but I wondered why the words were particularly offensive. Yesterday, on television, I was watching Smallwood, who was going through the I. W. A. thing, and he was calling Landon Ladd a Communist and so on, and I realize that what we have . here are the exact same kinds of tactics being perpetuated by a Premier as Hr. Smallwood did twenty-five years ago.

Both of them are not answering the questions on the bills that we are dealing with, all they are doing is poisoning the well, to use the logical fallacy, calling you names rather than deal substantially with the arguments you bring up. And I think we should realize that Hr. Peckford, in five or six short years, has arrived at the position that it took Hr. Smallwood about ten years to do, and that is just a little bit faster. Thank you very much. MR. WOODROW: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. the member for Bay of Islands. December 10, 1984 R5692

MR. WOODROW: Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, September 12th will go down in the memory of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a great day for our Province, but it will be more significant and meaningful to the people of Corner Brook, Bay of Islands and Humber Valley as the final signing of the Kruger deal will mean continued prosperity for Corner Brook and the surrounding area of Bay of Islands that I have had the honour to represent since September 16, 1975. Although, Mr.

Speaker, there are other industries in the area, such as the two hospitals, the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, the new college not yet named, the various business outlets, three hotels, herring plants and other forms of industry, nevertheless, the backbone of Corner Brook and Bay of Islands is primarily the Corner Brook mill. Shut it down and all other industries mentioned above will become almost obsolete and the population would probably be reduced to some 5,000 or 10,000 people. Other speakers, such as the Premier and the bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr.

Simms), have gone into detail about the agreements. I would like at this time to offer my congratulations to all who have worked so hard to make the deal a reality. We will never know how hard the Premier worked, as every 'i' had to be dotted and every •t• crossed to make sure that the deal would be a long and lasting one and not one that would break down in a few years. Also, Hr. Speaker, I have to congratulate the Divestiture Committee and the unions, as well as the members for Humber East (Hs L5693 Verge), Humber West (Hr. Baird), Humber Valley (Hr. House) and yours truly, the member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WOODROW: There were times, I am sure, when we all got discouraged as we met time after time with the Premier, the Divestiture Committee and the unions, and, as the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Simms) said on Friday, certain things went on in Cabinet to which the member for Humber r,Jest and I were not privy. Can you imagine, Hr. Speaker, 150 applications, then they were reduced to thirty and to five and finally one.

As has already been stated, Kruger was chosen and practically made to order for the Bowater situation in that, number one, the company had been very profitable in .recent years and had the financial resources to be able to take on the raising of capital investment required at Corner Brook; number two, the company has a history of purchasing older pulp and paper mills that were closed or in need of capital investment, and of turning such operations into profitable ventures and increasing employment, for instance, Kruger mills at Trois Rivieres and Bramptonville in Quebec; third, the company has a reputation of being able to sell paper in the best markets, especially in the United States.

Everybody involved in this transaction agrees that newsprint from Corner Brook must be sold in the u.s. if the mill is to be profitable in the long run; and, number four, Kruger has the kind of management and professional expertise that is required for the successful December 10, 1984 R5693

upgrading of older mills, the kind of job which must be done at Corner Brook. MR. WARREN: How do you know that? MR. WOODROW: You will find out in the next five years. We are indeed fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have a company like Kruger. Even though there will be layoffs, we cannot stop progress in world technology. In fact, I read some time ago that Japan has one person using a computer to replace over 300 people. However, I do feel, Mr.

Speaker, with our local preference policy and the fact that Kruger will be spending $198 million over the next five years, many of those who were laid off will retire or be employed in the modernization of the mill. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I would like to mention the agreement we signed in Corner Brook with Kruger on September 18, which contains some very key points on forestry. For example, "Kruger acknowledges its full forest management responsibility.

Number two , Kruger has agreed to review with us the 1938 Bowater Act with a view to rewriting the legislation, particularly as it relates to forest management.. - the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) was glad that clause was included - .. and, three, the government offers Kruger the same cost-sharing programme for silviculture as it had with Bowater and with Abitibi-Price ... Now, Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss in my remarks if I did not mention the great Bowater Corporation. The first chief I knew was Sir Eric Bowater, who L5694 loved Corner Brook and Bay of Islands.

I personally knew Monty Lewin, Albert Martin, Ben Pride, Hugh Joyce, Kick Greene and Wally Clarke. All these managers were good corporate citizens and helped the churches and the schools in many ways, and what they did is there today in living memory. I must say, though, Mr. Speaker, that after a couple of court battles brought about by the city council over city taxes, the past few years showed signs of poor relationship. I would like to wish Bowater well in their future endeavours. Now that the Bowater

chapter in Corner Brook has been closed, I wish Kruger every success and promise to work with them, as the lives and the prosperity of our people depend upon the success of Kruger. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have worked for this great day which will soon be upon us, that time will tell those who perhaps wish us evil - it would seem that some people on the other side would love to see it become a failure. But, Mr.

Speaker, I will repeat again, every 'i' has been dotted and every • t' has been crossed - that Corner Brook will rise again and Bay of Islands will rise again and we will be an integral part of the great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as others on this side, in support of this bill. We believe that it probably December 10, 1984 R5694

is the better of the worse. The final comments of the hon. the member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow), that there appears to be people on this side wishing that the Kruger venture would be a failure - I have all due respect for the hon. gentleman and I am sure a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have - I do not think anybody is wishing that this Kruger takeover of Bowater will be a failure. We have too much respect for the work force in the Corner Brook area, maybe a little more than we have for the hon. member. MR. WOODROW: If you would (inaudible). MR. WARREN: Mr.

Speaker, I assure the hon. gentleman, according to the latest polls that were done, there is a good possibility that we will be on the government side. MR. TOBIN: You are not talking about the one done by EastCan, are you? MR. WARREN: No, I am talking about a poll that was done by that party that shows that we are going to be on the govenment side. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the Kruger bill. I remember over the last four or five years members on that side, in particular the Premier, the Energy Minister (Mr. Marshall), the Finance Minister (Dr.

Collins), and many others saying what a raw deal we got on the Upper Churchill. Now at that time when the Upper Churchill deal was signed, Mr. Speaker, at that time it was the best deal possible. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that the Liberals were L5695 in power in Newfoundland at the time and the Opposition consisted of the present Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey), the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer), and Mr. Ank Murphy, and all three of those individuals voted unanimously for the Upper Churchill deal. Now, Mr.

Speaker, at that time those three individuals voted with the government in support of the Upper Churchill development, and at that time it was the best deal possible. We are saying the same thing now, that the Kruger deal is the best deal possible, but maybe, and it is quite possible, ten years down the road, or fifteen years down the road, the bon. member who just spoke could probably have to eat his words because at that time we may say that we gave away the shop. It is quite possible because in this bill there are enough loopholes that Kruger could take us to the cleaners so we have to be careful.

But it is the best bill possible. MR. POWER: Not a chance. MR. WARREN: Now the bon. Minister of Career Development (Mr. Power) may say there is not a chance of that. Sure I remember back in 1968, I think it was, that members also said there was not a chance, that the Upper Churchill was the answer, the Upper Churchill was the best deal possible. But, Kr. Speaker, I think we have to be very serious. We are taking a gamble, but life is full of gambles, and here is a gamble that this government is taking and a gamble that the Opposition Party is supporting because, Mr.

Speaker, it is the best deal that the government could get for the December 10, 1984 RS695

takeover of Bowater. I think the real problem, the real culprit in the whole deal was that Bowater got off so easy. That is what is so frustrating, Mr. Speaker, Bowater getting off so easy. And I could see, Mr. Speaker, also that Kruger is coming in and they having a pretty rosy picture painted for them, and, in fact, they have a nice nest egg to start off with. All we have to do is remember back fifteen years and everybody was quite pleased with the Upper Churchill; there was all kinds of work, lots of people had employment, the Premier of the day, J. R.

Smallwood, said it was the biggest event in Newfoundland's history and at that time it was the biggest event. MR. POWER: The biggest disaster. MR. WARREN: Yes, now it is. Now we can agree ~~~u. I ~~e ~ili ~ ~n. minister now as we look back over it, it was one of the biggest blunders, But at that time it was not. Hindsight might be good, Mr. Speaker, fifteen years afterwards, but we are doing the same thing with Kruger. I would like to issue that as a concern. I am sure the bon. member for Bay of Islands (Mr.

Woodrow) will not be around after the next election, but five years down the road, or ten years down the road when the bon. member is sitting back in his rocking chair and smoking his cigar, he will be recollecting back in 1984 when we passed the bill, and I am not saying it will, but there is a possibility that the Kruger deal could be just as bad as the Upper Churchill. MR. WOODROW: L5696 'Oh, you of little faith.' MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the bon. member for the Bay of Islands could say, "You of little faith." Mr. Speaker, since 1979 when I came into this bon.

House, at the time maybe I did have little faith, maybe two years I had little faith, but now, Mr. Speaker, seeing the polls being turned around, seeing the Newfoundland populace, seeing the people outside the Overpass are beginning to realize what a shambles this government is, then Mr. Speaker, my faith has been renewed. MR. SIMMS: I wonder are they saying that in Corner Brook? MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, in fact I believe that the bon. minister should take heed from what he just said because the people in Corner Brook will definitely say one thing, that the members on the Opposition side are fighting for the best deal possible for the people in Corner Brook and therefore we are not going to be satisfied until there is more debate on Bill 37. That is why we are concerned about the people in Corner Brook, about the working class in Corner Brook. We are concerned about the working class, not necessarily Kruger, but the 400 or 500 people who are going to be working in the mill. Kr.

Speaker that is why the people in Corner Brook will be proud of the Liberal Opposition because we are going to fight for their rights. It is ironic that the Premier should bring in a proclamation on human rights today with Bill 37 on the Order Paper. December 10, 1984 R5696

Mr. Speaker, sure we are going to support this bill, we have already said we are going to support this bill. Furthermore, I believe it is in the interest of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to agree to support the Kruger takeover of the Bowater mill. The bon. member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow) - I have to get back to him once in a while, Mr. Speaker, because he is usually a good guy - mentioned about the evilness in some people's minds who hope that it is going to be a flop.

I am sure anybody with common sense, and I assure the bon. member of this, that he should not think that any members in this House, or any ordinary human beings living in the Province would not want the pulp and paper mill in Corner Brook to operate. No one wants to see it closed down. Surely goodness no one has that kind of feeling, to want it closed down. Now, Mr. Speaker, I take exception also to the Minister of Career Development (Mr. Power). I do not believe anybody on this side wanted to see the Corner Brook mill closed, or the Grand Falls mill closed down, or the Stephenville mill closed down.

For that matter, we did not want the linerboard mill closed down in Goose Bay some years ago but it was in the best interest when it did close down. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say also that - MR. YOUNG: Where are your buddies? There is not a soul listening to you. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, they have forty-three people over there and I see only L5697 seventeen out of forty-three. That is not a bad average. Do you want me to talk about the bill? MR. SIMMS: I am trying to take some notice of what you are saying, but you have not said anything. MR.

WARREN: I can talk about the latest poll that was done by the party opposite. MR. PATTERSON: Am I going to be elected next Spring? MR. WARREN: In answer to the bon. member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) I assure the bon. member that he will not get re-elected because he will not be running. The bon. member, after seven tries I think it was, was unsuccessful in about four of them, I have a feeling he has learned his lesson now he is going to sit back and take it easy. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be very much longer. I said I was only going to speak about ten minutes in support of the bill. MR.

YOUNG Tell us about tthe poll. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the bon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) I think all he is doing as an udertaker is digging a hole, that is all he is doing. He is just digging a hole for himself, that is all he is doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this bill is a major piece of December 10, 1984 R5697

legislation that all members should be proud of, proud that it is best of the worst that was offered. And that is why we should be proud to accept this offer as has been presented. Now, Mr. Speaker, again in closing I want to say let us not rest on our laurels and believe that we have the best deal that we could have gotten because I do not believe that we did get the best deal we could have got ten if the government was more determined.

I remember the Premier going on radio and television and making news releases and telling the union people down there, "You had better sign now or Kruger will not come in." But, Mr. Speaker, I remember also when the vote was taken twelve hours thereafter the Premier really got the biggest slap that he got in his life, I believe, because the people voted against his request. The Premier learned one lesson then, that the working force in this Province are never, never again going to get down on bended knee to the Premier. I think the Premier has realized that now.

You notice lately he is beginning to change his tone. The working force in the Corner Brook mill or in Labrador City will no longer listen to the whims and the wishes of the Premier. The vote showed every one of the unions rejected the Premier's request and they went back to the bargaining table the second time. Just imagine what would have happened if the unions accepted the Premier's offer in that province-wide address asking the workers in Corner Brook to take the offer.

I did not hear bon. members opposite say one thing about the farce that the Premier tried to pass over on the workers, but as it happened the workers and their union L5698 leaders were a little bit too bright to listen to the Premier. If they had listened, what kind of a deal would we have with Kruger? Not near as good as the present deal , not near as good. We know that now, but not one member on that side has said what happened to the negotiations before and after the Premier tried to interfere. One thing I must say about the Premier, by interferring we got a better deal. Now how do you figure that out?

The Premier interferred but the people out there would not listen to him and, therefore, they had to go back to the negotiating table again and got a better deal and that was the only positive thing that came out of the Premier's interference. The Premier, I think, must have learned the lesson that the people will not listen to him any longer. We are all waiting for the Premier to go down and visit the Lieutenant-Governor. DR. COLLINS: He is the one man more than any other who made the Kruger deal possible. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I agree, that is right.

He is also the one man who tried to get less for the people in Corner Brook and the people there and the unions would not agree with him. I remember seeing TV pictures of them coming out of the union hall and it is a good thing the Premier was not in Corner Brook during that voting. Now, Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks I am going to support the bill and I think any praises to be given should go to the workers in Corner Brook who said no to the Premier when he tried to ram the first Kruger agreement down our throats. But they refused the December 10, 1984 R5698

Premier. they went back to the negotiating table and they got a better deal. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. Minister of Education. MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill and the agreements it ratifies represent a most happy ending to two whole years of uncertainty and worry for the people in Corner Brook and for that matter people in most parts of the Province whose livelihoods either directly or indirectly come from the pulp and paper mill at Corner Brook.

As the elected representative in this Assembly for the district where that mill is located, I have to voice my strong support for these measures and to add some personal commentary to the explanations and statements that have already been given by members on this side of the House. The Premier and the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms) have set out in considerable detail the chronology of the events of the last two years when they gave such superb leadership to government • s efforts to secure a long-term future for the mill in Corner Brook. Mr.

Speaker, throughout the exercise. the paramount goal of government was to make sure that there will be, on into the future for generations yet to come, a good operation of that mill in Corner Brook to employ there and in the related woods operations in other parts of the Province as many people as possible, as many people as the industry can sustain. It was almost exactly two years ago when Bowater notified the government that it was shutting permanently No. 7 paper machine at the mill. Now L5699 that paper machine was the largest of the five then operating and it was the newest.

That decision carne as a terrible shock to the people of the Corner Brook area and the government, and it resulted some four months later in the laying off of approximately 700 workers, something approaching 500 in Corner Brook itself and about 250 in the woods operations in other areas of the Province. From the point of Bowater notifying the government of their decision to cut back production so dramatically, the Premier and the government monitored very closely developments related to the mill and, indeed, dedicated themselves to the task of seeing that the best for the people was done in relation to the mill.

As my friend from the Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow) has already said, nobody will ever know how much time and effort the Premier personally put into this task. Because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations with Bowater, and then the talks with prospective investors, finally with the preferred bidder, Kruger, it was not in the best interest of the people to inform the people in detail as we went along of just what effort the Premier and the government were making. I suppose I am one of a handful of people who was privy to the work that was done by the Premier and the Cabinet since I was part of it.

Under the direction of the Premier and Cabinet were a team of very senior government officials and most of those people have put in twelve and sixteen hour days working on this project for months on end, and they have been at it through this past weekend. In the process, some of the senior employees of government have December 10, 1984 R5699

mastered many of the technical aspects of operating a newsprint mill and they are perhaps now able to hire themselves out as consultants for such technical matters as installing top roll formers on paper machines. They have demonstrated their expertise in financial matters related to a corporate transaction of this magnitude.

In all, we have, before us, a bill incorporating agreements which I believe provide the best deal possible in the circumstances and give the best possible opportunity for the future viability of the Corner Brook mill and employment of people in Corner Brook and people throughout Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, some of the features of the deal that I want to comment on are, first of all of course, the choice of Kruger. Kruger clearly are the best investor, the best owner/operator of the Corner Brook mill, the best marketer of the newsprint produces there of all these bidders who came forward.

Kruger are the most likely to succeed. They have an excellent record of purchasing two older newsprint mills in Quebec - mills at Bromptonville and Trois Riviers - modernizing them, out-hustling their competitors in the newsprint industry, operating those mills at full tilt right through the recession when mills owned by the larger operators in the newsprint industry had to take downtime. The agreements contain covenants for, on the part of Kruger, a five-year $200 million capital modernization programme. Already, Mr. Speaker, Kruger has begun that modernization programme.

They have already ordered top roll formers for two of the four paper machines that are now in L5700 operation. These are mechanisms that are required for the Corner Brook product to be competitive with paper that is being produced elsewhere in North America, that will make it top quality in the marketplace. Incidentally, the Abitibi-Price mill at Stephenville, which is one of the most modern in North America, has this kind of apparatus and is producing excellent quality paper.

The modernization programme includes a feasibility study for the re-activation of No. 7 paper machine, with that study to be done within the five-year time frame. If the results are positive, then the beginning of that restarting of No. 7 paper machine which, of course, would necessitate the adding to the workforce in the mill and in the logging operations because the machine would take more stock.

A second covenant in the agreement which is significant for Newfoundland is one calling for the equitable sharing of downtime which may be necessitated in the future, although, as I have already mentioned, Kruger were able to operate their two Quebec mills right through the recession without it taking any shuts. But the covenant calls for any downtime that Kruger may be forced to take in years to come, because, as the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren) pointed out, we do not know what may happen in the future, for that downtime to be taken in Corner Brook on a proportionate basis with what is taken in Kruger's other mills in Canada. Now, that arrangement was not in effect with Bowater with the result that Corner Brook took more than its share of downtime in the chain of Bowater newsprint mills in North December 10, 1984 R5700

America. Corner Brook suffered the brunt of the recession while Bowater mills in South Carolina and Tennessee operated at virtually full capacity. A third covenant, which is significant for the same reasons, provides for a fair sharing of markets among the different Kruger mills to ensure that the Corner Brook product is aimed at as lucrative markets as where the Quebec .product is sold. A final provision in the agreement, which is in the interest of people in Corner Brook and throughout the rest of Newfoundland, calls for preference of residents of our Province in Kruger purchasing and employment.

On Friday the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) indicated some lack of appreciation for this covenant by stating that that local preference clause applies only to purchasing when, in fact, it applies to purchasing and employment. Mr. Speaker, again I have to say that these agreements, the expertise and record of Kruger which they are bringing to Corner Brook, auger well for the people of Corner Brook and elsewhere in the Province. It gives the people a new lease on life. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this deal is predicated on the assumption that the Labour Standards Act provision for notice and pay in lieu of notice with respect to termination of employment, as they have always been understood since passage in 1978 and applied in Corner Brook, applied by union leaders, workers and management, will continue. Now, Mr. Speaker, that common assumption and understanding, as we all know, has been upset and L5701 interrupted by recent ruiings of an arbitrator in St. John • s and a Tribunal in Labrador West. Mr.

Speaker, it is now essential for this deal to be consummated as it was intended in the interest of the people of the Province for that original Labour Standards Act meaning to be re-affirmed without prolonging any uncertainties, without running the risk of Kruger having to pay, in effect, $6 million or $7 million more than they have intended to pay to take over the mill in Corner Brook, without making Kruger divert $6 million or $7 million from their modernization programme to pay workers, present and past in Corner Brook, sums that those workers never expected to get, which they do not think they deserve, because those people think they got the notice and pay in lieu of notice that they were entitled to.

And, Mr. Speaker, the only application of that act which people believe they were entitled to, which they have in fact received, is pay in lieu of notice with respect to the permanent layoffs that occurred in April of 1982. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my full, whole-hearted and unequivocal support for not only this Bill 52 that ratifies the agreements for Kruger's takeover of the mill in Corner Brook, but also the companion, Bill 37, which amends the Labour Standards Act simply by re-affirming the meaning for 'notice' and 'pay in lieu of notice' for permanent layoffs that was intended by the legislators who enacted that law in 1978 and by re-affirming the meaning assumed by the people associated with the Corner Brook mill. Kr. Speaker, passage of with the successful these two bills I December 10, 1984 R5701

believe that Corner Brook and the whole Province will benefit for many years to come from Kruger's investment and Kruger's initiative. I know that hundreds of workers in Corner Brook and in the woods are more than willing to continue to work hard and dedicate themselves to ensure that they will be rewarded for their efforts by Kruger getting a decent return on investment and adding to the wealth of this Province. I say to this Assembly that I wish all the people associated with the Corner Brook mill well in the years to come. I believe that it is possible for all of them to get a very good living from that mill.

Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The han. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it at five o'clock we will be going into Committee of the Whole to pass this bill and then it will be all signed, sealed and delivered, of course, on Wednesday. So if that be the case I · will probably continue until about 5:00 p.m. and then allow the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) to put Bill 52 into Committee of the Whole.

I am sure that the Government House Leader is not intending to try to get Bill 52 and Bill 37 both through the House of Assembly today because that will not be possible. Mr. Speaker, in commenting on this bill let me review a little bit of history mentioned earlier by other L5702 speakers . We are told, Mr. Speaker, that Bowater had attempted for a couple of years to sell the mill and finally they informed this government on August 2, 1983, that they were going to abandon Corner Brook. They had been trying unsuccessfully to find a buyer themselves and now they were going to abandon Corner Brook. Then, Mr.

Speaker, we are told that the government retained the services of Woods Gordon to work with Bowater and his consultant to prepare a divestiture package and a financial computer model to present to potential investors. Mr. Speaker, we are told that 150 companies throughout the world were approached to determine their potential interest in buying the mill and other Bowater assets.

Then out of that 150 that were approached by the divestiture committee, we are told that detailed, face to face presentations were made to thirty companies, and out of these thirty, ten were sufficiently interested to visit Corner Brook and to undertake an on-the-spot investigation of the physical assets of the paper mill. So we come down from 150 down to thirty, down to ten, and of these ten we are told that five proposals were submitted to government and to Bowater on April 16, so we are down to five. The question that needs answering, Mr. Speaker, is how did we finally today arrive at one?

Why and how did we arrive at Kruger Incorporated? Mr. Speaker, we are on record on this side of the House as saying that we will be supporting this bill, Bill No. 52. We will be supporting it, Mr. Speaker, but I want to ask a couple of other questions which are intertwined with the question that I just December 10, 1984 R5702

asked. How did we arrive at Kruger Incorporated? A couple of other questions, Mr. Speaker, concern the way in which the -Premier -conducts matters as Premier of this Province. I am not talking about the personality of the man, I am talking about his performance as Premier of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren), in the latter two or three minutes of his speech, talked about the almost threats that the Premier was laying on the mill workers and the loggers and all of the unionized employees and the workers at the Bowater mill.

The Premier was saying to them, in effect, 'You have no choice, I and my colleagues have determined that Kruger is the best for this Province, is the best for Corner Brook, is the best for this mill and I want you to agree with us, with me that they are the best. • But as the member for Torngat Mountains told us, Mr. Speaker, things did not turn out the way that the Premier had anticipated. Mr.

Speaker, some people are finally beginning to realize, it came gradually over his five years in the Premier's office, the Premier's chair, they are beginning to realize that the Premier is not a trustworthy person, that you cannot really depend on what the man is saying, you cannot really depend on it. MR. PATTERSON: Do not get nasty now. This is a very serious subject. MR. CALLAN: It is a very serious subject, and that is why I am being very serious about it, Mr. Speaker. The people in the district of L5703 Bellevue, as I have said on many occasions, have learned on more than one occasion that - MR.

NEARY: You cannot depend on that crowd. MR. CALLAN: - you cannot depend on what the Premier says. Just because the Premier says it does not necessarily mean that it is true and that it is aboveboard. And I will not go into any detail, Mr. Speaker, on the empty promises that the Premier has made to the people in the district of Bellevue, in the Bellevue by-election of April 10, 1981 and, of course, in the general election of April 6, less than a year later, 1982, four days short of a year.

I will not go into the empty promises regarding the Markland Hospital and the Come By Chance Hospital and all of the other empty promises that the Premier made. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has several techniques in trying to get what he wants. He gets up in front of people in crowded halls and he preaches to them. MR. TULK: He waves his hands. MR. PATTERSON: If the Premier was in his seat, you would not be saying that. MR. TULK: No, he would be scared to death. MR. CALLAN: No. I have not said it before. I have not said it before, Hr. Speaker, when the Premier has been in his seat. MR.

NEARY: Go down, boy, and try to keep that December 10, 1984 R5703

VTS station open. MR. CALLAN: He does it by threat , he does it -by enticement. And, of course, if the Premier wants to stand in front of a crowd of people and wave his arms and preach to people, and for. a moment these people think that they are in a crowded church somewhere, that their souls are being saved by this man who is holding out to them the prospects of a brighter day for this Province, and 'you have to vote for me and my candidates in order to have it delivered,' people can be forgiven for that. MR. NEARY: With his eyes popping out of their sockets pockets. MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier loves to take credit, but he hates blame. He does not want to be around, he will put somebody else up front when there is an explanation to be made. We have seen that happen on several occasions and I will not go into the details and the examples of that either. We have seen it on dozens of occasions where somebody has to explain and take some blame on behalf of the administration, and it is usually the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) or somebody else. The Premier is never around, never to be found. MR. NEARY: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Goudie), the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Dawe) or somebody like that. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, how did we arrive from 150 down to 30, down to 10, down to 5? How did we arrive at L5704 one? How did we arrive at Kruger, Mr. Speaker? How did it happen? The member for Torngat Mountain (Mr. Warren) reminded us of what happened a few days before we finally arrived at the agreement with Kruger. But what the member for Torngat Mountain did not do was go a step further. There were negotiations going on between the mill workers, the mill unions and Kruger officials, delicate negotiations.

And it seemed as though all was lost, not only for the mill workers and the mill unions who did not want to accept the harsh terms that Kruger officials were offering them, but it seemed as though things were lost for the Premier as well. Because the Premier had decided Kruger was number one out of the 150, it seemed as though the Premier was losing as well, Mr. Speaker, it seemed as though there was going to be an impasse, and there seemed as though there would be no agreement. What happened, Mr. Speaker? What happened? Something happened and it happened almost on the eve of the annual Tory Convention in St.

John's, and there is a connection and I will tie it together in a moment. Here is what happened, Mr. Speaker. The Premier got hold of Kruger's big guns in Montreal and he said to them, 'Gentlemen, here is a way that both our necks can be saved. Now, number one, you people and your officials are down in Newfoundland trying to work out a deal with the unions and the union mill workers, but there does not seem as though there is going to be an agreement. So here is what you should do.

You call your officials back, have them walk out of the meetings and walk out of the hotel and go back home with their satchels in their hands. December 10, 1984 R5704

You do that. That will scare the mill workers and the mill unions into realizing that you people are really serious, that will make them knuckle under. ' -Mr-.- -Speaker, the Premier then said, after they check out of their hotel rooms, leave the negotiating table and go ·back to Montreal, here is what I will do, which will save your neck because it is only a threat on your part that you have walked away from it completely and you are never coming back, it is only a threat to make the unions and the mill workers knuckle under.

What I will do as Premier is announce that T have talked to you people and that I have been successful in convincing you to come back to Newfoundland and to come back to the negotiating table once more. And, of course, you, Kruger will be in a much better bargaining position. And I as I go to my convention, the annual Tory Convention in St. John's, I will be the hero who convinced you to come back, so my neck will be saved and so will yours.' And, of course, that is how, Mr. Speaker, we arrived at number one. Mr. Speaker, is that fair ball?

I mean, we all heard on the news wires that Kruger was convinced to come back again. And, of course, we all saw that within a few days after that everything was ironed out, the mill unions and the workers had accepted the contracts with Kruger and, of course, everthing was hunky-dory. But at least to my knowledge, nobody has ever asked why was it the Kruger officials walked away from everything and returned to Montreal as though to say, well, if you do not want us that is fine, we will go and look for business elsewhere?

And I do not believe the question was ever asked why was it the Premier L5705 convinced the officials to come back again. MR. PATTERSON: He is a good negotiator. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not a good negotiator, he never was, and there has never been anything negotiated by the Premier. And in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, what happened during these several days, from the time that the Kruger officials went home and then presumably were convinced to come back to Corner Brook again, what happened, Mr. Speaker, ~ ... as not good negotiating, it was schemery and skulduggery as far as I am concerned, Mr.

Speaker and there are no other words for it. So, Mr. Speaker, that is why we ended up with Kruger. Well, we have Kruger now and those of us on this side of the House will vote with government for this particular bill, Bill 52. But in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is almost 5:00 o'clock, and I am sure that the Government House Leader (Mr.Marshall) is going to go into Committee of the Whole so that we can pass this bill before 6:00 o'clock. I am sure that the Government House Leader is not going to bring in Bill 37 this afternoon. I was saying earlier in my remarks , Kr.

Speaker, the Premier is the sort of person who likes to take credit but does not like to take blame. He uses all kinds of tactics except the right ones and that is why the Premier has never negotiated anything in the five years he has been Premier. He takes credit in his pamphlets, which cost the taxpayers of this Province thousands upon thousands of dollars. We saw in the Weekend, Mr. Speaker, a full page ad talking about Bill 37 and, of December 10, 1984 R5705

course, we heard it on the radio stations. Whenever I got aboard my pickup on the weekend I could not even listen to John Reynolds, I think his name is,- -Saturday morning with his bit of humour and his good songs because every five minutes this ad would be on, a paid political announcement by the PC Party of this Province. That is what it amounted to, Hr. Speaker, a paid political announcement by the PC Party of this Province, the Premier trying to convince the people of this Province - HR. TULK: It was paid for by the government, was it not? HR. CALLAN: Well, naturally it was paid for by the taxpayers.

But what it was in reality, in actuality, was a PC ad paid for by the taxpayers. Everybody has seen the Weekend paper, Hr. Speaker, so I do not have to find it. But, Hr.Speaker, the Premier, as I said, deals in half_truths. One day last week the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) asked the Premier a question about a helicopter trip by the member for Baie Verte-Whi te Bay (Hr. Rideout) and the member for Ferryland (Mr. Power) and the Premier comes back in his usual style, he preaches to us on this side, 'Do not compare apples and oranges.

If you are going to compare compare apples and apples or oranges and oranges but not apples and oranges, do not do that. • And the Premier, Hr. Speaker, every chance he gets, on every occasion he does the exact same thing. And last week we saw him comparing apples and oranges. He compared a $3500 helicopter trip by two minister of the Crown down to Baie Verte with a trip to Ottawa by myself on the Public L5706 Accounts Committee and he only told half the truth. He made no mention of the fact that there was an Opposition member and a government member from Carbonear (Mr.

Peach) , who had gone to the same meetings in Ottawa. But these are the tactics that the Premier uses to try and make a point, especially, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier knows that he is beaten. The Premier loves to take credit but he does not want to share any of the blame. Hr. Speaker, we saw earlier in the Fall the Premier make a big fuss out in Grand Falls. The member for Grand Falls (Mr. Simms) is in his seat. The Premier went out there and held a press conference talking about upgrading the mill in Grand Falls.

But, Hr.Speaker, we saw in the Weekend paper a letter by Patrick Finn, President of CPU Local 158 in Grand Falls tell us the real story. And he asked the questions why was it that the Premier was out there? What was he making all the fuss about? Dozens of such agreements have been signed previously that the Premier had nothing to do with and he had nothing to do with this one, so what was the Premier doing out there? And this writer, Hr. Speaker. says, and I am prepared to table this, ' I have been following with a great deal of interest the articles that have been printed' - HR.

POWER: There were other things he could do. MR. CALLAN: Now the member for Ferryland is being uncharacteristic. The truth hurts about his trip to Baie Verte. It is very uncharacteristic of the member for Ferryland. It says, 'over the past ten years or so there have December 10, 1984 R5706

been many modernization programmes instituted and completed at the Grand Falls mill.

The nonnal procedure followed when such a programme was to be undertaken was for either the local mill management or some management personnel from Toronto head office to call in the local union executives at the mill to announce the programme and, more importantly, to let us know just exactly how the programme would affect the work force at the mill both during the construction phrase and the operation of the mill after construction.' But what happened this Fall in Grand Falls? 'In the case of this recent project, the upgrading of our newest machine to allow us to be more competitive in the world markets, the above procedure was not followed. ' The usual and traditional ten year procedure was not followed.

What happened? 'Instead we were treated to a media event skillfully staged by Premier Peckford and the local PC Association of Grand Falls.' And, of course, the writer goes on and most of us have read it. But these are the sort of tactics, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier uses to take credit for something that he had nothing to do with, as he did in this case.

And, of course, as I say, the other kind of tactic that he uses, like the Bellevue by-election and like his answer to a question from the member for LaPoile (Mr.Neary) last week he himself, who preaches the gospel of not comparing apples and oranges but comparing apples and apples, when he finds himself in trouble he does the exact same thing himself. Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill and we hope that it means well for Corner Brook in the future and long may Kruger's big jib draw in Corner Brook. L5707 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The bon. member for Fogo . MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, I have heard some statements from the Government House Leader (Mr.Marshall) that he wishes to have this bi 11 by 5:55 this evening. If that is the case and he is agreed that we will go into Committee of the Whole I will gladly, after a few minutes, take my place and allow him to do that. However, if he is not prepared to do that, to go into Committee of the Whole and call in the Governor by 5:55, then I have a few points that I would like to make. MR. BARRY: The Government House Leader seems to be sulking today. MR. TULK: He seems to be a little sulky over there.

I do not know what his problems are but that is the way he seems to be . All he has to do, Mr. Speaker, at this point is agree that he will go into Committee of the Whole and this bill can be passed by 5:55, I think we will agree to that, and the Governor can be in to sign the bill if it is that important. We agree to do that because we realize it is important to the people of Corner Brook that this bill get passed. But if he is not prepared to do that, I have a few statements that I want to make, a few points that I want to make. MR.

BARRY: We will agree to have the clock stopped and go into Committee of the Whole to get it through after six. MR. TULK: We will do anything to see that this bill is passed by 6: 00 December 10, 1984 R5707

o'clock this evening, anything that is required within reason. MR. BARRY: We are not co-operation from House Leader. MR. TULK: getting any the Government If there is no co-operation then I guess I might as well move on with my few remarks. MR. BARRY: Does he want it delayed? MR. TULK: Does ne want the bill delayed after 6: 00 o'clock? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to congratulate my good friend for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow). He usually makes a good speech in this House and this evening he did it again. MR. NEARY: He is real Cabinet material. MR.

TULI<: He made a statement which always reminds me of the member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow). He said he was not exactly sure that what he was saying was right because the Cabinet did not tell him. MR. NEARY: No, he is never sure. MR. TULK: He said he did not know all of the things that went on in Cabinet. MR. NEARY: He is always kept in the dark. MR. TULK: Well, he should know all of the things that go on in Cabinet because, as we have said on this side for a number of years, the member for Bay of Islands should L5708 have a been a Cabinet minister, and why he is not I will never be able to understand. MR.

NEARY: They are too jealous of him. MR. TULK: I think they must be. They are trying to keep him in the backbenches because they know he is a freewheeling thinker, that he is going to say what is on his mind, and the Premier, of course, cannot stand anybody around him who fits in that category. MR. NEARY: They cannot control him, see. MR. TULI<: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge), I do not know if she is the number one Minister of Education or the number two Minister of Education. The only way we can distinguish between them over here is to call her the kindergarten minister.

In speaking to this bill this afternoon, she made a comment on Bill 37. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to say it was the most convoluted kind of logic that I have ever heard in this House. Like the Premier, she is not sure whether or not Bill 37 is necessary to Kruger signing a deal on Corner Brook. She said it could cost them some money somewhere down the road. Well, yes, and if we establish a space agency to put a man on the moon, that could cost Newfoundland some money as well.

But the trouble with the Minister of Education is that she believes everything she is told by the Premier and by the other people in the Cabinet. MR. NEARY: She does not bother to check it out. December 10, 1984 R5708

MR. TULK: She does not bother to check anything out, and so, when she stands in this House to speak it is almost like turning on an eight track and you end up getting tape number one, number two, number three, or number four. I think this afternoon we got to tape number seven, I believe it was, if our count is right. MR. NEARY: The ghetto blaster. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker having said that, let me say, as 1 said •.rhen I stood to speak to this bill, that we are not going to delay the passage of this bill. At this point in time it is the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) and the people on that side who are delaying the passage of the bill to see Kruger go into Corner Brook. We realize that the bill is a much needed bill which ensures the future of Corner Brook. And I say that knowing full well that it is our best hope, that it ensures the future of Corner Brook. Because the people of Corner Brook have suffered enough, as the Minister of Forestry knows - excuse me, the former Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Career Development (Mr. Power) as he is now. The present Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms), I am not sure what he knows. MR.

NEARY: He knows all about the Kinsmen movement in Canada. MR. TULK: He does not know anything about forestry. MR. NEARY: He is an expert on the Kinsmen. L5709 MR. TULK: He does not know anything about forestry research centres except he knows that he lost one. MR. NEARY: Ask him the Kinsmen Prayer and he will be able to tell you all about it. MR. TULK: Does he know about that? MR. NEARY: Oh yes. MR. TULK: He has another record established too in this House in the last little while. The former Speaker of this House, as you reminded him several times, has now become the Wayne Gretzky of interruptions.

He has passed the record set by the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) and he has sometimes acted very rude. As a former Speaker of this House, as you said, we do not expect that. MR. NEARY: No, I could not say he is rude. I would not say that about him. MR. TULK: No, because he has a humourous tendency about him. MR. NEARY: He may be naive, now mind you, but not rude. MR. TULK: As I said, Mr. Speaker, let me get down to speaking to the substance of this bill. We will not see this bill stopped - as I said, it is the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) who is now hanging it up - because we realizes the importance of this bill to Corner Brook. The people of Corner December 10, 1984 R5709

Brook, as the fo["'l\er Minister of Forestry, now Career Development Minister knows, the people of Corner Brook have suffered long enough, They have been wondering whether they are going to be employed tomorrow morning or by the end of this year . They were wondering whether they were going to be unemployed, and Newfoundlanders are well aware, as are the people from Corner Brook, just what kind of suffering that can bring . Of course, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn) is not in his seat, but Newfoundlanders have become very familiar with unemployment.

I do not know if anybody has read the paper today or not, but unemployment is up again this month in Newfoundland, it is the highest in Canada. While it seems to have dropped somewhat across the country I believe a small bit, it has again gone up in Newfoundland. Now that is no surprise to us on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, because this government has shown no initiative at all in the economic development of this Province. We have seen a government that has neglected the fishery.

In a few minutes I will discuss how this agreement itself may show neglect of the forestry of this Province, and I think when I am finished that the fo["'l\er Minister of Forestry will agree with me. We have seen the fishery of this Province, as I said, deteriorate to the point where it is hard to say whether anybody has the capability to get a handle on it or not. And what do we have here?

The Premier comes into the House, on Thursday I think it was, the Premier came into the House, stood up and made a long statement L5710 on the selling of the Corner Brook mill to Kruger as if he were creating a new industry in Newfoundland. MR. NEARY: Who put the hum on the Humber? MR. TULK: Well, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) quickly reminds me, and reminded the Premier about who put that mill in Corner Brook in the first place. MR. NEARY: And Grand Falls, and Stephenville. MR. TULK: And Grand Falls. MR. YOUNG: Who is going to keep it there? MR. TULK: Who is going to keep it there?

It will probably end up being another Liberal government. MR. NEARY : That is all you ever do, salvage things that are down. MR. TULK: try to closing This is not a new initiative, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the government. It is not going to create any new economic development in this Province. But that is typical of them, because what we have here is the Premier, I think I am using his own words, the Premier and his government carrying on another salvage operation. They are trying to save something that somebody else create!i.

The Corner Brook mill will not, as has been pointed out and I think all members of this House recognize, the Corner Brook mill December 10, 1984 R5710

will not, under Kruger, employ as many people as it did originally under Bowater. There are 400 people, I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) pointed out last week, who are going to be laid off in Corner Brook, 196 I believe permanently - is that the case? - and 196 temporary, casual people who are going to be laid off. MR. NEARY: As a result of closing number four machine, 196 will be laid off temporarily, and another 198 or so casuals. MR. TULK: So it is a matter of 394. MR. NEARY: Over 400. MR. TULK: Over 400.

The Premier on the other hand comes into this House as proud as a rooster, well that is typical of the Premier because the Premier usually acts in that manner anyway - MR. NEARY: You should give him your button. MR . TULK: Yes, I have a button. I should send that over to him, the Newfoundland rooster. We are, as I said, Mr. Speaker, going to support this bill. This is not a great initiative, let nobody be under that illusion that this is a new great initiative of the Premier, it is not. It is not even, as I pointed out, the status quo because of the numbers that will unemployed.

Legislation is needed and we will not oppose that legislation, we will vote for it, but we will not be bluffed, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of this House will not be bluffed by this L5711 bill, by the Kruger legislation, we will not be intimidated by the Premier, we will not be told like children, as the people on the other side of this House seem to have-happening to them, to vote for the Kruger bill to get it out of the way so that the Premier can get in Bill 37. We will not be told that you have to pass Bill 37 in order to get Bill 52. MR. MARSHALL: Are you serious? MR. NEARY: Yes, he is serious. MR.

TULK: Of course I am serious. Bill 52 has absolutely nothing to do with Bill 37. The Premier himself said it is not necessary. He has been quoted on a number of occasions as saying it is not necessary to have Kruger sign the deal for Corner Brook. Now, Mr. Speaker, the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) put this very well, that we have to ask if the Premier is again using the people of Corner Brook. I do not believe the member for Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow) would allow this to happen if he knew about it, and I do not believe that the Minister of Education (Ms.

Verge) would if she knew about it, but of course she does not. If the Minister of Education and the member for Bay of Islands knew the Premier was using the people of Corner Brook to get through what has become one of the most insidious, repugnant pieces of legislation that has ever come before this House, I do not believe they would. But I say to them that I believe the Premier is now doing something that he did when we saw the negotiations going on for the establishment of Kruger in this Province with the unions - it is no secret, it is well known December 10, 1984 R5711

to everybody, and the member for Bellevue brought it up again this afternoon - and the Premier used the misery and the suffering of workers in Corner Brook to tell them that unless they agreed to Kruger's terms for a collective agreement that there would be no mill. And I believe the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) was right. The Premier probably had it worked out with Kruger to go home to Montreal, create that crisis situation, the only one that he knows how to operate in, and then at the last moment call them back again. And I believe what we ~ot here with Bill 37 is another prime example of that. MR.

NEARY: They never left Stephenville, by the way. MR. TULK: No. The Premier knows that we on this side are going to use every parliamentary tactic that we can think of to oppose Bill 37. We have told him if he wants Bill 37 he will have to eat his Christmas turkey here on the Table of this House, and that is exactly how we feel about it. So what is he now trying to do? MR. NEARY: I would rather have a goose, is it more symbolic. His goose is cooked. MR. TULK: I would rather a salt-water duck, myself. MR. NEARY: Turr! Put the turrs on the table. MR. BARRY: I like rabbit. L5712 MR.

TULK: But that is what we have told him. Now the Premier has begun using taxpayer money for radio advertising and newspaper advertising, and it would not at all surprise me, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier has it all set up for signing on Wednesday. MR. BARRY: Has the Premier spoken on Bill 37? MR. NEARY: No. MR. BARRY: I do not think he has even said a word in the House on it. HR. TULK: The Premier now has it all set up for the signing in Corner Brook on Wednesday. I understand that he has issued invitations to all the people concerned to be at the Glynmill Inn on Thursday to sign the Kruger deal. MR.

NEARY: The champagne corks will pop. MR. POWER: Are you disappointed about that or what?. MR. TULK: No, I am not. ahead. I hope it goes MR. POWER: You want to be invited. MR. NEARY: We do not want any champagne. MR. TULK: The former Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Power) is now smarting under the attack that was laid on him yesterday by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). He is usually a pretty quiet December 10, 1984 R5712

fellow down there, but for the last couple of days his hair has been out of place, he has been dishevelled looking, he looks like he is in a terrible state down there about, and I do not know but it is a pang of conscience. MR. NEARY: He is a great hand to cut ribbons, though. MR. TULK: It could be a pang of conscience that is bothering the former Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. I am not going to call him Minister of Career Development, Mr. Speaker, that is an insult to him. Because the member for Ferryland (Mr. Power) should have a much greater task in this government than that.

We know why he has not, because the Premier is trying to put him somewhere so that he will not be a leadership contender for the PC Party. My advice to the former Minister of Forest Resources and Lands (Mr. Power) would have been to tell the Premier, no I do not want the job. But I suppose being in Cabinet is better than being out. I suppose it is. MR. POWER: You are a former educator and yet you cannot see the importance of this department. MR. TULK: I will tell you what I would have told him if you really want my advice. I would have said to him, flick out the present minister and I will take over the full job.

As a former educator, the member for Ferryland knows full well that if you are going to develop careers for young people in this Province you have to know what is happening in every part of the system. L5713 MR. NEARY: You are after building up 'Luke's' ego down there so much he is likely to bust before the day is over. MR. TULK: Well, the member for the Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow) is a very pleasant fellow, a very knowledgeable fellow. I will have to ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry), but the member is one of the first people that we would welcome across on this side of the House, one of the very first, and the member for the Bay of Islands has been 'known to change. MR. NEARY: And you cannot say that about too many of them over there. MR. TULK: No, there are not too many of them over there, but he is one of them. I think we will even write him a letter and tell him when we f