Volume 3 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 3rd. Session VERBATIM REPORT MONDAY, MAY 20, 1974 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 73

T,,ne ~!c,. Hi69 Nlf - l The Hnuse ~eL ac 3:n n P. '~ . 'fr. SnP.aker in che C::ha i r. A'Jq,:-:'Rc; rn P!•~'.STTIJ'(S l'()P WHICH :,0T r c1: l!.~S IIEJ::N r,J VEN : - ·- -- - - ~ :',"£1'-.!::.fc_P~:- The honourable '1inister c>f Erluca cion . !1.:::~ ~- OTTENFEl'·IBR, 'JJ11ister of Ed~cat lol!_: nr. Soeaker, I wish to tAhle Tl'V answer co auesti<ln no. 51 apnearing on the Order Paper c,f "av 13 and asked b" the honourable Member for St. Barbe ,:orth. ''T'. SPEAK>'"': The honourR.ble '1in ls ter of Justice. Does the honourable Minister have leave tc, five his Potice of motion?

Agreed. 1'_0~--:!.._.~_IJICl~ 'l_~....':1._I.K 1sn:11, OF JUST l CE: Mr.

Speaker, I ~ive notice t!rnt I 1dll on tomorrc,w ask leave to introduce the followinr Bills, a hill, · An /Ice ".espectini '. the Licen··dng of Trust Cc·mpanies and Loan ,':omnanies,' a bill, "',\n Ace Pesoeccinr "ublic Libraries and Boards To Onerate Theni,"' a hill, ,~n Act Respecting The Award Of An Increase Of Pensinns To nr In ~P.snecc Of Certain Emp]civees nf The r.overnl!'ent and r.ertA.in TeA.cher s \nd J'o Certain Former Employees f)f The r.overnment Of !'<ewfournHancl And Of Tlw :,ewfc,undland RaiJ, .,av , .. ,md on behalf of my colleav,ue, the 1,onourable '!ini.Stt'r of Provincial Affai-rs, a hill, " An .~cc <tesneccinr 'fobilP.

Homes anrl The Reriscration and Rer,ulation of ttohile Jlo:ne J)ealers. -- ~_!R..;.._S}'_!':AKE_~ : Are there any further answers co questions for which no tice hRs been given? ORAL ')UESTIONS : •~Jl ._ SPEAKER: The member for Bell Island. '-'P.. S. NEARY:_ '!r. Speaker, 1 was goinp co ask the~ povernment House Leader why there was no renresentative of the p:overnment down to meet Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Prime ~inister of Canada,but that would be out of order, that question would be out of order, '!r. Speaker, and therefore I will not as~ the question, Sir. Could I ask the question bv leave of the House? '{r.

Speaker, I wonder if the minis cer responsible for housinii; would tell us if the povernment have taken any steps to include Mundy Pond and Shea Heights into any programme of a-house-for-a-house deal 6440

Tape No. 1669 that we talked about here last week? There seems to be some douht in the 'lundy Pond Area about this question and it is ouite controversial at the moment. Would the minister care to clarify the situation? _'_'>':c.:. .:~l!J\IER: The honourable ~Tinister of "lunicipal Affairs and llousinp:. !ION. _ H.R.V. EARLE, Minister of ~lunicipal Alfairs and Housing: Mr.

Speaker, I can inform the honourable member that the ~undy Pond llrhan Renewal Scheme has now been included in the NIP Prop:ramme and what is known as the ~esidential Reuair, that is the ~AP Prorrarnme under which they can take advantage of loans up co $5,000 for the forrivenes of ~~.son. Also the Neivhhourhood Improvement Prorramme is applyin ~ . There is a fairlv substantial amount of money beinr. snent in that area this vear and I have informed people in the area that everv consir1eration will he given to those who may have to he . . . . : SD(').S6L"~:iS~LJ certainly nohody will he put on the street. ,m_.

NF.ARY: Docs that mean that the peonle who have been forced out of '-lundv. Pone! and Shea Jleip:hts ,Jill gee a home for a home? The prop.ramme the minister referred to is a federal prop.ramme, what is the province Jioin2 to do? 'Ir. S-peaker, the chanr,e in the legislation has not come into force yet. Only the motion has been passed, there has been no amendment to the .\ct. ~._yEARY: .. Mr, Speaker, J wonder if the '-linister of Social Services could tell us what is be1np done to help out the day care centre in Gander that is runninp into financial difficulty and wants to stay OPE'n?

I think they have already sent a request to the minister. Would the minister indicate what is being done about it, if anything? 'fF.. SPEAKE~· The honourable Minist~r of Education. ~.:.:.. QT.!'._EEHEil'fE~: Mr. Speaker, a number of day care centres, the one at Gander. the one at St. John's and some others I think, started under local initiative programmes this winter and of course that exp1.red the end of / Apri.1.1 believe. What the government det'ided to do was to continue 6441

>.fay 20 , 19 711 Tape No. 1669 NM - 3 one in operation for a full year as a pilot project in order to see - because none of these had actually been run by the department, there had been some liaison but never actually run by the department. One was selected to continue , .financed by the provincial government and that was the one, St. John 1 s; 1 Teach A Tot," it is generally known as. The others, includin!l the one at Gander, are not beinF financed by the provincial povernment.

The overall aim is, after the experience of running one for a year,to chen endeavour co make chis avaialable on a provincewide basis or to build into chat situation. So basically all of those which starced under LIP, the L1P narticipation came co an end and one was selected to be continued at provincial expense and that was the"Teach A Tot''one. lt is honed that within a year the department will formulate a polky for day care homtcmaker seryices which will be provincially applicable. }fll~EI.:.. A supnlementary question.

Is the minister aware that the dav care centre in r.ander, and I would not be a bit surprised the one here in Sc. John's too, because there is an

article in today's telegram, '"Operacin~ clay care centres .is agony,' F avs F.CnA dele!late." but 1s the minister aware that the one in r.anrler will have to close i~mediatelv if they do not get financial assistance from the province ,mrl probably the ones here in Sc. John's too'/ Would the minister care to comment on it,because I understand there is a request in from Gander? MR. OTTEJ'!!!.§_IMER: I suppose practically all of chem, you know,startinp, under LIP were hoping to haVf' provincial funds to continue.

What the government decided to do was that we would only continue one of them because we did not wish to ~et into a, if you wish, full-grown day care prop.raMllle without the sufficient experience and appropriate r,uidelines, because what in effect we would be doinp., we would be inheriting programmes across the province, very beneficial no doubt but started under LIP, not under orovincial guidelines. While we realize that a great deal of good is done in such centres, government did not feel that it was possible 6442

l-fay 20, 1974 Tape NO. 1669 N'1 - 4 or wise to get involved in a provincewide proP,ramme prematurely. That is the reason that we have continued one as a pilot project.in order, hopefully next year, co have a provincewide pror:ramme. I realize that other centres would indeed like to continue. He cercainly realize that hut we feel there is no other wav we can do it and then we hope in a vear's time, to be able to get into day care centres on a provincewide basis. 'fR • NEARY: . )1r.

Speaker, is the minister aware that fifty per cent of anv assistance given chese day care centres is shareable hy the r.overnment of Canada? ~W..._ nTTENHEIME~: Yes, yes. "IR. NEAFY: The minister is aware of that, is he? ;,m. OTTENHI:ll•!ER: Yes, certainly. MR. NEARY: :,ir. Speaker, it seems, you know I just cannot swallow it, that it is goinp. to cake a year. Is the minister aware 1.hat a prop,ramme for day care centres was being worked on in 1971. Why does not the minfster imple'f'lent that orop.ramme'l You know, whac is c:he hangup? Why wait? Day care c'..'!ntres are nothing new.you know. "'Il.

OTTE~P.IER: T do not know that I can say much more than l actually hiwe and that is chat the g,~vernment is nlanning to implement a province­ ••line day care centre nexc year, not chj s vear. That is the government's '1ope and inrention, to implement: one next year. Id" not think I can .-id<l anythini> further to what I said. of course reii.lize that these are, :>11 l~ e whole these p..o)!rannnes are fifty per cent cost shareable under the C:rnada Assisc ance i'} an an<l t he one in St.

John's is continuing after the completion of the LTP, being aclminis tercel alonr thnt formula. '"' . .'1SAPY, lfould the member for Gander care t:o comment on it? - ·------ i~OH. h. r.OlLP;s , 'tini c:ce r of Fisheries: '1r. Speaker, I have been involved in this and I am not sure if my colleague will agree, but it: is my understandin~ and I think I am right on this, that an applicatjon was !!lade to the ~ederal rovernment for cost sharinr on the Ganrler project - 'fl>. COLLI"lS : An application was made by the nrovince to solicit federal

Tar,e ::n. 1/if.'1 sunr.,on: in ch<· concin1ced cJperation of the r'ancer cPntrc and t!1e FP.c1eral !'ovem111ent call'e. 1 <".ck anci said chat uncil we are readv co i~rle,..,enc a r,rovinc~•,,ricle nrovrarnl!le chey would noc consider sharinp: in f!i.c·wr: 0ne. -~ . C11 LLI:•,S: think that is -- ----- .:_~ ._r.::'._I-:f::.t~i'..:.. ln ocher words che ''inisrer of ~'isheries, would che s•inister indic1He w11ac •.rould harq,en en that dav care centre irc r:,rnrler? Will it havP to close if it d0cs not pee nrovinciel assiscancP? -~.,_._i;~L.!_:S: '·lr.

Sneaker, you know c.his jg cJ,e ,.,1,ole I.II' T'rorral",ne, ara !.n with the honournh] e ,~cmher. '" fe,1,~r11l cc•un cerparts do,.,n in nttcl'•'", not onlv in <1:w carP. centres but: in clifferent otl1er endeavours as 1,el 1, whPre monies .. ,ere T'lade avni L,1,1e uncler LIP, the croj ecr or the pro1« ·,,.~l e, wr.acever it was, ,,1as kept <•oincr for seventy per ceiit of the tiu,e nh l ch w:rn neerkd, and che11 t'1~1y fr 11 out of it. wc,uld ,;ay if the h0nour.:ilde 1~e~1ber be real iv L<>ncerneJ ahouc r-0i n" so!l'ethinr for c11e clay care centre in r:,rncler. that: he :n;al:e 'Ir..

Trudeau m-!<lr<-' nnd J!lal--e cltr, 0[h.cr JTien1hers w>io are runnim, feJerally in r·ander aware of it. and see if ,.,e can 5;e.t sol'lethi n~ done, and pi ve up p layi np, small-time nolitics. ~:.Jl_EARY: • Ohviou,;;l v, 'Ir. Speaker, ch, minister is not aware of cl,e situation. It is a nrovincial matter. ' Ir. Sneaker, PPr'. ,ans ;: will ii.iv,;, hetcer luck with thP. 'linister of '.1ines and Enet?;y. Could the '.-li.niscer of '.fines and l:neniv tell us if all the p,as companies have increasNf i:heir nrices in Newfoundland or only three as indicated in today's newsnaner? /TO!.. L.

BARRY, Minister of Mines and Enerr .v: I have not had an opportunity, unfortunately, ~~r. Speaker, to read the newspaper vet tocJay. 1 have heen so husy in '"'Y other duties, I just caught the headlines. If the honourable memher could just tell me which of the three companies that are reported there as havinp, increased. ~ NFARY: Inaudible. 'lR. BA~RY..:_ Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, there were a couple of companies that had increased prior co today's prices, or ac least one, 6444

l~ay 20, 1974 Tape No. 1669 N'I - 6 and I wcmld sav that it is not to be unexpected to see all the cmnpanies take advanta?,e of the ooportunity which they have been given by the Liberal r.overnment in Ottawa to increase their prices. ~!..:__!ff.AP!.:_ Hr. ~neakP.r, suoplementary, does the minister not think that it is too much of a coincidence for all the oil companies to increase their nrices at the same rate1 Does the minister not chink that -this would he a violation of the Canada Combines Act? 1,ffi.

BARRY : Mr, Speaker, I think that it is somewhat out of the ordinary but ic is not unusual when we consi<ler that the Liberal Government in flttawa has consented and approved of che major oil companies increasing prices hv the amount of aooroximacely two noint seven cents a gallon co cover the increased cost of crude, bv approximately ooj_nt four cents a gallon to cover the oneratinp costs. MR. NEARY· Four-tenths of one per cent. !-IP-.

BARRY: --- - - I am sorry, four-tenths of a cent a gallon to cover increased onerating costs on the part of these companies even though these comnanies have had lar~e increases in profits over the last year or so and an additional ooint six cents a gallon to cover the increased federal sales tax • So that you have, '1r. Speaker, two point seven cents a gallon plus point four cents a gallon plus point six cents a rallon which totals three point seven cents a gallon, of which one cent Js made up of costs that have nothinp to do with the increase in the cost of crude from the Middle East or Venezuela or elsewhere.

It. has to do with increased federal sales taxes.when the provincial government has removed sales taxes 1 and it has to do with an allowance for operating costs.when these companies are makinp tremendous profit. Well I have to ask the honourable Slember opposite to p.o check with his Liheral colleapues to find out their reasoning behind that particular formula. "'ffi. NEARY : ~Ir. Speaker, supplementary. Isthe provincial Minister of Mines and Energy aware that the Government of Canada is subsidizing crude oil to the extent of $4 a barrel in refineries in Eastern Canada. What is his government doing about it?

That is what I want to know. The 6445

'lay 20, 1974 Tape No. 1669 NM - 7 federal p.overnment is contributing $4 a barrel in Eastern Canada. ~- BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are contributing $4 a barrel to subsidize the prices in Eastern Canada. 'ffi. NE.b.RY:_ No. he forl!ot to mention that did he? ~--ll~XY:_ It is our tax dollar that was being used. "l"'~NF.A~Y: Yes but that was just incidental. He forgot to mention that. •ir: • SPT:AKER : Order T'lease. "'111. llARRY: T f 1 could answer the question, ~fr. Speaker, it is our tax dollar that is beinp. used to subsidize the price of crude. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the price of crude oil in the international market is in excess of SlO a barrel and we are getting an advantage in havinp. crude subsidized to the tune of some $4 a harrel. '!!l_. NEARY.:_ Bv the Liberal Governmenc up in Ottawa. HR. BARRY: And, Mr. Speaker, chis was following very strong representation by this province and every ocher r,rovince in Canada to have this done. "fr.

Soeaker, if the Liberal Government in Ottawa had gone alon~ with our other representation which was co the effect chat all of the revenue received ry Alberta and Saskatchewan should have gone into the equalization formula, you would see this province receiving instead of the measlv $9 million that it is receivinp. this year, you would see this province receiving something in excess of $6n million. "fr. Soeaker, if the nrinciple of the equalization formula had been followed hy the Liberal Government in Octawa - then, "1r.

Speaker, you would see this province in a po.,;ition to be able to further suhsidize prices in Newfoundland. But, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government in Ottawa decided that it would not permit our province and the other provinces to receive the money which rightfully, Mr. Speaker, should have come co our people. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would not waste my time askinp him a supplementary. Sir, he is getting too foolish now. Sir, by popular request, I want to ask the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture what is being done about the land freeze in the greater St. John's Area?

When can the people expect the freeze to be lifted? When can they expect some 6446

May 21), 1974 Tape No. 1669 N1'! - 8 kind of a report from the minister? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture . HON. E. '1AVNARD: I suppose I will answer the question ae:ain for about the 15,000 time, Mr. Speaker. It was only two days ago I indicated to the House that a col'lplete soils analysis was bein)!: done in the whole St. John's Area. As soon as the soil analysis is completed I will he sup:gestinp to government that areas that are not suited for ap:riculture or has 1,0 potential use, will be taken out of the control area.

I would anticipate a soil analysis will take in the vicinity of four to five weeks. ~- NEA~: Supplementary, '."Ir. Speaker, would the minister indicate if ic is possible just to do a spot check? Look at it with your own eye, you do not need a soil analvsis,and f ree up a lot of thfs land thnt is non-agricultural land. Would the minister indicate if that can be done right away? People are waiting. The consrruction season is underway and people are waitin2: to build houses. !ffi. SPEAK.ER: Order please! Order please! ~- NEA~J..:... Could it not he done just by looking at it1 MR. '.1AYNARD: Mr.

Speaker, applications have been received for building in the land development area ever since the controls were imposed. Many applications have been approved by spot checks as the member is talking about and many more will be approved but I am not prepared to take small spots out: of the land development area until we know exactly_ what the potential is for agriculture in the area. "'R. NEARY: Sunplementary, :--tr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate how manv applications now are outstanding? Is there a backlog of applications from people looking for permission co build houses on some of the land that is frozen?

MR. MAYNARD: I do not know how many applications have been received by the Advisory Hoard, which looks over all the applications before thev come to me. I would think that t:here are not that many backlogs since t:he board meets every two weeks and deals with all the applications chat are received during the two weeks. 6447

May 20, 1974 Tape J;o. 1669 MR. :,EARY: 'Ir. Speaker, would the minister be good enough co get the House chat information? '111. ' 1AYNARD: Yes. ORDERS OF T!iE DAY: On moc:ion of the lwnourable Minister of Justice, a bill, ··,\n !,ci: Further To Amend The Newfoundland !-[edical Care Insurance Act," read a fin,t time, ordered read a second time orcsently, by leave. 6448

!>tay 20 , 1974 Tane 1670 (afternoon) IB-1 On motion of the Hon. ~H.nister of Justice, a bill, '

An Act To Amend The Election Act, •· read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the lion. Jvl'inister of Justice, a bill, ,·An Act Further To Amend The Department Of Health Act," read a first time, ordered read a second time,presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. Minister of Justice, a bill, 'An Act Respecting The Licensing Of Trust Companies And Loan Companies,' read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. }'.inister of Justice , a bill, '

An Act Further To !\mend The Companies Act,· read a first time, ordered read a second tj.me, presently by leave. On r.iotion of the Hon. }'inister of Justice, a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The }1echanics ' Lien Act, read a first time, ordered read a second time . presently by leave. On motion of the· Hon. r<inister of Justice, a bill, 'An Act Further To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, ' read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon.

Minister of Justice, a bill, "fn Act To Amend Certain Statutes Of The Province, ' read a first time, ordered read a second time , presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. Hinister of Justice, a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The

Summary Jurisdiction Act, ,. read a first time, ordered read a second time . presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. Pi.nister of Indus .trial Development, a bill ,

An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Entered Into Between The Government And Pyramid l!obile Homes

(1959) Limited With Respect To The Commencement And Carrying On Of A Business For Manufacture And Distribution Of Mobile Homes Within The Province, And To Make Statutory Provisions Respecting Matters Connected Therewith," read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. tfinister of Justice, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Solemnization Of ¥,arriage, a read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. ~finister of Industrial Development, a 6449

May 20, 1974 Tape 1670 bill, '

An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between C,overnment And Canada Bay Lumber Company Limited," read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. IB-2 On motion of the Hon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Farm Development Loan Act, " read a first time , ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, a bill, ·

An Act Further To Amend The Cro1,m Lands Act," read a first time , ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. Minister of Educati.on, a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Education (Teachers' Pensions) Act, read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. ~inister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The St. John's Housing Corporation Act,· read a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. l-'inister of Fisheries, a bill, ·

An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act ,' read a first time, ordered re~d a second ti.me, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. l'inister of }'anpower and Industrial Relations, a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Worlanen' s Compansation Act ,'' reac a first time, ordered read a second time, presently by leave. On motion of the Hon. Minister of :Panpower and Industrial Relations, a '!:ill, "An Act Further To Amend The Hours Of Work Act, :· read a first time, ordered read a second ti.me, presently by leave. yy... SP~.!_ ~ Order 22, Bill (No. 20) - I think we are into the second reading of this bill.

I really do not remember who adjourned the debate last day. MR. MARSHAL! : I think we are on the amendments, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. HON. E. MAYNARD (}!INISTER OF AGRIClH,TURE A."ID FORESTRY) : Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition ended off the debate uhen we finished and an amendment was proposed at that time. Copies, I assume, have been distributed. In any case the motion was: '

BE IT RESOLVED that all the words after that be deleted

~'a.y 20, 1974 Tape 1670 IB-3 and the following suhstituted the-refor " - it is not indicated which

section of the bill it applies to . . :t:!R..!. }~. ROW_E_:_ If the minister will allow me a point of order: The motion is that the bill be now read a second time. So, the motion is that those words be deleted and that it be referred to a committee. "R. !'!AYNARD: Fine. Anyway, the amendment was that this bill be now referred to a committee of this House, such a select committee to have power to send for officers and papers while in session and out and to hold public hearings at such times and places throughout the province as may be considered necessary by the select committee. How , }·'.r.

Speaker , I see no reason personelly for referring the bill to a select collJlllittee. Much ~f the information that the honourable leader said he wanted and could not get was certainly in the task force report. I think ~.·e should deal with this amendment now and get on to the debate on second reading. I move that the amendment be voted out, thrown out or whatever is necessary. !·lR. W. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember quite frankly if I spoke on the ·· I spoke once but I do not know if it were on the original motion before the Leader of the Opposition or on the amendment or what.

MR • • ARSHALL: The honourable Leader of the Opposition spoke. After he spoke, I am sure that I adjourned th~ debate in order to give the honourable gentlemen opposite an opportunity to look at the Forestry Report and then reassess the Position and see if they really needed a select committee. I t hink the honourable member for White Bay South has spoken in the main debate but not on the amendment. MR. W. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, it is our feeling that this bill should be referred to a select co111Dittee of the House. Now we worded it as a select committee of the House.

It is not necessary that that particular medium be used. The whole idea of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition was that on such an important matter as a fundamental change in forestry policy throughout this provinc£ that as many people as possible should be given an opportunity to make co111111ents and to make submissions in briefs to some formally established body. Now, that could be a commission of enquiry. It could be a select committee of the House. We choose a select committee of the House as a 6451

May 20, 1974 Tape 1670 IB-4 medium. It could be the minister himself holding a series of enquiries throughout the province, the major areas of the province. The whole idea was to elicit information, comment and observation from as many people as possible throughout this province on such a fundamental issue. How many hearings did the task force hold throughout the province? AN HONOURBLE }IB~ER: A large number. ~- W. ROv_[E...:.. A large number. Well, I know a lot of people ir my district who did not have any opportunity to appear before any task force. I do not know how well advertised it was.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. ·----------------· - ?-IR. W. ROWE:. Well, Englee is in White Bay North. There was nothing in Baie Verte,for example. MR. W~:_ Fishot Islands - they might have met there. The whole point is that some public body, some politically sensitive and acute body, whether it be a select committee of the House or the minister himself - I do not know, something like that - should hold wide public hearings throughout this province and not secretly or anything else or quasi-secretly but publicly with as much publicity given to the holding of the hearings as humanly possible.

We did not move that amendment,Sir, with the hope that or with the idea that our curiosity or our feelings would be satisfied when the minister tabled the task force report. Two separate issues altogether: One was that we condemned the minister at the time for having the temerity to bring a bill into this House and not at the same time table the task force report so the members of the Ilouse could have some idea as to what it was all about, what he was proposing.

The second thing we wanted to do and perhaps more important than the tabling of the task force reportwas to give as many people throughout this province as much opportunity and time as possible to make comment on this proposed policy change. Throw the task force report 6452

}~y 20, 1974 Tape 1670 IB-5 into that select committee hearing, make sure the task force report was distributed widely so people would have some basis to make up their minds. Then in another three or four months, six months, whatever time expired, the minister could bring in the same policy as he has now ennunciated and enshrined in a bill ,in legislation,or he could alter it or bring in a new policy altogether. We have gone on record, I believe, Sir, as saying that we are not necessarily against the method chosen by the minister to bring in a policy ·change in forestry.

We have seid that most of us in this House are grossly ignorant. Most people in this House -- I am looking at two now on the other side of the House who are grossly ignorant about all the ramifications of a fundamental policy change such as that proposed. I think that would be a fair statement. If I need any further support, the Premier himself got up somewhere in his usual form, serious, concerned way,and said that there was not a member of the House who knew what a pickaxe from a tooth pick ~rns,or something. It is true,or something to that effect.

There are members in this House who had long experience with the forestry industry. There is no doubt about that. They could make some contribution. There is no doubt about that at all. Others have studied various aspects of the forestry industry. In any event, Sir, we think that the matter ,even after the task force report has been tabled, should be given a wider public hearing throup.:hout this province. The task force report by the way in which the minister and the government deleted certain sections of it~raised more questions than it answered, ~.r. Speaker. It raised more questions.

Certainly there is a wealth of information in the report. Again we often hear the Minister of Energy talking about bureaucrats here,there and everywhere. Well, I would like to see a little more perhaps bureaucratic input so called but I would like to see s0111e political input into this as well, people who are elected by the people in order to represent their best interests as they see fit, fundamentally as laymen, not as narrow, blinkered, tunnel­ visioned experts in the field. 6453

Nay 20, 1974 Tape 1670 IB-6 So, without going on at any great length, haranguing the House on the matter, Sir, I would like to support the amendment before the llouse. There should be further public hearings on the matter. ff.ore people ·should be permitted to put in some information, make sane comments and make some observations. I do not know what the outcome · o.f this is going to be,on the Reid lots fo.r eXllJIIJ>le. ].laybe it will have a salutary effec~ Ott the Reid lot controversy~ maybe it will not. I think people should be given an opportunity to examine that;.

There are hundreds and hundreds of questions which I will not bore the House with now, Sir. The fundamental thing is that more ·:peop ·le should be brought into this. It is a fUlldamental change; it is a very basic change. We support the amendment, Sir. and t~e think that more people shou.ld be given an opportunity to cotnment on it. 11!.l. NEARY: Mr. Speaker I rise to support the amendment for the , reasons outlined by my collea gue, the member for White Eay South. My colleague indicated Sir , that this report was put together by a groun of provincial and federal civil servants. 6454

'!ay 21), 197 4 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 1 AN HON. l'®fBER: Bureaucrats. HR. NEARY : Bureaucrats, Sir. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, just glancing at the report, not reading it at any great detail because it is tedious and monotonous but it seems to me, Sir, that the bureaucrats who put together this report did not do too much research. There is no back-up material. A lot of it is based on OPinion. There are a lot of other people in this province, Hr, Speaker, who have opinions to express on a forestry policy of this nrovince and they should be given an opportunity to do so.

I never saw a reoort in mv life , Sir, that is hased so much on a-pinion as that report • After we finally dragged it out of the minister, the censored report, four l)ages lifted out of it, we ~ot a chance to get a look at it, Sir. There was no in depth study done on th:f.s whole matter as far as I can see. It was .1ust a group of federal and provincial civil servants, Sir, expressing in most cases an onin:lon. ' fr.

Speaker, one thin11; that we did find out from this report was that the former Liberal Admin:!.stration were ahsolutely right, Sir, back in 1971,when Rowaters threatened to close down No. 7 machine in Corner Brook,with a possibility at that time of the mill closing down altogether because of the slump in the market conditions. '!'hat the previous administration were absolutely correct, Sir, in the position that they took.

Your Honour will remember the ranting and raving that was done by the Tories in this -province about thfa poor little Liberal Government taking on big Bowaters and making a downpayment of $100,000 to buy out Bowaters in r.orner Brook. Now we discover, Mr. Speaker, we discover in the censored pages of the document,and the minister has not told us yet how they got out to the press - the minister looks over at me with a grin on his face. Sir, that is not good enought. The minister made certain charges outside of this House and he is either going to have to put up or shut up. AN HON. MF.MEER: The p.:overnment - 6455

Hay 20, 1974 Tane 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 2 MR. NEARY: I think it was a plant. I think it was a plant, Mr. Speaker. I think the government deliberately planted it so it would be leaked out. AN HON. MEMJ3ER: Inaudible. HR. NEARY: I beg your pardon? AN HON • MEMBER : Inaudible. "MR. NEARY: The Minister of Finance says more than his prayers sometimes. AN HON. '!EMBER: Inaudible. HR.

NEARY: But, Sir, the publication of these four pages that were taken out of the report, Sir, in my opinion, was one of the greatest services that has ever been done to people in Newfoundland, especially the people of Grand Falls and Corner Brook. It confirms beyond any douht, Sir, that the former administration were right,that Bowaters did threaten to close down that mill, not only number (7) machine, they were lii..ely to pull out of Corner Brook altogether.

And any government worth its salt at that time would not stand idly by and ia;ee that hat>pen. lt could happen again, Sir, according to the censored document. Mr. Sreaker, I have to confess to Your Honour and to the House at this moment that I have not read these four pages up to this moment. I am only going on the nress report; T have not read the four nages; I do not have them in my Possession. 1'IR. SPEAKF.R: Order, please! NR. NEARY: I do not have the four pages in my possession. The minister, Sir, and the government would not even trust the members of the House with these four pages.

And that is another reason why we need a select committee or a commission of enquiry to sit down and examine this document. The minister woul~ not even trust his own colleagues sitting on the ~overnment benches. MR. W. N. ROWE: Would not even trust the peoi,le of Newfoundland. MR. NEARY: I was not handed a copy of it, Sir. My colleagues were not given a copy. I understand the Leader of the Opposition got a copy 6456

May 20, 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 3 of it. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: I do not know whether it be correct or not because I have not seen the copies of the Leader of the Opposition. I have not seen them to this moment. That might be news for the honourable and nasty ~inister without Portfolio. I have not seen the documents, Sir, the Leader of the Opposition's documents. I do not have copies in my possession. AN HON. !fil1J3ER: Would he like to see it? MR. NEARY: Well, Sir, I do not know -f.f the minister told the Leader of the ()r,position to allow us to see it.

I do not know whether he did or not. AN HON. 1-fEMBER: Did he ask him for it? UR. NEARY: No, Sir, I did not ask the Leader of the Opposition 1 lf the minister has not got the courage, does not trust me enoup.h to r,ive me a cony of these four napes.I am not goin~ to po on my hands and knees to anybody and ask for them. A}! HON. 'fF'IBER : Does he usually have to speak to him on his hands and knee!!? 'ffi. NEARY: No, Sir. No.

I am sure, Sir, if I went to the Leader of the Opposition he would gladly furnish me with the document,but I am not going to do it, Sir, and as a member of this honourable House I am entitled to it. MP. i./. N. l!OWE : But he did not have to any way, the government nlanted it. MR. J,EARY: The government deliberately planted it in the press and I read it in the newspaper. That is not good enough for a member of th:1.s honourable House, Sir. Not good enough! AN HON. MEl{BEP : Inaudible. 'fR. NEARY: Pardon? AN HON. HEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: No, Sir, the minister would not even trust his colleagues. AN HON.

MEMBER: Inaudible. 6451

11'ay 2fJ, 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 4 MR. NEARY: And gave the Leader of the Opposition one copy. I do not know if my colleagues have gotten it or not, but I certainly have not. The Leader of the Opposition did not distribute it around. I did not go and ask him for it, I have no intention. I am a member of this House and I have a right to all the public documents just as well as every person in this province. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Pardon? If we do not, what? MR. W. N. ~OWE: He cannot understand it. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, this is another reason why a select committee should be established, Sir, to look over not only the renort that was tabled in the House but what about the four pages. Are they going to be held in the files and in the cloEets, the dark closets of Confederation Building never to see the light of dav? What would happen? ~fr. Speaker, I ask the minister to tell this honourable House what would happen if there were a slump in the paper market next year and Bowaters and Price,who apparently are on shaky grounds,decide that they are going to cut back their oneration?

Or Bowaters decides that they are going to pull out altogether and we as representatives, elected representatives of the neonle,have heen sitting on a report indicating that thiF might hannen_. how would the minister talk his way out of it? If I were the people out in Corner Brook and Grand Falls and all the logging communities I would lynch anybody who would do that. They deserve to be lynched, Sir, concealing information from the people of this province. It is unheard of. I hope the neonle out in these communities will remember it the next time they go to a polling booth.

The government, Sir, the government commissions, a group of civil servants, provinical and federal civil servants,to do a report on the forestry industry of this province and in the process of getting this information a crowd of civil servants,based on opinion more than anything else, according to what I read in the newspaper, nothing there to back it up. Bowaters have since denied it. I did not hear the minister comment on it, to say whether it is true or false. A group 6458

May 20, 1974 Tape 1671 (.Afternoon) PK - 5 of civil servants expressed an opinion, Sir, that if we had another slump in the naper market that Bowaters ma.y close down and Price may follow suite. The minister does not think that is worthy of comment in this honourable House, clips the four oap.es out of the report and hides them away down in the files somewhere, will not even trust his colleagues or the elected renresentatives of the people to see these four uages. Did you ever hear, Your Honour,of anything like that in your li.fe? "Not in the pul>lic interest," he said. What is not in the public interest?

And who does that minister think he is to say that that is not in the public interest? I hannen to be living in a community, Sir, that ~-1;1s hard hit by an industry closing, a conununity, a whole community economically marooned because an industry nulled out. - Sir, we want the information. Why try and hide it? If it is ever goin~ to happen, should not these neonle have a chance to advise their sons and daughters? ·cet yourselves a good education. Do not denend on the naner mill like we had to do.

Do not nut all vour eggs iri one basket." What is the government goinp to do about getting other industr:l .es in these areas tn case Bowaters ever close down in Corner Broo k? I hope it will never happen. I think the neoule are mature enough, Sir, to have that information. They are entitled to it, In this day of communication and people are better educated,do you not think that thev are mature enough to absorb that :!.nfonnation? What a gall the minister has to say, ' No, you are not entitled to th~t information.

Your industry may close down next year or five years or ten years or twenty years if there should be a slump in the naper markets,but we are not going to give vou the information.~ Does that make sense, Mr. Speaker? It certainly does not make sense to me. Then the minister.when the infonnation does p.et out to the newsnapers, a deliberate plant as far as I can see on the part of the administration, when it does get out, the minister then starts pointing the finger. He did not say who it was. Every member of the House then is in the same boat. Everybody is guilty. Every civil servant that had 6459

May 20. 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 6 anything to do with the report is guilty. Anybody who printed it is guilty. I call u:r,on the minister now to point the finger, put up or shut up. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 'MR. NEARY: Is that so? The minister might get a surprise . He might get a surprise. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: The Minister of Finance and a couple of his colleagues say ,·oh the Member for Bell Island, deny it." All that would mean, ~r. Speaker, is as I said before, that there would be just one eliminated. What would that prove? Then that crowd over there talk about McCarthyism.

Talk about McCarthyism. Sir, it was a deliberate plant, otherwise they would have kept - if we did not have to keen after them lon ~ enou~h. Mr. Speaker, the peonle of this province would have never gotten hold of that piece of information, until that honourable crowd got thrown out. Then all of a sudden we would come in and disco~erit in the files. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal Administration coming in a year from now - ~-N HON. }-!EMBER: Inaudible. MR.

NEARY: and six months after we are in power, six months after we are in power there is a sllDDp in the ~aper market and we. p,o down in the files and discover a report , a year and a-half ago,saying that this l-1as going to happen. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible . MR. NEARY : It would leave the government of the day in an awful spot, Sir, in my opinion. And le.ave the people in these communities, especially Corner Brook and Grand Falls and surrounding areas in a pretty toup,h position.

There has been no mass criticism fwom the people in these areas, Sir, saying, "Oh, no you should not put the report out.' I heard the Mayor of Corner Brook, I do not know what his politics are say, ''It was a good thing this piece of information came out.'' I saw several letters in the newspaper indicating that it was a good thing this 'l)iece of information came out I and the man ,rho put it out should be decorated. He should get at least the second highest honour - 6460

May 20. 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 7 AN FON. MEMBER: A Centennial ~-1edal. MR. NEARY: No, Sir, we have the Centennial Nedals. A..J.:! HON. MEMBEP. : Inaudible. MR. NEARY: The Twenieth-Fifth Anniversay. AN HON. ?-!EMBER: Wait until we are :In another seventy-five years MR. NEARY: We will get the bronze one I suppose the next time.

There should be some kind of an award, Sir, some kind of an award for hel.'oism, for having the coura,ze to nut that piece of information out to the people, especially in Central Newfoundland and on the West Coast of this orovince, I do not think there is any need to get alarmed about this at all, Sir. I do not think there is any need . - AN HON. MEMB.E~ : Inaudible. MR. NF~ •~r. Speaker, J: do not th1nk there is anv need to get .alarmed about this. AN H0N. MEMBER: Watergate in reverse. ~1R.

NEARY: I do not thin}: we need have anv fear that Rowaters is goinp. to close domi tomorr.ow,unless the bottom drons out of the paper market. Therefore, Sir, :1.n my op:1.nion, the report should not have been censored. The whole document should have been tabled. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is the honourable crowd who said they ,,,ere pain!? to take the governT'lent to the people. "They were roing to take the neople into their confidence,"they told them in two provincial general elections. Is this taking the neople into your confidence. Sir? Is this trusting the people of this province?

Out in Your Honour's own district. where you just have a linerboard mill opened out there, have a big loggirg operation snringing up. I am sure, Sir, the people out in Your Honour's district would like to have an opprotunity to comment on this. I think, Sir, that there should be public hearings. That the oublic, the contractors, the paper conmanies, individual citizens. should be given an opportunity to express their views on this report. I think it would be a sorry day for Newfoundland, Sir. it would be a 6461

May 20, 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 8 mistake to ram this report through the House, to bring in this bill. All it is, Ur. Sneaker, in actual fact this bill is nothinp, but a tax ~111 anyway. They talk about the great reform it is,

an act to bring certain forest lands under proper management. It is a tax bill, fir, that is all. It is nothing more nor less than a tax bill which will enahle the minister to collect a substantial amount of money so he can build up his own little army. AN HON. MEMBER: Air force. MR. NE~RY: Air Force? No, Sir, they already have their Air Force, Now the minister wants to build UT> his little army, forest rangers or whatever you call them,goinp: around. He is going to get the money by charging taxes on the unused land. Hell, Sir, I would like to kn0"7 what the views of the )'Ublic are on this.

I would like to hear the views of the naner companies, the unions in Grand Falls and Corner Brook, the contractors, what the 1.r views are. I have already heard some views expressed publicly that were not very favourably towards this report. Yet this crowd are saying it is one of the greatest reformF ever brought before this House. It is a sham, ~ir. It is nothinfl: only a tax bill, a tax bill! This government are try1 .ng to leave the impression that they are taking back the forests. They are not, Sir. They are not, they are just imposing taxes on the unused land. Is that taking hack?

Is that nationalizing your forests? Is it? A..~ HON. MF.MBEP.: Inaudible. 1'-IR. ~Y...:.. ~! But the minister is trying to leave that impression, that this is nationalization. Ah: The min1ster is, Well his colleagues have all gotten up - spouted off about what a great reform this is. Why does not the min1ster admit that all this is is a tax bill. That is all it is. In effect, Sir,it is another form of taxation. This honourable administration, Sir, are experts on going through the back door to collect taxes. Everything including a little licence.

Now to go off hunting, small game hunting, it goes up from one dollar to ten dollars. Everything has been increased in the last year or two by the administration. Thie is just another form of taxation. If_thP 6462

May ?O, 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 9 government really wanted to bring in some refonns they should have carried out the programme that was outlined hv Joey in this honourable House, right down there in the corner,when Joey had all the charts and all the mans, The )-finister of Education was here at the time, I helieve as Leader of the nnposjtion. All they are doing here, Sir, is nit - picl<ing at what Joey was going to do and at what the former administration were goin~ to do, All the plans are down in the minister's office, so do not try and cod us. Who are that crowd trying to cod, Sir, over there?

That honourable crowd! All it is js a tax bill, Sir. Nevertheless the neonle should he given an opportunity to express their views on it. I would like to find out, I have no sympathy at all with the naper companies of this province. God only knovs they have been attacked enough in this honourable House. The minister, I think, had a go at them. Every minister who has spo ken in this debate has had a go at the paper companies. Then all of a sudden out comes the four pages.

They did not have a go at them then, they started to back away then like a bunch of cowards, backed ai-•ay then becau!le they know if they attacked these paper companies the moment you get a slump in the market whet is going to hapnen. They will not be so cocky then. They will not he out lookinP- for their $100,000 back then. I know I am gettjng to the Hinister t•rithout Portfolio• if ;ie should not lil,e it,go do~mtown and peddle his .,ares down in the Royal Trust Building we will look after the House.

So, Sir, I agree with my colleague and I agree with - this amendment that the neople of this province should be given an opportunity to exuress their vie,.1s on this hill. Hr. Speaker, we could have done that in the last few weeks. When was the last time this bill was discussed in the House? Was it five weeks ago? AN HON. nvmER: Inaudible. '-!R. NEARY: About five weeks ago,I would say. Sir. During that length of time the committee could have been set up. It could have been out all over the province and it could have had a report in the Rouse by 6463

May 20, 1974 Tape 1671 (Afternoon) PK - 10 now. It just itoes to show, Sir. the ooor olanning on the part of the Rouse Leader and the government. Pe have been he.re in the Rouse n~ since the last of January, most of the time, Sir, just clawing at one another's eyes, scraping and scratching one another because we had nothinit to discuss . For weeks we were told that we had this l!;reat forc.5try bill coming in. Then the hill comes in and we start the debate and then what hanpens?

The Minister without Portfolio gets uo and sa:vs, "oh ,~ell, we 1,,rill give the opposition a chance to study the bill and we will discuss it next week.• It has not seen the light of clav for five ~•eP.l<s now, Sir. AN RON. MEHRER: Inaudible.. }1R. l'IBARY: I know a little bit about it. I know more about it than 6464 . '

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) the member for Green Bay knows about it. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. RH - 1 MR. NEARY: Yes, and I will take the honourable member up on it too because I do my homework. Do not wo=y about that, I do my homework. I can tell the honourable members that it is nothing but a tax bill. That is all it is. What we need in this Province, Sir, is a land speculatord bill.

That is the kind of a tax bill we need to stop members from being out involved in land speculation, That is what we need in this Province, We probably need this too, Sir, but we have had ample opportunity over the past few weeks to have a select coDD11ittee go around this Province and get the views of the people and the ·companies and the contractors and the unions and the individuals on this particular piece of legislation. Then it might have developed into a great reform. As it stands now, Sir, it is not the reform that this crowd are trying to claim that it is. I support the amendment. MR.

SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy, MR. L. BARRY: I thank the honourable member from Bonavista South, Mr. Speaker. I just have a couple of coDmlents to make on the statements of the la.st member opposite. It will only take a few minutes. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Bell Island is a dan~erous man. He is dangerous, Mr. Speaker, in that he only covers one side of a particular issue. He can be effective. He can put forth an effective case but I think he is the living example of the maxim that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," Mr.

Speaker, the thing that concerns me about what the honourable gentleman is saying and what honourable members opposite have been sayin~ about this planning exercise that was carried out by this government,and their submission that the reports, all of the reports of all of these committees should be immediately made public. Mr. Speaker, that submission is dangerous because it overlooks certain things. In order to have proper planning, Mr. Speaker, the individuals 6465

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) RH - 2 engaged in the planning process have to be able to let their imagination run random. They have to be able to consider all of the alternatives, to look at all of the alternatives, However outrageous or weird or scandalous or improper initially they might seem to be, they have to be considered because they are potential alternatives. So, Mr.

Speaker, when the honourable members opposite start talking about the need for publicity, the need for the publicizing of the reports of these planning committees,they neglect to mention the fact that what these committees are doing and what the individuals on these committees are doin~,is to engage in a process of assisting initially the minister of a particular department and eventually government in arriving at a decision.

These c0111D1ittees, these individuals, they may make statements, they may supply opinions, they may consider alternatives which are not and will not be and perhaps should never be government policy, but. Mr. Speaker, if governmentwere obligated to publicize the reports of these committees there could be two dangerous consequences followed from them.

First of all there is a danger that one will have individuals restricting themselves, restricting their imagination and restricting the suggestions that they would make to government for consideration, because of the fact that they may not want themselves associated with a particular recommendation particularly if government decide that it is not going to implement the recommendation that is made. So you would have a dampening, Mr. Speaker, of this planning process.

You would have individuals, instead of sitting down in the privacy of a committee room, letting their imagination run riot, coming up with all of these alternatives that they can put before their minister or put before government, you would have them acting with SOiie reservation, Mr. Speaker. So that is one problem that I see with the submission that is made by the honourable gentlemen opposite. It is not the same as a royal commission, Mr. Speaker, It is not the same as an enquiry into a particular problem.

You have here an integral part of the planning process that is in danger of being impaired by the misinformation supplied by the honourable 6466

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) RH - 3 member who is going to be the minister for misinformation when his party finally gets -into power in twenty or thirty years. Mr.

Speaker, the second,of course, danger in having these reports publicized that were never intended initially,when they were set up, to be made public, is that some of the statements made in them while they may be merely the suggestion of an alternative, that is,as 1 say, may never be intended to become government policy, you have the reconnnendation or you have the facts or the opinion contained in the report given a certain amount of stature, a certain amount of importance, a certain amount of interest,merely because of the fact that it is contained in a report that is released by government and that appears to carry the imprimatur of government.

So these are two dangers, Mr. Speaker, which the honourable members opposite have never addressed themselves to. It is never contemplated, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that they suggest this as well but I do not think that too many people would say that the minister of a department should be expected to table the letters or the memos that he gets from his Assistant Deputy Minister or his Deputy Minister in the day to day administration of his department.

One would not get a situation where it is expected,although again it is asked for by the honourable members opposite from time to time or is expected that government release and publish and make public its negotiating posture, its negotiating tactics when it is in the process of negotioting the purchase of property from a private individual or negotiating the acquisition of a company and so on. Mr. Speaker, this deals specifically with the task force on forestry and therefore to the forestry bill that is before the Rouse. It refers to the statements made by honourable members opposite.

It is never comtemplated, Mr. Speaker, that these matters which in the normal course of day to day living, of day to day operation of government,must be confidential in order to .be effective, it is not con­ templated that these be made public. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it does not follow as a matter of course that merely because we have a 6467

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) RH - 4 task force set up to get a better organization into this planning structure, it does not follow automatically, Mr. Speaker, that all of these task force reports should be made public. Now, it may be that government should decide, will decide that part of the report will be made public or all of the report. I am not particularly hung up by secrecy provisions, Mr. Speaker. I think we find that most matters of public importance have the custom of leaking out in any event. It is very difficult,and I do not thing anybody really wants, Mr.

Speaker, to have a veil of secrecy or a cloak of secrecy over very much of government operations. Mr. Speaker, we have to face up to the fact that in whatever exercise we are engaged in,we want it to be effective. If the only way that a planning exercise can be effective is to have a certain amount of restricted coverage of the result of that planning process,then I say that that may be a hard decision to make but it is a decision that I would not be afraid to make. I just wanted to point out, Mr.

Speaker, this over-simplification that has been going on for several months now about this cry for government to release the reports of the planning task force on forestry. and presumeably they will be going on to other areas of government planning eventually. Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of voluntarily releasing the confidential information that comes to me from members of the Department of Mines and Energy in the course of day to day administration of that department.

I have no intention of releasing the reports that come in from individuals who are willing to give their time and engage in assisting government in the planning process. I have no intention of being badgered by the honourable gentlemen opposite into being forced into an inflexible position where all reports must be made public merely because they have been obtained by government. I think that that is a dangerous over-simplication of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and it is one that I do not want to be associated with in 6468

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) iH - 5 this House. MR. SPEAKER: The member for Bonavista South. MR. J. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the amend­ ment but instead on the main bill itself. After listening to the opposition spokesman,! feel I have no hesitation about having a few words to say,accordingly,on the amendment.

The amendment placed by the Leader of the Opposition is asking that this legislation be put aside and that a select committee of the House of Assembly be appointed to investigate the whole matter, to travel the Province and to get the views of the public,when yet we have a task force that advertised extensively in all of the local papers and through all of the electronic media asking for-briefs from individuals, concerned groups all over the Province. They held these hearings and they were conducted by the experts,but of course'experts'is a dirty word with the opposition.

It was a dirty work with the previous government. For years we had a government who would not take the views and opinions of experts. 'Experts'was a dirty word . MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member from Bell Island would only keep quiet a little while,he might learn something. Mr. Speaker, so the honourable spokesmen on the opposition, I will call the spokesman from Bell Island, stands up and says, "Oh, no! The experts were wrong. They expressed their opinions. They did not go out and do research work. They did not go out ·and get the data. Oh, no! They did not do that.

They formed their opinion." That is the attitude of the previous government. The Liberal administration for years condemned experts. They would not have experts. It was only what the politicians said that was right. If the politicians said, "This is the kind of law that we must have," naturally we go along with it. The expertise,in respect to their field,was ignored in the last twenty-three years and he wants to ignore them now. The fact is that the task force consisted of both Federal Government and Provincial 6469

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) RH - 6 Government expertise. So why should we ignore them? The honourable colleague stands and condemns the experts. "They did not do the research work"he says, "They only form an opinion." If that be not condemning the experts, Mr. Speaker, it is a sham, the report is a sham. The legislation is a fraud,accordingly to the Leader of the Opposition when he spo~e earlier in February. • The legislation is a fraud.'' Now according to one spokesman on the opposition side, it is a sham, a tax bill. What a way to hide the real meaning of this bill. This bill is not really a tax bill.

It is a bill that will take over the control of our forestry resource, The bill simply points out to the companies, "Either you manage your resources you have now or you will be taxed and if you do not pay your taxes you are going to relinquish all of your property back to the government." Rightly so. Mr. Speaker, for too long we hrui our resources given away by the other government, for too long. We must not be allowed to continue that same kind of thing in the future. We must not be giving away our resources. Mr.

Speaker, they are trying to hide the real meaning of the bill by saying that, "Look, let us ignore the task force because we did not get the four pages." How childish can you get. Ignore the task force and let us have a select counnittee of the House of Assembly consisting of politicians, who seem to know it all according to the previous administration. The politicians on this government side today do not admit we know it all, do not profess to know it all because we do not know it all,but we have to get the views and opinions of experts and we are doing this.

To turn around and say that this is a tax bill when the bill is really nothing more than a bill that is going to take over the control and management of our resources, our forest resource, it is as simple as that, In the legislation there is a method for appeals, If a company feel that the government are not dealing with them properly, they can appeal the decision of government. They can appeal the method of taxation. What does the opposition want? Does the·opposition want the same kind of thing we have now to continue,when a company can say to government, 6470

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) RH - 7 "I am not going to cut these timber stands. I am not going to cut them. I will let them sit there." Then we found there are thousands of cords on the StUJlll) rotting throughout our Province." Is that what they want? Well if they do not want this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that is what they will have in this Province. So let them make up their minds. Let them make up their minds. Do they want legislation to control our resource or do they want it to continue the same as in the past? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ~RGAN: Mr.

Speaker, these kind of stupid, childish, silly remarks are very - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MORGAN: It suits the honourable gentleman, these kind of remarks. Mr. Speaker, the issue is that we are either going to control our resources in this Province, we are either going to control the forestry resource by government doing it or we are going to let the companies continue on as they did in the past. That is the question mark. It is not a question of taxation, it is a question of control.

The three main questions which should be asked of all Newfoundlanders who are concerned for their resources, whether it be timber or forestry, the three main questions in connection with forestry:

(1) Should control of our forest resources be in the hands of government or not? According to the opposition, they say, "No". AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. MORGAN: The bill is completely relevant to that question. Mr. Speaker, question number (2): , Are the people of this Province content to permit the companies to have control? The honourable gentleman is contradicting his own earlier statements because this legislation again I point out is completely relevant to question number two. You have a choice to make.

You want either the companies to carry on to manage the forest resource or you want government to do it. !l'he honourable gentleman from Bell Island,of course we all know from his earlier comments·on the estimates.during the budget debate,is not, now that we are on the subject, so he stands up and makes a complete fool of himself, saying it is a tax bill. "The Tories are 6471

May 20, 1974. Tape 1672 (Afternoon) RH - 8 • trying to tax the companies but all we are trying to do is take over th~ control and management. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. MORGAN: Especially John Doyle and others. We all know about these. The other most important question, Mr. Speaker, is question number (3): Shall we have the companies continuing to have the authority to turn around to government and say, "We are going to cut these timber stands when we damn well feel like it." That has been goinp; on for twenty-three years in this Province, twenty-three years.

For twenty-three years government did not have the guts nor the courage to go into these companies like Bowaters and Price and Reid and others and say, "Look, either you manage these timber stands or you are going to be taxed. You manage them the way we wamt them managed or you are going to be taxed.

If you do not pay the taxes,accordingly the properties will come back to the people of this Province." 1t is not to the govenment.But no, the honourable member from White Bay South, the so-called intelligent member from that side of the House of AssEmbly, stands up and says, "No, let us have a select committee of the House, let us have those expert politicians go out and receive complaints from all the public of Newfoundland and then come back and form an opinion whether they should go ahead with this legislation or not. Ignore the viewpoint of experts." Ignore t'he data and research they have done and 6472

-Hay 2fl, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 1 carried out,ignore them. It is an obvious policy and philosophy and belief of the Liberal Party who stood for years in the same l<ind of belief, ignore the experts, let the politicans make all the decisions. That is the kind of thing that the honourable Member for White South is condoning and advocating in his own party now and in opposition. He is condemning this legislation hecause it means control of our forestrv resources. For no other reason is he condemning it. Not becau~e it ~~~~c the companies, that is only a red herring.

And because we are taking positive action to control our resource the onposition want to condemn that kind of legislation. Well here is one backbencher who is not going to support the idea of a select committee. It seems that one or two members on the opposite side seem to have a sore point because four pages are missing from the report. The people of Newfoundland today,! am ~illing to bet the people of Newfoundland today are not concerned about ~•hether they see or hear or read about the task force on forestry.

They are concerned about one thing and that is proper management of our forestry resource, proper controls of our forestry resource. The most important thing of all,they want to see action on the part of this government to bring about this control. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the like of legislation that is going to bring that kind of action, so I am naturally going to vote against the amendment and support this bill. Thank you, very much/ ~. A. B. PECKFORD: Mr.

S~eaker, one is led to say to the opposition as a result of their amendment, although I do not believe this to be true, I think it is just a tactical move on their part but one would almost say that they are deliberately trying to block good legislation that comes before this House. For twenty or thirty years in this province, well since Confederation, the govern111ent of the day, the government in Pot~er did absolutely nothing to try and rationalize or bring some sense into rhe forestry industry.

I think that one of the unfortunate things about this House of Assembly now; this House of Assembly for the last twenty years has been that very often we get fairly talented and intelligent members to come to the House but 6473

May 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 2 unfortunately many of them know little about forestry, including myself, many of them know little about the fishery, many of them know little ahout mining or any other of the resource base industries that mean so much to this province. So that when we come to discuss a detailed bill like we have before us now,in the amendment proposed by the opposition there is very of us can talk intelligently about. I venture to say, }fr.

Speaker, that outside of the minister and perhaps one or two other members of this House, there are very few member~ here in this House right now, if everybody were present who know enough about forestry to really speak on it. As it applies to my district because the District of Green Bay depends to a large extent on the forestry industr?, right now we are at a crossroads, we are in a crisis. We have many contractors.

We have 400 or 500 johs going right now in the forestry industry outside of this large company and if we do not do something immediately in the next six months, in the District of Green Bay,with the forestry, we are going to find ourselves with an unemployment rate of ahout twenty-five or th:!.rty per cent within the next year. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. NR. PECKFORD: Well that is another question.I could answer that one. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. PECKFORD: Nol-' the whole story is, Mr.

Speaker, for twenty-five or thirty years now the companies have been allowed to go free with these leases that they got back in the 1920's and the 1910's and so on, some of the leases coming due in 2002 and in 1999 and this kind of thing. I do not know how many honourable members have actually gone through forest lands that the contract~rs for the companieE have cut. How many people have actually gone in with a forest ranger and watched him crooze a block of timber? AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

PECKFORD: Now we have,after all this time, after two or three decades of no approach taken by government to try and bring some sense into the forestry industry, perhaps our biggest resource for the future 6474

May 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 3 because it is a renewable one, much more perhaps than the fishing resource, now we have studies being done by people in the business, who are suppose to know their business, and these studies have translated themselves into legislation that we have before us today. Now what the opposition want is for this legislation to stop. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is irresponsible of the opposition to 1,ring an amendment before the House.

This kind of legislation right now, thi5 legislation, this kind of rules and regulationsare too important for this province right now, right today, right this week to get this kind of legislation oassed and to get some action taken on establishing these management plans for the various areas,and let us see how it will work. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. PECKFORD: AN !ION. MEMBER : ~m.. PE<:~ORD : Inaudible. Nobody on this side of the House - Inaudible. Nobody on this side of the House - Hell okay it is before the House,now let us not talk about this. It is before the House now, and he is delaying it.

AN HON. lEHBER : Inaudible. MR. PECKFORD: I can relate five or six or seven different areas of this province where there are large stands of timber rights now of over 2,000 to 3,000 cords to 1,000,000 cords of wood that are over matured, that if something is not done within the next year the country is going to lose thousands and thousands of dollar~ besides the jobs involved. The honourable Member for Bell Island is the very exponent of the philosophy that the more jobs, the more work we can get for Newfoundlanders the better, the more that we can get at home for ourselves the better.

Pell I suggest to the honourahle Member for Bell Island,if that be his real interest, if that be what he be interested in, if he be interested in seeing more jobs in the District of Green Bay and in the District of White Bay South and in other districts that are depend upon the forestry _industry to a large extent,th~t he withdraw that amendment. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 6475

May 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) MR. PECKFORD: Because it is going to mean - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. PK - 4 MR. PECKFORD: No, it is going to mean the next six months to a year either 200 or 300 more jobs in my district,or that many less. Besides the fact of a tax as incorporated in this legislation there ·a1so has been a management plan for the companies or whoever owns the land to the government. Now this is the whole key to it because what has happened?

I even heard the Leader of the Opposition lThis is how much he knew about forestryJwhen we were talking about the bill in principle some time ago, he was not even sure whether the companies had done any high grading in the forests of this province. If all the honourable members of this House could only take a week or two and walk through some of the forest lands of this provi .nce to see what has happened. It is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace the way many blocks were left. There will never be another tree grow there, on thousands and thousands of acres all around the province. It is a disgrace.

You do not have to go very far off the Trans Canada in many places to see it either,where trees are left. A..~ HON. MEMBER: Go down behind the steel plant , for instance. There are trees down there .•• ~- PECKFORD: Now here is an opportunity. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, on this,hesides the fact that if a company is told by government, as part of the regulations, that they must have X number of cords allowable cut per year,and that they must cut that or if they do not somebody else must be allowed to cut it,and then they will be taxed on the value of that if it were not cut.

Besides that the other big question mark in this whole legislation and one that hopefully will be pursued through this legislation is the fact that this year millions of cords of wood have been cut for pulp wood when it should never be cut for pulp wood. There are great stands of timber and there should be a management of that timber stand, 6476

May 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 5 and you would have to have quite a few forest rangers in the field for this, allowing for what areas are going to be cut for pulp wood and what areas are going to be cut for sawmilling,because we are losing valuable dollars every day. You can take any blocl--. of timber around the province now of 50,000 or 60,000 cords, especially in Central Newfoundland, and of that 50,000 or 60,000 cords very often you will find a concentration of saw logs.

I have seen it on the Trans Canada and down in my district last week where you have prime saw log timber and that log is worth twice as much, three times,I suppose,as much as timber than it is as pulp. It is a tragedy, a real tragedy to see this province losing valuable dollars every day because there is no management on that block to permit the contractor to he told bv a forest ranger or by the government. This area here is primarilv small timber; it is good pulp wood, you can cut that for pulp wood. Tl,is area over herehas a major concentration of saw logs,then you have to set up a sawmill there.

You are providing: more _1obs and you are making more money that way for the province. That has to be done." AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. PECKFORD: Nobody is saying that is the panacea for all the forest problems in this province but I think, and seriously - just hold on a second now, I think seriously that we should give this thing a chance. We might be back at it again next year.on amending certain parts of it,but if we are going to - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 'MR. ~ECKFOFJ): No, no, we do not. No, no, we do not need public hearings on it. I do not think we need public hearings on it.

I would rather see this legislation go on through now, put it into action. I am selfish on this, ~r. Speaker, and I will be the first to admit it, that I know out my way that we are in trouble because we have no crown land left only in the Burlingtonr,fiddle Arm Area. We have some crown land there but outside of that in Green Bay nistrict there is none. There are a couple of operators started down in his district just recently, in White Bay South. But even the crown land that is in the 6477

~lay 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 6 Burlington Area, you know, is not going to last forever. It is only going to be three or four years. Bowaters are down there now and there are some contractors in there cutting for Labrador Linerboard and for Bowaters. My own selfish motive behind it all; if this kind of legislation is not brought in iDDDediately, if we do not get a management plan for Green Bay Area this present year.we are in serious trouble.

Many contractors who, well I know, have gone $100,000 to $200,000 into the bus;ness with new trucks, new timber jacks or JS's or whatever. they are going to find themselves,and each one of them employing twenty, thirty or forty men and sometimes fifty men, in a very difficult hind come October and November if they do not have the cut. The same way with the saw log operators. They are all in there. Now we are running short of timber.

Well hopefully under this kind of a management plan where there has to he an annual allowable cut that the companies, if they are not going to cut it themselves because their mills are working at capacity, if government says to them. "You have to cut 20,000 or 30,000 cords off this block." Well then if the company cannot do it because it has its mill full,then one of the local contractors will have the advantar,e of going in on that block and cutting it,thereby continuing the employment that was started two or three years ago.

So it is essential, in mv opinion, that tM s kine! of le~islation albeit, it is not a perfect bill on forestry, that this kind of legislation be enacted immediately and get on with the joh of hiring the forest rangers and establishing the management plans for the various areas. Then as it gets into operation,we can see the flaws in it, amendments can always be made to it. Every area is going to have to be different.

There might be,as a result of that, that amendments are going to have to be brought in for various areas because of the kind of wood that you find in the area or the kind of terrain there that it might be impossible for to cut annual allowable cuts off that block of 6478

~lay 20, 1974 Tape lfi73 (Afternoon) PK - 7 timber because it is inaccessible, ~tis difficult to get at. Special rules and regulations might have to be set up for it but there are large tracts of timber right now of a-half million to one million cords of wood just lying dormant and being infested with insects and over-maturing and blowing down, valuahle dollars every day just blowing down on the lands of this province. It should not be. allowed to continue.

If this amendment were taken away by the opposition so we could get on with the job of getting this kind of legislation through.it is better than anything we had in the last two or three decades and we would be on our way to doinp. something with the forest resource of this province. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable ~fember for St. Rarbe North. MR. F. B. ROWE, Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the amendment put by my colleague,the Leader of the Opposition. I think there is a need for a select committee of the House to travel the province and seek the opinions of the people of this province .

As a matter of fact, the very points and the very suggestions and the recommendations and the information provided by the Member for Green Bay points out the kind of information and suggestions you can get from people who were not included on the task force committee itself. The Hemher for Green Bay has some very strong opinions. I am sure there are hundreds and thousands of people who are familiar with the forests of this province and how they should be managed and who would like to have the opportunity to state their opinions to government through a select conunittee of the House.

So the member himself.while not supporting the amendment or saying that he was not supporting the amendment~was giving evidence in support of the amendment himself. Another point, Mr. Speaker, that I should counteract is the statement by the honourable ¥ember for Green Bay when he accuses the opposition of delaying this legislation. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that we could have had a select committee of this House set up and they could h~ve conducted their hearings, gotten the information from the people of this province.from the most ordinary person who has had 6479

May 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 8 experience in the woods to management, these public hearings could have been held and the report made and submitted to the connnittee, the Task Force Connnittee on Forestry,or to the House itself in the time that the government have seen fit to delay the consideration of the amendment on this particular bill,because it is my understanding, what is it ? Some seven or eight weeks? That is another thing, Mr. Speaker, that does raise certain questions or certain suspicions.

Why was it that the government saw fit to hold off on the consideration of this amendment for that period of time? There was no reason given, Mr. Speaker. No reason given whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, except the fact that it was delayed, and the government are not obviously going to support this idea:of a select committee. Sir, this is the very government who saw fit during their two election campaigns, saw fit to say th&t they will be bringing government to the people. They will be telling it the way it is.

They said they will not tell the people,but they will allow the people to make reconnnendations and participate in government. Instead of that what did we have, Mr. Speaker? We had this legislation brought into the House of Assembly and before the legislation was brought in and while the legislation was being introduced we had the propaganda campaign going on, on videotape, on television and on radio,talking about this great new legislation that was about to come before the House,can10uflaging - AN HON. MEMBER : 'MR. F. B. ROWE: Inaudible.

The honourable Member for Bell Island, I understand, I was on the road when I heard it but I understand that he has been accused of leaking some of the most vital information contained in the Task Force Report. To be quite frank with you, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that it was the honourable Member for Bell Island or somebody on this honourable side of the House who had the guts to release or leak or present this information to the people of Newfoundland, AN HON. MEMBER: I wish- 6480

'-fay 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 9 ml. F. B. ROWE: because it is entirely inconsistent of any government, this Tory Government, to come out and talk about their great task force committees and their great task force reports, propagandized that aspect of goverrunent and then for the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy to talk about editing such report or questioned about whether such reports should be made public. Now, I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that there are some things, things that are considered in cabinet for instance, that are not open for public consumption but any government who goes around bragging about bringing government to the people and having people participate and brags and talks about these great task force committees and reports and then falls flat on their face with respect to publication and bring this information to the people of Newfoundland it c~n only be classified as pure hypocrisy. I have never heard anything in my life, Mr.

Speaker, or never witnessed anything in my life when a government makes public a report with four or five pages removed. That in itself raises certain suspicions about the whole concept of these task force reports and what the true meaning of them should be. The simple fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this government have reneged on their promises made during their election campaigns. They do not trust the people of Newfoundland to express their opinions. They are not going to listen to the opinions or accept the opinions of the people of Newfoundland.

They are not going to allow it to influence any decisions or any recommendations coming from any reports. I notice, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people or groups who have made submissions. twenty-six groups or individuals or agencies have submitted briefs to this task force will they be made public? Twenty-four groups, twenty-four organizations went to the trouble of presenting briefs to the task force and I would suggest, Mr. Speraker, that I would te very interested to see the contents of some of these particular briefs. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 6481

~.ay 20, 1974 Tape 1673 (Afternoon) PK - 10 MR, F. B. ROWE: Sir, a principle is at stake here, The government should do one of two things,just shut up, keep quiet, not talk up, not try and get some political mileage out of these great task force committees 6482

''ay 20 1974 Tape 1674 (afternoon) IB-1 and freat task force reports, if they are going to turn around then and not make these public or censor or eclit these reports so that onlv what they want the people. to hear will be made public to the peo;:,le of Newfoundland. Then to make it even worse, they turn around with an expensive advertising campaign to try to gain approval or try to sell their le~islation. "r.

Speaker, I do not know if there is any province in Canada that has found it necessary or any country in the world except some countries , I suppose, hehind the Iron Curtain who found it necessary to use nn expensive advertising television campaign and newspaper camoaj n1 to try to get supnort for or propa!!.andize their own legislation. Surely !·•r. Speaker, if the legislation is worthy of the support of people in Newfoundland it should be able to stand on its mm two feet. 'J'ile government in this Jiouse should be capable of defending that legislation ~:'i.thont having to propagandize the people of Newfoundland.

One other point: The honourable the House Leader, Mr. Speaker, hai.; nlenty of opportunitv to speak durinf?. the debate. The honourable the Fouse Leader on the other side is making it his one occupation in this !louse, Mr. Speaker, of trying to harass and tangle up and trip un honourable members on this side. The most distracting feature is that silly grin on his face. rrr. Speaker. That is the most distracting. :le can talk and yell and scream all he wants but that grin just gets to one. Hr. Speaker. Now. };r. Speaker, I was very disappointed in the Minister of Hines and fnerry's rer.:arks.

The only thing that he did once again is being cor.sistent with his continuous attack on the federal rovernrnent: Sometimes I get the feeling that he is the Progressive Conservative campaign manager for the upcoming federal election - but he used the same technique on my honourable friend, the member for P.ell Island. Re insulted and he cast insults at tl-e member for Ilcll Island with respect to his remarks. He did no~ say one thing or the other with respect to publicity or privacy or secrecy. He walked the fence. He said, "Well, there are sol'le cases where you will probably 6483

~fay 20, 1974 Tape 1674 IB-2 need confidential reports. There are some cases where it can probably be made public. '' I return to the original point. If the government are going to try to get political mileage out of their Task Force Committees and Reports.they should have the guts to at least ~Ake these particular reports public because there is a real principle at stake here. I have never heard of editing a report and lifting out four of the most important pages. The fact that the contents of these four pages were linked in itself - ?-'R. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The honourable member has gone on for quite an appreciable period of time. He is not being relevant to the bill. Ile is not talking about the principle of the bill itselfnor the frinciple of the amendment. Indeed all he happens to be doing is talking about again what this government has said and what that other person has said. 1here are people in the galleries, I believe from the vocational school , forestry. I thin k they would like some intelligent debate from the opposition. I think this House is entitled to get it as well, Pr. Speaker.

Let us talk about the principle of the bill itself rather than what this one said and what that one said. '.'1:R.· _1r .. _R_QJ~ .:_ Sit down "Nastiness". On the point of order, Hr. Speaker. The honourable !·'.inister of )!ines and Ener gy was up going on about everything under the sun except a referral to the select committee of this bill. ~ow, I brought not Your Honour but Your Honour I s Deputy's attention to the fact.

I said, "What bill are we on now?' Your Honour's deputy allowed the minister to go merrily on his way, implicitly or explicitly or something,widening the liJDits of the debate on this particular amendment. Now, my_colleague, the member for St. Barbe North, is not being nearly as irrelevant as the Minister of Mines and Energy is. At least he is talking about the need for inform2tion and publicity for this bill. The best way of doing it would be referral of it to a select cmmnittee of the House so that public hearings could be 6484

'.!av '.W. 1974 Tape 1674 IB-3 held. I would submit , Sir, that the honourable member for St. Barbe North is not being irrelevant. If he is being slightly irrelevant, he is not being half as irrelevant as was the Minister of Mines and Energy who was not drawn to order by Your Honour's deputy. _}~~- M~ _S_I~:_ Let me address myself to what the honourable member for White Bay South has said. I mean, this is childish. The fact of the matter is that he is perfectly within his rights,if he should think any member on this side is irrelevant., to get up on a point of order and draw it to Your Honour ' p, attention.

The fact of the matter is that they have had eight weeks to study the report. T!1ey have indicated, all of theJ!'. ~•r. Speaker, that they have not even read a single pEge, By their rer.~rks they are covering personalities again rather than substance . MR. SPEAKER, As regards to what perviously happened when the Hinister of '.fines and Energy lms speaking, I was not in the Chair and I am certainly not at all concerned with what took place then. I am concerned with the points of or,lPr raised when this speaker is in the Chair.

The rule of relevancy is difficult to make a ruling on,as has been said through this position on numerous occasions. There has 'been some leeway granted. However , the honourable member for St. P,arbe ~forth, I thin! '. . could be more relevant particularly to the amendment to which lie is speaking and not the rnnin bill. !~ . __ F . _ _!lOWE_:_ t!r. Speaker, I wish the honourable the Government House Leader would at least wait until an honourable member on this side of the House finishes his statement or sentence before he rises on his point of order,because the very point that I was trying to make, Hr.

Speaker, was the need for this select connnittee and to give the people of Newfoundland an opportunity to have an input. What was the point that I was trying to make? The fact that four pages were lifted out of that report - they were Tllade public, they were leaked. I hope it was somebody on this side. It was not I. I hope it was somebody on this side because they deserve a medal. The four most important pages in that report represent need in itself for public hearings because it affects the lives of thousands 6485

Tape 1674 IB-4 of people out on the West Coast and in that town or city that is dependent upon one major industry. I think the contents of these four par,es should be sufficient rCcason to set up a select committee and get the opinions of the people affected. t·!ow, there is one other point, •.1r. Speaker, t hat has been made by my colleagues. This is undeniablec; this is basically a tnY.ati on bil I. " ow. I would li l-.c to ask this question , l'r. Speaker. I woulcl lih, the people of Newfoundl ;mct to ask this question and make sug~estions relating to it.

What hanocns, for instance, in my di strict ann I believe in part of the honourable member for St. Barbe South's district? I mean , Bowaters or anv of these companies are not little corner stores down ther e in the ccn tr,r of town. I <lo not know if they are ir.aking a profit or not i n t:el,foundland but they have money. What happens if the se companies or any of them see fit to go ahead and nay the taxes on certain blocks of land thereby crip plin 1e the economy or the employment situation in a cert a in district~ I will r ive the!'\ an example.

In my own district there are hundreds of people on unemployment insurance. •:any of these neople were loggers ·with Bowaters over the years. Bowaters, as far as operation is concerned, have pulled out of the area. AN HONOURABLE MF.}IBER: Inaudible. - ·- ·· ·· · --·· -----· - HF:._ y .. _R_O]-IJ'.=. _ Yes. Well, I am not finished yet, Mr. Speaker. Supposing Bowaters for some reason decides that they would like to hold on to that concession anq they decide to pay their taxes on that particular concession, they still have the wood and they still have the land tied up and the people still remain unemployed.

We still have no management and we still have 'lo!Ood rotting on the stUD1p. It is no good to Bowaters or the people of Newfoundland in another five , ten or fifteen or twenty years. Now, I would like for some businessmen who know what they are talking about to go to public hearings and talk about that possibility. They can have all the legislation that they want to on taxes but I would not be the least bit surprised that there are areas of this province that Bowaters will want to hold on to for some reason 6486

Tape 1674 IB-5 or another,for competitive purposes or some other concessions that they may have, some other rights tltat they may have. It is a good question.; what other rights besides the timber rights do these paper companies have on that land.:' There are a great number of individuals who want to set up private sawmill operations, small ones. There are numbers of individuals who want to set up a fairly major logging ooeration. There are other persons who want to set up _ tourist establishments on soce of the beautiful lakes and rivers going up the Northwest Co/\st. They cannot get in there. Fhat happens?

Look, the honourable the member for Green Eay, the only thing that he described was a bucksaw and logs when he got up. Ile was not relevant to the al'lendment whatsoever. So, )'{r. Speaker, I will ask for him to stop interrupting at the present time. I have given a couole of examples of the neerl for public hearings. One uas,this leak is sufficient reason itself. Two, the very types of detailed information - one would swear the honourable member for Creen Bay was a l=berjack himself, }iR._l'!.:.CI~_Q_RD: Well, I did one time. ~- F.

ROWE: Good: He brought out some very good recommendations and very good suggestions and raised some questions, the sort of thing with Phich the honourable member should appear before such a public hearing. The third point that I made is,then what happens if the company sees fit to hold on to certain concessions, pay their tax and let the wood rot on the stump and keep the unemnloyment rate up in these particular areasT How , Mr.

Speaker, getting back to the whole business again, it is hypocritical for a government,that so based their whole campai~n not to have public hearing on this very important and vital issue. Believe me,it is important. I think the legislation,as it now stands, is insufficient. It is onlv a taxation bill. I think the only way it can be improved is to get opinions and ideas and reco111I11endations from the people whom this government supposedly place so much faith in during their campaigns. Have these public hearings and, }~r. Speaker, I will 6487

:1ay 2'J. 19711 Tape 1674 IB-6 ct,rtainly supnort this particular nmenrlment. HR. SPEA!'J·:I'. : I put the ame:ncment: 1'11 those in favor of the amendment. "Aye;,. All those against the amendment, "Nay " . In my opinion the "Nays'' have it. W'.. :lr:AitY. -- .. ~ • - • \Jell, Sir, ue were hoping that the government -- there was a close vote apparently, Sir, according to the "Ayes" and the '.fays' . f..s a matter of fact, they had nine in the House and there were six of us. He nearly defeated them. Sir, we were loping that the government would accept our amendMent.

This amendmc·nt was put seven or eight weeJ,s ago as was ind:!,catecJ by my colleag:ue here. The government had sufficient time to set up a select committee, l!,O around the province , hear the views of the people. They would rather, Sir, take the dictatorial - l!H._ .. ]'.AR_S_llA_L_L: On a paint of order, t!r. Speaker. I believe we are back on thie main moti.on now.

I would like the journal of the Fouse chec!,r, rl , I m:i not sure whether the honourable member for Bell Island s;1ote before or not. 1:e usually has a lot to contribute to the debate. :-l o doubt we would all like to hear him again but the rules say he may only speak once in the debate. Perhaps we may check the journals first. l'R •• H •• r,OHF.: The honourable nasty House Leader wants this checked and that checked. Is he saying the member for Bell Island spoke or not? Jle is raising a point of order. Sit down now. It is hard enough, Sir., to have to tolerate him when he is sitting dO'l-.'TI.

When he stands up it is even worse. Sir, he raised a point of order. He wants this checked and that: checked and the next thing checked. Either he is sayin~ the member for Bell Island spoke or he did not. I am saying in response to his specious, foolish point of order that the member for Bell Island did not speak to the main motion. Your Honour undoubtedly will make up his mind on it. The member for Bell Island spoke to the amendment but, as I understand it, he did not speak to the main motion. It is not even a point of order anyway, Sir.

The House Leader has not submitted that the member for Bell Island spoke and he wants to know if he spoke or not. You know, unheard of, Sir, in parliamentary procedure. Just 6488

Hay 2() , 1974 Tape 1674 IB-7 another attempt to be nasty. 1~-- _S_PfA_F.ER--2. It is the feelin!': of the Chair - '.'R. NEARY: Are they ~oin~ to hear me? }:_R .:_2.P_E~E_Ft . Order, please'. Order, please! The Speaker was trying to make some comment.with regards to the honourable member having spo~en or not spoken before,when he was interrupted by the honourable member. MR - !ff.ARY: Is it my turn? M_R_. __ S!'E_AKE_R,_:_ No.

I at'l just trying to say that the Chair is not sure whether or not the honourable mel'!her for Bell Islancl spoke to the main motion before,anc1 T was asking the persons at the table to find out for me when I was interrunted by the honour.ible mem!,er. :,IR • :ff AP.Y : !!ell, , what is he r;oing to do now? Will we recess for five l"linutes or can I carry on my speech or ,_.h:i t? l·T .. SPEi'JcF.R. Hell if the point of order were raised by the honourable member and if the honourable men·.her for Bell Island did sneak to the main motion before , lie is not entitled to speak to it again. '.IR. J!ICl•TAN : Nr.

Sneaker. this does not have to be done by a point of order at all. The simple fact is that if any honourable member sneaks or colill!lences to speak the second time on the same resolution, as soon as it is drawn to the attention of tl,e Chair he has to be ordered to desist. 'MR. 1-1. P_QWE: Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister is rising on a noint of order. The J!ouse Leader, Sir, in his typical, nasty fashion c.i<l not raise a poirt of order. !le asked Your Honour whether the member for Ilell Isl and spoke a,:?ain or if this were the second time he had spoken.

If the honourable menber had rotten up in his pl.'.lce and sai~, ,·sir. I draw to your attention that the member for Eell Island is speakin:; a second tine in this debate," that would be a point of order. What the Minister without Portfolio did was he got up and raised a hypothetical question to Your Honour,asking Your Honour a question as to whether the member for Bell Island spoke before or not. I , Sir. have submitted that that is not a point of order. He did not make anoint of order. He asked Your Honour a hypothetical question. 6489

May 20, 1974 Tape 1674 IB-8 ?'.ll. NEARY: Can I plough on, Your Honour, with my little - l!Il- SP_!iA!-,ER:_ I am awaiting the decision of the table as to whether or not the honourable member had spoken before. As I said earlier,the Chair is of the opinion that the honourable rneJ!lber for Bell Island did not speak to the main motion. Unless honourable members can prove that the honourable member did speak to the main motion, the Chair is willing to permit him to continue. ~~ -_J~A_P'...Y...:.. Thank you, Your Honour. I have been t~ying to say that for ten minutes, Sir.

The honourable House Leader, Sir, is completely out of order. MR •. W. ROWE: And the Speaker condoninp him. ~-- J.!.¥RJ...:. Sir, I have no intention of getting up and speaking twice in this honourable House. I know when I have spoken. It is so long ago since they brought this bill into the House that they do not remember what has happened. m1at I am going to say now, Sir, is that we are goinr, to support this bill. He are going to support it. What choice clo we have, Sir? We put up a proposition to the administration, Sir - this is seven or eight weeks ago now I am talking about, Mr.

Speaker that they go around the province - ~ g _~l{ER: Order, please: The matter was raised. There was considerable debate and the honourable member for Bell Island was permitted to continue,of course on the assumµtion that he is speaking to the main motion and not continuing to debate what has already been raised. l'R. NEARY: Now. }Tr. Speaker, my colleague suggested to me that I ·- no, I had better not do that. Sir, we are going to support the bill. We tried the best way we could to persuade the administration - ~,!l..Q!'TOURABLE ?~ER:_ We have been persuaded. }!R._~J_:_ No, }tr. Speaker.

To persuade the administration , Sir, to set up a select committee to go out and hear what the public had to say about this. They refused to do it, Sir. 6490

!lay 20, l<.l74 Tape 1674 IB- <.) :low the :!inister of :•ines and Energy there a fl?lo! minutes ar,o. Sir. tal ked about all the confidential, secre t documen ts that uere pres e n t ed by civil servants. P.e was not referring specificall y to t his b i 11. He said. ''!low would you ,.:et them to be freewheelinP, and use their ima gination and make reports? •• g ell, Sir, the :ms1••er to t hat is this , ttat. the respon sil·ili t y for this report, ~•r. f.pe.d ·cr . l)ns to lie 11i t!1 t he- '·~inister of l"orestry and Agriculture. This re:,ort . Sir , has to rise o r f all on its own two fee t.

The ~1inister o( ''in es and F.nergy cann o t turn around and start to sav. 'Well . we Clln cover this uo or we can cover that up or wo can h lame this on t he official s or we can blam e i t or. the Task Forc e . ' There is no sur.h thin11, Sir. The minister is t he head of that <lepartoent anti he has to a ssume t he res oonsih ilit y fo r tha t or any other report. Whether he likes it or no t does not make any dif fo l:'.encc. It is the minis ter , Sir, who has to ei t.her take the credi t or accept the blam1 f or that report, not the 6491

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 1- MW civil servants,not the task force. It should not restrict the people who are working on the task force. It should not restrict them one iota, Sir. I am sure that there are dozens and dozens of documents that the minister has down in his office that never reached this report. They were culled out. The documents were taken out and are still in the minister's file. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: No, the minister did not do the report. That is tight. The minister has to accept the responsibility for it. The minister asked to have the report done.

Whether it is a good report or a bad report, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, Sir, has to accept the responsibility for it. In large measure, I would say that it was a poor report, very poorly done. It was not properly researched. It was not done by experts. There are only one or two experts in Newfoundland on forestry. Neither one of them expressed an opinion on that report. I saw one of them on television giving his views on the report. He called it a tax bill.

Then the minister, Sir, after he brought this bill into the House, Bill No. 20, "An Act To Bring Certain Forest Lands Under Proper Management And To Impose Varying Degrees Of Taxation In Respect Thereof," had to go out and purchase radio and television time and advertisements in the newspaper to try to defend his report. This went on, Sir, for weeks and weeks. The poor, old public of Newfoundland had to put up with this. Their favourite programmes were interrupted on television and radio. They had to watch the minister who looked liked he was half frightened to death. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

NEARY: They did everything but say that this was a paid political telecast. It had no more affect, Sir, then going over now and spitting out through the window down in front of Confederation Building. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) • 6492

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 2 - MW MR. NEARY: I would have more effect, I can tell the minister that. If I were going to sell the report, I think I should have done a better job on it than that. At least the minister did not get his deputy on,like the Minister of Social Services who had his deputy on. It is a wonder the minister did not parade the members of the task force out in front of the television cameras, one after the other,and have them praise it up. Nevertheless, Sir, we have done everything in our power to try to persuade the administration to hold public hearings to try to improve this bill.

It is only an infant step. That is all it is , Sir, It is only an infant step in our for _estry ,management. AN HON. MEMBER: It is a good teginning. MR. NEARY: Maybe it is, Sir, That is why we are going to support it. It may be a good beginning, we do not know. We are going to support it, Sir, and we hope that the experience over the next year or so will prove that it is a half decent bill. I notice that the bill would come into force by proclamation. I presume the minister is going to have the bill proclaimed at as early a date as possible.

Such date would require to correspond with the date of coming into operation of those regulations provided for in the bill. I do not know if the minister can indicate whether the regulations have been drafted yet or not or when he expects to have the regulations drafted. When the minister speaks now, he will conclude the debate. Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, it is merely an infant step in the management of our forests. Nevertheless, we are prepared to support it and give it a year or so and see what happens. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, just before the minister speaks,there are a few things I would like to say on the bill. First of all, I certainly 6493

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 3 think there is a need for proper forest management. I have been looking forward to some legislation on this subject for some time. I guess it is particularly for that reason that I was rather disappointed to see the bill. When it came before the House some weeks ago, as we indicated at that time, we were pretty much at a loss to make any intelligent comment on it. We did not know what had been the sackground of the bill or what had been the recommendations of the task force. Since then and after considerable dialogue on the subject, we were successful in getting the minister to give us at least a

summary of the report or parts of the report, the censored report report. We have had an opportunity now to look at the Mr. Speaker, I have to concur with what the members on this side have said and with what I have heard, at least from one knowledgeable person in the forest industry on television,that at most it is a tax bill. Mr. Speaker, I have made an effort to talk to a number of persons involved in the forestry industry, persons who would have some knowledge, some depth in this particular area.

The consensus that I am getting on the subject from other persons, not only o~ this side of the House but from persons outside the House is that at b~st this is a tax bill. Mr. Speaker, if government are going to place so much reliance on andnoint with such pride to the task force report, as the father or 110ther, if you like, of this legislation; then I believe we ought to hear what government are going to do about a number of the other very key recomaendations in this report.

All we hear as a result is a proposal, a bill which would return -ome taxes to the provincial treasury and which would add considerably to the size of the provincial bureaucracy. What it will do in terms of effective forest 6494

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 4 management is certainly not indicated to us in the bill. If it does, let us concede, Mr. Speaker, that it may indeed accomplish a few things in terms of fotest managememt. One only has to look at some of the recommendations in this report to see that the bill is begging the real questions, the real recommendations in this report, altogether. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to educate me on this point.

I cannot find any provision in the bill for the allocation of lands for recreation, for wildlife or for agriculture or that kind of thing, although that appears to be one of the key recommendations of the report. What are government going to do on that subject? Are we going to have a piece-meal type approach, one bill this year and another next year? At some point when she is completely out of control, we are going to see all the recommendations of the report taken care of.

Jtave government taken from this whole, what appears to be a comprehensive report, one little kernel which is to its advantage and ignore the rest1 What will happen to the other major recommendations in this particular report? Mr. Speaker, there is the reconnendation concerning the need for broadly based benefit cost and land use analyses before any large scale developments are undertaken such as the Lower Churchill, which is the example given here - any such large development which may have serious detrimental effects on the environment.

Where is the provision in the legislation for this kind of thing or what do government intend to do in respect of this particular recommendation, the recollll'D:endation that such benefit costs and land use analyses be done before large scale developments are undertaken? Where in the bill (I am just picking them in the order as they come, Mr. Speaker.

I am not at all ranking them in terms of their priority in my view) or where in the government's plan, is there some provision for measures to offset the detrimental effects of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles on the animal communities and on various types of vegetation? What are the government going to do about that? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). 6495

Tape no. lli7;; Page ;;, la t hat anot her part of the report vhi ch wil l be: 1;tnor•:d cO'!llpletel y? Where, .'fr. Speaker, in th.e bill or in goveniar:nt' a pl an• are the meaauree that ,muld olace controls on destructive land practicea aur.h aa open-pit or gravel pit operation•? I vaa surprised and 11htJr:lc.ed, Mr. Speak.er, aa I drove along the highway, in the laet tvent:,-four houra,to eee a nev ii;ravel pit being opened up I cannnt say it ia completely nev .

I believe it va.a used elightly before,hy the appearance of it.) which had been used only minimally 1,erore now being worked,as late as this morning,right within one hundred otnd fifty feet of the Trans Canada Highway. That is certainly no more than the minimal distance from the centre of the highvay. It is right in the open view, 1ust west of Grand Falla, right on the Trans Canada. I am one of those Newfoundlanders who have regretted the use of these gravel pita or the opening up of these gravel pits inside of the highway in years past. There is not too much one can do about these.

I was very surprised to notice again as late as this morning that this kind of thing is still going on. There is no attempt to get it away from the highway at all, Mr. Speaker. It is right on the highway itself. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, again, as always when I am speaking, I have to put it in very elementary terms for the Member for Bonavista South. I am at this particular point, Mr. Speaker, addressing myself to (perhaps somebody would find the page for him- Perhaps the Member for Bay de Verde would help him} page seventy-six of the report, item number six.

It makes reference to the need for legislation to address itself to open-pit and roadside restoration. MR. NEARY: He did not even read the report. Do not pay any attention to him. _MR. SIMMONS: I would say to the Member for Bell Island that the Member for Bonaviata South probably cannot read the report,so we have to be charitable with him, as charitable as possible. If anybody should need educating in this House, Mr. Speak.er, it should be the Member for Bonavista South. It is almost a futile exercise,but as a devoted Cacher I am willing to try. 6496

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 6 MR. SIMMJNS: Mr. Speaker, if I can judge by the success of that pupil, I am a very bad teacher. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! While the Hon. Member for Hermitage has been unnecessarily interrupted by the Hon. Member for Bonavista South,he is not being relevant to the particular item he was discussing prior to that. He may continue. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would indicate what government intend to do about this particular recommendation as it affects open-pit and roadside restoration .

I hope , even more important~that we can hear something of what government are going to do so that this kind of thing does not continue, the kind of thing I saw only this morning, west of Grand Falls. The report also makes reference to the need for government to increase the effectiveness of the Clean Air,Water and Soil Authority. I am glad the wording is like that, Mr.

Speake;-"to increase the effectiveness of." It did not say," clumsify or to make more bureaucractic 11 or anything of that nature but it did say,• to increase the effectiveness of." I have had some involvement on behalf of other people in the past few years with this particular authority. I can only say amen! to this particular recommendation. At the moment, it is my particular view that this authority, if anything, is one of the detriments to development in the province.let alone making any contribution to proper development.

I would appeal to the government to do something to increase the effectiveness of and to indicate to us how it intends to increase the effectiveness of the authority. Or is this another of the several reco11111endations I suspect that may go by the board, the government having picked out the one at the back that suits this particular purpose? It gives the government SOJl!e more revenue and adds to the bureaucracyof the province, the size of the bureaucracy,without effectively coming to grips with the overall concerns which have been expressed in this report. Mr.

Speaker, page eighty-nine of the report is another matter that I believe requires some comment. The report says in

part 6497

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 7 that there is a requirement for a strong central authority to develop and enforce the forest policy designed to reduce losses from forest pests. Where in the bill is there some provision for the accommodation of this particular reconmendation? There are so many others, Mr. Speaker, (I just picked a few at rando~ in the report that are not at all provided for in the bill. I am not saying that a government should take a report holus-bolus and just do everything that is recommended.

I would suggest that if it be.as it shall in future time and already I believe going to blame the men who wrote this report for the legislation and for all that may go wrong with it in the future, at least it should give some kind of explanation as to why it is not adopting some of the recommendations or indicate at what time in the future government may intend to adopt the recommendation.s. There is another that is of considerable interest,on page ninety-nine of the report, the matter of forest protection.

The sentence which is pertient says: "Since the forests constitute a renewable public resource, the provincial government must take complete responsibility for forest fire protection:; What are government going to do about that reco11DDendation in the report? Mr. Speaker, I have referred to, as I have said, not all of the recommendations but some which I believe are pertient to the point at hand, Certainly, they are recommendations of the report. I am wondering (it is a puzzle.) that so much fuss has been made about this forestry bill, To be honest with you, Mr.

Speaker, if I were to judge by the fervour with which the minister, when on the subject of publicizing if I were to judge by the size of the advertisements in the papers six or eight weeks ago , if I were to judge by these indications without having seen the bill or the report, I think I could only come to the conclusion that great things were in store, if I had oelieved the propaganda being put forward by the minister, 6498

May 20, 1974 Tape no. 1675 Page 8 Mr. Speaker, one looks at the bill and one gets very, very disappointed. I am all for finding a way to collect a few more dollars to go into the Provincial Treasury. Let it be called that if that were all it were. Let it be called a tax bill. Let us reserve the title of Forestry Bill for something worthy of the name, something which addresses itself to the problems as raised in the Task Force Report. Mr. Speaker,this brings me to the real point of what we have been doing on this side in reference to the Forestry Bill. We believe it is a right small step but only a small step.

It is lamentable that of all the recommendations in this report, government have seen fit to address itself to such a small part of the reconunendations. What we wanted,with the amendment which was defeated,was to provide a means for the government and anybody else who would like to have imput, for all concerned to come up with a forestry bill that was worthy of the name. We do not have it at the moment. We, on this side, do not have much choice but to support it. We are not against what the government are proposing but we think it is only a patch approach, it is only an awfully small step.

We would hope that a forestry bill instead would address itself to the whole gambit of problems that have been referred to, at least the principal items, certainly the matter of forest fire protection,as an example, the last one I mentioned, among others of this report. The government in its bill should address itself to that kind of problem. Mr. Speaker, I repeat,the bill does not address itself to the key recommendations in the report, That is lamentable. I believe something ought to have been done about it.

What puzzles me about this whole thing,as I watched the publicity earlier, I was delighted and beyond that amused that government decided to take our advice on this side and get off the television and stop the propaganda. At least we accomplished that much. If we did not accomplish.it, the people of Newfoundland and their feedback accomplished it because it must have caused the minister s0111e embarrasSlllent 649,9

May 20, 1974 T