VOL. 3 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. MONDAY, MAY 25, 1981 NO. 45

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1761 NM - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please~ STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS: MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. members of the settlement which has been achieved between the government, the Federation of School Boards, and the NTA.

Following rejection .. by the NTA of the conciliation board reoort and a subsequent vote authorizing strike action by members of the association, efforts by the parties involved, with the assistance of the Department of Labour and Manpower, was finally successful in reaching a satisfactory conclusion. We were advised last Friday that the teachers of our Province had voted to accept the latest government offer which was being recommended for approval by both the executive and the negotiating committee of the NTA. As we understand it, the actual vote was more than seventy per cent in favour of accepting the offer.

The main issues, Mr. Speaker, which finally formed the basis of the settlement were as follows: one, salaries will rise almost twenty-four per cent over the two year agreement which has retroactive effect to September 1st, 1980. Two, the government agreed to credit certain periods of maternity leave for incremental and severance pay purposes,based upon the period eligible for payment under UIC regulations. Three, the government agreed not to amend teacher regulations in a manner which would effect teacher responsibilities during the life of the agreement.

And four, an agreement was reached with resp~ct to compensation for former co-ordinating principals and co- ordinating vice-principals. Taking into consideration the 4863 ,.

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1761 NM - 2 DR. COLLINS: difficulties and hardships that would result from a teachers' strike,government is pleased with this settlerrent and looks forward to continued good relationships which exists between government and NTA. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) About one minute. MR. NEARY: MR. STIRLING: Hear, hear! The hon. Leader of the Opposition . That was half-hearted. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and there is no reason why it was half-hearted. I think that the Minister of Finance, or the President of Treasury Board (Dr. Collins)~ on this side, Mr.

Speaker, we have been trying for some time to make sure that there would not be a strike and if negotiations had taken place in good faith there would never have been any question of a strike. What we seem to have established now, Mr .. c:ne<'~<.P.r, for the first time,and I think that the President ofTr~ ~ had better address himself to this, because we have the very serious charge that an offer was made on the eve of a strike which was a conditional offer, a conditional offer on condition that you accept this offer as a negotiating committee and be prepared to recommend it, or the offer is withdrawn. MR.

NEARY: Blackmail. MR. STIRLING: Now this is a new low in negotiating, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Right on. MR. STIRLING: And it is something - DR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: To a point of order, my understanding o~ the rules is that 4864

May 25,1981 Tape No. 1762 AH-1 DR.COLLINS: a statement may be commented upon but may not be the subject of debate and I would say that the bon. Leader of the Opposition is getting into the area of debate,and not only that but he i~ arguing from a false basis. MR. STIRLING: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: To the point of order. The I think if the President ofTr~ ~checks any authority, but specifically if he checks any of the authorities used in this Hous~he will find that it is quite in or(!.er to ask questions about a Ministerial Statement.

I was not entering into debate, I was asking questions, Mr. Speaker.

And the question that I was asking is whether or not it was true, whether it was true-and for the minister to clarify in his Ministerial Statment-whether it was true that an offer was made to the teachers,which was a conditional offer on the ever of the strike,that said, okay,if you go out and strike we will then tell the people that you did not offer this improvement and that it was conditional on the people taking in advance this offer, accepting it in advance,which is a c.h2:nr-"' i.n any kind of a standard for collective bargainiL S, and that was the question being asked, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Well,the rules are there for everybody to see. Members are allowed to comment or make comments on Ministerial Statements, seek explanations and so on The hon. Leader of the Opposition has done that anc I understand also reiterated his question in debate on t .hP point of order and has therefore asked his question. Unforttmat : ly now the t.irre generally alloted has now run out. The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. 4865 ,,

t•1ay 25,1981 Tape No. 1762 AB-2 MR. BARRY : Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement to clarify the various references to the intervention by CFLCo in the Water Rights Reversion Act case presently before the court . These discus-sions that have taken place in the House during the past several sittings, refer to the intervention of CFLCo in the leg.al action, as I have said,that is now ongoing. And I should point out first of all that CFLCo is a federally incorpo rat ed company whose actions are governed by the

Canada Business Corporations Act. When the Water Rights Reversion Act was ~ht into this Rouse in November of 19BO,it had the full support, co - operati on and assistance of Newfoundland and Labr~d or Bydro,w hose objectives are the same as government's \>tith respect to confirming our legal rights t:o access Upper Churchill power and with respect to asking the courts of this land to confirm those rights whic h are currently repudiated by the province of Quebec . Rowever, the ul·timate effect of this act would be to terminate the rights of CFLCo under the 1961 lease 4866 - ¢,·

May 25, 1981 Tape 1763 EC - 1 MR. BARRY: and to revert to the Province and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the right to generate electricity from the waters of the Upper Churchill water­ shed. In other words, the reason for betng of CFLCo would for all intents and purposes be ended. And the board of directors of CFLCo had to consider the ultimate effect of these actions upon that corporation - corporation as a separate legal entity. It had to consider its legal responsibilities as directors and officers of the corporation as defined under law.

It is clear from a legal point of view that the board of directors of CFLCo must act in the best interests of the corporation, which might not necessarily coincide with the best interests of either the majority or minority shareholder This legal responsibility to the corporation takes precedence, by law,over any interests of any shareholder.

And it is clear that for the board to have stood by in the face of its lease being revoked would not have been in the best interests of the corporation, which is its prime duty and its responsibility by law and, in fact, the directors could very well have been personally legally liable for not acting in the best interests of the corporation. In addition, there is every reason to believe that by action of the minority shareholder, confirmed by court order, the company,had it chosen not to intervene, would have been forced to act in its own best interests.

Hence government and Hydro understood from the beginning that CFLCo would have been,by necessity,an intervenor in the reference concerning the validity of the Water Rights Reversion Act. This was understood as the only reasonable and responsible action which _ could be taken by the board in accordance with its duties under the law. In other words, the directors had two choices; one was to act outside the law, or the other was to intervene in the best interests of the corporation despite a possible unfavourable public reaction to such an action. Government did not order nor sanction the action of the board, 4867

May 25, 1981 Tape 1763 EC - 2 MR. BARRY: but we agree that it is necessary under the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, the point which should not be missed is that we have full confidence in the outcome of the Water Rights Reversion Act and we believe that we have a lega~ right to revoke the lease. We further believe that given Quebec's repudiation of its terms, we not only have a legal, but also a moral obligation to do so.

Whether or not the Government of Quebec or Hydro-Quebec or CFLCo, or for that matter, the Liberal Party or any other party intervenes, it does not in our view weaken the legal case which we are presenting to the courts. I can assure this hon. House that the government and the board of directors and management of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are acting as one in the overall objective of attempting to access Upper Churchill power and attempting to get the Lower Churchill developments off the ground. I might also say that when we discussed the Water Rights Reversion Act with the 4868 .......

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1764 so - 1 MR. -BARRY: financial institutions in :·Tortli America, they were not concerned with'the apparent conflict between Hydro and its subsidiary CFLCo,but they were more concerned that we might force CFLCo to act in a manner which would be inconsistent with its corporate responsibilities or with the minority interests of Hydro-Quebec. And we assured them that we were very cognizant about overall responsibilities under Canadian law and that where necessary.the rights to CFLCo would not be abrogated by its majority shareholders. In other words, Mr.

Speaker, we are being extremely scrupulous to avoid -even the slightest indication that we are·not proceeding according to the due process of law and this whole uproar has been arisen because of what is a legal technicality,because of the way corporations are structured; the fact that they are separate legal entities from the shareholders, but we are acting to make sure that we are scrupulous in our observance of the law and that we are doing everything proper, that it will in no way hamper our ability to win the case presently before the courts.

I belive this brief statement explains clearly our position with respect to the Water Rights Reversion Act and the government's, Hydro's and CFLCo's position before the courts. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Simms): has about three minutes. MR. STIRLING: Hear, hear. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think it is significant that it is bad news time again and therefore the Minister of Mines and Energy is allowed to make an announcement that would normally be made by the Premier - bad news time again.

The information when the legislation was brought into the House, it was brought in with a great flurry the Premier. It >vas significa,nt that this information was not given to us at the time. 4859 -:.·

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1764. so - 2 MR. BARRY: What information? MR. STTRLING: Whatever this great information is that we now have. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are now getting a little more inzormation;as a result of the digging,we get a little more information. And the truth of the matter is that now you have the minister having to re-assure the financial community. This is the truth, Mr. Speaker, the financial community was re-assured,when this legislation was first brought in , that this government would not do anything that would hurt CFLCo and the miniority shareholders, Hydro - Quebec.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a classic conflict of interest in this Province ~y what this government says and by-this Opposition agrees, we supported wholely what you brought in ~;.hen you brought in that legislation, ti:is great opportunity for us to do something, to have some kind of control over our resources. The key to it is CFLCo and if ever there was a conflict of interest,you have the Chairman of CFLCo and the Chairman of Newfoundland Hydro-and as the minister just said in his statement, they are one and the same, Newfoundland Hy<,'lro and ~:1e Ne~1foundland 'JOVernment - MR.

BARRY: That is what the han. minister has not said. 4870 ·~ '· ··~·

May 25, 1981 Tape No., 1765 EL - 1 .. MR. STIRLING: And so now you have a situation in which the Chairman of CFLCo, who is the same person who is Chairman of Newfound­ land Hydro, by the government's admission ·now has to go to court and try to preserve CFLCo, has got to try to set aside this legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, it happens .Jy coin­ cidence that we are in court against ourselves today. We started this in 1976.

On thing the minister has not told us­ the Premier would not discuss it and the President of the Council (W.Marshall) would not tell us- how much ·money, how much money has been set as'ide by this Province for lawyers' fees on both sides of this case now, one presenting the case of the Newfoundland Government and the other one, our own case,presenting CFLCo. Mr.

Speaker, we are definitely in a conf}ict of interest situation for whatever the concerns are about giving a fair hearing to Quebec-Hydro, they have now maneuvered us into a position where a company that we bought,paid $200 million - on one hand they are telling us what a great deal it was to buyCFLCo, 'It is now our com­ pany that we now control' and now they are saying, 'Nell, of course,it is a separate legal entity and just because we own it and control it, we cannot do anything about it.

They have to protect themselves ,'' Quebec-Hydro, with BRINCO,created CFLCo like some kind of a robot that protects itself against destruction, even if it has to eat its owners. And we have a classic conflict of interest situation, Mr. Speaker, where the Chairman of CFLCo has to be giving information 1 by the minister's own statement, giving information to Quebec-Hydro that the people of Newfoundland have not been given and that the people of this House of Assembly have not been given. 4671

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1765 EL - 2 MR. STIRLING: And all that this statement does, Mr. Speaker, is confirm that that conflict of interest is there. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : and Energy. MR. BARRY: Any further statements? The hon. the Minister of Mines Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I have another statement but with reference to legal fees, if the Leader of the Opposition cannot get either his energy critic or justice critic to give him a little advice, if he ·does not trust their advice, I would advise him to hire a few law­ yers and get the basics of corporation law which makes this whole statement - it should have been unnecessary be- cause it should have been clear to the Opposition Leader, right from the beginning. MR. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

STIRLING: I think the very learned member, who knows better than anyone else, is now abusing the rules of the House by getting up on a pretense of another Minister­ ial Statement and debating my comments on his first Minister­ ial Statement. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Speaker to bring the minister back from his ravings. Let us have a proper debate. If we are going to have a debate, let us open it up for a debate. Let us not use the rules of the House for one side only. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 4872

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1766 DW - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): With respect to the point of order, is a legitimate point of order. However, the Chair was ' waiting to hear what the minister had to say because there is provision, as well, for a minister to respond to any questions and so on that may have been asked when comments .were being. made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling). However, I would suggest that the comments made by the minister were not answers to questions but perhaps more in the form of debate. I bring that to his attention and ask him to proceed with his secon~ Ministerial Statement.

MR. L. BARRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will give his energy critic an opportunity to respond to this one. He did not trust him on the big one. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a matter that was raised by petition and by members of the Opposition concerning power outages at Nain. On April Bth.,l981 and on April 30th.,l98l,I arranged to have public meetings held in Nain in order to provide the residents the opportunity to voice their complaints directly to officials of the Power Distribu- tion District And I might say, Mr.

Speaker, that was done the same day, these meetings were set up the same day I received the Petition. The meeting held on April 8th. at 7:15 p.m. in the Community Council office was advertised but only thirteen residents attended. Now it was felt by those attending t~at there was insuf- ficient lead till'!'\ in advertisina - there \<Jere about two days of advertising - so to bend over backwards we made sure there could be no complaints about lack of time,we scheduled another meeting.

And in the meantime we had the Power Distribution District representatives visit any households who wanted checks made in order 4873 .~

May 25, 1981 Tape No . 1766 DW - 2 MR. L. BARRY: to mor~ "nlJv e xolain energy con- sumption variations at the follow-up meeting. so the meeting of April 30th. was a follow-up to the one of April 8th. It was well advertised in advance and was held in the coromunity recreation centre at Nain, attended by thirty-five residents. An interpreter was hired at the request of the community to translate the discussions into Inuktitut.

The problems itemized on the petition and the responses provided by the Power Distribution District representatives were as ou.tlined in the following: (1) there had been the allegation that there were'~requent interruptions of service without adeouate notification to residents resulting in disrupted household schedules, damages to personal property, and other undue hardships such as lack of heat and running water.

" Now the residents were advised that the frequency of power interruptions experienced were uncharacteristic of the level of service provided by thePower Distribution District, and that every action was taken would be taken to ensure that this did not re-occur. And hon. members will recall that this was due to certain contamination in the fuel which got into the equipment and caused a number of the generators to break down.

So actions were taken including the complete overhaul of both the 450 kilowatt diesel electric sets; the supervision of these overhauls by the manufacturers representative; the stationing of a 4874

May 25,1981 Tape No·. 1767 AH-1 MR. BARRY: certified mechanic in Nain permanently in January 1981. And although stationed in Nain,he will also travel to other locations on the coast of Labrador periodically. The residents were advised of the action to take in the event of damages to personal property which they felt were attributable to events on the Power Distribution system. A letter must be written to the areas superintendent in Happy Valley Goose Bay stating what was damaged and when and the receipts for repairs must be included.

One such letter has been received from Nain for damages to a television set and this is in th~ process of being paid. Now the second complaint had to do with an increase of over one hundred per cent in kilowatt hours used as reported by many households for December, a well above average. increase expected for that time of year causing unexpected high bills and numerous so-called "cut-off" notices at a time when families can least afford to be without service. Well, when we looked into this we found that there was more to it than met the eye.

During the first public ~eeting,residents were advised that each instance of apparent excess consumption must be considered on an individual basis, that to make comparisons of electricity use between residences is somewhat similar to comparin9 how much water each family consumes. And if they are like members . on the other side who rarely wash,obviously their consumption would be much less than the members on this side of the House. I am not really serious about that, Mr.Speaker.

Thus,we suggested that during the following week we would have technicians visit each resident who wanted such a check to explain the reasons for particular consumption levels. And when we met on April 30,1981, when the representatives met, they reviewed ·the findings. Now we had two technicians with an interpreter spend the week of April 13th in Nain visiting those people whose names were 4875

May 25,1981 Tape No. 1767 AH- 2 MR. BARRY: on a list provided and others who indicated they would like to have a check. In total we visited thirty-seven residen<"ec: ('I<= f:hp 208 customers in Nain. A report of eac: J residence was made with a comparison of t~e actual consumption to a typical consumption level for the same appliances.

The high consumption level described by the residents was primarily due to an extended billing period of thirty - seven days from the first part of December to early January . so it was billing for more than thirty days, it w.as for thirty­ seven days actually,and this · did result in some slight increase. MR . HISCOCK: Did the ministers say slight? MR. BARRY: Slight. This extended period resulted in twenty-one customers being charged at a higher rate because of the increasing block rates for diesel domestic custo mers .

Each of the twenty - one customers was written a letter to advise that an adjustment would be made to credit his account on the basis of a tPirty - one day period. Normally this adjustment is made as a 4876

May 25, 1981 Tape 1768 EC - 1 MR. BARRY: matter of course when an extended period occurs, but it was overlooked in this instance, no question about it. No adjustment is made normally if the cost to the consumer is unaffected in total. ~R. NEJ\.?.Y: 'l':1anks to ti1e Opposition. ".R. BARRY: Yes, thanks to tha Oppositil'n. We have taken steps internally to highlight such extended reading pe.riC'ds in future to ensure that these adjustments are made, and the Opposition can be thanked that the total value of the adjustments to the affected twenty-one customers is $60.30. Mr.

Speaker, that is an average of $60.30. total for twenty-one customers, something less than $3.00 per customer on the average. Now, Mr.

Speaker, members opposite say, 'Oh, but there were certain high bills in December by residents at Nain.' Well, other personal reasons for high levels of consumption were found,as follows: First, electric heaters used by the household; secondly, use of an electric range for heating purposes when the home was without fuel; third, use of a hot plate for space heating - one house had one hot plate in each bedroom; fourth, one house had up to twelve contractors, employees, boarding there at the time of the high billing, twelve boarders; one house had a number of people from outside coming in to take baths; one house had outside electrical outlets which were rented to the helicopter companies for heaters; and twelve of the homes checked had electric hot water tanks which obviously are high consumption items.

Now, the above items were pointed out to the individuals concerned and also in a general way at the public meeting. And I am pointing them out in such detail today to the House because I think all members of this House have an obligation to point out to our constituents the way in which excessive billing or excessive electrical consumption can occur. 4877

May 25, 1981 MR. BARRY: finished. Tape 1768 EC - 2 Now, Mr. Speaker, I have almost The discussion on "cut-off" notices related more to the understanding of the .Inuit people involved about the contents o£ such a notice. In this regard, we advised the residents that we would have the notices and other consumption-related information translated into Inuktitut , their own language, and I think that this is a thing which is a significant step, Mr. Speaker, and is some­ thing that I believe we could have done and we should have done earlier, and I am happy to say, we are doing now.

We will give a clear translation into Inuktitut of the billing and consumption-related information and the process of translation and pri~ting is already initiated. The time period between actual billing and the sending out of a cut­ off notice, I might mention, is a minimum of sixty days, and there is also the practice that no one is actually cu t off until a personal contact is made with the customer 4878

May 25, 1981 Tape No.l769 EL - 1 MR. BARRY: for a final attempt to collect the amount owing. Now, there was one further point raised and that had to do with rneters,and if the members opposite are not concerned about these matters which they raise , presumably just for the sake of raising them, there are people at Nain, residents of Nain and other parts of the Province who will have an interest in this. The third matter related to meters. Meters, the petition complained, were not changed and tested every two years, according to regulations -what they thought was the regulation.

And several households felt that their meters might not be giving accurate readings. Now, the spokesman for the residents was asked where they heard of two~year retest period but she did not know where this two year period carne from and the MHA, I have to say, must be falling down on the job because this information could have been gotten directly from my department. Now, the information in the fed­ eral department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs brochure relating to retest periods was set out and the period is currently eight years for the retesting of meters.

We did find that there were seven meters at Nain which did not have retest dates on them. They have not yet been replaced as part of the programme to replace all meters on the systems taken over from the Labrador services Divisionof Rural De­ velopment. These meters are an indoor type for which we specifically have to obtain replacements and they·will be re­ placed before the end of May, 1981, this month. And the re­ moved meters shall be tested by the Department of Consumer and 8orporate Affairs in order to ensure that the meters do record within the required limits of accuracy. 4879

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1769 EL - 2 MR. BARRY: In general, Mr. Speaker, following this presentation, all residents appear satisfied with the explanations provided and the actions taken. And, in particular I might say,the concept of providing translated information brochures seemed to appeal to them.

I might again underline, Mr.Speaker, that_when the petition was presented in the House of Assembly, there was mention of a hydro bill, I think, by the member for Torngat Mountains (G.Warren), a 'hydro bill in the tiny comm­ unity of Makkovik, where the house was only occupi'ed for eleven days and the hydro bill was $3;14.00'.' This bill was checked as well and it relates to a household where, we unders·tand, t~re was occupancy for eleven days during December of '80 but the billing was actuaily from November 5, 1980 to December lst and during November this resident had the emplovees of the contractor who were working on the new powerhouse living in his house.

The house contained sU:ch high consuming appliances as a thirty gallon hot water heater, an electric dryer, an electric range and three electric heaters. Thus, the energy con­ sumption of these personnel was likely uncontrolled since the electricity bill was being paid by the owner who apparently , was not in the house at the time. Now, Mr. Speaker, this just goes to show the lengths to which this government will go, Mr. Speaker to determine if there are people who feel that they are being not getting proper treatment from any Crown corporation in this Province,we will thoroughly investigate it. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: MR. HISCOCK: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. 4880

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1770 NM - l MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The ho'n. member for Eagle River has about six minutes. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, ·I do not - MR. HANCOCK: How much rent did he get for the house for the month? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. HISCOCK: I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Barry) has taken so much time related to an energy project in one of the coastal residences of Labrador and has 'gone to the great pains of commending the government, commending the government, that once you have a complaint then let us know.

I only wish that the government will make sure that the Coastal Labrador residents,with all of the hydro power in Labrador, that the coastal residents of Labrador have a uniform price because now the reason for this concern, because the price is aoing up all the time, the reason resid e nts are concerned that the more electricity they consume, because it is diesel consumption, the higher the rates ,

whereas here on the Island, because of hydro power, the lower the rates.

So if the minister and the government are really, really concerned about all these complaints that are coming in 1 hopefully the minister will recommend to Newfoundland Hydro, because it is a sub-arm of the government, that the minister will make sure that we have uniform rates of electricity all across this Province and that we cannot continue to look upon Labrador as the gre e t resource of electricity for the Island consumption only and leave our coastal communities all along the coast saving , "Oh,it is diesel." Because we do know from the National Energy Board that in fo~ years tirre the rates are going to double for the higher consumption.

So we are seeing bills going up all the time, but with diesel, if there is nothing done for the long-term benefit then we are going to see bills going up all the time. 4881

May 25, 1981 Tape No . 1770 NM - 2 MR. HISCOCK: And I would say, Mr. Speaker, if this government did not do away with the Department of Consume r Affairs , that the minister himself would not have to get up and defend his own department and put the boots · to the people of Nain and make sure that they have known every little bit, whether they had curlers , whether they had a hot plate or whether - and took great pain, Mr . Speaker, to knock down every item whatsoever. The main complaint came fro m Nain, not about the amount of electricity used, but they were rather concerned as well - SOME HON .

MEMBERS : Oh , oh ! MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. HISCOCK: - as, Mr . Speaker, I would point out, of all coastal people, there should have been an educat i on programme all along that coast . The minister stated that it took a week for 37 people out of the 280. All along the coast' 4882

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1771 SD - 1 MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, people are having the same complaints. I would like to ask the minister, with the adjustment being made on the community of Nain, the twenty-one people, how many other adjustments will be made further along the coast? Will there be any educational programmes, 'will they go in a spend a week in Cartwright, will they spend a week in Makkovik, will they spend a week in Nain? And as I say, Mr.

Speaker, I have instances where a person in Charlottetown_ had to pay over $600, Once he found out it was a faulty hot water tank, it was his fault, he still had to pay six· hundred and something dollars because of'a fault in Charlottetown. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh~ MR. HISCOCK: The person who owned it, Mr. Speaker, but it comes down to the fact whether we as a Province are going to make sure that - MR. BARRY: You said everybody (inaudible). MR. HISCOCK: I ~id not say everybody, I said one person. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. HISCOCK: But the main thing, Mr.

Speaker, that l. am rather concerned about is that thl'\ -.inister went into great detail to outline how this energy was used. I only hope that the minister will use as much energy to raakincr sure the people in Pinsent's Arm and Norman Bay 1 who do not even have diesel, I would hope that the minister will use as much energy to make sure that CoastaL Labrador gets rid of diesel generating and be able to have some provinci "l.l pride in their own part of the Province in saying that they are hooked up to hydro power.

And maybe it is because I am making a brief to the Public Utilities Committee saying ' no, they should not have the rates', maybe the minister is getting a little sensitive sensitive. And with regard to my fellow colleague who is now down in his district visiting, Mr. Garfield 4883

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1771 so - 2 MR . HISCOCK: Warren, it was he who [)resented this petition; speedily as it was two Glays later the minister's officials were in Nain and the resident in Nain objected at the two days notice. And, Mr. Speaker, - MR. BARRY: Yes, we responded too quickly . MR. HISCOCK: - too quickly, trying to get their snow job, being too sensitive, Mr. Speaker, too sensitive, that is all. So I am rather pleased that it is being looked after but again it is like most o f c:1e cases with ·this government , it is after the fact . And I would say, Mr .

Speaker~ with the person being stationed in Nain, I would like to know what is going to be done with the educational programme all along the coast because I do share the sarne .concern, I do share the same concern with the minister , that people have to be aware of energy consumption and energy conservation . But I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that we as a government and as a Province here , th&t we are 1.,ri th regard to the vast hydro power off Labrador - and now it is in the federal courts that we cannot as a Province take the attitude that we are going to continue to have a resource and allow 4884

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1772 MR. E. HISCOCK: coastal Labrador to be quite contented that'if you have a complaint, you phone us and we will look after it: But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the rates are at least 20 pe~ cent­ theyare the hiqhest national energy rates in the country because it is diesel. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this government would, if it is con­ cerned about the people of coastal Labrador and concerned about the people on diesel in parts of the Province,that they would institute immediat~ly a uniform price for electrictty in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms): Any further statements? ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. L. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. House). He knows that it is coming because we both attended a meeting of the Canadian Council of the Blind yesterday.

And we were told by a person who is blind and disabled and forced to live on welfare that he has a sixteen year old son who required dental treatment - and we were told this together - that this person was told that the government policy is that if the teeth to be filled are in the front it will be paid for but they will not pay for any fillings for any teeth other than front teeth and that the teeth will have to get bad enough to be extracted.

I told the minister I would be asking him this question, so I ask the Minister of Health whether he would be able to clarify that situation for the individual involved? 4885 DW - 1

May 25, 1981 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): MR. W. HOWSE: Tape No. 1772 The hon. Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, I attended that meeting and I advised the people there that I would be taking their resolutions that they had·presented earlier-and they will be sending some to my depart- DW - 2 ment and some to Social Services and we will be investi­ gating. There was two or three matters that they did raise with me; that was one.

That was a policv that has been i~ of course, the policy of free dental care up to - it used to be up to eleven years old and now it is to thirteen years old,and it is free dental care for indigents , for old - MR. S. NEARY: For front teeth. MR. W. HOWSE: was brought in, No, for old people. This that one for front teeth,inci- dentally, was brought in by the previous administra­ tion, your administration. f.'!.R. S . NEARY : MR. W. HOWSE: (Inaudible) Yes, right. Mr. Speaker, we are doing dentures also for these people and crowns and re­ placerrents . .

And I am having the other aspect of it investigated now at this particular point in time. So that was one. The other one that they asked me, Mr. Speaker, to bring up was the blind allow­ ance. This was one that we brought in in 1975 after the federal Liberals discontinued it,and they asked me to look at improving that one and that falls into the ambit of my hon. colleague here in Social Services. There was another one about glasses and I advised them that this government would be providing glasses to all indigents in this current year. It is in the Budget. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, they asked 4896

May 25, 1981 Tape 1773 EC - 1 MR. HOUSE: me to do,in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in a conversation,was to bring back to the Premier the great job he · was doing for Newfoundland and that every Newfoundlander should support him. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. A new question? MR. STIRLING : Yes. Mr. Speaker, I confirm that - I cannot make a speech her~, I can only ask a question, but there were compliments made for both sides of the House.

Let us get back to the specific question, Mr. Speaker, the one dealing with the greatest slight on the dignity of people. Will the minister, and if he cannot, will the Premier agree as of now that regardless of what has happened in the past, that this kind of discrimination against a child,saying that we will only do the cosmetic work, that we will give that child the full treatment to which he is entitled the same as if he were in the dental plan in the under thirteen or the under twelve group? Regardless of what has happened, let us agree to that today. You do not need to do any more discussing with that.

Have you got that answer for us today? MR. SPEAKER: MR. HOUSE: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, I advised the hon. member in this House just now that we were looking into that particular thing and I spoke to them the other night that I would look into it today, and I am true to my word, I am investigating it. MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, The hon. the 4887 I'

May 25, 1981 Tape 1773 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board, who was so very brief with his Ministerial Statement dealing with the teacher situation.

And it has to do with this v~ry serious charge, an unbelievable charge, of a government which has now asked people,~rst of all, before we negotiate, you must go on strike.' Is it true that the offer made to the teachers was an offer that was conditional on their acceptance by the negotiating team and the recommendation by them and the executive of that offer, or that there was, in ~act, a condition that if they did n.ot accept it at that bargaining time, then that offer would be withdrawn? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, my statement was somewhat brief, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot deal with too much information at one time, so that is why I made it brief, so he could manage it. MR. STIRLING: Well, you are trying hard to be funny today. DR. COLLINS: When the negotiating team went back to their members to ask for a strike vote, there was an offer from government on the table that remained on the table until such time as government put another offer on the table.

At no time did government put an offer on the table - that is Treasury Board - put an offer on the table, whereby it said 'This offer is c::n the table now but it may be taken off the table.' At no time did that happen. 4888 ~.

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1774 NM - 1 DR. COLLINS: Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) has very little concept of this whole area of labour bargaining, very little concept • . The remarks he makes point it out very vividly, but I can assure him that when an offer was put on the table by Treasury Board it was put on unconditionally. That was government's stance as of that time and it remained government's stance until such time as government withdrew that offer and put on another offer, and that other offer obviously would not be a lesser offer than the previous one.

That would be too ridiculous even for the Leader of the Opposition to take that view. A new offer obviously would be an advance on the offer that had been put there initially. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, the hon. Leader Yes, I can see the ministers have had their share of nasty pills today, Mr. Speaker. Let us get back to the main question.

We have heard, from public comments by the teachers, and in fact in a letter, that the offer that was made either by the mediator or the Treasury Board - now you may be technically correct that it may not have been made by the Treasury Board because one of the tlrings we are finding is that ~ this government conceals a fair amount of information. You have to pry it out.

But the information that has been made public is that somebody, either the mediator, or the bargaining unit on behalf of the government, made a conditional offer to the teachers on the understanding they accepted it in the room and if they did not accept it the offer would be withdrawn. Are you now saying that the people who put out that information were incorrect? 4889

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1774 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, whenever the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) opens his mouth he only makes clearer his misunderstanding, his sort of naive view of this whole process. Again I state that government puts · forward at times firm offers, when government puts forward those firm offers those offers are undconditional offers in the terms in which they are stated. There is no ifs, ands, or buts under the table on them.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, and the members of this House, that any offers put - forward firmly by government, were offers in good faith. There was never any question of bad faith. There were negotiations going on by both sides with the mediator over offers put forward. This is normal practice. It is not something that government, in terms of its offers, has any control over. This is the area of discretion that is left to a mediator. If a mediator is not left areas of discretion,clearly there would be absolutely no point in having a mediator in place.

But I can assure members of this House that any offers put forward were completely above board, completely understood by the other side, and that any information the hon. leader has to the contrary I think he should put forward and if it is in a documented form put it forward so that we can see exactly what he is talking about. MR. STIRLING: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. 4890

May 25, 1981, Tape 1775, Page 1 -- apb MR. SPEAKER(Simms): A final supplementary. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Do I understand the President of the Treasury Board(Dr. Collins) - and since he is such a learned fellow and I am so naive and not understanding, maybe you can continue to explain in your short period that you are going .to have in your job. Would you confirm the final settlement, in fact, was a government offer? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, th~ final settlement was a matter that carne out of negotiations, those negotiations going on between NTA representatives and the Deputy Minister of the Department of Labour and Manpower, and the negotiations between representatives of Treasury Board and the same Deputy Minister. The final settlement carne out of the efforts of the Deputy Minister to which each side ultimately mutually agreed,and r.-1hich the negotiating team for NTA, having agreed to it, made a tentative agreement on behalf of the teachers but said they would bring it back to the teachers with their recommendation for acceptance. MR.

SPEAKER: LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The hon. the member for Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and Manpower, Sir. It seems to me that an application from the Seafarers' International Union to the Labour Relations Board for certification to represent offshore supply boat workers, Crosbie's group, has been on the carpet now for a long time. Can the minister inform the House what is holding up this application, what the complications are with this application? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. 4891

May 25,- .]981, Tape 1775, Page 2 -- apb MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked on that, I believe it was about six days ago, the application by the SIU, the Seafarer"' International Union,the CVR.T and the Canadian Merchant Service Guild to represent workers on Crosbie Offshore went before the Labour Relations Board and has been held up by an action taken by the SIU to the courts and the courts have asked, or ordered,the Labour Relations Board to cease and desist from doing anything further until they make a ruling. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER(Simms): hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: A supplementary.

A supplementary~ The Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform the House if Mr. Crosbie or any of his cronies have approached the minister regarding this application that is before the Labour Relations Board and before the courts, and if so, would the minister supply us with any details of any meetings that he might have had with representat ·ives of this company? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any meetings with Mr. Crosbie with respect to this, or any of his cronies. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: A supplementary.

A supplementary. The Mr. Speaker, has the hon. gentleman had any new representation in writing from management in connection with this matter? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: I did not get the question, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the hon. member could repeat it. 4892

May 25, 1981, Tape 1775, Page 3 -- apb MR . SPEAKER(Simms): for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The han. the member I asked the han. gentleman if he has received any representation fro~ this company in writing in connection with the application before the Board. MR. SPEAKER: Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: this morning I have The hon. the Minister of Mr. Speaker, as late as 4883

May 25, 1981 MR. DINN: and there was no communication MR. FLIGHT: MR. DINN: Tape No. 1776 SD - 1 cleared everything in my 'in' basket Maybe it is in the 'out' basket. -in my' in' basket as a result went to my out basket from Crosbie Offshore, his representatives. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : for LaPoile. Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the hon. member MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate to the House that any such representation that he might have from Mr.

Crosbie or from his company in connection with asking the minister to interce~e or interfere in any way, shape or form with applications before the Labour Relations Board,that this would be considered to be improper? Would the minister consider that to be improper 1 that sort of representation to be improper if Mr. Crosbie or any of his cronies did approach the ministers? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, many people contact me with respect to the Labour Relations Board or the Labour Standards Board, Labour Standards Tribunal and I frequently communicate with them in different sections in my department, I do not think it is improper at all. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary, the hon.

What I am asking the hon. gentleman is to assure the House that if he indeed ~id have such . representation,that it would not happen under this administration, that th.ere would be any interference or the minister taking sides before th.e board in thi.s particular matter? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. Dim~: Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board is an autonomous body. It basically deals with anything 4894 (."

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1776 SD - 2 MR. DINN: that goes before it and very rarely if ever interfere with any decisions of the Labour Relations Board but it does not preclude me from speaking to them or communicating with them and expressing concerns. MR. SPEAKER (Simms}: The hen. member for St. Mary's - The Capes. MR. HANCOCK: ·I wish to yield. MR. SPEAKER: He wishes to yield. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Would the hon. gentleman care to elaborate on what he means by communicating with them and expressing concern?

Would the hen. gentleman care to elaborate on that statement? MR. SPEAKER: The hen. Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board deals with different areas of disputes in the Province, some of the disputes which I personally deal with myself,and I have frequently communicated with the Labour Relations Board and members on the board. I do not think I have ever interfered in any way, shape or form with rulings of the board;indeed I th~k ~ra-oe 1nappropriate. MR. NEARY: ppi:ementary, Mr: Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hen. member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: That is the assurance I was looking for from the hen. gentleman. Has be now· as·sured the House that he would not dare-because as he said himself that the Labour Relations Board is an autonomous group, a quasi-judicious group and interferring with the workings of the Labour Relations Board would be almost the same as interferring with the proceedings of the trials court, trials division, the court in thi.s province - is that what the hen. gentleman is saying? Is the hon. gentleman 4895

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1776 so - 3 MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : giving the House that assurance? The hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR . DINN: Mr . Speaker, if I get concerns raised to me with respect to the Labour Relations Board then I will certainly pass those concerns on to the board . I do not think that is inappropriate and I do that frequently. 4896 . ....

May 25, 1981 MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Tape No.- 1777 EL - 1 A final supplementary, Mr.Speaker. A final supplementary, the hon. Is the hon. gen~leman saying then that he would merely pass the concerns on to the board without requesting an opinion? Is · that what the hon. gentleman is saying? MR. SPEAKER: and Manpower. MR. DINN: The hon. the Minister of Labour Well, Mr. Speaker, no~ necessarily. I mean,I might express an opinion abou~ something that some­ body expressed to me to the Labour Relations Board. I mean that is part of my job, I would think. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: The hon. member for LaPoile. No, what I want to say is that the hon. gentleman would never take sides, if he was commun­ icating with the Labour Relations Board, he would never take sides, especially in a matter like the SIU or some other app­ lication before the board. The hon. gentleman certainly would never take sides. MR. SPEAKER: Manpower. MR. DINN: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member has something to - MR. NEARY: No, I am asking the hon. minister. MR. DINN: Well, I mean,I do not know.

I have had hundreds of communications with the Labour Relations Board. And certainly, vou know, the odd time I expressed concerns. If people tell me their concerns then I express those con­ cerns to the Labour Relations Board. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. 4897

May 25, 1981 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : for LaPoile. Tape No. 1777 EL - 2 A supplementary, the hon. member MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am asking the non. gentleman if he would ever take sides - if he has ever taken sides in a matter like the question I have been putting to the hon. gentleman about the SIU and other applications. Certainly the hon. gentleman would never take sides, that is what I am asking. Or would he take sides? Or has he taken sides? MR. SPEAKER: and Manpower. MR. DINN: The hon. the .Minister of Labour Mr. Speaker, I do not know.

I have had hundreds of communications with the Labour Relations Board in two years, over two years. I do not know what all of these communications have been. MR. NEARY: MR. DINN: But the hon. gentleman (inaudible). I have written letters to them, I have talked to them. You know, I communicate with them freely. I do not see any problem with that. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: A supplementary, the hon. member The hon. gentleman told us there about ten minutes ago when I first started asking him, he merely just said that he would communicate concern of somebody else to the Labour Relations Board. I am asking the hon. gentle­ man now if he himself, as minister, would take sides or try to influence the board. That is what I am asking the hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: President of the Council. Order, please~ A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of order, the hon. the 4898

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1777 EL - 3 MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked three or four times and it has been answered three or four times. I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, Page 129, "A question may not multiply, with slight variations, a sim­ ilar question on the same point.' I realize the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, has very little to ask, but at least they could try some other member rather than to have to suffer t~rough the same questions over and over again. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Hear, hear! A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order, the hon.- the Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, When you have a minister who is reluctant to give the information, you have sometimes to ask different questions to get to this point. This is now a new question. He has gone in variations, but this is a new qqestion. And what the question was specifically,and if the Speaker would like to check Hansard, he will find, the question specifically was 'Have you tried to influence the board.' That is what the specific question was and it was a new question. MR.

SPEAKER: With respect to the point of order, in addition to the reference quoted by the hon. the President of the Council(W.Marshall), I would draw members' attention as well to- sub-section b or paragr~ph 357 which says, in putting a question, "A question must not repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused." And I think that is the appropriate

section 4899

May 25,1981 Tape No. 1778 AH-1 MR.SPEAKER (Simms) : and obviously the question was asked at least a second time and therefore it is out of ·order. MR. NEARY: The hon. member for LaPoile. Maybe I will ask the Premier, what would the Premier think if his minister , if he did interfer with the MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order. A point of order. The hon. Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has made a ruling with respect to this particular question. It is the question that is out of order, it is not who it is addressed to.

The hon. gentleman is multiplying with slight variations a similar question and addressing it to another member of the ministry;'repeat in substance a question already answered.' Your Honour has drawn the hon. member to order and the hon. member should comply with the ruling. MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER: hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: To the point of order. To the point of order.The Mr. Speaker, the President of the Council is interpreting what the question is going to be. The member never asked his question.

He said I have a question of the Premier and so before he could ask the question it was in anticipation. Now I know they are very sensitive about whether or not ministers are straying beyond what they should be doing and it is obvious that the'Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn) does not know what the answer is and therefore they are trying to get this ruled out of order. But there is no legitimate point of order, Mr. Speaker, The question has not even been asked. 4800 -:,"'

May 25,1981 Tape No. 1778 AH-2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): I would agree with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would have to hear the question first to determine whether or not the question is out of order. But certainly one reference has be~n quoted and I would substantiate the point raised by the hon.President of the Council is that the matter refers to a question and therefore it must not repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused. So if the hon. member for LaPoile has a new question. MR. NEARY: All my question requires, Mr.

Speaker, is a simple yes or no answer by the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Dinn). Did the minister ever interfere with matters before the Labour Relations Board? MR. SPEAKER : Order, please! I do not have to rule the question out of order. It is the same question that has been asked and whether or not the member has received an answer - you know . I have already quoted the reference and I am sure the member is aware of it.The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. !f!S:COCK: I yield. MR. SPE.P.KER: The hon . member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) a question.

Does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) think that it is a serious matter to interfere with the operations of the courts in this Province or to . interfere, intercede or bring pressure to bear on a quasi-judicial body in this Province like the Public Utilities Board or the Labour Relations Board? MR. MARSHALL : Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The President of the Council on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: I hppe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who obviously does not listen to the member for LaPoile 4901

May 25,1981 Tap e No . 1778 Aff- 3 MR • Ml>.RSRALL : (Mr. Neary) like a lot of people , heard that question . That questio~ is obviously out of order. The hon . member is obvi ously toying with Your Honour and with this House . He has been ruled out of order and he s ho uld be required to refrain and take a seat and give the fioor to s ome other member in the f ervent hope on this side that ther e i s an i nt e llige nt q\le s tio n to be asked from the other side t o answer. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER (Simms): To the point of · order. The hon. Leader of t he Opposition '. Ml!..

NEAR¥: What are your re£e ·rences (inaudible) . MR . STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I think again - "'IR. NEARY: It is only common sense. Just because (inaudible). MR . SPEAKER: Order, plea s e! MR. STIRLI NG: The test should be not the rantings of the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall ) . The test in this question should be would that be 4902

May 25, 1981 Tape 1779 EC - 1 MR. STIRLING: a legitimate question put at the beginning of Question Period to th~ Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimerl. And, of course, it has no reference at all to any of the specifics. It may be causing the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) a lot of concern that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Dinn) has done something which he should not have done. That may be true, but that has nothing to do with this question. The question is a question dealing directly with the Minister of Justice, and I am sure he would have no problem answering. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms): The Chair is in a little bit of a difficult position here. I am looking for a reference and I cannot recall exactly what the question was. Maybe the hon. MR. NEARY: The President ol th.e Council did not give a reference. MR. SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? MR. S'J:'IRLING: No, it was just to disrupt. MR·. SPEAKER: Would the hon. the member for LaPoile repeat the question then? MR.

NEARY: The question I am asking the Minister of Justice is if someone interfered with, brought . pressure to bear on the courts in this Province, one of the magistrate's courts or the Supreme Court or a quasi-judicial group like the Public Utilities Board or the Labour Relations Board, would that be illega l or improper? MR. MARSHALL: i'IR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: On a point nf ord~r, Mr. Speaker.

The hon.the President .of the Council, Since Your Honour wishes, I give Your Honour the same references that Your Honour has already ----··--quoted, 'repeat in substance a question already answered' with respect to the matter of the Labour Relations Board on which the.hori~ - g~ntleman is flagrantly violating Your ruling. With to the other matter to which the - ~nswer is already known: Would the Minister of Justice interfere with a judicial decision? 4903

May 25, 1981 MR. NEARY: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR . SPEAKER (Simms): MR. MARSHALL : on page 130. MR. NEARY: MR. MARSHALL: Tape 1779 EC - 2 No, no, that is not the question. Oh, oh! - Order, please! I refer, Mr . Speaker, to Item lgl That is not the question. 'A question may not be hypothetical.' If Your Honour wants a strict ruling, that is a strict ruling. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going on strict rulings, because I think the hon. member, as usual, is attempting to take the people's House on his back.

He is out of order, he has been ruled out of order and he should be required to take his seat and give the floor to somebody else. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: The member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) does this every time that he gets on shaky ground, he switches his references and then he just tries to use up Question Period. Mr. Speaker, it is not a valid point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: With respect to the point of order, I would rule it is a valid point of order because the quotation is there very clear, 'A question must not be hypothetical.' That is why I asked the hon. member to repeat it , so that I could understand it. It was 1 hypothetical. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: must not be hypothetical.' :MR. HANCOCK: MR. SP-EAKER: The Capes. MR. NEARY: What was that - 357, Subsection (g): 'A question Mr. Speaker. The hon. the member for St. Mary's - Mr. Speaker. 4904

May 25, 1981 Tape 1779 EC - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : If the han. the member for St. Mary's - The Capes wishes to yield? MR. HANCOCK: I yield, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: The han. the ~ember for LaPoile. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the House that it is not a hypothetical question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have ordered the han. member's question out of order on the basis that it is hypothetical. MR. NEARY: W~ll, maybe I can ask the specific question. MR. SPEAKER: a specific question _. MR.

NEARY: Well, sure, if the han. member has Well, does the han. the Minister of Justice have any evidence that his colleague, the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) ever intervened, brought pressure to bear or interceded with any_ decisions of the Labour Relations Board? MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

To a point of order, the han. the If the han. member is going to be allowed to take the House on his back, let him take it on his back, but the han. member has been ruled out of order on this line of questioning, not because he is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because in substance the question has already been answered and answered adequately by the hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. 4905

May 19, 1981 Tape No. 1780 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is going to be allowed to get. up in this House .· ~~hen Your Honour says that a matte .r is hypothetical and say it is not hypothetical, which he did, which he did, Mr. Speaker, and he is going to be allowed to rephrase the question which in substance is exactly the same as the other, well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should give the House over to the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) and let him run it. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Leader of the Opposition. MR. MARSHALL: MR. NEARY: A good idea.

To the point of order, the hon. And · Mr. Davidson. Haul out the dirt that is going on on the government side of the House. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: one. MR. STIRLING: Order, please~ Order, please~ C:tnaudible.l his life over this Mr. Speaker, the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) should try to restrain himself. He knows full well that the - MR. NEARY: you are. MR. STIRLING: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: We will find out now how (inaudible) - the Speaker can only rule - Do not talk about - Order, please~ Order, please! MR. STIRLING: - on a specific question. He cannot rule on the fact that the member for St.

John's East (Mr. Marshall) does not like a line of questioning and so this is a separate specific question and Mr. Speaker will have to rule on that specific question. It is very specific and it has never been asked to the Minister of Justice. MR. NEARY: I will pass it over tomorrow - 4906

May 19, 1981 Tape No. 1780 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please: Order, please: MR. MOORES: One more 'Brian', boy. MR. SPEAKER: Well with respect to the point of order, as I understand the question it wa's to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) if he had information relating to a separate matter and it is a little different than the questions that were asked previously . The Chair cannot rule that one · out of order. SOME !ION. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for .LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The Minister of Justice. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister wishes to answer. The hon.

Minister of Justice. MR. THOMS: J .ust answer in one word. MR. OTTENHEIMER: To my knowledge, I have absolutely no knowledge of any improper - anything improper done by the hon. minister with respect to any respresentations he may have made to the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board, or any other board, absolutely 0 I have total confidence that he has done nothing whatsoever improper in anything . MR. SPEAKER: for LaPo.ile. MR. NEARY: A supplementar y , the hon. member Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon.

Minister of Justice now then, if there was interference in the Public Relations Board would the hon . gentleman consider that to be improper or illegal? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. MARSHALL': On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order. 4907 ..

/ ; I I I May 19, 1981 Tape No. 1780 NM - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A point of order, the han. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The han. member is allowed, Mr. Speaker, if - if asked for something in 'the future, the answer is obvious, we could give it but it is hypothetical. It is out of order and again I refer to page 130, paragraph (

g) Now, Mr. Speaker, this is just a charade and if the han. gentleman is to be allowed to continue on in this vein, the han. gentleman is going to be allowed to take this House on his back as he loves to from time to time, eut he is not going to do it while this government is the government, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, -oh: MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the han. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: To that point of order - SOME HON .. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: the han. member who just made that point of order, which is not a valid point of order, Mr.

Speaker, knows full well that another rule of this ou cannot lie to the House. And the· only way that we can bring out information is to keep asking questions. And, Mr. Speaker, the han. Minister of Justice there,in a very co-operative way - MR. MARSHALL: A point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: A point of privilege, the han. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: A point of privilege of the House. The han. ·gentleman got up in this House and he has said that you cannot lie to the House. MR. NEARY: That is right. You cannot. The rules - MR. MARSHALL: Okay, 4908

·, May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1781 DW - 1 MR. W. MARSHALL: you cannot lie to the House, that is granted. Neither, Mr. Speaker, ·can you accuse anyone of lying a~d you cannot say indirectly what you cannot say directly. And I refer, since we are full · of authorities today, Mr. Speaker, to page 130, item i, 'A question may not contain imputations' ·. I would submit to Your Honour that a question such as this,as the hon. gentleman loves to do and he casts aspersions on anybody here or any­ body,contains imputations. And the hon. gentleman should be required to withdraw those - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. W. MARSHALL: - not only to refrain from that question but to withdraw any imputation that he has made. MR. STIRLING; To the point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of privilege,the hon.I.eader of the. Opposition. MR. L. STIRLING: The President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) has really got carried away. He knows that this is not a point of privilege.

What he is trying to do is he is trying to stall so that they will not have a repeat of somebody getting up and being abso­ lutely assured that a minister is telling the truth only to have to come in sometime later and say,'Well, I was misled'. Now what the President of the Council is doing is he is stalling for time to let the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) check out and not get himself hooked into this kind of situation. It is not a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If the member for St. John's East (Mr.

Marshall) loses his cool I can assure him that the Speaker has this House under control and he would not let any of that sort of thing happen. We have absolute confidence in the Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 4909 r:

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1781 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): I will hea~ one final sub- mission. The hon. President of the Council. MR. W. MARSHALL: On that point,the hon. gentleman talked about misleading the House. The record will'show that the hon. gentleman there opposite referred to lying,which is entirely different. It has been the bent of certain mem­ bers on the opposite side frQm time to time to use those words,but at all times it calls for the prompt interference and interjection by the Speaker to call the person to order. Otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, what we are going to have is a com­ plete derogation of this House itself. There is no member in this House who is allowed to accuse any other member of lying or to say indirectly what he could not say directly. MR. SPEAKER (S'imms): Order, please! With respect to the point of privilege,the Chair's role in deterrning whether or not there is a point of privilege is to deter­ mine whether or not there is a prima facie case. In this particular case I do not consider that there is a prima facie. With respect to the ori­ ginal point of order,there is a legitimate point of order.

The question is out of order because it was hypothetical. And in addition to all of that the time for Oral Questions has now expired. I would like to, while I am standing, welcome to the gallery on behalf of all hon. members a former member of this hon. House and a former ~1inister of the Crown, Mr. Jim Reid. 4 91 0 DW - 2 !,"

May 25, 1981 Tape No . 1781 SOMS HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! NOTICES OF MOTION MR. SPEAI<ER (SiiTI!!Is): MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr . Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act". Orders of the Dal MR. MARSHALL: Comm"ittee of Supply. MR. L. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. L . STIRLING: The government with a great ow - 3 deal of fanfare earlier this year, Mr.

Speaker, brought in through the public media, not through the House, what they considered a change in rules. And they were being done to speed things up and make sure that the people were heard. 4 911 r.•

May 25, 1981, Tape 1782, Page 1 -- apb MR. STIRLING: Well, one of the things that was announced was that budge~ would be brought in on Mondays. First it was cut back from Monday and Tuesday to Mondays. And we are now in a position where,apparently in their panic,· they are changing the rules again. Now, do they intend not to let us get back on the budget, Mr. Speaker? MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER(Simms): the Council. Mr. Speaker. The hon. the President of MR. MARSHALL: First of all,that is not a point of order. Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is, when we announced - we try to have this House on an orderly basis - the first two days were for financial matters, the last two days of the week were to be used for legislative matters, that was in our desire, Mr. Speaker, to have an orderly flow of business and to make the House of Assembly as relevant and as workable as possible. In case the hon. gen.tleman there opposite does not understand, as perhaps he does not, Committee of Supply very much relates to financial matters. And, Mr.

Speaker, also, the hon. gentleman should understand as well that we are co-operating as much as we can with the Opposition,but he must also know that it is the government which is charged with calling the order of business and that is exactly what we are doing today, and we will do tomorrow, and we will do in the following weeks and years to come as well. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. STIRLING: MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear: so much for the rules.

With respect to the point of order 1 my understanding is that the intention as stated earlier by the government was an intention of the way they wished to conduct, or would carry on business, but, however, it is not a point of order because the Standing Orders certainly determine or indicate that it is the government which 4 91 2 ....

May 25, 1981, Tape 1782, Page 2 -- apb MR. SP EAKER(Simrns): determine 's the order of business except on Wednesdays, and in the Chair's opinion they can call whatever matter they wish to call. Therefore, we have now dealt with the point of order so we are on Committee of Supply, Order 2. On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN(Butt): Order, please! I should like to point out to all hon. members the time remaining on the estimates is three hours and twenty-seven minutes. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN: seven minutes. How long?

Three hours and twenty- When we last met we had under consideration Head 1, Consolidated Fund Services, most of which is statutory and does not require a vote. The hon. the member for Grand Bank(Mr. Thoms) was speaking and he had about six'minutes left. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. NEARY: MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall 105-02-02 carry? Carried. 105-0 what, Mr. Chairman? 105-02-02. Oh, yes . Well, that is the only subhead that requires a vote,so shall Head 1, carry? On motion, Head 1, Consolidated Fund Services, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report Head 1, Consolidated Fund Services, without amendment, carried . MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Head II, Legislative, carry? 4913

May 25, 1981, Tape 1782, Pag~ 3 -- apb .MR. NEARY: MR. STIRLING: MR. NEARY: MR. STIRLING: short question. Bead what? Legislative. Ah, let her go. Mr. Ch~irman, I have one ·In the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is the· Ombudsman, it appears from the conflict of interest guidelines - MR. CHAIRMAN(Butt): Yes. On Head II, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: - it appears .from the conflict of interest guidelices that the office of the Ombudsman is now being brought under those guidelines, and those guidelines are all - inclu sive . Is it the intentton of government - 4 91 4

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1783 EL - 1 MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr~ C~airman 1 I h9pe a _qentle point of order. MR.Chairman (Butt): A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: man is 203 - is Since the parliamentary ombuas­ subhead 203 Ol,and I think what we should do for the sake of calling the business in an orderly manner is start 201 - 01 and go down through and then when we come that then the hon. Leader of the Opposition could effectively, more effectively I think,comment on the parl­ iamentary commission. MR. STIRLING: I have no objection.

It is just that we have had all of the debates for the last three hours on the general heads. MR. MARSHALL: I am trying to keep the Opposition in order. MR. STIRLING: I realize what you,are doing to the Opposition. MR. MARSHALL: You set the rules and we will follow them. lo!R. Chairman; heads then, · under Head 11 through 202 - 01, carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. STIRLING: I am trying to show you - Is it agreed you will call the LegisLative. On motion, headings 201 - 01 The hon. member for LaPoile. The Auditor General . The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The Auditor General has indicated, the new Auditor General, in a public statemenr has indicated that he would be bringing in some recommendations. All that we want to say is that from this side of the House, since the 4915 .-.,' .

Tape No. 1783 EL - 2 MR. STIRLING: Auditor General does report to the House of Assembly, we would look forward.tto receiving his re- port,and I hope that it will be in a report form to the House of Assembly,and I presume that the government does not have any requests that are outstanding from the Auditor General that have been turned down : I would like to ask a specific question on this. Have there been- any requests of the Auditor General that'have been refused under these subheads? MR. CHAIRMAN{Butt ) : The hon. the Premier. P~MIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Chairman, I do not· know if there is 'any specific correspondence that the former Auditor General - I do not imagine there is any the present Auditor General-which has been specifically turned down. I am not sure. What usually happens, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows, ·is that the Auditor General makes a report to this House.

It is received by this House and then the Public Accounts· Committee and the House itself deals with the report of the Auditor General and the government deals I' with it.And this year for the first time, I guess I do not know of any other government ever in Newfoundland's history has at the same time as the Auditor General's report has been tabled that the government also tabled simultaneously with the Auditor General's Report their own report responding to the concerns of the Auditor General. And we did that this year for the first time.

That takes a fair amound of work to put that into operation because as each year goes by, the Auditor General and his staff do their different audits of the various departments and tell the departments where they think a tight- ening up and administrative arrangements need to be changed and we have to try to respond to each department. So, we did for the first time this year ln writing respond to the Auditor General, at the same time that his report was brought down. I am not aware of any 4 91 6

May 25, 1981 Tape NO. 1783 EL - 3 PRE~IER PECKFORD: specific requests of the Auditor General. 1\J.ow, there might be . different requests to Treasury Board from 4 91 7

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1784 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: request the Treasury Board from time to time that I am not specifically aware of dealing with staffing and so on and space and that sort of thing 1 that will come up from time to time. There is, within the fraternity, I guess, within the fraternity of , I suppose, a CA fraternity and the Audito~General across Canada a fair amount of flux between what the Auditor General's role should be, whether it should be expanded, whether it should be contracted, what exactly the Auditor General's role should be,if anything 1 beyond what it is now.

And I have read a number of-books on that recently and some of the former Auditors General of Canada have not been what you would call totally consistent in the way they would like to see it done. I am not aware of specific things dealing substantively with the office of the Auditor General to which we have not responded. MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the hon. President of Treasury Board. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could elaborate on that just a little more. What the hon.

Premier says is perfectly correct, the ongoing requests from the Auditor General, of course, have to be processed through Treasu~y Board. There was one item under salaries where the Secretariat suggested there might be a reduction but that reduction was not accepted by Treas·ury Board and subsequently not accepted by Executive Council. And that was the only possible reduction that was entertained. In all other respects the requests of the Auditor General for the various items were as he requested. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Chairman, I missed part of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The h.on. Leade;t" of the Opposition. MR.

STIRLING: Would you mind repeating that and be a bit more specific? MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Finance. 4918

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1784 SD - 2 DR.COLLINS: Under all subheads · except salary there was not suggestion at Treasury Bqard level there would be any.reduction on the request. Under salaries,that would be 201. 01, t:he Secretariat of the Treasury Board suggested there • I • was a reduction option there,but that reduction option was not accepted by the board it.self, as opposed to the Secretariat of the Board,nor was it accepted by Executive Council. So I am just emphasizing that there were no reductions from the cequest made by the Auditor General. MR. STILRING: Including salaries? DR. COLLINS: I~cluding salaries.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt): The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Just a quick question to th.e Premier in connection with the Auditor General's department - .. or the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) but I prefer to get the answer from the Premier: as the hon. gentleman knows, the Auditor General every year when he is doing his investigations and doing his audit of various government departments, he submits what they call 'management letters' to various departments of government. Up until now the House has not been able to get access to these 'management letters'. Would the hon.

Premier agree that the Public Accounts Committe~ it they send - that may be more important now then, Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about - for these 'management letters' that the ministers responsible for various departments should make th.ese 'management letters' available to the Public Accounts Committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Th_e h.on. th.e Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I could not give a direct answer to that question just off the top of mY head here like that. I do not know wh.at is involved.

I do not know if in the hon. member's day- well, I do not suppose .th.ere was an active Public Accounts Committrewhen the member was a minister, unfortunately there was not 1_ the.re was not in his day so 4919

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1784 PREMIER PECKFORD: that ~herefore I guess - MR. NEARY: There was ?revision f or it but it was not there . PREMIER PECKFORD: yes, it was hot set up , ~he government you were part of did not really move to ~et up the Public Accounts Committee in that day. 4920 so - 3 ..

May 25,1981 Tape No. 1785 AH-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Apparently for some reason you did not want to get into it but that is history. We are talking about it today , we are talking about a new government - MR. NEARY: there was no need of it. PREMIER PECKFORD: There was no skulduggery, - although in the hon. member for LaPoile' s (Mr Nea,ry) day, they '"id not want a Public Accounts Comm-ittee. MR. NEARY: it. No, there was no need of PREMIER PECKFORD4 ' This government wants a Public Accounts Committee and have established one and it i·s working. MR. NEARY: The Auditmr Generals reports were always clean.

PREMIER PECKFORD: (Inaudible) so one can see a good difference between PC and Liberal,I suppose,just in that one little action. But whether in fact these management letters,as the hon.member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) uses them,are meant as an exchange between the department and the Auditor General as it relates to concerns that he might have and whether they should be made available to the Public Accounts Committee,I would have to take under advisement.

I could not answer it directly.But I will take the matter up to see whether in fact that could be done because I quess one would have to consult with the Auditor Generaltoo on that as well as with the departments before , you know, some kind of an answer could be given. But that is a matter that I will ·have to take under consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN (But t) : Opposition. MR. STIRLING: 4921 The hon. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, everybody on '.

May 25,1981 Tape No. 1785 AH-2 MR. STIRLING: that side - I do not know, they must have gotten some bad news today in Cabinet or a bad Cabinet meeting. They are so nasty and touchy today. What started offto be a very routine, innocent question. brought out the worst in the Premier and he stumbled into saying how important the Public . Accounts Committee is. The Public Accounts Committee made a recommendation- four people from that side, three from this side - a unanimous recommendation, the Public Accounts Committee.

The only time that the Premier has had a chance to test his integrity and concern and his method of dealing with the Public Accounts Committee, a unanimous report came in. The first year,the Chairman,who is now on the other side, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee tried to arrange to have the Public Accounts a.ommittee Report debated. And maybe this is as good a place as any to get some commitments.

In the light of the comments made by the Premier, can we get a commitrnent?Because as the Premier knows, and if he were on the other side as he may be for a term or two,it is very· important that you have peers from both sides looking into the Public Accounts. And there should be no information none, Mr . Chairman,there should be no information that the Public Accounts Committee cannot get.

Now there may be some information that the Public Accounts Committee cannot release to the public 1 ifthe Public Accounts Committee were to get a copy of a piec~ of information , an exchange of information, a concern expressed by the Auditor General· Mr. Chairman, the Premier will remember that this whole investigation into the payment by the government of the political poll and the convention in Gander, that whole thing came out in a memorandum from the Auditor General to the Premier. The Premier considered it for some time and discussed and debated and was not prepared to accept that it 4922

May 25 , 1981 Tape No . 1785 AH-3 MR . STIRLING: really was a political poll. And it was only after the Auditor General then made his position clear that the Premier came into the House and released that information otherwise, that information might not have been available to the Public Accounts Committee. Now, Mr . chairman, there can be no two ways about it . You cannot say, as the Premier just said, well , I will have to take a look at it and see what kind of inf ormation comes out in a management letter.

There should be no information, ' absolutely none if we are going to act in a forthright and clear - cu~manner. The Premier knows better than anybody else the suspicious nature that most people have about politicians and what is happening. And to protect the integrity of this House of Assembly , of members in his Cabinet who are sworn to secrecy, 4923 •. c:

May 25, 1981 Tape 1786 EC - 1 MR. STIRLING: the twelve, for example, who served in the former administration, all of those who were members of the Cabinet and were part of the Devine problem, all of those people, in order to be given full clearance, must have all the information made available to the Public Accounts Committee. And that is why the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Chairman, in this House, should be treated as a most sacred Committee. It is the highest court, the highest judge, a committee made up of this House of Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier cannot - bring out in theory a set of guidelines and then the next moment take the Public Accounts Commitee is unanimous recornmenda- tion and say, well, in his opinion there was just a difference of opinion. First of all, the first opinion was that of the Auditor General. He felt that the member had contravened the Public Tendering Act, broke the law. If a fellow did that with a moose licence or a rabbit licence, he would be taken to court and there would be a penalty. But there is no penalty. There is now no penalty, there is no proposed penalty in the Public Tendering Act.

So, Mr. ~. ' . the Auditor General has to be untouchable and has to have complete co-operation. But the Public Accoun~s Committee Report should be. such an important report, Mr. Speaker, that we should have it debated in this House. I would ask the Premier, in the context of good government, I 'MJ\lld ask the Premier if he would think about it as if he were on this side of the House in looking at good government, would he agree that provision be made for an adoption of the Public Accounts Committee Report and a debate on the Public Accounts Committee. Report?

We have had excellent reports but they have never been debated in this House, Mr . Chail:m3n. The rules are such that we could only ask questions in Question Period and we have all seen how restrictive those 4924 .~·

May 25, 1981 Tape 1786 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: rules are. -We should have this Public - and even if it is brought in by a private member on the other side, it should be a government pie'ce of legislation, a bill provided for.. proper discussion, open disclosure, then , Mr. Chai.nnan, we ~uld get an opportunity to see that there is some real meaning when we talk about acting in an open and responsible manner. And I suggest that now when the Premier has the opportunity - I would ask him to confirm that we will have a debate on the report of the .. Public Accounts Committee.· MR. SPEAKER (Butt): The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: An interesting few comments. Sometimes one gets the impression when you hear the Leader of the Opposition speak that the only thing that matters is the conduct and actions and work of ministers. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tends to forget what the public of New£oundland look at is the actions and work and manoeuverings of hon .. members of this House, and there is a big difference.

We are all legislators and we are all leaders, and whilst it is incumbent upon the government,through the powers vested in a given portfolio or ministry,to perform their duties in a certain way - and I have taken, as leader of that government, certain specific actions 4925 -:.---

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1787 NM - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: to ensure that the proper conduct and conflict of interest provisions are tightened, to ensure that things are done properly and aboveboard at all times, that there is a strong responsibility on hon. members. ·And as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) points fingers at individuals on this side, by the same token it can be easily done in reverse . if anybody, Mr. Chairman, wanted to take the time to do it. So let us not - people in glass houses should not throw stones - so let us not suddenly try, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Stirling) has · tried over the last week or so and continues to do, to pursue a line of attack which seems to indicate that there are one or two individuals who, because of an Auditor General's Report, or whatever report, GaS · done a certain thing, or has not done a certain thing in a job some years ago, that that suddenly, for some strange reason, means that that person is unable to perform duties in the future and that suddenly that other hon. members of this House d~ no have some responsibilities to act and perform their duties as legislators, and members of the House of Assembly, and members for districts, in a proper and real manner.

So I do not think we should start throwing stones back and forth on that kind of situation. Various situations as they come up, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) has to respond to his caucus members, whether they stay in the caucus or whether they do not stay in the caucus. From time to time a number of Leaders of the Opposition over the last couple of years have had to make some hard decisions as it relates to some of 'the members .opposite.

It is not for me to say, I am not going to question the Leader of the Opposition on those, these are decisions that are made in the privacy of one's own mind, in consultation with all the facts and with the people involved and that is where it stands. And then you judge somebody on what they do and what they say and how they perform their duties from there on. And there are no easy answers when you get into the grey 4926 ·-·

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1787 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: area on that. And the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of that. Now,whether in fact we can get into the - the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) said The Public Accounts Committee should have everything and whether then everything becomes public or not will be up to them to decide·' Well, I have got to, you know - the Leader of the Opposition said that in response to this question of management letters and so on.

I mean,I cannot here today, given that.I have not spoken to the Auditor General, nor spoken to other people in our Public Service, and who deal with this matter, I cannot g-ive a definitive answer to that question just like that. And.you know,the motherhood statements of •give the Public Accounts Committee notwithstanding everything, notwithstanding; you just cannot do it. There is more entailed and you cannot do it without going and asking and talking to the Auditor General and his staff about it as well.

The whole question of the Public Accounts Committee Report, you know, and the whole question of government and government's operations, Mr. Chairman, I challenge anybody to show me a government in this Province, in the history of this Province that has been any more open than this government, that has been anymore straight than this government has been, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition or anybody listening to my voice, or who will read what I am now saying, to find me a government in Canada that is anymore reform minded, progressive and open in its dealings than this government is.

I ask the members opposite to name me tpe government, to show me the government that has initiated in two years in office any more progressive reforms, and tried to be as fair and open. On the whole question of a debate on the Public Accounts Committee, the whole question there is- I noticed,for example,last Thursday 4927

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1787 NM - 3 Pm-m:.R PEO<FORD: that the Opposition last week in all the questions they had during Question Period,did not have one matter to debate when it came up for Thursday. They lost a half an hour, the Opposition lost a half . an hour in which they could have debated various issues. That gives you an idea of how little the Opposition has to say abouc this government. They could not find as a part of the Late Show, as we call it. 5:30 to 6:00 o'clock last Thursday, could not 4928

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1788 DW- 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: find anything to debate. So one has to question the responsibiliti~s of the Opposition member"' there. They did not have anything to -debate. And as we get near - as May sort of elapses now.we see the attendance of members on the other side. Sust look over there now, Mr. Chairman, and you will see. Here on_ this our attendance has been twice as good. Here are the Opposition - every year now, every Summer as May wanes and June begins the Opposition begin to see their numbers less.

But as far as the Public Accounts Report is concerned, itself, there is the Throne S~eech debate, there' is the Budget debate, in which these things are debated, there is Private ~~embers' Dav on Wednesday for members of the Opposition, there is the Late Show five thirty every Thursday afternoon, there are thirty minutes of Question Period every single day. The members of the Opposition have all kinds of opportunity in~ which to debate that. There is a Public Accounts Committee which is active and working on which there are members of the Opposition.

So here you have all of these opportunities for the members of the Opposition to get their teeth into the Public Accounts Committee Report, into the Auditor General's Report, into the Budget Speech, into the Throne Speech. So there is ample opportunity,in my view,for the members of the Opposition, if they want to take their job seriously and not let a Thursday go by when there is no Late Show, for them to use their time and to use their research in providing good opposition to this government and its policies and its programmes as we go down the road from here today.

So I say we have not seen yet, from the Opposition, them use all the time that has been at their disposal and yet they are asking for more time. So how can you justify - that 4929

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1788 PREMIER PECKFORD: seems to be an inconsistency. The Opposition are not using the time they have now and yet they are asking for more. There is, as I say, ample time for these reports to be debated. They have gotten a lot of public debate over the last two or three years and rightly so. And I hope that that kind of debate continues because it is healthy and it is good in this kind of a democratic society.

And I implore the Opposition to continue to use all the time at their disposal to debate and discuss these many recommendations that come out of these various committees that the House sets up or are set up by statute,like the Auditor General's Report. MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. L. STIRLING: saw a good example. Mr.

Chairman,I think we just If somebody will go back through Hansard and see the kind of comment, both a govern­ ment that is supposed to govern, a government that is supposed to have the responsibilities of this Province, a government that is supposed to take initiative, a government that comes in and says, 'Well, boy, I am not speaking for your crowd so you should not speak for our crowd'. What a weak, pathetic answer for doing nothing about the Public Accounts Committee Report.

And he wants to try to back a~ay from the fact that it has been found that a minister now serving in his Cabinet - as awful as that may be - it has been found by people on his own side- now,not ministers but backbenchers- it has been found that he did contravene the Public Tendering Act and the Premier let him off with it. 4830 DW - 2

May 25, 198 1 Ta,pe No . 1788 DW - 3 MR. L. STIRLING: He just said, 'Oh, ftlell, that is just a difference of opinion', (

a) with the Auditor Gener al; (

b) with four members for that si4e and; (

c) three members for this side. And to say now, 'You had better not start castinq Rtones . Mr. Chairman, that is the whole point of it. I am interested in the future of this Provi nce and the condur.f: and the standard. But I am not interested inphoniness, Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in public relations pestering, I am not inter­ ested in the kind of thing that says, 'I am bringing in conflict of interest legislation'whe n in actual fact, Mr. Chairman, what !'las been brought in is the creation of a dictatorship, a creation of a true co·nflict, a creation that says that the Minister of Development (Mr . \vindsor) can have any interest that he wants 4931

May 25, 1981 Tape NO. 1789 EL - 1 MR. STIRLING: in the offshore, the Minister of Mines and Energy (L. Barry) can have a little development company on the side .. And what is the penalty if they do that? -Expulsion from the Cabinet? No. A fine? No . A jail term? No. What is the - the only question is whether or not these ministers go to the Premier and the Premier says, boys, that is okay. The same standards as used to judge a minister that was found by seven people in the Public Accounts Committee, and the Auditor General, ~ublic Tendering Act. contravening their sacred What we are looking for, Mr.

Ci1airrnan, is to find out : is the judgement go ~ ng to be any better7 Is the judgement going to be any better in this conflict of int­ erest situation or are you creating a set of circumstances in which you can have corruption of the highest order? You have taken the responsibility away, Mr ~ Chair~an. The collective res­ ponsibility of Cabinet is no rnore.By this dictatorship that is now corning about, no minister is part of having any collective responsiblity because individually they all answer to the Prem­ ier. And so nobody can question the Minister of Labour and Man­ power (J.

Dinn) because the only one that he answers to is the Premier. The Premier sets the standards. Now, the last time - it was an unfort­ unate case but the last time that the Premier got up here and said, 'look, I can tell you, I assure you, I have looked into this. I give you my word that the information I am giving you is correst. ', subsequently had to come in and say, 'well, I did not really check.' I gave my word and I should not have given my word. 4932

May 25, 1981 MR. STIRLING: Tape No. 1789 EL - 2 This is the phoniness, Mr.Chairman. This is why it is important to debate the Public Accounts Comm­ ittee. And what a cheap shot to say that the Late Show on Thursday did not have enough to keep,it going, Mr. Chairman. The Late Show on most Thursdays, by almost mutual consent, has one or two people on it because the Late Show on Thursdays is simply for the sake of somebody making a point who did not get a satisfactory answer in Question Period. What a cheap shot to say that last Thu~sday we adjourned at 5:30. Mr.

Chairrnan,the government has the responsibility, the government exercised the responsibility this afternoon when the Premier said, 'Oh, there will be a budget debate.' When he got on television and radio and said, •aere are these new rules to stre~mline things,' they did not .talk about financial matters the fi·rst day, they talked in terms of the Budget or the Throne Speech. And now they have changed the rules. We saw ~n example here of where the President of the Council (W.

Marshall) took the whole of Question Period today to prevent my colleague from LaPoile (S.Nearyifram asking some legitimate questions of a minister who was hedging. Now, what are we S!;!eing? We are seeing a Cabinet that is now going into a little circle, defend them­ selves against the outside and let the Premier be the sole judge of conduct. Mr.Chairrnan, there is now no coll­ ective ~esponsibility on that side. ~verytime that we start asking questions of a government taking initiative, a govern­ ment tak~ng responsibility, they say, oh, it is part of all of our jobs. Of course it is, Mr.Chairman.

The conduct of this House of Assembly-and that is why under this subhead, discussing the Auditor GeneraJ., the Auditor General has to be free, the Auditor General has to bring in a report. The Public Accounts 4933

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1789 EL - 3 MR. STIRLING: Committee it is not enough just to bring in the Public Accounts Committ~e ~eport and let it die. Because, Mr. Speaker, that is all that has been done by this government - to try to take the public relations portion of 4934

May 25, 1981 Tape 1790 EC - 1 MR. STIRLING: the public relations portion of it, to say, 'Oh, boy, we have a Pu9lic Tendering Act.' Twelve of the same people who were brought out in the Mahoney report as saying, 'This government had no intention of following the Public Tendering Act, it was forced down their throats by one man_. ' And that same one man is trying to insist now that · the Public Tendering Act is being followed. Mr._ Chairman, this is just about the time now that the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) jumps up on a point of order, because they do not like talking about this kind of thing.

He came in to get his instructions, 'Should I try to cut this off?' · Because he is not comfortable with it. The Mahoney report said that a government, twelve of them who are in the present Cabinet, had no intentions of following the Public Tendering Act.' Had no intentions - forced through by one man. One man forced it thr.ough, and now, Mr .. Chairman, that same one man is up trying to stop Question Period. And the Premier then moves away and he will not come in and say, 'Yes, in ~his open government we will put some proof,' the first chance he has to show some proof of an open government.

A member now serving in his Cabinet­ it was foundthat he had contravened the Public Tendering Act­ first test, what does this government do? MR. THOMS: 'Knowingly' - there is a difference - 'knowingly contravened the Public Tendering Act'. MR. STIRLING: Well, both ways. The President of the Council and the Premier said, 'Oh, well, that is alright - misunderstanding, difference of opinion.' What is going to be the next test? The next test is the Mahoney report, the next test the Devine inquiry. We have had in this House the President of the Council - MR.

MARSHALL: We are going to have a Devine inquiry? 4935 I · , ..

May 25, 1981 Tape 1790 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: Yes, and the Devine report, I presume we are. We have had tw~ reports, we have had an admission. The RCMP said that six months ago the report carne in. The President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) carne in and said, 'That is not quite true, it was not six months ago.' MR. MOORES: No. MR. STIRLING: 'It was not six months ago. We sent it back for more information.' We now have two reports. And this deals with the Public Accounts.

This deals with a government that knowingly used the Confederation Building, knowingly did a poll from the Confederation Building, knowingly spent the people's money. And, Mr. Chairman, only two or three days ago in the House, a copy of a piece of P.C. propaganda was brought up and the President of the Council stood up and said, 'Oh, well, that is being paid for by the member • ' AN HON. MEMBER: He was not sure, though. MR. STIRLING: 'The individual member is going to pay for that piece of propaganda.• question. MR. MARSHALL: .MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt): .President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, let me ask you a On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, the hon. the It is very hard for the hon. the member to understand, but what I said was, the hon. member had paid for it. It was the hon. member's communication - not that he was going to pay for it, he had already paid for it, and I was responding to the question which is a normal type of question asked by the gentleman who asked it trying to smear the hon. member. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order. Obviously, it is not a point of order, but rather, the hon. 4936 r:

May 25, 1981 Tape 1790 EC - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Butt): the Preside nt of .the Council (Mr . Marshall) took the opportunity to clarify remarks attributed to him. The hon . the Leader of the Opposition has about one minute left to conclude . MR . STIRLING: Mr . Speaker, maybe the President of the Council or the Premier,in saying why we are not going to debate the Public Accounts Committee , can tell whether or not essent i ally t his s ame material - which was not put out by the member - but ess e ntially the same material, is now in use in all the liquor sto r es .

All the liquor stores in Newfoundland now have a little pr opaganda piece of - MR. CAR-TER: f.1.R. MOORES: z.tR. STIRLING: Recipes . Is that true? Yes, a little base in which all of this propaganda, paid for by the government - not the same piece but the same information,'the three barrels' and 'the fair chance' and 'the hang tough', all of that 49 37

May 25, 1981, Tape 1791, Page 1 -- apb MR. STIRLING: propaganda, all of that material is now in liquor stores. And maybe he can explain what that kind of propaganda, paid for by the people of Newfoundland, is doing in the liquor stores, being given away as a handout, essentially the ~arne P.C. political propaganda. Maybe when the Premier explains that he will explain how much the people of Newfoundland have paid for it and whether or not he is going allow the Public Accounts Committee Report to be debated. MR. CHAI~~N(Butt): The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: That is the most feeble attell!pt by a: Leader of the Opposition, or an Opposition to try to deal with the Department of the Auditor General I have ever heard. The Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition(Mr.

Stirling) for a number of days now are so obsessed with this idea that this government is trying to pass new laws and new leg~slat~on, trying to allow the Public Accounts Committee to work in all its totality, with all its independence, trying to allow for Committees of the House to be established - we are about, now, to establish a couple of more select committees of the House to allow the Opposition members as well as the government members to debate new legislation before it becomes law so that the people of Newfoundland have a chance,through these select committees,to do it.

Everything we have done since 1979, since June 1979, Mr. Chairman, brand new reforms that we have taken, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to throw under the table, and now he is trying to use some specious kind of argument. And as I say, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, I challenge any member opposite to show another government in Canada that in two years has done more for open government, done more for reform than this government, I challenge them now to document it, to find me the government, 4938 r:

May 25, 1981, Tape 1791, Page 2 apb SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: The Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Stirling), if you want to do your research, find me the government in Canada that has been more open, that has been more reform-minded than this government has been. All they can do, Mr. Chairman - they cannot be creative, Mr. Chairman - MR. STIRLING: I am talking about the (inaudible). PREMIER PECKFORD: Now, I was quiet while the Leader of the Opposition had the floor, I would like the same courtesy in return. I would like the same courtesy in retu~n, Mr.

Chairman, and I ask the Chair for that kind of protection. MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt) : Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: Now, if the Leader of the Opposition would just be quiet and allow me - I am entitled to have a chance to speak also. All the Leader of the Opposition can do, Mr. Chairman, is not creatively come up with additional initiatives or alternatives that a government could take, but is to say in a destructively, critical way, 'Why does the government not allow the Public Accounts Committee Report to be debated?' when in actual fact, Mr.

Chairman, that is their job in the Throne Speech, that is their job in the Budget Speech. And it was not a cheap shot, Mr. Chairman. That Late Show, that is not a cheap shot, that is a pretty substantial shot. When the Opposition party cannot find in a week certain things to debate against the Ministry of this government, that is not a cheap sho.t at all, that is a heavy blow to the Leader of the Opposition. He has not got his troops organized good enough over there to use the time that the government 4939

May 25, 1981, Tape 1791, Page 3 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORO: so graciously gave the Opposition. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with the Opposition that they have not got enough gumption in them and eno .ugh imagination to find things that the Ministry said last week on which they can' debate? What is your problem? We will send a couple of backbenchers over with you for a couple of days to help you out if that is what ·you want. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ PREMIER PECKFORD: We will give you enough research if you cannot find enough. Cheap shot. Some cheap shot!

Wasting the people's money on not meeting from five-thirty to six o'clock; What is wrong with the Leader of the Opposition? What is wrong with the member for Windsor- Buchans(Mr. Flight)? What is wrong with the member for LaPoile(Mr. Neary)? What is wrong with the member for Grand Bank(Mr. Thorns)? What is wrong with the member for Trinity- Bay de Verde(Mr. F.B.Rowe)? What is your trouble? Do you have a problem? You cannot use all the time and yet you are asking for more. Mr. Chairman, this is unbelievable. Here we have - for years, Mr.

Chairman, when I was in this House as a member ' in different capacities, I heard the Oppos .ition complain and wail about the fact that individual members were not having enough to do in the House because the Question Period was being monopolized by one or two people.. And so what did we do, Mr. Chairman? What did we do? We offered the Opposition two years ago the chance for the members to get involved through the Estimates Cornrni ttees so every member, every member of the House then gets a chance to get involved in debate and questions as it relates to the way money is spent by the respective departments.

And then we go further and we try to put out the select committee, as many issues 4940

. ' May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1792 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: as is possible. We have another, the rre.mber for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) about ready to begin his Select Committee as it relates to non-renewable resources in t)l.e Province, to travel around the Province to receive briefs. We will be beginning now,as we have already indicated to the Opposition, a select ccmnittee as it relates to two pieces of legislation.

The principle, I am dealing with 1 and the principle is that this government has tried to consult and to bring in reforms and to _operate an open government unlike any in.the past and I challenge the Opposition to find me one in Canada that in two years has done more for open government than this government has done. And all the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Stirling) can do in response, all he can do, is not creatively, as a Leader of the Opposition should,as members of the Opposition should, find other alternatives, other new things that they would - what is the point of bringing this Opposition into government sometime, what is the point of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians considering seriously whether this group should be given an opportunity to govern this Province if they cannot come up and create new legislative initiatives that this government here right now has not thought of.

All they can do is not provide other alternatives but to say 'We want more time to debate the Public Accounts Committee Report'even though they do not use the time they now have at their disposal. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition t o examine his strategy very well because obviously it is losing .tction speaks louder than words, Mr. Chairman, put some alt e rnatives in place. We have a legislative - and Mr.

Chairman, the audacity of the Leader of the Opposition and the talk about the Public Accounts Committe, when this same Opposition over there debated the Financial Administration Act amendment for hours and hours on end when there were another 4941

May 25, 1981 Tape No. 1792 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: fifty or fifty-five pieces of legislation on the table to be debated .some of which undoubtJ.·.r in their coy moves 11hen they want to get out of the House, there will let go through with very little debate, when ~hey would debate that to the extent that they did when the Public Accounts Committee itself had recommended these changes a couple of years ago in their report, the same public - and here was the Opposition trying to hoodwink members of this House and the public into saying, 1the Public Accounts Committee in this Financial Administration - this is terrible the gover'nment is looking for a blank cheque'.

And the Public Accounts Committee recommended that change to the Financial Administration Act, the very Public Accounts Committee that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about .. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You have either got to put up or shut up and I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has the flexibility and time at his disposal and the Opposition does through a legislative committee, through Estimates Committees, throug;1 the Throne Speech, through the Budget Speech and here today and in the legislation that is coming forward,to debate the Public Accounts Report, the Auditor General's Report, the Budget Speech, the Throne Soeech and all the other ones and I ask him to perhaps get together and use their tbre a bit m:Jre wisely.

It seems to me that they do a very poor job now on the Question Period let alone as it relates to the ~hrane Speech debate and the Budget debate. If one is in the gallery looking down here·at the way the OpJ?OSition 1 in this session especially,is handling the Question Period, it has been absolutely abyssmal. The only member over there who does his homework on it or jumps up is the member for LaPoile (Mr. Nearyl and everybody else ~ down in fear wh.en the member for LaPoile gets up. The Leader of the Opposition himself wonders whether he should stand up or not when the member for Lapoile gets up 4942 . .., ..

May 25, 1981 Tape 1793 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: and four cheers to the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary)~ But there ia the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan), he has questions to ask. I am sure the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) would like to ask some questions now and then, he seems to have a few clues. He seems like he knows what he is doing. The member for Lewisporte (Mr. White) , I am sure the I1E!llber for Trinity-Bay de Verde (Mr. F. Rowe) has not been here that much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: The member for T~illingate (Mr. W. Rowe) is not here tha~ much. The member for Grand Bank (Mr.

Thorns) is here a lot, I am sure he would like to ask a lot more questions. The member for the Strait (Mr. Roberts) down there, I am sure he would like to ask some questions. MR. STIRLING: MR. CHAIRMAN (Mr. Butt): Leader of the Opposition. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. A point of order, the hon. MR. STIRLING: I will give the Premier a chance to get settled down again, I do not want him blowing his mind again- and then - PREMIER PECKFORD: Ah, ha! MR. STIRLING: - with all these people after him-to settle down and do not get wild, do not get excited. He is not allowed, Mr.

Chairman- I think the ruling has been made by yourself that you cannot make reference to whether or not a person is in attendance or not in attendance. It so happens that one of the people to whom he just referred is . a>•ay because of sickness. But a member cannot get into that kind of debate. I think You have already ruled, at another tirne,that it is out of order for a member to refer to the attendance of another member. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that is not a P? int of order. 4943 .~ ·

May 25 , 1981 Tape 1793 PK - 2 MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, if I might just say - MR. CHAIRMAN (MR. BUTT) The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: If that