It VOL. 3 NO. 90 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1981

Nov. 26, 191 Tape No. 3763 DW - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR.SPEAKER (Sims) : Order, please! On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the gallery today a delegaticn representing the town of Bonavista in the district of Bonasista South. We have viiting us today,ar.d seated n the Speaker's Gallery, the rec3ntly re-elected mayor, Frank Little accompanied by the town clerk, Mr. David Hiscock. Welcome. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. W. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Premier, who will not be here today - he is gone to Harbour Grace - I have a communicatioa, an important com- ;nunication to the Right Honourable the Prima Minister by the Premier of yesterday. It is a matter of public in- tcest that I would like to communicate to the House. Pe:haps I could best do it by reading the letter itself, which I shall table and there will be copies available for hon. members. The letter reads: "My deir Prime Minister, The last several weeks have been historic for Canada.

The Constitutional Accord has not only given Canadians the right to amend their own constitu- tion but also provides for the enshrinement of their fundamental rights including women's rights and native rights. Additionally, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are very pleased that the Accord provides pro- tection for our Terms of Union with Canada. Clearly, Mr. Prime Minister, there is every reason for Canadians and their leadership to be proud of this achievement. 97

Nov. 26, 1981 Taoe No. 3673 DW - 2 MR. N. MARSHALL: With the process of Canada's co:stitutional renewal completed, it is time now for Canada's leadership to turn its full attention to the problems of the economy and to the 'economic' rights of our citizens which are now in great jeopardy. Just as First Ministers have moved to protect the consti- tution rights of individuals, so too must we take action to protect the rights of homeowners who are being threatened by high interest rates and similarly the small businessman and the unemployed who are also suffering.

I understand that your Minister of Finance stated in the House of Commons recently that he would be prepared to look again at ways to resolve the plight of homeowners facing mortgage renewals. There is no doubt whatever that if there is any one symbol with which the Federal. Go'ernuent can show its commitmert to cesolving the economic problems of Canada, it would be to assist people so burdened. My Government believes that economic issues require an immediate response. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the effects of high interest rates are compounded by problems in the fishing industry.

This resource is largely under Federal jurisdiction, and is an area where your Government must take positive ac- tion. For my Government's part,we are doing everything within our limited means to respond to the fishery and to the weaker industrial areas such as the Baie Verte Peninsula where two mine closures are threatened. We recognize that the help we can provide alone is not * enoggh and that broader economic solutions are required if the economy of our Province and of Canada is to be 'I revitalized.

I believe very strongly that it is within the capacity of Canada's leadership to provide the kind of direction that is necessary. I am of the view it would neither be prudent nor in Canada's best interest to delay the the proposed First Minister's Conference on

Nob. 26, 1981 Tape No. 3673 - 3 R. N. MARS{UL: the economy until January of rext year. I am convinced that just as apreement on many of constitutionl rights of qqo

c:ember 26, 1991 Tape No. 3764 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Canadiars was arrived at in qood faith by means of the telephone, the same good faith could find a solution to protect the rights of individual citizens and provide response to the economic problems facing the nation. "As Premier I an fully prepared to discuss with you and the other First Ministers at the earliest opportunities ways in which the economic rights of Canadians can be protected. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will co-operate to respond to this immediate challenge. "1 look forward to your reply." Signed, "A.

Brian Peckford, Premier." SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR. MARSHALL: I have copies of the latter to table - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER (SimmS) : Order, please: MR. MARSHALL: - to table in the hon. House. And I hear by the comments there opposite that SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. MARSHALL: - you know,you can anticipate the response on behalf of the federal government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER. The hon. Leader of the OpDosit±on has about one and a half rninutas. MR. LUSH: Reading letters to constituents. MR.

NEARY: The Premier used to write letters. I MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, as the Acting Premier, Acting Energy Minister - MR. NEARY: Just plain acting, period.

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3764 - 2 MR. STIRLING: - actor and part-time solicitor will he here with us shortly. SOYE HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Simins) : Order, please'. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, there is no dcubt, there is absolutely no doubt that Frank Petten is doing a tremendous job in public relations in this Province. He is probably the most under-paid adviser that the Premier has. It is a beautifully written letter, let me be the first - MR. PATTERSON: Do not be nasty. MR. STIRLiNG: I have not said a nasty wocd. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR.

STiRLING: I am sorry that they are dis- appointed. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that they are disappointed. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. STIRLING: I want to compliment Mr. Petten I on the letter which he wrote for the Premier's signature. It is an excellent piece of public relations, and it is sort of like something that needs an injection. The Premier has not been on national television now, sitting down talking to the Prime Minister for about two weeks and he misses it badly.

And he is really upset because last night it was the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) who upstaged him, who happened to V gt on. MR. FLIGHT: Better not do that too often, or -

a 'Toverher 26, 19R1 Te "Tn. 3764 - 3 :iR.3TiF:;G: He needs, Mr. Speaker - MR. FLIGHT: - he will be on the backbench like the :inister. MR. STIRLING: - he needs, Mr. Speaker, to get on national television again and to talk about from a great distance what it is that the federal government should be doing. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, they are keeping up this whole business of not knowing what they are there for. And what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is asking for a conifaission of the federal government to run this Province because they are showing no initiative in taking any action themselves, no initiative, Mr.

Speaker. SOME HON. NEMEERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : Order, please Order, please pq;)

November 26, 1981 Tape 3765 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. member's time has expired. Further Staanents DR. COLLINS: 1,1r. Speeker. ME. SPEAKER: The ban. the Min±ter of Finance. DP..COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I would like Co inform hon. members of the House of a telex I sent off this morning. This telex is addressed to the hon. Herb E. Gray, Minister of Industry, Tiade and Commerce, Ottawa. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! DR.

COLLINS: The telex reads as follows: "You stated in a T.V. interview yesterday that it has been unnecessary for the federal government to fund the synch:colift project at the CN St. John's dock because the.Province had jumped in and piovided the money. Your statement is at serious variance with the facts, which are as follows: CN has been requesting funds for the synchrolift from the federal goveroment since 1977 but met with repeated evasions and delays. 'In order to keep the proposal alive, in the Fall of 1978, the provin.ial government informed CN of a willingness to provide a guarantee for any loan required.

Late in 1978, the federal Cabinet finally gave approval in principle for the proposal to go ahead with federal funding, 65 per cent recoverable over twenty-five years. p In August, 1980 the lion. William Rompkey announced a further delay in final approval for transparently inadequate reasons." SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

November 26, 1981 Tape 3765 EC - 2 DP. COLLINS: The resident of CM HoldincTa telexed Premior Peckfcrd that CM interpreted this as to mean 'crhaps indefinite deferral of the project.' 'On December 19, 1930, the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin telexed Premier Peckford that 'I have been in touch with my colleague, hon. Herb Gray, who confirms that, as in my department, there are no funds allocated to the synchrolift project and there are no plans'- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Siimns) : Order, please! DR.

COLLINS: -and there are no plans for either department to become involved in the project.' A few days later, the oresident of CM Holdings wrote Premier ?eckforcl confirming that the federal government has no further interest in the project. 'Thereupon, the Province moved quickly to honour its two year cid commitment to CN that the Province would assume the funding obligations of the federal government if this was necessary to save the St. John's dock and the livelihood of its 300 man work force. You are aware that the federal government has funded similar projects at Halifax and slsewhere in Canada.

"I believe you owe an apology to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in that your remarks on TV have added insult to the injury done by • the federal government's failure to fund essential dock facilities in this Province." That is over my signature. I table the copy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. 3

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3766 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER_(Simms): The hon. Leader of the Opposition has 3±out one and a half minutes. ME. STIRLING: It is usual, Mr. Speaker, in keeping wit the very co-operative attitude. that neither the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) nor the Finance Minister (Dr. Collins) proJided us with an advanced copy of trie statement. So I still have not received a copy. But, Mr. Speaker, only in Newfoundland couid you have the spectacle of a Province that is so concerned to oroie how great they are that the" are subsidizing CN.

It is the only place in Canada where a provincial government runs in, dashes in,and says, 'Listen, if you fellows do not put up rhe moriey we will put up the money'. Now, Mr. Speaker, the real question - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. STIRLING: - the real question here is is that what they are going to do? Is this just the advance notice that tells us that one of the places where they are getting the savings is they are going to back out from their corLimitrient. No next week they will be able to say they are going to back out from their commitment to the people of St.

Johns and tney are going to drop the $7 million. Is that the beginning of the drop of the $7 million? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. Order, please Any further statements? B p

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3766 SD - 2 OPAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER (Simos) : The hon. L e~n 0CSit1On. MR. ST:RLING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that the hon. Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) is bock in the Province, let us ask a few questions about something that he can deal with, something completely under his jurisdiction, his budget, the budget that he brought downand then his publicly announced revised budget in October,and then his mini-budget taolad herewbich we were not allowed to debate.

Would the Minister of Finance confirm what he said in his statement-hecause he changes it t wo or three times - that there was an indication given to hira in October that there was a decline of some $50 million in our current account position? Would he tell us what that $50 million was made up of and who advised him in October? What were the figures? What was the reduction in revenue and what was the increase in expenditures that made up the 50 million in October? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Stirling) asked me, I believe, what was the deficit made up of. The deficit was made up of absent revenues. Perhaps I could go into that a little further. • Clearly our Province, like every province in Canada and like the federal government audI suggest like certain other governments elsewhere, found that things were not going well from an economic point of view right from the late Spring, early Summer of 1981.

Because of this we undertook to do a preliminary review, beginning sometime in September, I believe it was, of how our budget projections were holding up,Because, of course, hon. members will understand that the budget

November 26, 1981 Tape 3767 PK - 1 DR. COLLINS: that was brought down in April was essentiali: so:iii of projections, as are all budgets, rojecticns both from a revenue taint of view and from an exPenditure point of view. So we started this preliminary view in September to see how our-projections were holding up. When we had the results of the preliminary review brought to our attention, it suggested we were going to be down some $50 million from what the Budget projections were.

In other words, we had projected slightly over $10 million surplus on current account ad we were now facing something of the order of a $40 million deficit on current accouit. Because of that change it was obvious that we had to go into the thing in considerably more detail.

So we then—and I might add that that preliminary review was essentially carried out by the Treasury Board Secretariat- we then went back to each individual department, outlining to them the problem as we saw it on the basis of that preliminary review, and asked them to do a detailed.indepth study of their own departmental position both from the point of view of work that had been completed costs in terms of expenditures of that work, what workwas committed for the future, and also the rationale that underlay the commitments that they felt they had given, and their hopes for further work at the departmental level for the remainder of the year.

At the same time in the Department of Finance we undertook to review our revenue projections, not only the transfers of the federal government but also our own source projections. And hon. members will understand that, let us say, retail sales tax is a very large element in our own source revenues. Out of that more indepth review, when it was all put together, at a time when we were also asking the departments to cut back where they could - Q7

November 26, 1981 Tape 3767 PK - 2 NP.. NEARY: That is an abuse of the rules. MR. 3PEAKER (Simms : Order, please! OR. COLLINS: - on expenditures - * MR.NEARY: You are abusing the rules. MR. SPEAKER: Order,please: Order, please: I must ask the hon. minister to be a little briefer with his answers. I realize the question is one that perhaps could require a complex answer, but at the same time we have to try to keep answers as brief as possible in order to provide more cuestions. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate it. AN HON. MEMBER: I agree. DR. COLLINS: At the same time we asked the departments to see whore they could economize from an administrative and functional point of view,shall we say,without cutting back on services given to the people. Out of that,our final review, our indepth review showed that rather than having a $48 million deficit we were facing a considerably smaller one. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr.

Speaker, to give the minister a chance to give a short answer, he said a considerably smaller deficit than the $40 million. Could he tell us what that deficit was specifically?

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3768 EL - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: The deficit was $6 miilion,which meant that there was a $16 million variance from the Projection in April which had projected a $10 million surplus. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister of Finance (Dr.Colliris) agree to table-and I belie71e this should have been done in a debate.If we had a full debate on the mini-budget then we would have enough time to Ljet into it - would the Minister of Finance agree-because the Budget, he must agree,should be handled by the House of Assembly7 and charges in the Budget he should report to the House of Assembly- will he agree to table the in-depth,full-scale review of the individual budgets?

Could I have the attention of the Minister, please,7 cause he has demon3trated in the past that maybe the Minister of Justice (Mr.Ottenheimer) can do two things at the same time.but the Minister of Finance has all he can do to do one. MR. SPEAKER: Order, piease MR. STIRLING: Could the minister tell us whether or not he is prepared to table the in-depth full-scale review of the individual budgets - because it is this House of Assembly, not the minister, who approves the budget - would he be pre- pared to table that for the benefit of the House of Assembly? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR.

COLLINS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, no problem A whatever and that is what one does every year when the Public Accounts come in,and of course there is a

summary given at the q q

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3768 EL - 2 DR. COLLINS: time of the new get. I cer- tainly will carry on the practice that has been going on ever since this House has sat. SOME HON. MFMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simrts): A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: The Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) knows that this is not a normal practice at all, that you have this kind of a - he has been advised by his own secretariat that he is down $40 million. They have juggled the figures.

They have not reported them to the House and I have a supplementary question again coming from the minister's own figures. He talks in terms of a $15 million decrease in tax, an $8 million increase in wage settlements, a $5 million increase in servicing the provincial debt. So if you add those together - a $15 million loss, $8 million increase, $5 million increase- that is a $28 million net. Now, he tells us that the net differEnce is $16 million. Could he explain where the missing $11 million is? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. OP.. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, there is no missing $11 m2llion in the sense that the hon. the Leader of the Oppcsition says. His figures in his mind do not add up because he is leaving out a few thinos. I said that we did a review of all sorts of revenue projections,not only our own source. Retail sales tax is one of a our own source revenues. We also did a review qo7n

a November 26, 1961 Tape 3766 LC - 1 DR COLLINS: of orojected revenues 1rom the federal side of things and, of course, he das also neglected to roint out that I did ask depaotments to carry out a certain an.ount of belt tightening to the extent that they could halfway through the fiscal year and to the extent that they could without any serious diminution in oublic services. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of he Opposition. MR. STlRLIG: Is the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) now saying that the federal government will be giving this Province more money this year than they had originally anticipated or was projected in October? Have they now found that they are getting additional federal funds that they did not anticipate? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DIL COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the transfers the Province receives from the federal government in any fiscal year do not only relate to that year, they quite often relate for many years back. There are variations.

There are perhaps increases, perhaps cutbacks in transfers yelated to other years for equalization, the EPF, for any number of things, even for some of our own source revenues in terms of personal income tax and corporate income tax which are collected for us by the federal government. So throughout the year, at least every quarter, we get - new projections from the federal government as to what we can expect and then they will update it the next quarter. So all I can say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that from the time we started our preliminary review in September until we completed the qq7 1

:;ova-:;r 26, 1921 :pe 3769 CO - 2 DR. COLLINS: more in-depth one, yes, we had gotten new figures on the basis of projections from the fedaral government. NC. SZ'IRLINC; A suppJementary, •r. SpenCer. MB. SPEAKER (Simms): A suppJ.ernentary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, would the minister then be specific? He improved a situation from $50 million to $16 million of a loss, so that means $34 million.

Could the minister tell this House how much of that $34 million came as a result of an increased revenue from Ottawa, what were the revised figures that affected that $34 million,and how much was there as a result of belt tightening and cutbacks in expenditures? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way I can answer that is to say that I really do not have the pardcular figures with me at the moment. I could give rounded figures, I suppose, but then if it added up to 29.2 instead of what was required, 29.6, I weuld be criticized for it.

So rather than do that I will take thac question under advisement. M5. SPEAKER: The hon. minister will take that as notice. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance tell the House how much this Province will get in equalization grants this year from the Government of Canada as a result of our becoming a Province of Canada in 1949, equalization grants that are supposed to help us as a 'have not' province? Approximately round figures will do. DR. COLLINS: 1931 - 82? q q 7n

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3773 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: £or this curr acal year, 1981-82, ;;h&r roughly is the amount in eaualization grants that we will get? MR. SPAKER (Simms) The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, for fiscal 1981-82, and that is equalization that is related to this voar- now, as I say, there may be variations rom year to year - we will receive $440 million. MR. NEARY: Suppiementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. member ior LaPoile. MR. NEARY: $440 million in equalization.That does not include transfer payments, that is just ecualization grants.

Now would the hon. gentleman care to project himself ahead five years,which I am sure his fiscal people have done, say, five years from now this is 1981,to 1986; could the hon. gentleman tell us epproxmately, in round figrres again, what equalization grants will he, say, in 1986? '4R.SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot do that because the present arrangements terminate on the 31st of March, 1982, o with a terminated arrangement there is no way that I can project. MD. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. M. SPEAKjR: Supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, right at the present time the hon. Minister of Finance told us that Ottawa is providing $440 million in equalization grants for this Province, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! qq7•-

November 65, I56 Tape No. 3770 26' - 2 MR. N2APY: - five years from now, Mr. Soeaker, I would submit that that figure would be somewhere in the vicinity of $5fl0 to $700 million. Would that be a fair assumtion, Mr. Seaker? If the present arrangement rontinues would it be somewhere in the vicinit: of $600 to $700 million a year in equalization grants, to use round figures? MR. SPEAKER (Sirams: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I wish I could answer that uestion but unfortunately I cannot and the reason wriy i cannot is that it is a very difficult projection to make, one that only could be made by a much more sophisticated system than we have in place in this Province. It could be made by the federal government.

That projection could be made by the federal government.And,indeed, the provinces asked the federal government if they would project transfers for the years 1982 to 1986 if the old system, if the system that has been in place since 1977 to 1982, if that had stayed in place, what would the projections be for the following five years on a yearly basis. And the federal government has resisted giving us those projections. Now those projections will be very valuable to us because we could compare accurately, nct from the partial information that wa have and therefore the rather, shall we say,

November 2, 1981 Tape No. 3771 MM - 1 r 7LLflT5: less than orecise nro-ections that we can make ourselves on the basis of those. We would then have a precise fiouce against which to compare the new proposals that the federal government are puttLng in place. We have not been able to get those figures from the federal government. We suspect, Mr. Speaker, that those projections wculd be much higher than what they had in their new proposals. We cannot absolutely confirm that because the federal government resists giving us those figures.

All I can say is that our own projects, inaccurate though they may be, suggest that they would have been considerably more than what the federal governnent are proposing to give us. MR. NEARY: Asupiementary. MR. SPEA(ER (Simms) : A supplementary, the hon. menther for LaPoile. MR. WEARY: That is worderfulnews, Mr. Speaker. In other words my figure five years down the road to 1986, the figure that I just gave of equalization grants being somewhere between $600 million and $700 million at that time, the minister says I aai being very conservative, that it will probably be higher than that.

I am just basing my figures on the old system. We are now getting $500 million; down the road five years from now, by 1986. we may be getting $700 million, or $800 million or $900 million from Ottawa. I am coming to the real question now, Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. gentleman has set the stage, The hon. gentleman made some very interesting statements in Halfiax recently, at the Finance Ministers Conference, The hcn. gentleman made the statement to this effect, that Newfoundland, or the Atlantic Provinces I think he was talking about, more specifically qq7r

Nova-tar 2, 1-91 Taa 771 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: Newfoundland, would lose dollar for dollar for every dollar we get in equali:at.cn we would lose a dollar fromrevenue on the offshore. The hon. gentleman, I presume he is aware of what he said, Newfoundlind Finance Minister Collins said he agreed in principle with the thrust. The Atlantic Province, he said, have at least two main objections to Mr. MacEachen's plan, they say that the new formula which would count all natural rescurce revenues as income deductthle from equalization grants - MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please'. Order, please'.

Order, please: The hon. member I am sure is familiar with the Standing Orders,which do not allow prefacing an oral question by reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or anything of that nature. MR. NEAY: I am net reading, I am just - MR.MORGAN: After 20 years, do you not know the rules? MR. NEARY: Mr. Soeaker, the hon. gentleman says that Newfoundland could lose, it could cost Newfoundland money, he said. It could cost Newfoundland more money than we are getting in equalization grants once the revenue starts to come in from offshore.

Now we were told that by the Minister of Mines and Energy at a conference a couple of years ago. that in the twenty year period, the life of Hihernia, that during that twenty year period not one of these years would we not be entitled to equalization grants. We would get equalization grants for the total of twenty years. Would the hon. gentleman care to elaborate on that statement that he made in Halifax recently? First of all, just to put it in baby talk, Mr. Speaker, for hon. members - MR. WARREN: He is a baby doctor too. MR.

NEAR?: - that if we get $900 million in revenue in 1996 and we get $900 million from revenue of 9q7

November 26, 1981 Tame No. 3771 NM - 3 MR. WEARY: offshore,wa will just break 'ven. If we get $900 million in rerer.ue from ecualization rnts from the Government of Canada, and $500 million from revenue from cffshore,we wilt still be a have not Province, we wiJ.1. still get $400 million equalization grants from the Government of Canada. So we are no further ahead. Is that what the hon. gentleman is saying? We are just as well off getting ecualization grants as we are having oil on the Grands Banks? MR. SPEAAER (Simms) : Order, please Order, please'. I believe the hon. member has asked the question now. Q77

November 26, 1981 Tape 3772 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sims): The hon. Minister of Finance. DIE.. COLLI.S Mr. Speaker, the meetings in Halifax were very valuable. They were a bit frustrating,I might say,but the:' were very valuable. Out of that it is my intention to give a soatement to the House tomorrow morning. I was hopir.g I would be able to give it today, but it is not completed. The statement is just not completed. MR. STIRLING: You are going to have to compete with the Premier. DR.

COLLINS: But I can say this - or as a certain person used to say, I can say this about that -the ooint is that we could get revenue flows of a very large magnitude once oii development occurs and that could immediately cut back our equalization prior to our earned income going up all that much, prior to our debt servicing cost going down all that much, prior to our getting in place a lot of infrastructure. So it is not a case of our wanting to continue equalization payments even though we are getting large revenue inflows from our own resources1 it is the timing that is important.

If the inflows come and are immediately offset by drops in equalization,we are no further ahead because we still have large taxation - MR. STIRLING: You want both. DR. COLLINS: - levels. We have larqe costs in terms of debt servicing. We have tremendous infrastructure to put in place. And we just do not have the cash flow. The point we were making there was that we need some accommodation, which the Western provinces had when they began their development of natural resources. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh DR.

COLLINS: We need some accommodation so that as the infls start we do not lose our equalizational until we correct some of the defects in our economy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh -

Nov Lr 2, 1 _'21 Tape 372 OW - 2 EG:: Ho;. MEMBERS: Rear, hear! MR. REAR: 1r. Soeaker, a supplementary. A suolomentarv, the hon. meer for LaPoile. MB. NEARY: :1r. Speaker, thac is the most shocking news I think that this Hcuse has ever been given, at least since I have been here. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, eli! MR. NEARY: It is absolutely shocking news. Here we have a government and we nave an administration - SOMEHON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh! MR.SPEAKERi Order, please! Order, pleaSe! MR. NEZRY: - we have an administration putting all their eggs in one basket, in the offshore oil basket.

And now we are told by the minister that after twenty years of Hibernia in pruction we will be no further ahead. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR_SPEARER: On a point of order, the hon. President of the Council. MR._MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman is making a speech a;ain. I again remind him, Mr. Speaker, he needs to be :eminded that this in the Qnestion Period. MR. STIRLING: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MB.

STIRLING: My colleague was just in a state of shock on receiving the news and was making a preliminary remark prior to getting ready for the next question, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS; Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Unfortunately the Standing Orders do not provide any allowances for members in a state of shock. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! q7o

November 2, 1981 Tape 3772 PR - 3 (Snms) provide for very strlct rules in that answers are not allowed, to be debated, but a short

preamble is allowed, and I am sure the hon. riember for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is now about to put his question. After ha;1n7 asked several, he must have overed the

preamble. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEAR?: The answer was so discouraging, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure that the people of Newfoundland are croing to be in a state of shock when they heir it. What the minister said wasp and what he is confirming, 1 presume the minister is confirming that he did say in Malifax It qqpa

Non. 2€, 19. Tape No. 3773 OW - I-IR. S. NEAR?: that for every dollar that we ret io rEvenue from the offshore, it might end up costing us more than a dollar in equLlization grants. The hon. gentlenan is confirming that, Mr. Speaker, I presume, confirming that he did make that state- ment in Halifa;? MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS: I did make that statement in Halifax but I think the hon. - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear DR.J. COLLINS: - member has it out of context, as he often does.

In Halifax we were discussing fiscal arrangements that will be put in place for a five year period, not for a twenty year period. And when weweremaking those assessments,we were referring to what is going to happen in that short term. In other words, in the short-term,unless accomodation that this Province quite justifiably should ask the federal govern- ment, because other provinces had similar accomodations and similar circumstances, the accommodation that we wish is that there be a phasing out of our equalization payments in that short term until our revenue cash flows have caught up with our needs. MR. S.

NEAR': A sumplementary, Mr. Smeaker. MR._SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPo.le. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe what I am hearing. The hon. gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the revenue from the offshore and be wants the equalization grants. MR. MORGAN: Why not? Why not? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh qq1

Nov. 26, 181 Taoe No. 3773 DW - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Sinms) : Order, please! Order, please! MORGAN: ;.IEHON. 1EyIBERS: Oh, oh! .SPE.KE?: Order, plarse! Order! - Fon. members to m" left are not permittsd to ask questions to hcn. members to my right. The hon. member for LaPoile has a suplementary. MR.S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very, vety urgent and serious matte'. I want the hon. minister, if he will, to elaborate on - SOME HON.'EMBERS: Oh, oh! MR._SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. S.

NEARY: - a statement that he made that not only will the revenues and the income be deducted from our equalization grants, but it could mean that oil discoveries might end up costing this Province money. Would the hon. gentleman care to elaborate on that statement? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is a fly on the wall or whatever, but I have not sen it in any document that I made such a statement as he just claimed and I cannot recall making that statement.

I do not know how he has interpreted statements that have been in the press that I was supposed to have made but certainly I have never seen that particular

interpretation. The point that I think toat has to be understood is that we are asking for nothing different than any other Province in Canada has had. SOME HON. EMBERS Hear, hear! DR. J. COLLINS: We are saying that our circumstances qqi

Novemr 26, 1981 Tape NO. 3774 EL - 1 DR. COLLINE: may cnange rather rapidJy,andrather than having that very rapid change cone out of our hides, we are asking for an accomodation for a period of time until we can - ediut to it. MR._MCRDN; Until we become a 'have' orovince. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please: DR. COLLINS: And at no stage did I imply that we wanted to continue having equalization for twenty years while we are having revenue inflows from offshore for twenty years,or fnr whatever period it is.

I was re- ferring to an accomodation at the beginning of this very major change in our economy. M.R. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Laeoile. MR. MERRY: Mr. Speaker, I an sure that the hon. gendeman has worked this through. The forrter Minister of Mines and Energy gave us the figures at a conference there a couple of years ago, a briefing session that we had. I am sure the hon. gentleman has updated figures. The life of Hibernia is estimated to be twenty years.

The equalization • grants during that time will be around a billion dollars, anywhere - they are $500 million now. It is going to go up. y the time we start producing oil it will be up around $700 or $800 million and during the twenty years it will probably hit a billion dollars. Now, Mr. Speaker, could the hon. gentleman tell uswith the updated figures, if there is any year in that twenty years, any year at all in that twenty years that Newfoundland will not be entitled to equnlization grants? There will be no time during that twenty years that we will be a have province. We will

November 26, 1981 Tape NO. 3774 EL - 2 iR. NEARY: continue for twenty years to be a have not province. Would the hon. gentleman t1l us if that is what the latest fijures show,because that is what the hon. ventleman indicated in his statement from Halifax? MR. SFEAKRR (Simms) : The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR._CDLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible how t-ie hen. member interprets what he reeds in the paper, but that fs a strange

interpretation on things. One thing I do have to point out at this stage,that all these rnarks were made, as I say,in the context of the next five years if the fiscal arrangements situation is renegotiated, as one expects it will be,but it was also made in the context of a specific proposal that the federal government is putting forward, in particular. using Ontario as the standard againrt which equalization payments will be judged, and all provinces reject that. All provinces reject that part of the federal proposal and that is one of the things that leads to this difficulty, this particular difficulty.

The difficulty will be there to some extent anyway,but the particular federal proposal using Ontario as a standard accentuates that difficulty of relating the needs in the early years of exploibation with the revenue flows coming therefrom. MR. STIRLING: A supplernentary,Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We have approximately one minute left MR. STIRLING: I want to thank my colleague from LaPoile(Mr.Neary) for bringing this to the attention of the House of Assembly.

Novembar 26, 1981, Tape 3775, Page 1 --- apb MR. STIRLi: Mr. Speaker, if I understanc, trying to out it in the proper context the Minister of Finance(Dr. Collins) has just said that under the present equalization arrangements, and under the formula that is presently in force, and which is being negotiated • for the next five years, there will be no financial impact to this Province, no benefit to this Province of any revenue from offshore gas and oil unless Ottawa agrees to make some changes an equalization. Is that correct? MR. MOORES: Yes cr no. MR. FLIGIT: Yes or no will do. MR.

SPEAKER(Sirnms) : The hon. the Minister of Finance has about twenty-five seconds. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, very quickly - we were not di3cussing primarily present arrangements, we were discussing proposals that the federal government brought forward for the next five years, and those were very defective proposals, particularly from our point of vieq. They are extremely defective proposals and we are tryinc to point out to the federal government how defective they are. I might say that all other nine provinces also found the federal proposals defective. MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: If I may, on a point of order, because this relates to calling of Orders of the Day, I notice on Motions that the motion in the name of the hon. the Premier yesterday is not on the Order Paper. And I believe that the motion that he gave is a government Motion, not a private memher's motionand therefore ought to be on the Order Paper. qq

November 26, 1981, Tape 3775, Page 2 -- apb RdiiMiR: That is right, yas. MR. STEAKER(Simms) : To the point of order; that matter was brought to my attention 3ust prior to entering the House. Clearly it was a mistake or a misunderstanding or something on somebody's part, but it • should be printed on the Order Paper as Motion No. 2. MR. MARSHALL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it should be on the Order Paper, And I would like to ask the Opposition, in view of the fact that when the Premier introduced the motion on Monday the hon. the Leader of the Oppcsition(Mr. Stirling) said, and I quote: "Since we are now unanimous, Mr.

Speaker, there would not seem to be any reason to have to go through the formalities. We have established a procedure in this House with unanimous consent of dealing with similar matters in the past,and in this session, and we do not require a debate". Now, that was in response. That was Monday. On yesterday the hon. - they did not have their act together yesterday, obviously, and having given consent, saying they would give consent, they withdrew it yesterday. Now I wonder if the hon. gentlemen there opposite would give unanimous consent to pass the motion without debate? MR. WARREN: No. No. MR.

D1NN: That is breaking your word. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please! In all fairness I will allow the hen. the Leader of the Opposition to respond briefly - to those comments and then I will simply ask if there is unanimous consent without any further debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. qq,r

November 26, 1981, Tape 3775, Page 3 -- apb STIRLING: r. Speaker, the House Leader knows the answer, and II he qoted the full discussion between the Premier and I he would find that * the Premier had said, 'I would like to have consent tomorrow to debate this resolution -which was yesterday - consent to debate. I said, 'If it is the resolution that the native groups want., then why do we ned to debate it? Let us pass it now. Mr. Speaker, that was when we took the Premier at his word. What we did not know was that he had included in the reo1ution, because he had only written it out by hand and had not provided us with a copy, he had S 4 q7

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3776 SD - 1 MR. STIRLING: included an his resolution a word which was not acceptabe to the native group. And what hapoened yesterdavacthe native group met with my colleague, we discussed it in caucus anC they agreed that tey did not want us by unanimous consent. Now coming back to the order of the business today, the President of the Council (Mr. Marshal1) is quite within his rights, does not hove to look for unanimous consent, can certainly bring in that resolution for debate and we will debate it because they couitrol the rules.

And that is, to put it in proper context, if.ne wants to bring it in for debatethen let us bring it in as a government motion which will be - subject to amendment and eubject to debate in the normal course. And if that is what you want to do,then let us do it. MR. FLIGHT: You do not need consent. MR. SPEAKER (Simrns) : Would the hon. President of the Council like to clarify his request? MR. MARSHALL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am just asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Stirling) to comply with his commitment of Monday and to pass the resolution without debate4 If there is not unanimous consent, we will go to the next order of business. MR. S2EAKER: So to clarify the request, the request is to ask unanimous consent, or leave,to deal with Motion No. 2 without debate. My role, as I explained clearly yesterday, is to ask. Is there unanimous consent for such a request? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: I do not hear unanimous consent. Order 15. Bill No. 104.

Second reading of a bill entitled: "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act (No. 2)'. (Bill No. 104.) Last day the hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) was closing debate on the bill and he had spoken for about four minutes. The hon. Minister of Labour and Manpower. qQRn

Nove'ber 26, 1991 Ta7c No. SD - 2 MR. DINN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When I opened debate on Bill 104, whico is an amendment to the Workers Comensation Act, I opened it and said that this basically allows the government to provide WorkErs' Compensation for approximately 4,500 volunteer firemen in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we heard after I introduced that amendment to the bill was basically a diatribe of untruths, an attack on the Workers' Compensation Board, an attack on the legislation. And, Mr.

Speaker, I started m remarks the day before yesterday in cluing up second reading and attempting to answer some of the legitimate questions raised by the hon. members opposite,but in doing this I cannot leave on the record some of the inaccuracies, some of the displayed lack of knowledge of the Workers Compensation Board,and some of the things that were said in debate that hon. members should know about Workers' Compensation in Newfoundland and they obviously qqr

Tape o. 77 - I MR. J. DINN: o not know about Worker3 Compensation in Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Speaker, in - speaking to the debate,Mr. Hodder, the hun. .:ember for Port au Port, aiked about lump sum payments to widows. Mr. Speaker,he quoted Statistics Canada - MR.S. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simins) : Order, please A point of order has been raised by the hon. meriber for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that in this House hon. members have to refer to their colleagues, whether they are on the same side of the House or on the opposite side of the House,as hon. members, or the member for this or the minister of that. MR. 3. DINN: Yes. MR.. S. NEARY: The minister is using last names over there about my colleague who is unfortunately not here today. Let us hope that he will be with us soon. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain decorum in the House,that Your Honour should insist that he use the proper words. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) for bringing that to my attention. It is a very legitimate point of order and I apologize for not interceding earlier. He did go on to say the member for Port au Port so I let it slide. I do apolo- gize for letting that slip. The hon.minister for Labour and Manpower should take not of that point of order. MR. J. DINN: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. qqan

26, 1931 Tape No. 3777 - MR J. DINN: The hor. member for Port au Port (Mr. 9odmbr) indicated that Newfoundland Workers' Corn- pensatior,the ACr does not allow or does not mornide for r widowers to get a lump sum tayment. I just wanted to correct that because it is on the recerd of the House. I want to say and state that they inead do get a lump um payment. It is not the highest iuxnp sun payment in Canada but it is among the top. Mr. Speaker, it is $750, which will be increased to $850 effective January 1st., 1982. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was one of the items raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for LPoile brought up several other items, items with respect to for example, miners in Labrador West and a petition or a document that he had in his possession stating that thirty-two or thirty- three miners in Labrador West had been discriminated against in some way by the Workers' Compensation Board, by companies, and were basically being mistreated. Mr. Speaker, I have to also riarify that.

Because the fact of the matter is that, to my knowledge over the past four or five years, certainly inasfar as I could do the research over the past day or so, to my knowledge not one miner that I am aware of has receied a decrease in salary by virtue of the fact that he was moved from an unsafe area because of his lung prob- lem to another area in the work q q q i

November 26, 1981 Tape 3778 EC - 1 place whae ; cc civa a decrease in salary and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the record shows that sortie of these people who were moved to other areas received an increase in salary.

So Iremind the non. member that if he does have some cases, I would appreciate it if he would bring them to my attention, because it is my understanding that the companies in Labrador West, coitrary to some statements that have been made, are treating their people very, very well andin transferring from one work place to another work place to put them in a more safe condition, they generally do not - or to my knowledge, I have not been able to find where they have received a decrease in salary.

And the other thing is that when something comes to the attention of the Workers' Compensation Board, over the past year or two many, many people from Labrador West have been brought to St. John's where a complete medical review was done and, Mr. Speaker, this is done for the benefit of the worketo attempt to find out if they indeed do have compensable diseases where they are incapacitated and cannot work, and, Mr. Speaker, we do not have one to date who is in any way compensable by p virtue of the fact that he is incapacitated from a dust- caused disease.

The other thing that I might point out at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in conjunction with the companies in Labrador West, and hopefully with the unions, is currently doing a $2.4 million study in Labrador West so that we can find out the problems that the miners may have down there with respect to health so that we can possibly identify diseases that may be compensable in the future. The hon. th "m" 1er for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) mentioned oneumoconiosis.

26, 1981 7ape 3778 EC - 2 "R._DINN: That is one of the cemoensable diseasu that is r Lsted. ut there are snv dust-reiated diseases that are on the records in other placus - sarccidosis, pneumoconiosis and silicosis and so on. The reason for this $2.4 million study that is done in conjunction with government, comPanies and the unions down there, is an attempt to find out if there are any other diseases that can be contracted by miners so that they can be compensable diseases under the act. Mr. Speaker, that answers most of toe questions asked by hon. members opposite.

The other point is that the board generally does not decide whether a worker in the Province does have a compensable disease, it is generally done by a board, a group of medical people and, Mr.Speaker, I think that is the best kind of system that we can possibly have,where the medical people decide and the board pays the compensation in the cases where it is recommended. Mr. Speaker, I hope these things have answered questions raised by hon. members opposite. I do want to say that the bill makes provision for our volunteer firemen in this Province Co be covered by Workers' Compensation.

And I think it * is a great step forward here because these people are putting their lives on the line in Newfoundland and they have not been covered, up to this point in time. They will be covered, Mr. Speaker, as of the 1st of April. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act (No. 2),' read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 104)

November 26, 1981 Tape 3778 EC - 3 22. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To cend The Education (Teacher Training) Act," (Bill No. 50) MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : The hon. the Minister of Education.

?A, 1981 Tape 3779 PK - 1 MS. VFUE Mr. 57-aker, I am pleased to move second reading of this bill, 'An Act To amend The Teacher Training Act'. The principle of the bill is to provide for an improved procedure for appeals by aqarieved parties from decisions relating to teaching licences or certificates, that is, more specifically decisions on the issuance or a refusal to issue a teaching certificat.e or a licenceor decisions relating to the cancellation or suspension of such certificates or licences or refusal to cancel or suspend. Mr.

Speaker, the present procedure is one which has, I think cite justifiably, come in for some criticism. It is such that an initial decision is made by the Registrar of Teachers, who is a public servant, an emmloyee of the Department of Education. If there is a grievance,then there is further recourse from the decision of the Registrar of Teachers to a committee Comprising eleven mersons,which is chaired by that same Registrar of Teachers. That committee, Mr.

Speaker, is called the Teachers' Certification Committee, and in addition to the Registrar, who serves as a chairperson, there are ten other members, the three executive secretaries of the Denominational Educational Committee; another representative of the Department of Education in addition to the Registrar; two representatives of Memorial University Faculty of Education; two of the Newfoundland Teachers' Aasociation;and finally, two representatives of the Federation of School Boards for a total of eleven people.

That group provides representation from the agencies which have some interest in matters of teachers' -- certificates and licences, and the issuance or cancellation thereof. Those agencies are, of course, the Department of Education, the Denominational Education Committee, the Federation of School Boards, the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, and qqc,

"oriaL's Faculty of Eucaton, the five main agencies having responsibility and power over education matters cur frccnce. Now the flaw in this arrangement is obvious; it is that the Registrar of Teachers, who makes the S initial decision , then presides over the Appeal Committee, called the Teachers Certification Committee. So that the aggrieved party in such a case does not really have a fresh hearing by an impartial group.

The principle of this bill is to rectify that deficiency by providing for recourse from decisions on the matters referred to on teachers licer.ces and certificates made by the Registrar of Teachers or by that same eleven persons Teachers' Certification Committee to a new body which is called a Board of Appeals.

The bill provides for the composition of the Board of Apeale having representatives 1one eachfrom the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, a person nominated by The Teacherst Certification Committee, although not somebody who in fact served on that Committee; third, somebody nominated by the appropriate school board. fourth , an employee ofthe.pepartment of Education, and th.n a fifth person who is the chairperson,is a person chosen by the precedinç four orin a rare event of a failure to agree,then an appointment by the Minister of Education. Mr.

Speaker, I draw to your attention and to the attention of hon. members the provision of the bill which says that a person who is a member of this qqr

November 2, 1981 Tape No 3780 NM - 1 M$, VEPGE: Boardof Aceals cannot be drawn from the ranks of the committee, so that there is a fresh group of people presiding over the final appsal. Mr. Sgeaker, the contents of this bill, oroviding for this improved appeal procedure, have been agreed to by the important agencies responsible for education tO which I have referred. This bill has met with the approval of the denominational education committees, the Federation of School Boards, the Newfoundland Teachers Association and the faculty of education at Memoroal University. Mr.

Speaker, I think, as I have pointed out before, that once the bill beco!rs law, as I trust it will, that there will be a more just procedure for reviewing decisions relating to the issuance or refusal to issue, the cancellation or suspension, or refusal to do that, of teachers licences and certificates. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER Siuims) : The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, we on this side of the House certainly will suppo't this bill and commend the minister for bringing in this particular bill which, as she describes, is an improvement with respect to grievance procedure with respect teacher certification. And it certainly improves that particular system and enhances the whole grievance procedure with respect to teacher certification. And, Mr.

Speaker, we on this side of the House certainly want to be associated with any measure that improves, or enhances, working conditions for a very important professional group of this Province, a group of people that I suppose performs toe single most important job in our Province, that of educatine, that of training our most important resource, our human resources. qq Abo

November 26, 1' Tv:e No. 3790 NM - 2 MR. LUSH: And, Mr. Speaker, I would only hope that the minister would also hring in other measures that will certainly make the job of teachers in this Province much easier, that will enhance the teaching and learning process throoghout the Province. And there is much to be said on that, but,Mr. 3peaker, I will not delay the proceeding of this bill today by talking about the changes that need to be brought about in this Province to enhance and improve the teaching/learning process in this Province.

Because,as the minister is aware, we have many inadequacies presently in our educational system, teachers teaching in buildings that are outdated and inadequate and students. of course ,going to schools and trying to learn in an environment that is not at all in tune with the twentieth century. And this happens in many places in Newfoundland, particularly in rural Newfoundland, and there is one tremendous job to he done in education today.

So anything certainly that enhances that teacher/learning process then we are in favour of it and of course in order for the teacher/learning process to meet the requirements that are onducive to it, one of the things that we must ensure and that is that the working conditions of teachers is certainly in order, that it is certainly adequate and that they have all of the conditions necessary, that they have all of the elements necessary to make it conducive to the teaching process.

And this certainly is a large improvement on what was the previous grievance procedure which, as the Minister pointed out, certainly was not a good process. My understanding of the system, maybe the minister can correct me if I am wrong, my under- standing was that it was the same board that issued teacher licences, that issued teacher certificates, that took the grievance. The minister sort qqcci

November 26, 1981 Tape NO. 3781 EL - 1 MR. LUSii: of led me astray on that. The minister cave me the im- pression that the only common dencminto was the Beaistrar. My

interpretation is that it was the entire committee, the entire committee ,certainly chaired by the Registrar, but it was the entire committee that made the initial decision. It was the entire committee that issued the licence or the certificate. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the way it was.

Maybe the minister intended that, but I got the distinct impression that she was saying that it was only the Registrar who was common to this comm- itteebut my understanding was that the Certification Board was made up of the Reqistrar and all the other per- sons that she mentioned,and institutions, the university and the Federation of School Boards and so on. And so this Certification 8oard, Mr.Speaker, issued the licence or did not issue it,so if they did not issue it they come back after coffee break and deal with the grióvance.

So certainly that was not a just system, the same people who denied the certificate in the first place would take the appeal. And that was a very unjust method, certainl",to deal with appeals, and now this is at least a more correct procedure, a more just procedure in which you have a neutral body to deal with the appeal. This certainly makes more sense. It is the way to go and I an sure it meets with the approval of teachers and the school boards right throughout this Province because it is something they have been wanting to change.

They have been wanting to change the structure; they have been wanting to change this method of appeal because it did not make sense, Mr. Speaker, to have to go back to the same body, to the same group of people who denied the issuance of the certificate in the first place. qqcn

N'n'er 26, 191 Tape 37 l EL - 2 MR. LUSH: And as I said, they denied it in the one instance and then aftor coffee or after lunch, they were going back to deal with the appeal, to deal with the grievance from either the school board or the teacher. So this certainly is more in line with the way appeal boards 1. should be established and it is som'nr that the teachers of this Province have been striving for for a long, long time And the surprise is that they allowed this system to carry on for so long that,they allowed themselves to be in this particular position.

So this measure, this bill by the minister today will correct that procedure and allow for a more improved procedure for grievances with respect to teacher certification. So, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this measure and I am sure that the teachers throughout this Province will be glad that the government finally saw fit to give a better system, a more equitable system, a more just system and one in which now they will be able to get a fair and just hearing. So, Mr.

Speaker, we support it and commend the government for bringing in this rneasure.Although long overdue, we commend 4 then for having done so today. Thank you. •1 MR.SPEAKER (Butt) : The hon. the Minister of Ed- ucation. If the minister speaks now she closes debate on the bill. The hon. the Minister of Education. •1 nnrri

Tc- bar 26 1981 TaPe Nc. 3781 - FS. VERGE: Mr. SpeaKer, I would like to thank the mamber for Terra Nova (Mr.Lush) for his support for this bill and for his kind remarks and respond very quickly to two points he raised. First, government has acted very swiftly in initiatinq this legislation. The fact is that it was only relatively recently that one of the parties involved in this procedure,namely the Newfound- land Teachers Association made a request for an improved appeal procedure in teacher certification and that request was then referred to the four or five agencies involved and it was only a couple of months ago, just this Fall as a matter of fact,that those agencies agreed 1 flflfli Aq

ovember 26, 1931, Tape 3782, Page 1 -- apb zciong thecselves on the exact provision of an ied appeal procedure which is embodied in this bill. So I think government have been quite swift in responding to the first call for improved appeal procedure. Secondly, the existing or old procedure, as I understand it, and it is set out in the explanatory notes on the inside cover of this bill, did involve an appeal from a decision of the Registrar to the Teachers' Certification Committee, comprising eleven people, if which the Registrar, himself, is Chairman.

However, the member for Terra Nova (Mr.Lush) being a member of the teaching profession and presumably having had some personal experience, may know more about what happened in practice. But I think we both agree that the fundamental weakness or flaw in the old arrangement was that it was essentially the same person or people presiding over the appeal as had made the original decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of this bill. SOME HON.

MEMEERS: Hear, hear On motion, a bill, 'An Act To Amend The Education (Teacher Training) Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill NQ. 50). MR. MARSHALL: Order 20, Bill No. 89. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law'. (Bill No. 89). MR. SPEAKER(Butt) : The hon. the Minister of Justice. 1 fl

a November 26, 1981, Tape 3782, Page 2 -- apb ::. l::::: Mr. Speaker, as hon. will recaii, every year a bill similai to this is introduced. There is really nothing one can do to explain it. The explanatory notes put it very straight- forward. What it is is during the course of a year a number of anomalies are found, sometimes they are typographical errors, sometimes they are grammatical errors, sometimes they are incorrect references to statutes, that kind of thing. There is nothing of substance, indeed one could not introduce any legislation of substance of this nature.

That is essentially what it is and, as I say, every session such a bill is introduced and there is really not much more, without wasting the time of the House, I can say about it. MR. SPEAKEP(Butt): The minister moves second reading? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Removes Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill No. 89) MR. MARSHALL: Order 28. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Enable Price (Nfld.) Pulp & Paper Linited To Become A Federal Corporation'. (Bill No. 115). MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is similar to a number of pieces of legislation which have been introduced during the past one, two or three years. The purpose of this is that it will allow Price (Nfld.) to incorporate federally, to become a federally incorporated company. 1 1, ,%

November zb, 3L9l1 Tap€ 372, rae 3 -- MP.. OTTENHEIMER: In terms of any taxation ,ith this Province, it has no affect whatsoever. There is no financial or taxation affect. Revenue, money, it has no reference to that whatsoever. The :awfoundland companies' law is peculiar in the sense that when a company incorporated in this Province wishes to be incorporated federally,it requires

an act of the Legislature. As hon. members are aware, • new companies act is envisioned, and, indeed, is before • Select Committee and,no doubt, one of the changes that will be made will be to get rid of this anachronism. But during the past two or three years , hon. members will recall,a number of bills which have been introduced of a similar nature, and what it is is when a comoany a 11 r'

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3783 SD-i AR. CITENHEINER: wishes to incorporate federally it needs

an act of tii Legislature to so do. But, as I said, it has no effect on taxation or revenue; the amount received cv the Province with respect to the amount received federally, it has no consecuences in that area. MR. SPEAKER (BUTT): The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I only learned a couple of hours ago that I would be piloting these bills through the House for this side of the House. Our spokesman on Justice is headed for Grand Bank to be with nis constituents in their hour of need. And so, Mr.

Speaker, if what the mihister says about this bill is correct why then we have no objection to endorsing it, to supporting the principle of the bill. I an always very, very suspicious, Mr. Speaker, maybe I am suspicious by nature, of these multi- nationdl companies when they ask government to do something for them like we are being asked to do here in this bill. The minister says it is merely just a formality, a routine matter, asking to establish Price (Nfld.) as a federal corporation - MR. STIRLING: So the head office can be somewhere else. MR. NEARY: - so that the head office can be outside of this Province.

Now I do not know - MR.STIRLING. And come under federal jurisdication. MR. NEARY: Yes, I know. We did it a couple of years ago, I believe, for a company that the hon. member is familiar with. MR. STIRLING: It has been done in a number of cases. MR. NEARY: And it has been done in a number of cases but nevertheless I am still a little bit suspicious about Price because we all know the way they con- MR. STIRLING: Do we have any assurance that they will maintain the full operation? MR. NEARY: Well this is really the question. Can the minister give the House assurance that Price will maintain 1 (1fli;

Moveraber 26, 1981 T No. 3783 SD - 2 MR. NEAR their operation in this Province at the same level as they are at the present time? .nd, Mr. Sreaker, could the hon. gentleman tell us where they intend to have their head office? Is it going to be in Quebec or in Dntario? What will happen in Newfoundlandr Will it mean a phasing down of the office employees in Grand Falls or in Stephenville? It must mean something, Mr. Speaker. Does it mean income tax concessions for Price? Is that the reason behind having this made a federal corporation - MR. STIRLING: Move beyond control of this Province MR.

NEARY: - move it outside the control of Newfoundland? Now for what reason? I cannot put my finger on it but, as I say, I am awfully suspicious, Mr. Speaker, - because I have seen the way that Price operate and I have seen the way they can con this government. They conned the former Moores administration into giving them, passing over, gratis,free - as a matter of fact, it will cost the taxpayers of Canada, it will cost the taxpayers out of the federal Treasury money and the people of Newfoundland $60 or $70 million for giving them - we gave away Labrador Linerboard, we gave it to Price. AN HON.

MBERS: That is not true. MR. NEARY: That is true, Mr. Speaker, we gave it to them and then in concessions gave them tax concessions to the tune of $60 or $70 million. MR. TULK: This year, I think, is the (inaudible) MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. STIRLING: Could they have not traded off some of those wood areas, woodlands or something MR. NEARY: That is right. Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend reminds me there - the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) 1

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3783 SD - 3 MR._NEARY: that in this trade off it might have been oossible to qet some of the concessions that we are tr1io7 to tet our hands on. 4 1 t!flí7

a November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3784 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: But they managed to con the Newfoundland Government, the former administration, into giving then this milti-million dollar, ultra-modern mill in Stephenville. And they talk about giveaways. This crowd have the cheek and the face to talk about give- 4 aways. $500 million they spent of taxpayersmoney on it, $500 million. $500 million, Mr. Speaker, that much - MR. CARTER: Who conceived the whole thing in the first place? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: - much of which was spent in a questionable manner. Mr. Speaker, they spent $500 million on it.

It would cost about - oh, let me see, $200 million to replace it - No, more than that. AN HON. MEMBER: What? MR. NEARY: The replacement value. The replacement value would be about $500 million. And thr nssed it over to Price - MR. WHITE: Mega projects. MR. NEARY: I beg your pardon? MR. WHITE: Mega projects. MR. NEARY: Yes, well that is true. That passed it over to PriceS, they said, "Here, you can have it for nothing and get tax concessions from the Government of I Canada," this year alone $70 million in deferred profit. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the philosophy and the thinking of this government.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members of this House what happened recently in Manitoba where you had a government that followed the same policies and the same philosophy as the administration in this Province, they believed in mega projects, big projects. The only thing they could talk about was $100 million projects. Anything over $100 million, 1 n

c:ember 26, 12 Thue No. 3724 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: that is what is known as a maca project, anytNing over $100 million is a mega project. They would not waste their tine talkinq about anythinq under 8100 million. Any project less than $100 million they would not waste their time talking about it. Now where is the similarity, Mr. Speaker? Where is the similarity between the policy of the former government in Manitoba and the administration here? Well, all the Premier and this government can talk about is multi-million dollar projects. They talk about aluminum smelters. They talk about offshore oil and gas.

They can only talk about things that are over $100 million. The poor old fishing industry, the logging industry, the forest industry, the construction industry - MR. FLIGHT: Gone. MR. NEARY: - ignore that. That is a bother to them. In the last two years in this Province, Mr. Speaker, this administration had completely ignored every industry in Newfoundland except offshore oil. The Premier eats it, sleeps it, dreams it, talks about it, talks it. All he can think about is oil, multi-million dollar projects. • Ignore everything else.

And while the whole economy is collapsing down around our ears, the only thing he can talk and think is oil. And today, Mr. Speaker, in this Hcuse we got the shocker of shocks when the Minister of Finance admitted that over a twenty year period when Hibernia is producing, if you would just take that one * oil well alone, and that is all we can talk about at the • present time, over a twenty year period Newfoundland will * get equalization grants from Ottawa seventeen years out of that twenty. In other words1 only three years out of that twenty will we be a have Province.

The other seventeen we will be a have not Province. What a shock, 1 ii

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3784 NM - 3 hR. NEARY: hr. Speaker. The minister maca a statement over in Halifax; he said, we could get a dollar from offshore revenue and end up costing us more than a dollar in equalization. Now, Mr. Speaker, by - 1 9 I n

November 26, 1981 Tape 3785 PK - I 21.MORGAN On a oirt of order, Mr. Speakei. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : Order, please The hon. :-:inister of Fisheries on a coint of order. MR. MORGAN: It is a very minor point of order - MR. TCLi Well it would be if you got up. MR. MORGAN: - that what the member is reading from, if he is reading from something in debate he has to table that document. MR. TULK. He is not reading it, he is sun1rnaizing it the same as the Premier did with the constitution. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order? MR. NEARY: I will wait for Your Honour to rule. MR.

SPEAKER: Yes, I understand that you do table documents, letters. MR. NEARY: I have not read from anything yet. - MR. SPEAKER: You are not reading I am sorry, because I was engaged in just a very small conversation with the hon. Leader of the Opposition, i really have to observe for myself unless the hon. member speaking wishes to table anything he is reading from. MR. NEARY: I understand. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: So there is no point of order. 4 1 11-11 1

:cvember 23, 1931 Tare 3735 PK - 2 MR. NEPY Thank your Your Honour. r. Steakor, :iit:r of Collins) stated in Halifax that for every dollar we cet from offshore oil in revenue, for every dollar, a dollar is deducted from eQualization grants. P.nd he said,and he confirmed that in the House today, that could mean that oil discoveries off the Coast of Newfoundland might end up costing the Public Treasury in this Province money. That is what he said.

Then later on he came up with some kind of a convoluted formula of his own that we should get equalization grants and revenue from offshore at the same time, which is just the same - MR. MORGAN: Pir. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : A point of order, the hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MOFGAN: With regards to my earlier point of order, the hon. gentleman is quoting from some document on his desk saying that - MR.TULK: How do you know that? MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Yahoo from Fogo Island (Mr. Tulk) could keep quiet - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please Hon. members are not allowed to refer to other hon. members by Yahoo. MR. MORGAN: Wellthe hon. Yahoo, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Yahoo. MR. TULK: No, no MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, the member in debate is quoting from a document on his desk, and he is saying that the Minister of Finance said. MR. TULK: How do you know that? 1 :I1 i

Tovehe' ' 1°91 Tae 375 - MR. MORGAN: In other words, somebody else i s:irg what the Finamce •ir.ister (Dr. CcT1it5) said. I ant to know from what source the Finance Minister is beinr cuotad, so that that document should be tabled in the House. EAKER (Butt) : Order, please As I ruled before,I do not see any document that the hon. member is referring to. MR. MORGAN: It is on his desk. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please Therefore no point of order.

Just let me simply say to the hon. member,I was about to call him to order because we are debating Bill 115, second reading which deals with making Price (Nfld.) a federal corporation and therefore I fail to see where the hon. membe-Ls. remarks are relevant to the bill we are now debating. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Your Honour, I did get a little bit carried away there. I was comparing actually,giveaways.

I mean,we hear so much about giveaways, I said they gave away to Price (Nfld.) Labrador Linerboard and all the goodies and all the concessions that go with it, Then i went on to point out to the House that all this athr.inistration can think about is mega projects. MR. TULK: Large corporations. MR. NEARY: Multinational, large corporations. They rush into the House, Mr. Speaker, with bills like we have before us here, When the multinational cracks the whip the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) jumps. MR. CALLAN: Not that high, but he jumps. MR.

NEARY: Well,he jumps I do not know how high he is jumping now, butMr. Speakerthey would not be as quick, this administration would not be as quick reacting, bringing legislation into the House if it had anything to do with an ordinary Newfoundlander. But as soon as the 1! iii

November 26, 1981 Tape 3785 PK - 4 Ni. ARY: multinationals crack the wiip the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) , or wnatever minister, it does not take him lonc to move. r So, Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. The hon. gentleman may get up and say; well, he 4 is not sure, like we heard a minister saying the other day. He said we supported the bill, but we said this and we left the impression that this is the way we felt about it or we felt that way about it. Well ; Mr. Speaker, what is legislation for if it is not to be debated? What is it for?

I can get up and say I support a bill and I can point out the weaknesses in it and I can express my views on it as I am doing now. And what is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? Not a thing in this world as long as you are relevant and as long as you stick to the matter under discussion. II 1 fl 1

Novemoer 26, Lid! Tape 3786 EC 1 M?. NE.RY: And I sa' agi. vo suoport tt i11. But I have to say this beforo I trzo 1x. Speaker, that we were told at the beginning of this. sossion by the Premier - it was broadcast from one of the Province to the other; from one end of this Province to the other-we were told-the promotion that the session of the House of Assembly had- we were told, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this session that major reforms were in the offing in the form of legislation. We were told there is a legialative reform programme Lhe likes of which we had never seen in this Province.

Now, is this an example, Mr. Speaker, of what the Premier meant by legislative reform? Mr. Speaker, is this going to do anything for the ordinary Newfoundlander? Is it going to do anything for the economy of the Province? Is it going to solve the crisis in the fishery? Is it going to salve our unemployment problem? Is it going to do anything about electricity rates and the high. cast of living? No, Sir, it is not. All it is going to do is heip a multinational company,and that is in kceping, Mr. Speaker, with the tradition of the Tory Party. Toryism, that is Toryism at its finest.

Do not bring any legislation into the House that will help ordinary people or c.rdinary Newfoundlanders, bring in legislation that will help the multinationals. There is nothing on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that this government cares about the real problems that are facing the people of this Province, namely, the crisis in the fishery, record unemployment, high cost of living, high cost of electricity, ever increasing vandalism and crime, federal/provincial relations, and I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.

But I know Your Honour has heard all this before and Your Honour is well aware of the philosophy of this government. Therefore, Mr.peaker, 1 'fl 1

NovemBer 26, 1981 rape 3768 - 2 NF. NFtY. I will just end in by saying thot ia support th: hI1, but I vo'ild like for the minister, if he could, to tall us in his own opinion what is the real reason behind this kind of legislation. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) The hon. the Minister of Justice. If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in introducing the bill, this is similar to a number which have been introduced in the past two or three years, and in this instance it is where Price (Nfld.) Limited wishes to be incorporated federally.

A company can be incorporated in Canada in two ways, either in a province or by federal incorporation. And the reason that a company like Price (Nfld.) would wish at this time to have a federal incorporation would, I think, be that, you know, being the kind of company they are with business dealings throughout Canada, throughout North America and, no doubt, countries outside of North America as well, the fact of a national, Canada-wide corporation, I suppose one could say, enhances corporate identity - it would enhance their corporate identity.

As far as any revenue goes, or income tax, there is absolutely no effect whatsoever. And I would point out that to the best of my knowledge, in every other province - I think I am right there - in every other province, such a bill would not come to the Legislature. It is only because our Companies Act is antiquated that it is necessary that this would come to the Legislature. In other provinces it would not be necessary at all, the provincial Legislature would have nothing to do with it, and I would certainly assume that will be the case in Newfoundland as well when a new Companies Act is passed 1 Hfl 1 P

November 26, 1981 Tape 3786 EC - 3 . TTE:;i-iEl1IER: he .iii we are operating under the old one, it is necessary for tais kind of legislation to come to the House of Assembly but, certainly, as I say, in other parts of Canada that would not be necessary at all. I move second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Enable Price (Nfld.) Pulp & Paper Limited To Hecome A Federal Corporation,' read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, presently by leave. (Bill No. 115) On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on said bills, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. 1 L' fl -

November 26, 1981, Tape 3787, Page 1 -- apb CO IdE 6HOLZ MR. CHAIRNAN(Butt) : Order, please MR. MARSHALL: Order 2, Bill No. 106. A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government And The Government Of Canada Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies'. (Bill No. 106). Motion, that the Committee report ha'ing passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL: Order 3, Bill No. 66. A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Reorganization (General And Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973'.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL: Order 4, Bill No. 46. A bill,bAn Act To Amend The Constabulary Act". (Bill No. 46). Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL: Order 5, Bill No. 52. A bill, "An Act To Convey Certain Trusts And Properties In The Province To The Montreal Trust Company Of Canada. (Bill No. 52). Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL: Order 6, Bill No. 61. A bill, "An Act To Amend • The St.

Clare's Mercy Hospital (Incorporation) Act, 1960". (Bill No. 61) • Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. 1 fl 1 P

November 26, 1981

Summary ?rcceedinGs Act' MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN (BUTT) on clause 2. Tape No. 3788 EL-i 7. 1171 64. A bill, "An Act To Amend The 1i11 No. 6 4 ) On motion, clause 1, carried. Mr. Chairman. The hon. President of the Council MR. MARSHALL: There is an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to clause 2 to substitute the word 'shall' for 'may' at the end of subclause 1 and this is in conformity with the observations that arose out of the debate in second reading.

What in effect it will do, before it read "The judge may order the macter to be set aside in the event that he did not have - it has been shown that the complain- ant did not have notice of a summons or prima facie as a good defense. To change 'may' to 'shall' so that the judge will be required to. So, I move, Mr. Chairman, that clause 2 of the Bill be amended by striking out the word 'may' and substituting the word 'shall'. On motion, amendment, carried. On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried. On motion, clause 3 and clause 4 carried. Motion, that the committee report the bill with amendment, carried.

A bill, 'An Act To Establish The Alcohol And Drug Dependency Commission Of Newfoundland And Labrador". (Bill No. 109) Shall the

short title carry? MR. MOORES: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Carbonear. 1.111110

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3788 EL - 2 r.Chairman, I never had an ajoitinity to speak to this bill when it was being given second- reading in the House the cther dav-thi-ough no fault of my own, I might add, and I would like to make a few comments. I would like to make a few comments as germain as possible included under the heading of clause 1, the

short title. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, when the minister responsible for introducing this bill into the House rose to introduce it some time ago, he brought before the House a variety of facts and figures, statistics, all purporting to claim that this bill was about to be the panacea in bringing forth the much needed change and emphasis on drug and alcohol dependency in this Province,and that was all fine and dandy, Nr.Chairman. Certainly I do not propose to stand here in my place today and chide the minister on introducing to the House statistics of a nature to support the introduction of this bill.

We all know that this bill is a good bill and we all know that for the last twenty- five years theie has not been a commission of this sort. However, if my memory serves me correctly, what I did find most unamusing about some of the ministers' statements and remarks was the sorry, very sad lack of understanding of what drug consumption, either use or abuse,in this Province is today, a very sad lack of understanding.

I recall, when my colleague from LaPoile (Mr.Neary) was speaking on the bill, he pointed out to the minister that one of the primary causes of drug and alcohol dependency in our society today can be directly associated with the state of the economy and the resulting 1 11 on

a November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3788 EL - 3 R. neat -e thns that occur such as vandalisim an cri and what have you. And at that point, the Iirister + 1 fl 7

2, 1981 Tane No. 3739 - MR. R. MOORES of Social 3erzics (Mr. Mickey) let akb bee-hew, both be and the Minister of Health (Mr. House),and accused my colleague from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) of poli- ticking on this topic, of bringing in unrelated matters just to politic to get back at the government. It is interesting to note,Mr. Chairman,I was reading in Time Magazine just a while ago about the alcohol problem that is being experienced in the United States, about the drug problem that has manifested itself now into one of the most enormous catastrophies of our time.

And I am not just talking about hashish and marijuana, I am talking about the so-called hard drugs in society. And this is another aspect of the drug dependencies problem that the minister had all screwed up in his mind. But there are at the present time seventeen reports available on drug dependency in Canada and the United States and other parts of the world, seventeen reports, including one of the most famous of its kind,the LeDain Commission. That was a royal commission appointed here in Canada.

And none of those reports have come to any conclusive statements on the effects of marijuana and hashish, none of then: They have all made speculations, they have all made theoretical advances, but they have never come to any concrete conclusions. And everybody seems to always pass one on to the other, that drugs and alcohol are the same because they happen to create basically the same problem. And that in itself is a misunderstanding.

Alcohol right now is socially accepted and has been for thousands of years literally;therefore you cannot compare a traditional accepted problem, social habit to one that is very recent in its nature. Nobody knew what a toke or 1 112 )

Nov. 26, 1981 Tape No. 3789 DW - 2 MR. R. MCu.n: a jay was twenty years ago in our societY. But in the 1960s in the so-called druq culture these types of dependencies cane to the forefront. And our society was ill-eguippedas it istoday to deal with it becauselike the ministerthey missed understandina it. SOME HOL'. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. R. MOORES: And what the Minister of Health (Mr. Houae) and the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey) continually do is get up in their places and compare it to alcohol. And say that the two are the same and must be dealt with the same.

And I am telling you, gentlemen,as a young person in this Province I have stood with a half a million people, half a million people in a field in Woodstock, New York, as a young boy. And I have seen marijuana and hashish and every other drug consumed like it was water. And I have yet to get a table turned over in my face, I have yet to get a broken nose, I have yet to be aggravated by the conduct or behavior of the personality of a person under the influence of hashish or marijuana. And I have yet to witness one case of criminal activity, such as we purport like somebody getting their head kicked in, a a 1!] 7 1

ovenber 26, 1981 Tace No. 3790 SD - 1 i.MOORFS: s wife aettinc her head kicked in and thrown out of her house, children beint beaten to death and so on. Now once we 4et into the hard drugs-and there are almost as many of them as there are types of whiskey and rum and so on - onto you get into those you are talking a completely different type of drug dependency. Now, on the other hand, about fifteen or twenty years ago when I used to drink I remember the only time in my life that I ever got drunk.

I was on the floor of the Halfway House Motel in Harbour Graces looking up like a fools wondering why everybody was laughing at me. And that night I was involved in no less than three or four fisticuffs, • I walked out of the Halfway House with a half a dozen scrapes on my face and half the shirt tore off my back.And I made a decision that night that never again would I participate in the consumption of alcohol. MR. TULK: Confession is good for the soul. - MR. MOORES: And my colleagues here,as well as my colleagues on the other side of the House1would confirm to you that I am a teetotaler.

The same thing happened with cigarettes I used to open four packs a day and more often than not I would smoke the fourth one. In university professors used to order me out of the classroom because I was like a smokestack. And I have watched 1 as a teenager and as a student, and I have watched as a MHA the devastating effects of alcohol. I have taken my friends out of cars dead. MR. MORGAN: Any colleagues? MR. MOORES: Yes, colleagues of mine, taken them out of automobiles dead on the highway.

Just a few years ago a friend of mine was returning from a curling game in Springdale.and he was drunk and he said to his wife, You drive the car and I will get out in the back seat with your father. And they pulled off the highway on the way home and there was a truck coming behind them - a pick-up with three men aboard loaded drunk - and they were hit from behind and my friend was 1

November 26, 1981 Tame No. 3790 SD - 2 MR. MOORES: crushed to death. And there has never ever been am: action taken on that matter in a court of low. You cannot compare alcohol,and • any man who does ,and the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey) did it implicitly if not actually in his comments and in the tenor of his remarks, if you compare them then you are bigger fools than anyone would expect you to be. They are not related. The only things about them is that they both create dependencies.

The behavioral patterns of the people who participate in their consumption are completely different and cannot be diagnosed the same.

And I listened to Carl Sterrett on VOCM the other morning, one of the very few times I have done so, and if there has ever been a scare tactician in this Provinchypeing up scare tactics to create a situation amongst the public to favour his point of view on drugs—and I doubt very much if he has ever participated in them; well,I do not mind saying • that I have, I do not mind saying that as a stUdent at Memorial University I was one of thousands and thousands who participated in drug consumption, marijuana and hashish. And there are people in this House and outside of this House who do it now.

We do not abuse it', use and abuse are two different things, So is use and abuse of alcohol two different things. But the tragedy, dear God, Mr.Chairman, the tragedy is when you get a Minister of Social Services, a man responsible for at least a guidance of the thinking in this Province, using statistics I !fl 7 r sift

Nov. 26, 1981 Tape No. 3791 DW - 1 R. MOORES: from agencies lo r--iis Province who were supposed to be interested and concerned with this problem to point out ignorance, ignorance in the understanding of the problem and a general acceptance of that igr.oance on the part of legislators here. chat I suggest you do is read some of the report, in- cluding the LeDain Commission which I keep referring to, because it dealt with the legalization and the decrimi- nalization of marijuana and hashish. And that commission came out very clearly in favour of decriminalization if not legalization. I am sorry, Mr.

Chairman, genuinely sorry that there is such a misunderstanding,particularly about drugs. And that word is used like a maul, used like a maul for some people to protect their ignorance. And they continue to remain ignorant when there is so much information available, inconclusive information7 but the fact that it is inconclusive should act as enlightening to point out to people that if you cannot conclude that something is harmful.then the least you can do is say, 'Well, God, I cannot prove!' Therefore if nothing worse, let us compare it to alcohol in its worst form.

And if you compare itto alcohol in its worst form, then all you do is point out the weaknesses of a drug problem that has been in existance for 2,000 or 3,000 three years. And treat it like that! What would that mean if you took it to its logical conclusion? It would mean that we would be able to go into a Brewer's Retail and buy our drugs. It would mean that we could go into a club or something and order up a jay and toke away,provided we were of a specific age. Now what is wrong with that? If taken to its logical conclusion it is no worse than alcohol until you abuse it. 1 o fl 9 c:

Mc. 3791 DW - 2 MR. R. MOORES: Alcohol affects the brain. MR. MORGAN: Are \'Ou advocatino t ue of druos? SOME HON. MELBERS: Oh, oh • MR ....MOORES: No, let me answer please. Just a secondLet ce answer the question. You are damn right * I am advocating its proper use in our society,and if you do not like that,my friend,then you are more in the dark then I think you are. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. R. MOORES: Are you not listening? If you would listen rather than interject you would hear what I am saying.

I said compare the usage of it to alcohol and let us treat it the same way if you are going to consistently look at it that way. Not on the one hand come in here and use its comparative analysis to support you and then when you walk out the door say, My God, you would not dare talk about the use of drugs in our society. I might lose a few votes on that.' And therein lies the problem. People, legislators, administrators who are irresponsible enough to play politics with this while there are thousands and tens of thousands of lives in the offing. And that is what I am saying very clearly.

And this Province need not depend, Mr. cJ-iairmar, upon Ottawa. We do not have to depend upon Ottawa to move on matters relating to the proper use of drugs in our society. We do it with alcohol ,and if we can do it with alcohol then we can implement our own laws. The only thing, Mr. Qiairman , is we have to have the guts to do it, the gumption to realize our responsibility. Mr. Speaker - Mr. Chairman, it does not matter how I refer to you, the intention is the same, 1 Il 2

November 26, 1981 Tape 3792 EC - 1 NOORES: the eiby 2iguro the same. I am certainly glad that Mr. Speaker and also the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) were kind enough to allow these slightly irrelevant-in the sense of clause by clause - rmmarks, allowed S me to speak today. And I have a feeling that most of the members listening took the remarks in the way that I intended them to be conveyed. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear A bill, "An Act To Establish The Alcohol And Drug Dependency Commission Of Newfoundland And Labrador" (Bill No. 109) Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL: By leave, Order 15, Bill No. 104. MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt): By leave, Bill No. 15, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, 1973. Oh, I am sorry. A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act (No. 2)," (Bill No. 104). Motion, that the Committee report • having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL: By leave, Order 20, Bill No. 89. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Before we pass this bill through Committee, I have to make the following announcement on behalf of His Honour. Pursuant to Standing Order 31H, it being 5:00 P.M., I can now inform the House that I have received no Notices of Motion for debate at 5:30 P.M., when a motion to adjourn will be deemed to be before the House. MR. NERY: nn a moint of order, 1 fl 7 fl

November 26, 1981 Tape 3792 LIC - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. roer, + o the House oundertaod vhot ur Hor.our i a"ir, I had one in but I had to withdraw it because I have to go and pick up my young daughter at 5:30 o.::. or around time. MR. CHAIRMAN (Butt) : of course, and the hon. member knows that that is not a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. You oicw it is very nice to know that there was only one question arising out of the week that the hon. gentleman had been dissatisfied with, so this speaks well for the government.

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anamalies And Errors In The Statute Law, (Bill No. 89). Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. I 1 n

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3793 EL - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Order No. 22, Bill No. 50. A bill "An Act To Amend The. Education (Teacher Training) Act. (Bill No. 50). Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. MARShALL: Order No. 28, Bill No. 115. A bill, "An Act To Enable Price (Nfld.) Pulp & Paper Limited To Become A Federal Corporation'. tBill No. 115j. Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.Speaker returned to the Chair. MR.

SPEAKER(Simms) : The hon. member for Conception Bay South. MR. CHAIRMAN(Butt) : Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred and reports having passed the following bills without amendment; Bills 106, 66, 46, 52, 61, 109, 104, 89, 50 and 115, and Bill 64 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again. On motion, report received and adopted, bills without amendment ordered read a third time on tomorrow, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow. On motion, report received and adopted on bill with amendment (Bill No. 64).

Amendments ordered read a first and second time now, by leave. On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow. 1 1! fl •

November 26, 1981, Tape 3794, Pace 1 -- apb 11iR. MARShALL: Order 14, Bill io. 113 Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Finance Act". (Bill No.113). MR. SPEAKER(Sjmms): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill in effect enables us to do certain administrative restructuring within The Department of Finance.

Up to this time there is a Deputy Minister in the Department of Finance who by statute, carries out a wide range of duties and these duties extend all the way from fiscal policy across to tax administration and clients with tax statutes dealing with giving advice to government, and also to financial matters and so on.

It became apparent as time went along, that it was a very large load on the individual in this particular position and that the size of the duties placed on the Department of Finance, arising out of our increasing complexity of government, the increasing size of the population and so on and so forth, that there should be some restructuring done to break up the duties and to give these duties to two individuals rather than one individual. That recommendation, I think, fitted in with a recommendation that arose out of the Public Accounts Committee on one occasion.

I think the Auditor General at one time advocated it. I know that when we were studying the various departments of government for the Five Year Plan this was one of the recommendations that the Department of Finance brought in itself. Essentially what it will do, it will leave the Deputy Minister of Finance in charge, particularly of fiscal policy and debt management,

whereas the Comptroller General, which will be his counterpart, and who will have equivalent status to the Deputy Ministerwill be in charge of tax administration and pension policy, payroll 1 11 R

4 November 26, 1981, Tape 3794, Page 2 -- ape '. COLLINS: nd so forth. This is -;hrt the bill o::ortrally dccc. It also does permit other officers and employees of the Department to bs appoir without having to bring in amendment to the act, which is a very cumbersome deal. For instance, I think, previously to appoint an assistant deputy minister you actually had to bring an amendment into the House. o the particular position may need to be filled and one could not see it being legitimized perhaps for eight or nine months, until the House had an opportunity to pass an amendment. It was just not an efficient way to go. 4 4

Novemr 26, 1981 Taoe 3795 PK - 1 So this bill does ermit the epointments of f±ioo belo: the level of deputy miDister to be done without carryinq.out an actual amendment to the act. 4 So I move this amendment. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bil] be now read a second time? MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour. I realize I am an insignificant bump on the log, but I am glad Your Honour was able to see me. MR. SPEAKER: You were rather slow getting up,I did not notice. MR.

ROBERTS: Well, Your Honour, I apologize if I was slow getting up. I was on my feet, whether that is getting up or not. It takes a while to get up in this House, particularly in response to the minister. The bill itself, Sir, is insignificant, and the minister's introductory remarks were equally insignificant. Perhaps in responsewhen his turn 4 comes he could tell us what is this bit about needing an amendment to legislation to appoint an assistant deputy minister. If the minister has some indication that that was so. I would be most interested in it.

I will not say it was not so, I will simply way I never heard of it here or anywhere else. And I do not think that there is any legislation in this Province which requires an amendment to any legislation, to any statute to enable the minister or more correctly the Governor-in-Council I think he is probably gettino that 4 word from his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer), who is, among many other better things than the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) , he is a better lawyer. 1

Noventher 26, 1981 Tape 3795 PK - 2 MR. RUBERi; I do not cnow wuat n is taiing about, but since he said it. I suPpose we have to try to respond. If any hon. gentleman opposite can help me on the point I would be most arateful. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? S DR. COLLINS: The holder (inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: Well, the holders of this might well like to have legislative sanction,but there is nothing in this that says anything about an assistant deputy minister. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: I do not know. The minister made some reference AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

ROBERTS: I am sorry? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Welithere may well be another reason, in which case perhaps the minister ought to have given it. I mean, how do I know what passes througn the minister's mind? I have enough trouble trying to under- stand what comes from the minister's mouth. But the fact remains that, you know, whatever the minister is up to with this bill, I suggest it is not a matter of needing authority to appoint an extra assistant deputy minister. There is nothing in the bill that does that.

So maybe the minister in closing can do what he ought to have done in opening and tell us exactly what the bill will achieve and why he wants to achieve it. Now, as for the splitting the headship of the Finance Department into two, we have no problem with that. It was recornniended by the Public Accounts Committee two or three years ago I am not sure if it was during the chairmanship of my friend, the member for Lewisporte (Mr. White), that the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the 1

November 26, 1981 Tape 3795 - 3 MR. ?LCBERTS 4:unczin3 of thc Tinanca rtt be further divided and chat we have an official called the Cotvtroiler 7ral who, if I it I

26, I121 Tape :To. SD - 1 MR. ROBERTS: briefly put, be in charge of the exoeraliture aide end we would have a deputy minister who would be in charge of the policy side. oain I am not sure if that is a correct understandino, and acain I would say th aister could cerhes - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. ROBERTS: - when we are all ready to go we will go on - the minister could perhaps address that in his closing remarks and tell us exactly what each of these officials is going to do. But I understand that they are going to divide up the functions of the officials in the Department of Finance. MR.

WHITE: It has been done, boy. MR. ROBERTS: As i friend from Lewisporte (Mr. White) says it had been done some considerable time ago and we areas always,locking the barn door,whether the horse has been stolen or not, we are locking the barn door after the act. I would be grateful -it just peaks my curiosity -if the minister could tell us how he is going to choose between two deputy ministers. Subsection 2 of the new

section 4 will provide that both the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Comptroller General of Finance shall be deputy heads of the department. Now.I do not know if that means they are equal in every sense and.if so I am not sure I understand how that will function. Are we to have two Departments of Finance or one? My understanding is that by law in this Province there must be a deputy head of the department who is responsible to the Auditor-General and through the Auditor- General to this House for the expenditure of funds.

The ministers themselves are not responsible in the legal sense for the * expenditure of funds, they are responsible politically, and it is the deputy head of the department, the deputy minister who is responsible for the expenditure of the funds voted by the House. 111 n

November 26, 1981 Tape No. 3796 SD - 2 iR. ROb&TS: Now, in Department we are apparently to have two deputy heads of the deartment and I wonder if the minister could t11 us where that gets us? Is one to be senior to the other or what? I am just not sure, It is as if we had two Premiers or two Ministers of Finance. I am not just sure how that works, perhaps the minister can tell us. I am sure he has thought the matter through. The rest of the bill simply allows officials, other than the deputy minister, the Comptroller General, allowa officials other than them, to Sign documents.

That in itself does not particularly bother me, similar provisions, I think, are probably found in most of the legislation which has been set up from time to time to govern the different departments into which the Queen's government in this Province is currently divided. And there is no particular reason why a junior official ought not to be allowed to sign as long as the government are prepared to be bound by what junior officials may do or may not do. Given the growth in government and the growth in activity, there is no problem. Now having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I have been asked by one of my absent colleagues, who is away for a bit - • MR. NEARY: I am here. 4 1 1 1 fl

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I am sorry, civ friend is back. Hell I shall very briefly socak and then ahoy the gentleman from LaPoile (Mr. Neary) to touch upon it because he is much more aware of it than : a:. :- I youli remind the minister that a year or so past he informed the House that, righteous as he was - HR. NEARY: The Premier. MR.

ROBERTS: Oh, the Premier, Hehi,the Premier is even more righteous than the minister if possible,and certainly at least as sanctimonious - that in response to certain points raised by the Auditor General with respect to the administration of the Department of Finance,and in particular certain jollities which have been paid for out of public funds that ought not to have been paid for out of public funds, namely - was it a dinner in Gander? MR., NEARY: No, a shoot. MR. ROBERTS: A shoot. MR. NEARY: Yes. It was the Tory Convention. MR.

ROBERTS: Oh, it was the filming, it was the political filming of the Tory convention in Gander. MR. NEARY: Right on. MR. STIRLING: And the political poll. MR. ROBERTS: And the. political poll, both of which - MR. NEARY: And the Public Works spending. MR. CARTER: Do not look at us. MR. ROBERTS: I would prefer not to look at the gentleman for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) for aesthetic reasons if no other. I would say to him you know, he is over there clad in his seamless garment and he is like a prostitute living in a brothel and pretending to be a virgin. You know, do not look at him MR.

NEARY: You just shocked the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook) 1 H •4

26, i96 opL-:o. MR. ROERTS: I did not shock any member of this House, Wi;at = sa was perfectly parliamenzao: perfectly correct as well as being accurate and as well as Now, we were back on the - MR. sPEA:KEP (BAIRD): Order, pleas& MR. ROBERTS: If Your Honour has an order in this case,Your Honour better be very careful what the order is. MR. SPEAKER: Relevancy. MR. ROBERTS: I would think, Sir, that in talking to the finance policy of this Province it is quite relevant, to talk of things like that, Now, where was I before - MR. CARTER: Raking up ancient history. MR. NEARY: That will hold him for a while. MR.

ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member for St. John's North speaks of raking up ancient history. Sir, his mind stop thinking about 1969 politically. He has been doing very well raising savory since then. Excellent savory it is Sir. The only savory thing about the administration of which he is such an adornment is what he produces up there on Mount Scio.

I am not raking up ancient history, Sir, I am speaking of a document that I am sure the hon. gentleman would just as soon he never heard of, the most recent Auditor General's report, in which it was pointed out that Her Majesty's ministers, righteous, sanctimonious, dedicated as they are to the public weal - w-e-a-1 for the benefit of the gentleman for qt.

John's North - have seen fit to use money which they had taken from my constituents and other people throughout 1 the Province by such delicate means as, you know, taxes on building supplies and taxes on almost everything that we can think of, by such delicate means as the property tax which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook) is slowly but steadfastly shoving down the gullets of every person in this Province, and this tax money that has been 1 fl -

November 26, 1981 Tape 3793 EC - 1 exacted by the Minister of Finance and ois minions was being used to finance political polls and used to finance political television commercials. P. NEARY: And McConnell's stuff too, do not forget that. McConnell Advertising. • MR. CARTER: It was not used to build Premier's houses. MR. ROBERTS: It was not used to build Premiers' houses. Well, of course, it is being used to pay for the Premier's house, is it not? And, of course, the gentleman from St. John's North (Mr.

Carter) supports wholeheartedly the fact that we have only one Premier in Canada who is living on the public trough and that i the Premier of this Province. The only Premier in all Canada who is living on the public trough,with his snout in the public trough, is the Premier of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh) MR. ROBERTS: And the hon. gentleman from St. John's North suPports that. I do not. AN HON. MEMBER: The next Premier (inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: The next Premier is not liviig on the public trough, the next Premier is sitting here in his seat as the Leader of the Opposition. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear) MR. ROBERTS: Now, Sir, as I was saying before the hon. gentleman opposite - I simply want to ask the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) if he would be kind enough in his generosity to let us in on the wall-kept secret of what he has done to honour the commitment which he made, or which his Premier made to the House? What was the commitment? MR. STIRLING: The Premier acreed with the Auditor General and he would get the money back. 1 [ifl I fl ii

November 26, 1981 Tape 3798 EC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Leader of the OPposition reminds us the Premier agreed with the Auditor GeneraL And well he might. The Auditor General was dead on. Ab, they have yanked out the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) now, they are sending in a substitute, the gentleman from Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart MR. ROBERTS: Tweedle Durn Now, where was I? I would remind the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) that the Premier made a solemn commitment and we know the Premier is a man of his word.

We know that we are entitled to reiy upon the Premier's word. We know that the Premier's commitment is his bond and there can be no more solemn commitment than the commitment of the Premier standing in his place in this House saying that he is goir.g to take action to recover public money. Now, he made the commitment. MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. ROBERTS: And all I want the Minister of Finance to tell uc, if he would be so kind, is how much money we have recovered, when we recovered it and from whom, and if we have not recovered anything as yet, what are we doing about it? Has he got his bailiffs out?

Has he issued a Wit? Has he sicked the RCM Police on to it? What has he done? That is all we want him to answer.It is grand to have a Comptroller General, it is grand to have an Auditor General, it is grand to have all these people. In fact, the more I see of the Minister of Finance in the performance of his duties, the more I believe he needs even more help, and I, for one, will gladly vote him as much help as he could possibly want 1 1' fl li

November 26, 1981 Tape 3798 BC - 3 I 2S: needs it. NP.. STIRLIYG: There would na'er be enouch. MR. ROBERTS: But what I do want to know - I mean, I could talk a great deal about the Finance Department, but there will be another time. I could talk about the Minister of Finance's (Dr. Collins) Doltroonly performance in bringing in a mini-budget and refusing - and his colleagues •1 'L

26, 1981 TaDe 3799 PR - 1 MR. ROBERTS: :•:iddla lll1 Dee. DR. COLLINS: Say something substantial. HR. ROBERTS: I am Sorry. DR. COLLINS: Say something substantial. MR. ROBERTS: I will - say Something substantial. The trouble is, Sir, that saying something substantial to the minister is throwing pearls before swine, Sir. Now what I am saying is substantial, Sir, it is $36 million, and if the minister - you know, is it not interesting how the minister when he gently prodded in - he knows he has done wrong. He knows he has no justification.

He knows that he and his colleague have no reason to refuse to tell the people of this Province where they have cut $50 million. AN i-ION. MEMBER: Why are they hiding it? MR. ROBERTS: Why are they hiding it? Oh they hope to sneak it through in next year's Budget. They suspect that there will be so much bad news in the next Budget, if in fact we ever see a Budget, my friend for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) who from time to time is not a bad prog- nosticator has prognosticated, that is, p-r-o-g-n-o-s-t-i- c-a-t-e-d, for the benefit of the minister - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart MR.

ROBERTS: - has prognosticated, has made a prognosis that the government will not have the intestinal fortitude to bring a Budget before this House, that instead they will go to the country. It is all the same to us. I would just as soon see the people do the job on them than to have to do it here in the House. DR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) sensible (inaudible) for a change. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, you know, how can I deal with that? I mean, when I was a child I spake 1 H fl 1.

a i;eveiaber 26, 2262 MR. ROBERTS: as a child, but the minister speaks as a child even thouah he is well beu2 t` ,c years of official Sir, I could go ca YOLI have said enough. MR. ROBERTS: I am not going to. I want to give the minister a chance to do what he ought to have done in opening th debate namely to explain what this bill does. MR. TULK: You have said enough. MR. ROBERTS: And in terms - a.i' HON. saBER: Give him time. MR. ROBERTS: Maybe I cannot understand - give him time. Yes there is a saying 'Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself' .

It happened to Sterling Lyon and I venture to say it will happen to the present Premier. All we need is the election, but we cannot call, the election. It may even happen to the hon. gentleman for the Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow)- MR. WOODROW: Oh, oh MR. ROBERTS: - who is in a long, long time. But knowing the gentleman for the Ba