VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. FRIDAY, DECE~BER 9, 1983 NO. 75

December 9,1983 Tape 3840 PK - 1 The House met at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD: The han. the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statemen .t concerning the fishery , the ::ontents of which disturb me personally very much and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) and all members of the government. - And the latest- ·course -of events, which have unfolded. in the last coup:i..e of weeks 1 are deeply disturbing to this government. Yesterday, th~refore 1 I communicated a Telex to the Prime Minister.

The statement I am giving this morning is the following, therefore. The following is the content of a telegram that I sent to the Prime Minister yesterday concerning the 1984 groundfish management plan. "Now that I have received a full briefing from my Minister of Fisheries,who just returned from meetings with your Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) 1 I am very much concerned over the short-and long-term implications of some facets of your government's proposed 1964 groundfish harvesting plan.

The issuance of enterprise allocations from our Northern cod to the independent trawler owners located in other Eastern provinces is of major concern. "As you are fully aware, my government has formalized its position on the all-important Northern cod resource, and all parties involved in the fishery are familiar with it. We are also very much concer~ed about the fish needs of the new Newfoundland offshore company and the strong possibility that under your proposed harvesting plan there will not be enough fish in the offshore quota to keep the 8497

December 9, 1983 Tape 3840 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: 11 various plants operating on a full-time basis apd to make the new company viable. Northern cod is the key factor in the raw material supply of this new company and also is the mainstay of our inshore fishery. In this respect I find it difficult to understand, and impossible to accept, tha~ offshore trawlers from other provinces,who have practically 8498

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3841 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: no history or past performance in this fishery and are not adjacent to the resource 1 would now be provided with a substantial quota of Northern cod as proposed in the 1984 plan. I understand it is further proposed that these independent trawler companies will automatically be given 12 per cent of the Northern cod offshore quota over the next five years as their share under your proposed enterprise allocations principle.

"While this government accepts the principle of enterprise allocations,we are in no way prepared to accept a Northern cod quota for independent trawler operators located outside of this Province. We are even more opposed to your propos-ed plan of entrenching a percentage for these innependent trawler companies in a long-term (five year)_ !?lan. I woul .d strongly suggest that you review the 1984 and long-term groundfish plans based on the presentations made by rr:y Minister of Fisheries (_Mr. Morgan), and present to us in the immediate future a more reasonable approach on this very important matter." Now, Mr.

Speaker, I have learned further from the Minister of Fisheries· that cnntrary to popular notion ,and not onlya popular notion but a few years aqo it was sort of an expert notion,that the Northern cod stock is not growing as fast as many people had predicted it would a few years ago. I guess that makes me refer to the study that was done by NORDCO where they had indicated,when they talked about the Northern cod s-tock , that a lot more study was needed on that very important resource.

It is growing somewhere around 6 per cent,which means- tilat for 1984 the increase in the total allowable catch_ on the Northern cod stock is only going to be 6,000 tons for a total allowable catch of 260,000 metric tons·. In other words, the North.ern cod stock is only increasing 8499

December 9, 1983 Tape No . 3841 so - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: next year enough to allow 6,000 more tons to be taken next year over this year. Mr . Speaker, of that 6,000 tons, we have just learned that half of it - 3,000 tons - is to go to these independent trawler companies in the other Eastern provinces. These independent tra\o~ler companies in the other Eastern Provinces, there are fifteen of them, fifteen companies, have thirty -one trawlers and only one o£ thns~ trawlers is in Ne~oundland . that is the one operating for Ocean Harveste r~ ~ of course, Ocean Harvesters has heen 85 00

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3842 NM - 1 PRE!HER PECKFORD : hav~ng the devil's own time in the last two or three years to get any fish from the Northern cod stock even when it was available. So there are 30 trawlers and 15 independent companies in Quebec - a new name in the Northern cod saga - Quebec, PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia who are now going to get 50 per cent of the increase in the allocation of Northern cod in 1984 over '83; 50 per cent of the increase is going to other provinces rather than Newfoundland.

Now also, as I mentioned in my statement, they want to entrench 12.5 per cent of the deep-sea quota to these independent trawler companies, 12.5 per cent of the deep-sea quota to go and be entrenched in an agreement to go there,to go to these companies. MR. MORGAN: PREMIER PECKFORD: For the next five years. For the next five years. Of course, once it ~ets entrenched in the first five year plan, I mean the 12.5 per cent, God only knows what it is going to be in the next five years. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, if that is not enough 1 to add insult to injury we found out that two of the trawlers last year that these independents have- listen to this! - two of the trawlers from these independent companies and the Maritimes and Quebec last year caught fish~. "l.nd ·::~ey are owned by a company called Hersey Seafoods Limited-were freezer-trawlers catching the Northern cod and they semi-processed last year -they caught, out off our shores last year 1 6,000 tons, exactly the amount that the Northern cod stock is going to increase by next year over this year.

Tl"lose two trawlers caught 6, 000 tons of Northern cod, semi-processed i ·t aboard, .brou'}ht it into 8501

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3842 Nt-1 - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD:. a port in Nova Scotia, and transferred it s~i-processed,to foreign shios and those foreiqn ships I - - - . bought it, these independent companies got the cash for it and then those foreign boats took that semi-processed fish back to Europe and fully proc essed it in Europe last year. MR . MORGAN: Not a job onshore. 85 02

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3843 ah-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: ~ot a job onshore in Canada let alone in Newfoundland, not even in Nova Scotia. Furthermore, Mr.Speaker, we find out that the cod stock on the St. Pierre Bank, the 3PS Bank, is in trouble, the cod stock on the St. Pierre Bank is in trouble, the 3PS. And because it is in trouble,the trawlers from Newfoundland in 1984 will have to take 4000 tons less next year than they took this year in 3PS. So there is 4000 tons less going to be available now to the plants on the South Coast next year than there were this year.

And at the same time that that is happening,they are going to give the independent trawler companies in Eastern Canada more of the Northern cod stock where we would normally pick up that 4000 tons from 3PS. Now, Mr. Speaker, how is this qoinq to relate, this 4000 tons less down where the plants are and the trawlers are, more attack on the Northern cod, it is not growing near as fast, entrenching 12.5 per cent for trawlers in Quebec as well as the other Maritime provinces, what is that going to say for the new company that we are trying to form and to make viable?

And if this kind of plan goes ahead,then one can see, Mr.Speaker, that what is going to happen is that plants in Quebec and the Maritime provinces will stay open 1because they will have a supply of fish 1 and the plants on the South Coast of this Province will close down. That is what is going to happen, Mr.Speaker, if this is allowed to go ahead. so we must protest in the strongest possible terms that the course of action and the direction that the federal government is now on is injurious to the lifeblood of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 8503

December 9,1983 MR .SP EAKER (Russell) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: _ Tape No . 3843 ah-2 The hon.Leader of the Mr. Speaker, the first question, of course, I would have to ask,which is the obvious one ., is why is the Premier makinq these statements in the House and not his Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan)? Obviously he does not have very much confidence , in the Minister of Fisheries who is sitting over there in his place in this han. House today. It seems to be the Premier's special area of concern. I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that this is not an indication that we are going to h9--ve another row, that another row is brewing with Ottawa, and they are just iooking for another federal election issue, Mr. Speaker. I hope that is not the case. 8504

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3844 EC-1 MR. NEARY: Now, we only received the statement a few moments ago. It is a very complicated matter, the matter of allowing quotas. It is a Canadian resource. MR. MORGAN: Wait until our fishermen hear that! MR. NEARY: It is a Canadian resource, Mr. Speake~~ MR. MORGAN: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. NEARY: You are giving a~ay our resources. Oh, oh! Yes, it is a Canadian resource. And, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian resource we should use - MR. MORGAN: the next election. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL): MR. NEARY: You will not get two seats in Oh, oh! Order, please! Order, please! Mr.

Speaker, we should use Canadian bottoms to catch Canadian Fish. PREMIER PECKFORD: It has nothing to do with that. It is not Canadian bottoms we are talking about. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is far better to have Canadian bottoms catch the fish than to bring foreigners in. PREMIER PECKFORD: The statement was not about Canadian bottoms. Read the statement. ~ffi. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hen. gentleman's policy is to bring fore.igners in to catch the fish. MR. MORGAN: in ~ewfoundland, do you? MR. NEARY: a complicated affair. PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. NEARY: You want to close the plants Say it if you want to!

Say it! Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is It is not complicated. It is complicated. PREMIER PECKFORD: What is complicated about more fish being taken from our Northern cod stock and brought somewhere 8505

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3844 EC-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: else while peo~le in Newfoundland are .unemployed and our plants nave to close down? MR. NEARY: What I am about to say to the han. gentleman - PREMIER PECKFORD: If we call by-elections in the seven that are left we would wipe you c .t altogether! MR. NEARY: Well, call a few over there! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL): Order, please! MR. NEARY: If the han. gentleman would just restrain himself for a few moments, Mr. Speaker!

I was about to say that my colleagues and I will take a look at the statement, because we do not have the facts and figures in front of us like the minister and the Premier, we are not privy to the information, but we will get the information. }m. MARSHALL: Yes, >'That Otta·wa thinks about it. MR. NEARY: of the story. MR. MORGAN: No, we will get the other side We will get the information. The document was mailed to all Opposition members in the region by Ottawa. MR. CALLAN: MR. NEARY: just landed on my desk. MR. MORGAN: hands two days ago. MR. WARREN: him a liar! MR. NEARY: When? Mr.

Speaker, this statement has The harvesting plan was in your Call him a liar, 'Steve'. Call No, I cannot call the han. geneltman a liar, that would not be unparliamentary. MR. WARREN: MR. MORGAN: in your hands two days ago. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: 8506 He is a liar. The harvesting plan was Order, please! Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3844 EC-3 MR. NEARY : will take a look at the situation. MR. WARREN: Is that true? MR. MORGAN: Yes! The harvesting plan was in his hands two days ago. MR. NEARY: What is wrong with the hen. gentlemen, they are so jumpy and jittery over there? Why are they so arrogant and cocky and swelled-headed? MR. MORGAN: You had the document from Ottawa two days ago. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Well, we are concerned about the supply of fish to the plants, Mr. Speaker ,we are are ve.ry concerned about it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: !:_4R. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : MR. NEARY: awfully swelled-headed.

Oh, oh! Order, please! Mr. Speaker, they are- get. ting The whole trouble is they are getting too b::hg ·for their britches over there. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 8507

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3845 MJ - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong? This is Friday, it is the end of the week, the House will closed until Monday, hon. members will be able to rest. MR. MORGAN: your party. MR. NEARY: Support your Province 1 not They are all like they are on the brink of a nervous breakdown or something over there. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Order, please! Order, pleasel What I am about to say is that we will take a look at the statement, we will get the figures and we will examine them and 1 in due course, Mr. Speaker, we will make our position known.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: over there, Mr. Speaker? SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh! Order, please! Are they all off their heads Oh, oh! Order, please! MR. NEARY: ORAL QUESTIONS Mr. Speaker. M.'R. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR. NEARY: The hon. the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question I· think to the hon. gentleman there opposite. The Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is he not? m~. CALLA.i'l: No, the Premier. MR. NEARY: The Premier, On!

Well,I will come back to the Premier later but I want to deal with the Government House Leader at the moment, the gentleman who is responsible for offshore resources. Could the hon. gentleman tell the House 8508

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3845 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: what his reaction is to the federal government's announcement that offshore drilling - PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. NEARY: PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. NEARY: Unilateral. I will ask the question. Then ask it. I am directing it to the Minister responsible. If the Premier 'wants one-man rule, if he does not want his ministers to answer, if he does not have any confidence in th~~ SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. NEARY: let me ask the question: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : MR. MORGAN: question yesterday. MR. NEARY: Oh, oh! Well, just keep quiet and Oh, oh! Order,please!

You would not ask the Premier a Mr. Speaker, we will get around to the Premier in due course, but I want to ask the hon. gentleman what is his reaction to the - MR. BAIRD: (Inaudible) around Terra Nova the other day. MR. NEARY: Could I finish the question, Mr. Speaker? I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what his reaction is to the federal government's announcment that they are going - MR. BAIRD: to~d down in Terra Nova. MR. MORGAN: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: to wonder who won the by-election. MR. MORGAN: religious jokes in Terra Nova. SOME HON.

MEMBERS : 8509 Tell us the religious jokes you What is that about? Oh, oh! Order, please! Order, please! You know, I am beginning Oh, no! He did not tell Oh, oh!

December 9, 1983 Tape 3846 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! MR. NEARY: Could the hon. gentleman tell us his reactior- to the government annoonceBent that Winter drilling is going to go ahead? MR. SPEAKER: MR. ·MARSHALL: The hon. President of the Council. Mr. Speaker, first ·of all I want to say that that announcement was another unilateral act by the Government of Canada with respect to the resources that are owned by this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: We had been talking with the federal govennment. our position on the offshore is very well known, Mr. Speaker.

We have guidelines. Guidelines were formulated,twenty of them,after the Ocean Ranger disaster. As a result of the experience last year,when we saw rigs fleeing from oncoming icebergs, as a result of that incident and the weather conditions last year, we have for the past six months been refining these regulations. And within the next few days, Mr. Speaker,we will let it be known what our position is with respect to ~he refinement and the application of those guidelines to this year's Winter drilling.

In the meantime,I have to express once again extreme disappointement at the manner and way in which the federal government choose to do this. And I can tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) what happened. As he knows, since the3 have asked questionsin this House about Winter drilling, the same way the press has for the past two rr;o .nths, each time I said discussions were ongoing. Those discussions were with the federal government and they were with the industry, Mr. Speaker, in the hopes that we could come up with 8510

December 9,1983 Tape 3846 PK - 2 MR. MARSHALL: a concerted position with respect to drilling offshore. There was a meeting yesterday­ and that was one of the reasons why last week I was saying we would let the position be known soon-because there was a meeting here in St. John's yesterday with the federal government representatives of COGLA. And 1while th~ meeting was in progress 1 we were advised , as the press was advised,that a very hasty press conference was going to be called and the federal government decided to announce, for the first time, I might say, Mr. Speaker, a set to guidelines.

They had no guidelines before; it was this provincial government which had guidelines. Now the guidelines that they announced yesterday were genera~ and I will be dealing with those when we announce the application of our quidelines to T·linter drilling. But I have to once again underscore the great disappointment of this government of the way in which the federal government is attempting to apply its muscle to the offshore. We saw it last year when the legitimate order we gave with respect to cessation of Winter drilling was conntermanded and we subsequently were treated to the spectacle 8511

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3847 SD - 1 MR. MARSffi!..LL: of rigs having to flee oncoming iceberg as a result of that countermanded orde~. We saw it earlier this year in the case of South Hibernia, when a legitimate offer made to Petro-Canada 1 which the Chairman of Petro-Canada wished to accept , was not able to be accepted by ,urn, it was countermanded by the federal government and they went it alone. And we saw it again yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, after a sincere attempt to co-operate to come up with a concerted set of guidelines that would be acceptable to industry, that would be acceptable to both orders of government but,most importantly, Mr. Speaker, would have assured the optimum safety and integrity to offshore regulations. We saw it yesterday when, in the midst of a Q meeting, obviously under the direction of the federal ministe~ a representativ~ of,_COGLA went off and held a hasty press conference.

The haste of that press conference is well known by members of the press because it was noted yesterday that they even refused to respond as to why the press conference was called so hastily. Well,I can tell the han. gentlemen there opposite - MR. NEARY: Brief questions, brief answers, remember MR. MARSHALL: and the members of the press, when I give my statement it will become crystal clear as to why they went off and did what they did,unilaterally again, yesterday on the offshore regulations. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (RUssell).: Supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.

NEARY: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that the hon. gentleman said in his opening remarks in reply to my question that Newfoundland owns · the resource. I thought that the Premier put that matter before the Newfoundland Appeals Court and I believe three Newfoundland judges of the Appeals · Court said something to the contrary. Now · the hon. 8512

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3847 SD - 2 MR. NE.l!.RY: gentleman chooses to ignore that. Well,that is his right, I suppose, to ignore the ruling of th.e court if he wants to - MR. BAIRD: MR. NEA.RY: t•7hen will you brown-nose your way to the Senate? - after the Premier threw away the resource, took the case and passed it over tp the Newfoundland Appeals Court, of course, then we lost control of it. So the hen. gentleman gave it away. Now let me ask the hon. gentleman a point-blank question. The hon. gentleman is waffling on this matter,as the administration is waffling on all matters.

Could the hen. gentleman tell us whether or not the administration is for or against Winter drilling? MR. SPEAKER (Russell}: The hen. Presider.t of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Listen to him, Mr. Speaker! Listen to him positively exulting over a decision that was made by the Newfoundland Court of Appeal! Would you not think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would have learned something from the Terra Nova by-election the other day:' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR.

MARSHALL: Would you not think he would have learned by the number of young people who are unemployed in this Province 1 in Terra Nova and elsewhere , who are supporting this Province, supporting this government, because they know that the resource policies including that on the offshore, is the way in which they can get reasonable jobs in their own native Province? And listen to him, Mr. Speaker, with his little insinuations. Look, I am so sick of listening to the hen. gentleman talking.!

He sits there and if he is not deliverina Tfe<:;<::r>0'es fra.'ll Justice down in Panama, he is delivering messages fram Ottawa which would deny us our rights in justice to the offshore. SOME HON. MEHBERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY": A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. 8513

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3848 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we .~ ':: le a:?~ "t:o accept low, slimey, sleezy statements from the hon. gentleman, but I believe that one is out of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not representing the Bank of Montreal in this House and neither do I represent anybody else. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to direct th~ hon. gentleman to with- draw these remarks which attribute motives to my asking questions in this House. That is about the lowest, slimiest, rotten, sleeziest thing that the hon. gentleman ever said in his life 1 ahd he said some pretty low things.

He said something low enough in this House one time about some member's mother that he got a belt in the gob for it, Mr. Speaker. And if the hon. qentlernan keeps up making these wild, irresponsible, untrue, incorrect remarks, Mr. Speaker, he might just get a belt on the other side of the gob. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! To that point of order. Some comments 'V<ere nade, but the Chair certainly does not think that the hon. the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) was imputinq any motives to the questions asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary). MR.

NEARY: well, Mr. Speaker, I see we are having a job to get protection in this hon. House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The Chair is not going to sit here and have aspersions cast upon any remarks made and I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark immediately. MR. NEARY: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. 8514

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 384.8 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. gentleman again if the administration is for or against Winter drilling? Now could . the hon. gentleman give us a straight answer? Never mind the slime poison that he squirts across the House 7 qive us a straight answer on it. MR .• SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the President of the Council. MR. MARS HALL : Mr. Speaker, this government is for the provision of the optimum safety for personnel on the offshore and the maintenance of safety and the integrity and security of the operations,and we have, Mr.

Speaker, formulated a position on that. Our position with respect to the offshore, if the han. gentlemen there opposite wished to look at it, they would know what our situation is. We have guidelines.. . As I say, we have had guidelines in place for some period of time. we had a process of reviewing them,. we . have the review completed, 8515

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3849 MJ - 1 MR. MARSHALL: be announcing very, very shortly our position with respect to any necessary refinements in those guidelinesan~ t~eir application to the Winter drilling next year. ~'Te ,.,ill be doing that very shortly,after we have had an opportunity to review the statements that were made at the inexcusable, unilateral and regrettable action taken by the federal government yesterday. So that is my response to the hon. gentleman's question. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I can only assume from what the hon. gentleman said that the administration will agree to allow Winter drilling to go ahead under certain conditions, so we will just let it go at that for the moment. ~ut I have to .say they are waffling and the answer should have been given a long time ago. They should have supported our amendment to the resolution. MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: Council on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Order, please!

The hon. the President of the It is the Question Period and the !"lo!l. gentle!J.an is askinrr su~:mle!':l.entar" questions and should p0t he rrivinrr a sneec!-1 . MR. NEARY: Sit down. r~~. B'\ .InD: Tell your House Leader (Mr. Hodder) the election·is over and to get back into the House. MR. SPEAKER:' Order, please! To that point of order, it is very clear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (• ~r. Neary) ,or other hon. ~e!':l. 'Jers nosinQ a sunnle~entarv 8516

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3849 MJ - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : question, s~1ouln have no need for any

preamble whatsoever. r.ertainly it is not a place to get into any debate 1 and I would request the hen. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) to pose a direct question. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like. I would like f.or Your Honour to impose on the other side of the House the same rules that apply to this side. MR. MARSHALL: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Council on a point of order. A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hold on now. Order, please! The hon. the President of the MR.

MARSHALL: Look, Your Honour has already had to draw the Leader of the Opposition to order this morning and ask him for a retraction. Now the hen. the Leader of the Opposition is doing exactly the same thing. He is making exactly the same type of comment as he had to withdraw a few moments ago. This is inexcusable, Mr. Speaker, it is an affront to Your Honour's position in this House, it calls -for immediate withdrawal 1and if there are repetitions, Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious course of action that has to be implemented. rm. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. 8517

December 9,1983 MR. SPEAKER (RUssell) : to that point of order. MR.NEARY: Tape No 3850 ah-1 The Leader of the Opposition, The point that I was raising, the hon. gentleman did not give me a chance to finish. Now he is trying to outguess .me, he is trying to get up now and tell the Chair what I am thinking on a point of order. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: What I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, was I was about to ask Your Honour to enforce the rules of keeping the hon. gentlemen silent while I asked my questions.

Now that rule applies to this side of the House and we see no reason why it should not apply to that side. That is all I am asking the Chair to do, to give us the protection of the Chair so that we can ask the questions. MR.SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, the Chair will be cautious as to what comments are made by any hon. members casting aspersions on any rulings made by .the Chair and caution any hon. members that they should perhaps state their questions or phrases a little more carefully. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Neary) is correct in saying that when he is speaking,or any other hon. member is speaking, he does have the right to be heard in silence, and I would ask all hon.members to abide by that rule. MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now a new question for the Government House Leader . It has to do with an agreement signed between Canada and West Germany and Great Britain involving low-level flying 8518

Decen)ber 9,1983 Tape No . 3850 ah-2 MR .NEARY : of West German aircraft and British aircraft , in the skys of Labrador. Could the hon . minister tell the House if there was any prior consultation with the Province, if the Province had any input into the terms and conditions under which low ­ level flying would be permitted in Labrador around the Hap py Valley-Goose Bay area, and,if so,would the hon. gentleman tell the House what the results of the provincial government 's input was? 8519 d

December 9, 1983 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Tape 3851 PK - 1 The hon. President of Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. gentleman is probably shaken up today when he started the Question Period indicating he did not know who the Minister of Intergovernmental Af~airs (Premier Peckford) is. >.~e indica ted to hir,<. that it was the Premier, so I assume it is the Premier to whom he is addressing his question. MR. WARREN: answer it. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: can provide the answer. Sure! Sure! Let him The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, whoever MR.

SIMMS: Well,you cannot direct a question to 'whomever.' You must address it to a specific ~inister. MR. NEARY: rs that so? The former Speaker (Mr. Simms) is now going to tell us how we should ask questions. MR. SIMMS: You must direct your questions to a n.inister. MR. NEARY: And I might add, Mr. Speaker, if the press riotices anybody shaken up today it is on that side of the House and not on this side. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Let me put the question to the Premier,then. I thought the han. gentleman would have the answer because he seems to have the answer for everything.

Did the Province have any input or was there any prior consultation with the External Affairs Department,with the Government of Canada before this agreement was negotiated and signed? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. 8520

December 9, 1983 Tape 3851 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible. I mean 1it is absolutely astounding. ! mean 1talk about introducing Grade XII! We will have to introduce about Grade XIII or Grade XIV for the han. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary). He comes in this Hause this morning and addresses a question to the Minister responsible for Energy (Mr. Marshall), having to do with . the area of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but he did not know who it was. Then he turns around and directs a question dealing with Canada/West German treaties to the House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) . I think the Leader of the Opposition said,' I want to address a new question now to the Government House Leader.' Now 1 how the Leader of the Opposition could expect the Government House Leader to have a response on a treaty between West Germany and Canada on low-flying aircraft over Labrador absolutely escapes me. I mean the Leader of the Opposition - ~. iUDEOUT: He is out to lunch. PREMIER PECKFORD: He is out to lunch? There must be a'Dump Neary'campaign underway, Mr. Speaker. Over the last number of years, Mr.

Speaker, to direct comments to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, over the last number of years there have been agreements signed between Canada and West German~- I do not know if other NATO partners have been involved in it or not- ·for exercises to be held in Labrador for some of these countries'planes. And we haqe been informed of these talks and of these negotiations and,generally speaking, have been supportive of it as long as we were assured that no negative affects could be felt.

Now I would have to get the details on the new agreement, and get the latest information on the agreement that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, but we have been 8521

December 9, 1983 Tape No.3852 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD consulted and involved in the talks between Canada and West Germany on the whole business of low fly1ng in Labrador. I will undertake to get the latest information for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) on it before replying further on the new treaty. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, ltr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER (Russell ): of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, the hon. Leader Mr.

Speaker, I am concerned about the conditions of the new treaty,but roy main reason for raising this question now is --and I am amazed that the hon. gentlemen admitted that they were informed, because I did not hear any comments from any hon. gentlemen there opposite about provincial government intervention, as far as the West Germans and the British are concerned 1 who are banning our seal pelts, are banning our seal products from being sold in these countries .­ why did the hon. gentleman not intervene and use the negotiations as a lever to put some pressure on the West Germans and the Bri tish 1 to say, 'No, you are _not going to use the skies over Labrador unless you allow our seal products to be sold in your countries'?

Why did not the bon. gentleman intervene? That was a golden opportunity, W'ould the hon. gentleman not agree that this was a golden opportunity to apply a little pressure on the West Germans and on the British,who have given Canada a black eye as far as the seal industry is concerned,and say, 'No, you are not going to come in here and use our skies, use our facilities and our resources unless you backtrack on the sale of seal products in your country'? MR. SPEP.~R: The hon. the Premier. PREHIER PECKFORD: Mr . Speaker, I find it incredible that .a few minutes ago he knew nothing about this treaty.

Earlier w~ t."' __ lked about the Northern cod stoc~s within our m'ln country and the Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Nearyl had to take a _hve 8522

December 8, 1983 Tape No. 3852 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: on that one, he did not know anything about it. But suddenly 1 now,he knows everything about the treaty between West Germany and Canada - two countries - and how we should have tried to help stop that from going ahead to protect our seals 1 when he had to take a bye · '1n the whole question of whethe .r other provinces in Canada should have access to our Northern cod stock before we have it. I find it totally incredible, hm..r inconsistent the Leader of th.e Opposition (Mr. Neary) is being.

On one part of the l.l'hole fishery scene he has to take a bye - he does not know anything the Northern cod stock; he has not been a Newfoundlander or has not been a member of the House of Assembly long enough to know about the 1984 management plan and know : how it has gone over the years, he had to take a by~ on that - but suddenly, as it relates to talks. between two countries, over which we have very little say, suddenly now we are supposed to have more say over a treaty between West Germany and Canada than we do over the 1984 cod management plan between provinces within the same country.

And I find that a very inconsis·tent way for the Leader of the Opposition to act. We have told the federal government over and over and over again 1 on every occasion 1 when it comes to the seal fishery that they should have no negotiations and talks with . these people unless the seal fishery becomes a part of it. And now we find, talking about responding to 8523

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3853 MJ - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: the statement this morning on Northern cod1the federal government is now qoing to provide 20,000 metric tons to Europe and to Germany, which is one of the countries involved. !~"-· ~~o:qr; ,"~!: EEC countries. PREMIER PECKFORD: To the EEC countries. So let us deal with fish for fish. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) was really concerned about the seal fishery, when I gave my statement this morning on the Northern cod the Leader of the Opposition would have stood and s.aid, 'What is this business of 20,000 metric tons going to Europe when they will not buy our seal pelts!

If vou_ •·rant so:"'!e of our ~rort~1ern cod stoc~:, ''OU ~etter ensure that you continue to procure and purchase seal pelts from Newfoundland.' That is where the Leader of the Opposition should have co!'1e in on the scene, not use lc-·•-fl"L"l<"" aircraft in a ~ilit?.r' exercise as an excuse to 7et at t~e seal fishery • ~·'hy did he not do it directly b~r sa=·inr-, '!-1o cod to West Germany until you buy seal pelts'? MR. NEARY: ~ffi. SPEAKER (Russell) Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

The hon. the Leader of the No.wonder the hon. gentleman's name is mud in this Province. r!:q. ~~OP:GMl: Terra nbva showed his name was mud,did it not? MR. NEA..~Y: Yes, it certainly did. And his name will stink like rotten fish in the history books of this Province. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. the gentleman another question 1 because obviously the hon. gentleman now is caught out in left field. He had an opportunity to do something about the seal fishery when these 8524

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3853 ~..J - 2 MR. NEARY: negotiations were going on and he missed the chance. I say shame on him for that, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the hon. gentleman if he conveyed a message to the people who were doing the negotiations from this Province,that last year,as my hon. friend is probably aware, they almost had a traqed"{ do•·m there, as it was one o:E those r!tili tarv aircra:Ets cras!1er.., :·)Ut e1irt•' seconr.s more . anri it "'OUld have crashed into a school. ~10•"?"._ that :':Jr~nrrs into focus thf? safet~; of the people who live in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

Did the hon. gentleman have any input into that matter, the matter o~ safety of these aircrafts1to keep them away from the community? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all I do not know if .r should respond to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) at all or not. If he is going to

preamble his question that the Premier's name is mud in this Province - MR. NEARY: That is right. It is. PREMIER PECKFORD: - that his name will be rotten fish in the history books,I do not think as a ~erson that I should respond to the Leader of the Opposition, because he is only dragging me down to his level. ,"'nd I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, ever, ever to stoop down to the level of the Leader of the Opposition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ~-:ear, hei".r! MR. Z.1ARSHALL: you tried. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. You could not get down there if Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the 8525

~, December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3853 Z.1J - 3 MR . NEARY : Mr . Speaker, the hon. gentleman talks about getting down to levels- !!e should move the bon. gentle .man to his right a few seats away because that is about the lowest level that you can get to . The bon . gentleman, Mr. Speaker, obviously is not interested in the seal fishery or safety of the people who live in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Why did the bon . gentleman not take advantage 8526

December 9. 1 1983 Tape 3854 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: of these negotiations- if indeed he knew about them, and he admitted that he did, that they were advised; and he is supportive of low level flying to. train pilots in nuclear bombing, and so forth, to kill people - why did the hon. gentle­ man not take advantage of these to try to put the screws to Great Britain and Germany, who are the biggest culprits in the European Common MllXet's banning Newfoundland seal products from going into these countries? Now, give us a straight answer.

The hon. gentleman should get up and admit man-fashion that he missed a golden opportunity. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) anymore in this House if he is going to

preamble his questions with innuendo about killing people, about my name being mud, about my name in the history books as rotten fish, until we can elevate the discourse across this House to a higher level; then I will start responding to the Leader of the Opposition, not before. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is alright for the hon. gentleman to pound on his desk and clap and cheer when poison and slime is being squirted across this House. That is alright for the hon. gentleman. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr .

Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: of order. PREMIER PECKFORD: The hon. the Premier on a point The Leader of the Opposition is supposed to ask a question, he is not supposed to make a speech. 8527

December 9, 1983 Tape 3854 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Once again, I must repeat that the purpose of the Question Period is not to get into debate or make speeches. The obvious purpose of the Question Period is to direct very specific questions to ministers, and I would a·k the hen. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) to do that. MR. NEARY: Nell, l-l.r. Speaker, the bon. gentleman can sulk and pout all he wants.

But let me ask the hen . gentleman if indeed his administration did recommend to the people who \o~ere negotiating the agree­ ment with the West Germans and with the British ,and maybe other countries in NATO \-lho have banned ou .r seal products, why did the hen. gentleman not take advantage of the situation to talk about safety, to talk about the caribou herds in Labrador and to talk about allowing ou .r seal products to go into ~hese countries in exchange for allowing them to train their pilots here in Newfoundland and Labrador? 852 8

December 9, 1983 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): PREMIER PECKFORD: Tape No. 3855 The hon. the Premier. The most effective NM - 1 way to deal with the E~ropeans, as it relates to trying to ensure that there is a continued supply of seal pelts ·from this Province into the European Economic Community, is through negotiations on fish, and that is where I would ask the Le~0er of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) to put his support.

Riqht today there is a· tentative agreement, or a tentative understanding, that the Canadian Government is going to allow EEC countries, including west Germany, to take 20,000 metric tons of raw fish off our shores and bring it and have it processed and provide jobs for Germans and the Europeans. That is the effective way for us to get at trying to ensure that our seal fishery stays alive and has a market in Europe. It is not through low-flying aircraft 1 over which our influence is a lot less than it is over negotiations on fish.

So I. would ask the Leader of the Opposition that if he is really concerned about the seal fishery of Newfoundland that the most effective way that we can, as Newfoundlanders, influence Canadian policy, is through the foreign allocations of Northern cod. SOME HON~ MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: You got caught on that one. It was a source of embarrassment. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, a supplementary to the questions that tie hon. leader was asking.- MR. SIMMS: Hon. leader? 8529

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3855 NM - 2 MR. WARREN: On CBC this morning,in an inter- view the han. Hinister of :;"isheries (l-h". H0rgan) had v;i th a CBC reporter,I think the minister said the han. Ed Lumley, the han. Allan MacEachen, and the han. Donald Johnston were against the seal fishery. Could the minister tell the han. House has he been personally advised by those three gentlemen that they are against the seal fishery off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, indeed the interview this morning and the CBC newscast was indeed accurate. What I said 1 and it is still my opinion, is that the Federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) in Ottawa is quite supportive of the seal fishery, very supportive over the past number of months since he ca~e i~ as new minister, and he is doing all he can to ensure that by working with this Province there is going to be a seal fishery in the future. Unfortunately,he is meeting obstacles 1and the obstacles are coming from some of his colleagues and their -:1epart:r.e11ts =ncerned.

I am of the opinion, I say itin this House and outside this House, that at least three ministers are involved. Lumle y is not supporting any subsidies or prices support for the sealers, and,if he is not supporting any prices support for the sealers under the Prices Support Programme 1 he is not supporting the seal fishery. Because I just cannot see how there can be a viable seal fishery, or a seal fishery for the year coming up, unless the federal government approves the 8530

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3856 ah-1 MR.MORGAN: application, supported by this government as I mentioned yesterday,by the Fishermen's Union and supported by the Fish Price's Support Board itself. It is supported by the Board, the Board made the .recornrnendation for price support to come into play,but for some reuson the Treasury Board· and the federal cabinet have been procrastinating and delaying making a decision. Despite the pleading of the federal minister, the power of persausion of the federal minister is just not sufficient to "overcome the other ministers who are there not supporting it. Now Mr.

MacEachen - I want to mention his name as Minister of External Affairs - is not supporting Mr. De Bane's efforts to get some assistance for the sealers. . . Now if he is not supporting it as an Atlantic region minister, Mr. Speaker, in my view he is opposed to it. He cannot - . be in the middle of the road. It is an irnp::lrtant Atlantic regions issue. MR. NEARY: SOME HON.MEMBERS: MR.SPEAKER (RUssell): We have heard it all now. Oh, oh! Order, please! A short while ago the hon.

Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Neary) asked for the protection of the Chair and said when a member was speaking he had the right to be heard in silence. The hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr . Morgan) is attempting to answer a question and he is being constantly interrupted. I would ask all hon.members to give him the right to be heard in silence. MR.MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the protection of the Chair. SOME . HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.MORGAN: The hon.gentleman who asked the question asked it in a very sincere way because 8531

December .9,1983 Tape No . 3856 ah-2 MR.MORGAN : he is concerned about the seal fishery; his riding , in fact, depends substantially on the seal fishery each and every Spring . The hon . Leader of the Opposition (Mr .Neary ) may not be too concerned because nobody on his part of the coast takes

part in the seal fishery, but the hon . gentleman should listeD" to what I have to say to his colleague . The obvious question is ~..rhy is it taking so long for a federal cabinet, which can dish out in the Throne Speech hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars,for make - work projects- well 1 there is a confusion as to how many millions of dollars ; one minister says so much and another minister so much more -but why is it it takes so long fo= the federal cabinet to make a decision on an amount that will come to approximately 8532

December 9, 1983 Tape 3857 PK - 1 MR. MORGAN: $500,000 which is so important to thousands of sealers and fishermen in this Province? Now that is the question that has to be asked, ~1hy is it taking so long? Does it take ten mont ·hs to get a decision? Does it take ten months for Treasury Board to make a decision on $500,000? Does it take the Cabinet ten months for the same kind of a decision? No, it is because of a policy issue. The policy issue is being addressed, and the policy issue is should the Government of Canada support the seal fishery financially or not? And that is the question.

And the question is not being answered because of the obstacles and the objections coming from certain portfolios and certain ministers in Ottawa who are not supporting the seal fishery, who want to see the seal fishery come to an end to remove the ongoing controversy involving Canada. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The time for the Question Period has expired. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Rural Agriculture and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question posed by the hon. member representing Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren), requesting a list of all farmers assisted in all projects carried out under the Canada/ Newfoundland Agricultural Development Subsidary Agreement for the fiscal year 1982-1983 and this year to date and give the cost of each project. i1R. WI~IDSOR: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Development. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to revert to'Reports' so I can table an annual report? 8533

December 9, 1983 Taoe 3857 PK - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Is it agreed that the hon. minister has leave to table this report? SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: Agreed! Agreed! PRESENTING REPORTS MR. WINDS0R: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the annual report of The Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

Some of the major highlights of the corporation activities during the 1981-1982 fiscal year include the approval of $4.4 miltion in loans and equity investments for projects in the resource based and manufacturing sectors of the provincial economy. This financial activity of the corpora-t;.ion assisted in the creation of 482 full-time and 57 part-time jobs. The corporation assisted the Provincial Department of Fisheries in administering the secondary fish processing loans programme throughout the Province.

The corporation entered into an agreement with the National Research Council whereby the business community can be provided a wider range of technical support services by additional professional staff and sharing of office facilities. At the end of the fiscal year, a joint governmental evaluation report was completed. This report found that during the past five years the corporation has successfully and effectively carried out its mandate.

It is this government's hope and intention that a long-term federal/ provincial funding agreement will soon be executed to continue the federal/provincial effort to assist the business community expand and modernize and to give the corporation a measure of s~ability for the future. 8534

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3858 SD - 1 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. MARSHALL: Order .33, Bill No. 79. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Human Rights Code". MR. SPEAKER (Russell} : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to the Newfoundland Human Rights Code. As hon. members are aware,there is a Human Rights Commission in the .Province. Approximately a year and a half or so ago, a five person commission was appointed. Up to that time it had been a one person commission of Mrs.

Keough,who was there by herself for a number of years, the first Commissioner that the Province had, certainly a very sincere and dedicated and interested and humane and kind person, well liked and respected, I am sure, by all who had opportunity to know her. Upon her retirement it was decided to appoint a five person commission.

They are, of course, part-time, they all serve part-time, but it was thought that it would be advisable to have a broadly based commiss ·ion representing different areas of the Province geographically,and different occupations, different interests, different experience, different insights, different contributions. That five person commission is under the chairmanship of Mr. Abe Schwartz who practices law in Grand Falls. The other commissioners are: Dr. Cyril Poole of Corner Brook; Mrs. Irene McGinn who lives in Glovertown; Mrs. Beatrice Watts who lives in Happy Valley Goose Bay - MR. WARREN: Northwes ·t River.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: -Northwest River; and Mr. Herb Buckingham who is a solicitor for the Department of Justice. Of course, there is a full-time Executive Director in the person of Mr. Fred Coates. Now this legislation will be a proscribed act 8535

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3858 SD -2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: under the Human Rights Code. There has been some talk and discussion, of course, with respect to sexual harassment and this, obviously, will prescribe sexual harassment and harassment in general; not only sexual harassment,but harassment of a person because of their race or religion, ethnic origins, etc.

So ~he general areas, for example, race, religion, religious creed, marital status, physical disability, political opinions, colour or ethnic, national or social origin whereby all of those areas were prescribed with respect to discrimination the area of sex is added. So the harassment of a person with respect to sex, marital status, religion - HR. ROBE~TS: Martial or marital? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Either presumably. MR. ROBERTS : Hopefully not. Ne could not be so finicky. MR. OTTENHEIMER: -and race, religion, etc. will come under the ambit of the act.

Harassment, obviously, is a term that could well be argued as very difficult of percise definition. What we have done here, we have taken the definition which is used in Ontario, not necessarily because what come from Ontario is better than what comes from anywhere else, but there is a certain amount of jurisprudence built up. It is a term which has been used and found to be, you know, a benefit there and a certain amount of experience and

interpretation has grown up with respect to it. And it is defined, ''to engage in a course of vexacious comment or conduct that is known or ought reas·onably to be known to be unwelcome' • The reason for using it rather than coming up with -·I suppose, you could qet ten or fifteen people together and they could all come up with ten or fifteen

definitions and if there is a definition which apparently has been success-ful and does have experience and does have comment and some jurisprudence behind it,then that is what has been emplo~ed here. 8536

December ~, 1983 Tape 3859 EC - 1 .MR. OTTENHEIMER: so. as I say, harassment in general, which includes sexual harassment but not only sexual harassment, because obviously harassment of a person because of his religion or his race, etc. is equally apprehensible. So the whole area of harassment has oeen qdded.

There is one specific reference in terms of what could be regarded as a form of sexual discrimination, and that is that no person who is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to another person shall engage in sexual solicitation or make q sexual advance to that person where the person ~ making the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome. But, as I say, in harassment in general, obviously, since harassment has now been added, sexual harassment is an offence under the Human Rights Code, But so would oe harassment for other reasons.

The other thing that these amendments will do is give a reference in the Human Rights Code for affirmative action. Of course, affirmative a~tion is a programme which is intended to assist people who have been victims,for historical or social or whatever reasons, of what is sometimes called systemic discrimination. There are a number of historic examples in the United States. After the civil rights legislation then a very conscious effort was made to involve more and more American black people in jobs with government and industry and that kind of thing.

So actually, Newfoundland, except for one other province, was the only one that did not have in its Human Rights Code a specific reference permitting affirmative action. 8537

December 9, 1983 Tape 3859 EC - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: For example, let us say there is a specific programme to

a) people on social assistance; you know, unless there is a specific reference in the Human Rights Code to affirmative action being permitted, one could conceive of somebody who was not a recipient ~~ social services saying that it was discriminatory against them. So there really should be a reference to permitting affirmative action examples. Could these programmes specifically aid, let us say, unemployed women or women in general, or the aboriginal people, or whatever it is?

One could conceive without an affirmative rights reference that a person who was not in that target group, so to speak, as saying, 'Well, you know, it is discrimination against me because I am not a woman or I am not unemployed or not a social service recipient or I am not one of the aboriginal people. I should say, as well, that the Human Rights Commission has been holding a number of meetings across the Province and reviewing the entire area of Human Rights, and one would anticipate that at some reasonable time in the future, there will be further developments within the Human Rights Code.

But this one is specifically with reference to harassment, and I would think the area of major importance there is in terms of sexual harassment, but harassment for other reasons is also prescribed and also, it gives a statutory reference to Affirmative Action, which is found to be a worthwhile social and economic device to help people and groups of people who have not benefited as much as the vast majority in various social and economic programmes of society. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr . Speaker, we are ~oing to su~port the 8538

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3860 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: amendments but before we do we would like to ask the hon. gentleman a few simple questions about these . amendment~ Buffirst of all,let me say that I was rather interested in what the hon. gentleman had to say about the Human Rights la,•T of this Province qenerally. I say that, Mr. Speaker,because here lately, since the offshore drilling started, I have sent former employees, people who have been disciplined and laid off to the hon. qentleman's department, to the gentleman behind t~e t1inister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) there.

I have had any number of men, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were employed offshore who felt that they were discriminated against for some reason or other; ~··ho 'VTent to the Hunan :'liqhts Commission to have their qrievances processed and were told that there was nothing they could do. I had one gentleman yesterday who was dismissed from his job on the grounds that he was too nervous to work offshore. There was no justification for it. He has his certificates to prove that he is as well equipped as anybody to work in these positions. When he came back he was told there was no job for him.

The drilling companies seem to be taking a very heavy hand. They are using very heavy-handed methods in dealing with these matters. There was another ~entle~an who came to see me only two months ago who had a rash, he broke out in a rash and he was being treated; he was given some things onboard the rig to deal with the rash, and then he carne ashore and saw his doctor. It was cleared up and he went back aboard the rig again, and when he went back aboard again he broke out in a rash again, He received the 8539

.. December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3860 NM- 2 MR. NEARY: same medication, they sent him ashore again,and when he saw his own doctor they finally discovered that the fellow was either given the wrong kind of medication or too much of that medication and it was just having a reverse effect, it was causing him to break out in a rash rather than cure it. So, Mr. Speaker, when it was cleared up he reported back to work and lo and behold he was told by his employer that he had a contagious disease and he lost his job. I also sent him to see the Human Rights people.

The Ombudsman, as members know, cannot deal with these situations and they seem to be getting more prevalent because these men do not have protection of a union. As han. members know,the oil companies and the drilling companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop the 'tmrkers on the ric: from getting unionized. If they had a union they would have recourse to processing their grievances . But at the moment they are at the mercy of the oil companies and the drilling companies.

And that is unfortunate. :Secause in the cases that I have talked to the men face to face, in other instances I have had letters from people who seem to be unjustifiably dismissed from their jobs, when they report back to work they are given some flimsy excuse that they are not wanted . And, Mr. Speaker, this, in my opinion, is not the right way to treat Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that kind of a situation .

Is there any provision in the Human Rights laws in this Province so that people can get a fair shake, a fair deal, that they can process their ~ rievances. Because I have 8540

December 9, 1983 'lape No . 3860 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: sent them to the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr . Dinn ) and they have come back to me and said they were told by the Human Rights Commissione r tha t they could not handle their case . And I do not unde rstand why . Mr . Speaker, what 8541

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3861 MJ - 1 MR. NEARY: are they are set up for? The Ombudsman cannot do it, they do not have a union. 'li'e have labour standards in this Province and we have a human rights code: No discrimination the minister is telling us here on the grounds of religion, religious creeds, sex, marital status, physical disability. This one case, I could hardly believe it, where the gentleman broke out in a rash and went through all the process, got professional advice, given his clearance by the ·doctor, reported back to work and was passed his pink slip when he came back. Mr.

Speaker, that is not good enough and surely there must be some way that these grievances can be processed by the Department of Labour and Manpower. Now, Mr. Speaker, having disposed of that item, and I hope I will get a response from one han. gentleman over there,either the Minister of Labour of Manpower (Mr. Dinn) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) on these matters because,as I say,they seem to be getting more plentiful. I am getting people coming to see me and my colleagues with grievances about how they were ill-treated by the employers offshore. They are using heavy-handed tactics, Mr. Speaker.

You cannot get sick on a rig now any more .without standing a chance of losing your job. They might let you get away the first time,but the second or th±rd time you get sick, you get ill, bang your job is gone,and we should not allow that pattern to develop. Now, Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman told us in his introductory remarks that these amendments were aimed mainly -not totally - but mainly at sexual harassment on the job. And after reading the amendments I think the hon. gentleman is basically correct. That seems to be about 75 or 80 per cent of the reason why these amendments are being brought in.

Sexual harassment 8542

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 386l MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: is something that only arose, I suppose,in recent years, since the women's liberation movement started, and the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge) knows all about that,even though she is in disfavour right now with her cronies, Mr. Speaker. ~ut the permissive society, the roaring 1950s, the permissive society of the 1960s , there are all kinds of things emerged from that period that we went through and one of the items that seems to be emphasized in recent years is sexual harassment. It is becoming a very popular item now.

I do not know if it is exciting and glamourous and romantic enough to win an election on,but there are an awnul lot of people talking about sexual harassment, especially from their employers. I have had a number of conversations recently with groups both in the labour movement and outside of the labour movement,on this matter. They came to see me when they knew this bill was going to be introduced into the House. They filled me in on some of their concerns and some of the questions they would ·like for us to ask the minister. Mr.

Speaker, no later than yesterday I had a letter from a gentleman who was employed part-time with ·the Department of Social Services. 8543

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3862 ah-1 MR.NEARY: I believe the hon.member for Naskaupi (Mr. Goudie) is familiar with the gentleman Whowas employed part-time with the Department of Social Services who lost his job, he was employed for twenty weeks I believe. He has been dismissed from his job and he has submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman on the grounds that he claims he was dismissed as a result of sexual harassment, that he was dismissed because he did not go along with his superior in his attitud~ towards sex. Mr.

Speak~r, the gentleman came to see me a couple of days ago and I read his complaint that he had submitted to the Ombudsman, That is how I knew the hon. minister was aware of the situation; because his name was mentioned in the report, not in any damaging way, just that he had also told the hon. gentleman the same as he told me.

I read the two page report and I talked to the gentleman and I quizzed and questioned and cross­ examined him as much as I could, and I said to him, take this report you have made to the Ombudsman , sit on it for a couple of days, make sure you want to go ahead with it,because once you put it in my hands, because of the serious nature of the charges and allegations that are made, I have no choice but to bring it to the attention of the minister reponsible for that department.

So he went away and he came back two days later and he left a copy of his complaint to the Ombudsman with me, and yesterday I dispatched it to the Minister of Social Services (Mr.Hickey). Mr. Speaker, I have to say this, in all my experience in public life -, and I have gotten some pretty strange and weird and peculiar letters and copies of letters, and copies of reports, but this one is horrifying, I was 8544

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3862 ah-2 MR. NEARY: horrified. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. gentleman is in possession of all his faculties, if he is in possession of his senses or not, he appears to be, but if the charges and allegations that he has made are true or half true, and he signed the letter, Mr. Speaker, it is the most horrifying story I have ever heard. You talk about horror stories in government departments, this one tops all the other horror stories that I have ever heard. And the two gentleman that he was laying the complaint against happen to be looking after mentally retarded children.

Now, Mr. Speaker, -I sent, as I was obligated to do, I sent a copy of that document to the Minister of Social Services (Mr.Hickey) who,no doubt,received it in the mail this morning. And I pointed out to the Minister of Social Services because of the urgency of this matter that he deal with it quickly, ~ediately to determine whether or not there is any foundation to the allegations, to the charges that were made·by this gentleman in writing to the Ombudsman,and a copy of the letter given to me. I am hoping there is not an ounce of truth in it, l am hoping and praying there is not an ounce of truth in it.

And I only wish the Minister of Social Services was in his seat at the moment so I could emphasize , re-emphasize what I have said in my letter to him, that this is a very, very serious matter indeed if there is any truth in it,and I can only go on the basis of the information that was supplied me. But what I am asking the hon. gentleman to do is to carry out an-investigation today, not tomorrow, immediately carry out an investigation 8545

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3862 ah-3 MR.NEARY: into this matter to determine to the satisfaction of all concerned if it is true or untrue, if it is true or false. Mr. Speaker, I hope the report will come back negative, there is no truth in it. And I 8546

December 9, 1983 Tape 3863 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: guarantee you if there is even an ounce of truth in it, an ounce of truth, it will be a scandal of the worst kind. So I encourage the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey) to get to the bottom of that case quickly to find out who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth, if the complainant is sane and sensible and sober or not,or just trying to create mischief. But I guarantee you it is a well documented case involving sexual harassment by people of the same sex, Mr. Speaker.

And it is on that basis that the gentleman says he lost his job , because of his supervisor, who supervises retarded children. So I will wait until I hear from the hon. gentleman on that one before I push it any further. I think, Mr. Speaker, now that I have come in possession of this document,and I would not bring it into the House because we may be talking about innocent people, it may be some crackpot that is making these charges, we never know, but I have followed the proper channels.

I have laid the matter right on the doorstep of the Minister of Social Services and I would expect him once he reads it to move quickly and not delay, move this very day to deal with this matter. That is enough said about that at the ~oment, Hr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, one of the items that concerns the trade union movement, the representatives of the trade union movement who came to see me about these amendments is political opinion. There is nothing in this bill to say '· to indicate that those who express political opinion on the job,whether it is in a government department - MR. OTTENHEIMER ~· MR. NEARY: MR.

OTTENHEioiiER: permit me? 8547 Yes, there is. There is? What clause? If the han. gentleman would

December 9, 1983 Tape 3863 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: Sure. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Among the areas prescribed where there may be no discrimination or harassment tl''e entire list includes race, religion, religious creeds, sex, marital .status, physical disability, political opinion, colour or ethnic, national or social origin. One cannot discriminate against a person because of their political opinion in areas of employment or occupation One cannot harass a person for various reasons, sex, race, religion, also political opinion, and that is not new. That was in it before.

But the political opinion goes along with the other matters now in terms of harassment. MR. SPEAKER (Ayl ward) : The han. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: I thank the minister for that little bit of information, Mr. Speaker. But I believe the concern was, how do you define political opinion? For instance, if somebody working down at Newfoundland Farm Products, or somebody down in the Department of Justice,or the Department of Social Services or one of the other government departments came in in the morning in a bad mood and said, Did you see the Premier on television last night?

Did you see that crackpot, that nut .on television last night? Did you see him frothing at the mouth and waving his arms and ranting and raving and roaring like an idot? Nr. Speaker, if some employee said that and it was reported to the Premier or to the minister in that department, could they then be dismissed on the grounds of political bias and not have recourse? What recourse would they have under the act , Mr. Speaker? What recourse would they have? What protection would they have? Or if somebody in the Liquor Corporation said, Well,the Premier and his House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) have upped the price of booze again. They are reall y out to shaft us this .time. The next thing we will not be able to enjoy the 8548

December 9,1983 Tape 3863 PK - 3 MR. NEARY: poor man's champagne, a bottle of beer. The Premier is getting worse than his Hoase Leader (Mr. Marshall), and that is saying something- 8549

December 91 19.83 Tape 3864 EC -1 MR. NEARY; if we could get the han. gentleman on television more often, Mr. Speaker, we would have no trouble with a general election in this Province. The most hated man, I suppose, in Newfoundland -and let us say they said, 'Look, I cannot stand the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) -over at the Liquor Corporation - I cannot stand him~ I see him on television and I feel like putting my boot in throuqh the television when I look at him! I cannot stand him!' Now, Mr. Speaker, would he get away with that if it were reported to the han. gentleman? A_l\1 HON . HElffiER: No way!

MR. NEARY: No way! Disciplinary action could be taken and he would not have the protection of the Human Rights law of this Province, Mr. Speaker. Because, you know, you have to be realistic, the Human Rights Commission is appointed by the administration. They are there at the pleasure of the administration. And if somebody makes a rude or snide remark about the Minister of Education (Ms Verge) , as '"e have heard recently, as I have heard from students who tell me that the minister has no credibility, that the minister was talking through her hat when she said there were no problems with Student Aid, Mr.

Speaker, if that got back to the minister's ears and then some of the officials down there said, 'Well, since that minister took over the department is in shambles,' if that got back to the minister's ears that she does not know what she is doing, could the minister retaliate by having that individual fired or dismissed or suspended? Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise these matters is we have seen the arrogance of this administration, we know how swelled-headed they are. They are too big for their boots and too big for their 8550

December 9, 1983 Tape 3864 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: breeches. And we know what they do in the way of political appointments and how they get around the Public Service Act and so forth, we are aware of that. We know how dictatorial they are, Mr. Speaker. We know it is a one-man show.

And what is to stop the Premier or any of his ministers if they felt that somebody did not like them or somebody made a cute little remark about them or somebody told a joke about them - what is there to stop the iron boot of the Premier or a minister from coming down on the head of that person and having him suspended or transferred or demoted? And, you know, Mr. Speaker, these things are hard to prove. We do not know how many people the Minister of Education (Ms Verge) or the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) or the Premier have on their hit list. We do not know.

I would say that if the Premier knew all the remarks that were made about him by public servants and others that he would have quite a large hit list. I am only asking a simple question, Mr. Speaker: What will happen if it is made known to the Boss upstairs on the eighth floor that some­ body walked into Confederation Building or into the Liquor Corporation or the Hydro and happened to make a remark in front of cousin, Vic, 'Boy, did you see that fool on television again last night? He is getting worse! He is really gone this time! The man is cracked!

The man is crazy, has not got a clue' - as they say in Newfoundland, 'has not got a click or a. clue,- cannot get along with anybod~, arguing and fighting again! You saw him there last night frothing at the mouth, wild-eyed!' AN HON. MEMBER: Who? MR. NEARY: The Premier. 8551

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3865 MJ - 1 MR. NEARY: And if somebody said, 10h 1 I hear he is on tranquilizers, is that correct? I have heard that',or 1 I have heard this about him 1 , and it got to him, Mr. Speaker, what would happen to that person? MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of order, the han. the This is not relevant to this bill, this is the Human Rights Code_ I mean, it i·s not even sensible, it is nonsensical, and it is certainly not rele, .rc>.nt. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order I have to rule that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) is relating his remarks to the political intentions of this bill, if a person can be fired for a political statement, so I rule that there is no point of order. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the MR. NEARY: Political opinion is one of the things we are talking about. What I am trying to do is to merely get a definition, I am merely using these examples. They may not please the Minister of Health (Mr. House) who just got a part $19 million from Ottawa.

Now he has no excuse to bring in user pay fees . ~'' have no excuse now for saying it was Ottawa that threw out their budget, Mr. Speaker. They will not have that excuse any more. I merely raise these matters - [ am hot saying they are true or they are not true,but I have heard remarks like the ones I just mentioned made, they are made every day, especially about the Premier. ~use after all he is a high profile~ · he does have high visibility, he cannot resist calling news conferences and appearing on television and radio and so forth. And,you know,it is like the time he made 8552

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3865 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: the announcement on the day of mourning, when Newfoundland lost $80 million in wages and revenue. I mean, you know, if the Premier ever heard the cracks and the remarks that were made about him after that little episode in his life . and he could trace them . down, Mr. Speaker, how would he deal with them?

Now.human nature being what it is I am afraid he would be vinlent, ~e would be up-strapless, he would have a job to contain himself, he would go berserk and he would become- well,he does not have to become ruthless . because he is ruthless now - but I would say God help the person i£ he could trace it down. So I am asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) if it is possible to give us some kind of a definitition of public opinion.

That is pretty broad and pretty wide open and it would be a.very difficult thing for anybody to make a grievance out of because one party could say, 'This is why I was suspended or dismissed', and the Premier or the ministers could say, 'No, that was not it at all, you are incompetent.' And they could argue that and the thing could drag o?t for years and years· In the meantime, somebody is out of a job. That is another question I would like to ask. In this enlightened society that we live in, Mr. Speaker, what about homosexuals and lesbians?

Is it possible to broaden these amendments to spell that out a little more? ~ause as hon. members know, with the' permissi~e society, with the enlightened society that we live in, this practice is more acceptable than it ever has been in our whole history,and so I believe that that type of sex should be spelled out in more detail, if is it possible. I do not know if it is possible or not, but these are some of the concerns that we were told about 8553

December 9, 1983 Tape No.3866 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: and we were told to ask questions about them. I know it is a very delicate matter. I do not want to pin the minister down,but the question of spelling it out in a little more detail, I believe, is what people would like to see. When we are talking about sex, I suppose, perhaps the minister could argue, no, we are not talking about the conventional way, the hon. gentleman might argue that it covers every type of sex. Well, I am not so sure whether that is understood or not. ~nd, Mr.

Speaker, we are not sure if the act binds Crown corporations and agencies and all government departments. Perhaps the hon. ge~tlernan can tell us when he stands to close the debate on this matter, if the act and the arn~ndrnents we have before us bind all Crown corporations, if they fall under the Human Rights Law of this Province. And also, Mr. Speaker, when I had my meeting the other day this matter carne up about a definition. The people I talked to explained to me that the amendments were not specific enough as far as dirty jokes and remarks with sexual overtones are concerned.

Now,I know the hon. gentleman is shaking his head and saying, 'Well,we cannot put everything into a bill', but, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very delicate area that we are in here, a very sensitive area that we are in and certainly if we are going to make amendments and if the act is going to be effective, then we have to spell out every . kind of situation. It would not take very much to add a few words here and there, Mr. Speaker. So in that regard we are told by these people that th .e act ' is not specific enough, that there should be a definition of dirty jokes, remarks with sexual overtones.

Because,I suppose,if that was not defined an awful lot of us might run afoul of the law, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure we are all guilty once in a while of making the odd cute remark. 8554

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3866 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here in front of me a page from the Ontario Law, and the hon. gentleman told us that our act was patterned after the Ontario act. MR. OTTENHEIMER: The definition of harassment. MR. NEARY: Well,the definition I have here in front of me is 'in the work places~ I believe it is the general feeling from the people I talked to that they would like to see 'in work places', that particular part. of the Ontario act, put into the Newfoundland act.

And I will just read it and perhaps the hon. gentleman can, somewhere down the line, take a look at it. 'Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the work place because of sex by his or her employer or agent of the employer or by another employee. Sexual solicitation 1 by a person in position to confer benefits, etc.

And three, every person has the right to be free from Cal a sexual solicitation or advance made by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person where the person making the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome.' And I believe that is the important part. You will have no complaints, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, to the Human Rights people about advances that are welcome. It is only the unwelcome ones that you get the complaints about. DR. COLLINS: (_Inaudible}_ MR. NEARY: Well 1I do not know. I cannot speak from experience.

Perhaps the han. gentleman could participate in the debate and tell us from his experience. The han. gentleman never has · any problem. He is a great story teller~ Mr. Speaker, and I am· sure he would not tell any jokes that have the kind of overtones that we see stated there in Clause 2. MR. BAIRD: · Tell us about the little joke you told down in Terra Nova? 8555

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3866 SD - 3 MR. NEARY : 'A reprisal or a threat of reprisal from the rejection of a sexual solicitation or advance whether reprisal is made or threatened ·by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person'. That is the Ontario act. MR . OTTENHEIMER : MR . NEARY : And ours is the same. Exactly the same. And then u~der reprisals, reprisals,

Section 7 of the Ontario act says, 'every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this act , to institute and participate in proceedings under this act and refu se to infri nge a 8556

December 9, 1983 Tape 3867 PK - l MR. NEARY: right of another person under this act withour reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing~ That

part is not in our act I do not think. ~1R. OTTENHEUiER: I think it is. MR. NEARY: Could the han. gentleman check,because that is the important part 'in work places '. This is the most important part of all, Mr. Speaker, the most important part of all. And I will read it again: 'Reprisals~ Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this act this act with reorisal, or threat of rP.nrisal for so doing~ That is the most important part of the act.

And I am not sure if it is that specific in our own i\Ct oT !10t The han. gentleman is looking for it there. MR. OTTENHEIMER: It would not be in this. But I think it is in. This is just an amendment to the over~ll act. MR. NEARY: Well,it was brought to my attention. I underlined it because I am told that in our own act it is not stated as strongly as in the Ontario act. , t-1R. BAIRD: O].lr people are not as bad here. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman would not understand what we are talking about. We are talking about legislation now, and the han. gentleman does not understand that. MR. BARID: (Inaudible) . MR.

NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the teacher would take the han. gentleman down in the auditorium and give him a fifteen minute lecture. Mr. Speaker, when people feel that they have a grievance the first thing they have to ask themselves is if I proceed and this case, if I take this 8'557

December 9, 1983 Tape 3867 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: matter to the Human Rights Commission, if I go and say a minister has made advances towards me or a deputy minister or an associate or one of my supervisors, directors or officials have made advances towards me that are unwelcome, if I take this to the Human Rights Commission will there be any reprisals? That is the first question. We saw a case the other day in the court .in Ontario where a lady was afraid to go into court and give testimony and evidence in a rape trial. That was pretty serious, Mr. ~peaker. That was pretty serious.

It caused quite a controversy in the Province of Ontario. It triggered a special debate. We cannot get special debates here on jobs, the state of the economy, the Province being bankrupt. In Ontario the Opposition managed to get a special debate on this trial, this decision of the judge to put this woman in jail for contempt of court because she refused to testify in a rape case.

And even though we are told by the Attornery General and the Minister of Justice in Ontario that the woman was offered five or six way~ that the court would protect her form reprisal, from retaliation, ap~arently the protection they offered was not satisfactory to the lady, she felt that her life would be in jeopardy,and her family,if she testified. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the question that people who feel that :they have a grievance under the Human Rights Law of this Province have to ask themselves · first, is it worth it? Is that not right? Would my. hon. friend not agree with that? Is it worth it?

Will I be punished down the line? Will they get back at me? If I lay this charge or this complaint against my boss or against my fellow employee who is a friend of the boss,or against this person who happens to be friendly with this persqn, in-laws, fork relationsf 8558

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3868 NM- 1 MR. NEARY: if I do this what are the reprisals? Now perhaps the minister cannot answer that. Perhaps the minister will get up and say, "Well, we can only provide a law and the individuals concerned will have to pay their money and take their chances." You pays your money and you takes your chances. So I think that the

section dealing with reprisals is ·most important. The minister is gone out to check to see if it is in the original act. I have not checked it myself. I hope it is,b~t I am told by these people who came to see me the other day that it is not but it should be, that the qrievances and tae complaints should be made without reprisal or threat of reprisal. The hon. gentleman has had time to check it now, is that in the act as strongly as it is in the Ontario act? MR. OTTENHEIMER: t'lell, I will reply to it more fully ,.,hen J: cl;.>se . the debate. MR. NEARY: Well,! would appreciate that. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: We have taken the Ontario act in terms of s~licitation and that definition there. MR. NEARY: MR. OTTENHEIMER: And work places and so forth? Yes. We do not have the specific phrase about the riqht to take an action because the whole philosophy is,of course,our Human Rights Act establishes a legal right and nobody can be penalized for exercising their legal right. MR. NEARY: The point I am making, and this is the most important point of all, they cannot be penalized for asserting their right under the act there can be reprisals. 8559

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3868 NM - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, I mean,it is illegal to take reprisals against anybody for exercising a legal right. If you have a legal right you have a right to do something. MR. NEARY: This could happen for instance, that the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge) could say to somebody in her department, "Look, if you take this to the Human Rights Commission"- in the confines of her office, in the privacy of her office - "you take this matter to the Human Rights Commission and , I guarantee you I will get you somewhere down the line." MR.

OTTENHEIMER: A person would be acting illegally by doing that. MR. NEARY: The Minister of Education would be acting illegally, but who is to argue? Who is to say? It is the minister's word then against whoever is in the office. So that person proceeds with the arievance and the next thing he or she knows, early retirement, transferred, not promoted. MR. OTTE~~EIME?: Yes, but that could happen under the Ontario wording as well,because many of these things come down to whom does one believe. It can be one word against another. You know, a person can argue it is not a reprisal. MR.

NEARY: I believe the minister was outside when I said earlier that it may not be possible to legislate everything,but at least we should make it as strong as we can. Mr. Speaker, the people who came to see me the other day told me that there we~e a number of examples that they know about involving sexual harrassment and political opinion \•Jhere the people feel that they have a crrievance but they were afraid to proceed with the arievance, afraid there would be reprisals from the minister or the deputy minister or some director of a department. And that 8560

· December 9, 1983 Tape No . .3868 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: re .nders the act , to a large degree,absolutely useless if people are in fear, if they are afraid. I have had people come to my office Who have told me stories. For instance,I have a letter here in my desk involving the Minister of Manpower and Labour (Mr. Dinn) who intervened with the Chairman of the Workers' compensation Board. 8561

December 9, 1983 Tape 3869 EC - 1 MR. DINN: On what? MR. NEARY: Intervened on behalf of one of his friends, to find a job for one of his friends. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Dr~McNicholas) : The hon. the Hinister of Labour and Manpower, on a point of order. MR.. DINN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) obviously was not here the other day when I went through the Workers' Compensation Bill and he is leaving the impression in the public mind that I did something wrong, that I did something that was not allowed to be done.

I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board which said basically this: "As per our telephone conversation of Thursday, March 11, 1982, I am enclosing a resum~ of John Jones', or whomever, 'with respect to employment.' A guy asked me to see if there was anywhere in the government service that I could get him a job and I; as an :t-rn:A, \-Trote a letter on the qentleman's behalf. And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is leaving a clear impression in the minds of the public of this Province that I did something wrong.

If he has a charge to ~ake, I would appreciate it very much if he could make it. I mean, this kind of thing cannot go on indefinitely. MR. NEARY: There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is just smarting over there. MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister took the opportunity of explaining the letter he had written. MR. NEARY: The point is, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. gentleman did anything wrong. I can only tell the hon. gentleman about the feelings of 8562

December 9, 1983 Tape 3869 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: the people employed at the Workers' Compensation Board. I do not know what the hon. gentleman said in his phone call. He followed it up with a letter to the Chairman of the Board and sent a resume of this particular individual, and this individual received an appointment from the Workers' Compensation Board on a contractual basis, not through the regular hiring practices of the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Speaker. And therein lies the problem. Because the other people employed at that board felt they were being discriminated against.

Wheth~r it was right or wrong,because the minister put his friend in a position on a contractual basis, every employee in that board felt he was discriminated against, that he was entitled to the job, that he should have had a crack at it. aut in order to get around the hiring practices of the board, they put this individual on a - .MR. DINN: I mean, anybody \'.'ho would have a report li~ the ~£flin report read about him ?n~ then get up in the House ·and make statements like that is a complete disgrace! It diminishes your power as a member of this House • .MR.

NEARY: - they put the person on a contractual basis, by ·-passed all the other employees. Now, these employees felt that they had a grievance. MR. DINN: Why did they not make one? MR. NEARY: MR. DINN: MR. NEARY: Because they were afraid . Afraid of what? They were afraid of the high- handed tactics of the minister. MR. DINN: Oh, I see! Name them. Why do you not n~me them? I mean, it is another Andy Davidson issue. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman just asked a question that gave me an opportunity - 8563

December 9; 1983 Tape 3869 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall), I believe, earlier a·sked for the protection of the Chair for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). I asked for it earlier this morning. The han. gentleman is shouting and yelling over there and I believe, Mr. Speaker, he should be asked to restrain himself. If he cannot stand the heat let him get out of the kitchen. MR. CARTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Dr. McNicholas): On a point of order, the han. the member for St. John's North. MR.

CARTER: We are so used to these Nild accu- sations in this House from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) that it really rolls off us like water off a duck's back. You know, it is hardly enough to keep us awake. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the general public take a very, very strong view of these kinds of accusations and s.ome of them may, by accident, happen to be believed. I thi~ that the course the han. gentleman I is set on is ·an extremely dangerous one. He has been doing it for years but that should not make it any the less serious. I think it is high 8564

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3870 ah-1 MR. CARTER: time that this House moved very strongly against the hon. gentleman and took some decisive action. I think it is an absolute disgrace and the hon. gentleman should be disciplined. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, there is another example of the arrogance and cockiness. Take the Opposition out and hang them up out in the square, that is what the hon. gentleman would like to do. Mr.

Speaker, the general public do take these matters serious and that is why they are being raised in this House, because the general public feel they are being shafted by this administration. So, Mr. Speaker, we raise these matters in good faith. The hon. gentleman has no right to question my motives for raising these things. I have correspondence here in front of me, representations from people who feel they have been shafted. Mr. Speaker, where else do you raise these matters but in the people's House?

Now,if the hon. gentleman wants to take the Opposition out and shoot them or hang them, you know, I can understand the hon. gentleman's thinking 1 because he was so victorian in his thinking that Frank Moores had to fling him out of the cabinet. So there is no point or order, Mr.Speaker. MR.SPEAKER (Dr.McNicholas): To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.BAIRD: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order. I do not think there was a point of order, I think the hon. member was being relevant to the bill at the time. 8565

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3870 ah-2 MR.SPEAKER (Dr.McNicholas): He has also asked to be heard in silence and he has the right to that. MR.NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I am not going to belabour the point except to say that the han. gentleman asked me why did they not make a grievance. Well , Mr.Speaker, they did not make a grievance for the obvious reasons, that the minister had used his heavy-handed tactics and who is to say that if they made a grievance that he would not retaliate against - MR.DINN: made every day. MR.NEARY: there was not.

But there are grievances In this particular case MR.DINN: I mean,there is a legal procedure in place for all thesepeople. MR.NEARY: So, Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman hasgiven good argument for having this clause about reprisals put into the Human Rights laws in this Province. And I know the Minister of Justice (Mr.Ottenheimer) who is taking these matters seriously, listening to argument, is convinced that what I am saying is correct.

The han. gentleman may get up and argue that it is virtually impossible to legislate every little point into law, that you cannot tell what people might think or might do in the privacy of their offices and so forth, but what we should do is take reasonable measures and reasonable precautions to make sure that people who want to make grievances can do so in an atmosphere of good will and good faith,and that there will be no reprisals against these people. That is all I am asking.

I am asking for the Ontario Act in this particular case to be adopted,and I refer hon.members to 743, 12,1982,"Every person has a right to claim and 8566

December 9,1983 Tape No. 3870 ah-3 MR.NEARY: enforce his or her rights under this act,to institute and participate in proceedings under this act and refuse to infringe a right of another person under this act without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing~ That is a very, very important point and a very important clause.And so, Mr.Speaker,we are not going to delay the passage of this bill, we are going to support it. MR. SIMMS: (inaudible) you stand alone,boy. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I believe, Your Honour asked for silence. I know they would like to take the House on their backs.

The Speaker had to issue new rules the other day as a result of a public servant coming in on the floor of the House, walking in as if they owned the place. The Speaker had to issue new rules to members about admitting strangers in the corridors on both sides of this House. They think they own the House, Mr. Speaker, and now it is starting to rub off on the public servants. They think they can do what they like and come up and walk into the House without getting elected and so forth and so on. Mr. Speaker, the hon.gentleman will be sitting over there until Christmas Eve .

I know why they are so testy today, they are thinking, well 8567

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3871 SD -1 MR. NEll.RY : why is the House not closing today? Why are we not going home today? MR. HOUSE: Who said we wanted the House closed? MR. MARSHALL: the new member. We wanted to leave it open for MR. NEARY: The Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) should hear the comments that I hear. MR. YOUNG: MR. NEARY: Twelve days with two members. The han. Government House Leader should listen to the comments of his memners going down in the elevator, going down to the fifth floor, what time are you going to close that so-and-so place? Mr.

Speaker, every day the House is open they are losing ground. MR. BAIRD: Yes, because we are fed up with the likes of you. MR. NEARY: No wonder they are so testy over there. We saw an example of it this morning when the Premier was climbing the wall over there for some unknown reason. Some days there are only three or four of us over here and they react like there were twenty-five of us over here, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. NEARY: There they go again. Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman talks about a fool. If the han. gentleman only knew the esteem that he is held in in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER PECKFORD: better than you do. MR. NEARY: Yes. I know a hell of a lot The description would be unparliamentary, so therefore I cannot use it. So I look forward, Mr. Speaker. MR. YOUNG: Tell us about your (inaudible) MR. NEARY: Ignorance is something that should not be tolerated in this House, Mr, Speaker-to hearing 8568

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3871 SD - 2 MR. NEA.RY: what the hon. minister has to say on these matters, because the hon. minister has been making his notes and he has been going out and checking with his officials on the act and so forth to make sure that he is going to give the House factual information as a result of the comments and the questions that I raised. And perhaps the hon. gentleman while he is on his feet, I do not know if he had had time to get the information, will tell us how many cases were handled by the Human Rights Commission in the last year?

How many cases were handled, how many grivances were successful, how many were rejected or turned down? And would the hon. gentleman also have a figure to indicate how many cases there were where people were told by the commission that this did not come under the jurisdiction, that this did not come under the act and therefore it could not be handled by the Human Rights Commission? MR. YOUNG: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Your Honour, could we stop the ignorance that is emanating from the other side.

Can the hon. gentleman tell us how many cases, put them in various categories, how many were in actual fact handled by the commission, processed; how many were awarded in favour of the applicant and how many were rejected, were not awarded in the favour of the applicant; and how many were rejected that did not even get a hearing before the board? I would be interes·ted in having these statistics· and I would be interested in hearing what the hon. gentleman has to say. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): MS. VERGE: Good speech. The hon. Minister of Education. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My intention is to speak briefly only to voice my enthusiastic support for this bill. I am glad to have the opportunity as a legislator to vote s·trengthening 8569

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3871 SD - 3 MS. VERGE: measures for our Human Rights Code. I think this bill incorporates two important provisions to improve the protection of human rights· of the people of our Province: Number one, the prohibition of 8570

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3872 MJ - 1 MS. VERGE: personal harassment and sexual harassment in certain types of relationships,primarily work place relationsfiips,and number two, the official blessings, the official sanctioning of affirmative action programmes or catch-up programmes. I think that these are necessary measures for individuals and groups in our society who are dependent economically and/or emotionally.

I think these are necessary steps for people who are inferior to others, for example subordinates in hiera~chical employment structures 1 and I believe these are essential measures for all people who are vulnerable. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the people in our society who are dependent, who are inferior in status, who are as a consequence vulnerable, more often than not it will be found that these people are women.

And I know that the many advocates for women, women themselves, Status of Women Organizations, feminist organizations in our Province wholeheartedly support these measures which are now before our House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, women comprise a group in our society who have been svste!':licallv discrimated against. There are other such groups of course. If we localize our examination of injustice and confine it to the Dominion of Canada,we can see that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are a group within Canada who are disadvantaged relative to residents of the other provinces and, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that there be affirmative action or catch-up programmes so that the imbalances may be corrected. Certain measures have already been instituted. For example, Premier Peckford and this administration have enacted regulations giving preference to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador in competing for jobs related to offshore oil and gas. Mr. Speaker, these ~-~s of affirmative action or catch-up programmes really do not have the effect of giving 8571

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3872 MJ - 2 MS. VERGE: advantages to the disadvantaged groups, to the minority groups, but rather,I believe,they have the effect of taking away some of the advantages the superior groups now enjoy. For example,in the case of the local preference policy in offshore hiring the government regulations have the effect of taking away some of the superior edge now enjoyed by residents of mainland Canada or other nations in competing for Newfoundland and Labrador offshore jobs.

And I believe that we are going to have to bring in all kinds of special programmes, affirmative action or catch-up programmes, for Newfoundland and Labrador women so that some of the advantages and edges now held by Newfoundland and Labrador men are neutralized,and so that for the first time women will have a fighting chance, women will have a chance to catch up. In summation, Hr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support these measures, I think it is another example of action by a progressive Premier and a progressive government.

I would trust that these measures will enjoy the support of all members of this House of Assembly. ' . SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. BAIRD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The han. the member for Humber West. MR. BAIRD: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at all in supporting this bill. I think it ~a~ ~een a long tjme coming about. We all realize that there have been injustices over the years,but I do not necessarily support the status of women per se and I say that with full conviction. I think we are all people, there is no status of men, status of this, status of that.

But in getting back to the bill I 8572

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3872 MR. BAIRD: think that there have been injustices done and it is happening today in our own Province and all across the world, that some people as individuals 8573 MJ - 3

December 9, 1983 Tape 3873 PK - 1 MR. BAIRD: are being taken advantage of by employers because of their sex. I have no hesitation in supporting that particular aspect of it, and I think that the bill should be brought in. I would like to say further to that, that a lot of the victims, if you will, they also have reco,lrse to our court system, which I think is the best in the world, and they can bring charges against the would­ be-attackers or the so-called attackers. A lot of that system should look after itself.

So again I support the bill, but I do feel that some of the individuals that have been harassed, as you will call it, I am a little leery of one particular aspect of it, because I think we have some people who, because of their age, sex, or environment, if you will, sometimes are what we call a little bit frustrated, and I would be very leery of those people because all of a sudden you might find out that if you tip your hat the wrong way you could be in trouble.

But it is time that we had some legislation here, because there have been injustices done to our fellow people, and I am very glad that we are about to make it in a point of law so that they can be protected. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their participation.

Let me say in concluding what I pointed out, obviously, at the beginning and that is that we have requested the Human Rights Commission to make an entire review of the human rights legislation for recommendations of a com­ prehensive nature which would in time, I think, suggest rather than humorous amendments a consolidated act. That is much easier for people 8574

:. December 9, 1983 Tape 3873 PK - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: to deal with. We did decide,however,that in three specific instances the government should move immediately, and it those three specific instances that this amendment deals with, . one, it proscribes unwelcome sexual solicitation, and it defines that quite clearl y. Number two, it adds harassment for sex or other reasons, racial, religious beliefs, political opinion Political opinion was always there, but it adds-sex there as well as a proscribed action.

So,number one, it proscribes unwelcome sexual solicitation, number two, it proscribes harassment,and number three it permits affirmative action. Those are the three things. The remarks of the han. Leader of the Opposition with respect to other matters and that with respect to there being no reprisals against a person taking an action under this act,certainly we will look at that in the _overall review of the act. It would certainly be my opinion that, you know, there is protection now. But obviously we are looking over the entire act and certainly we will look at that as well.

Now,with respect to how specific one can get, for example, dirty jokes which are frequently thought of as being of a sexual nature, which can be,I_s:uppose,of a religious or racial nature as well, it is very, very difficult,as all .hon •. members know, for a legislature and for legislation to include just about every instance. And it is the intention and the belief that the word 'harass' and its definition,'to engage in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome• 1 · is intended to cover a broad area.

Certainly the act is binding on all employers andhas reference as well to commerical and residential premises, sa ;: it is binding on all of those. 8575

December 9, 1983 Tape 3873 PK - 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER : The matter referred to with respect to the position of homosexuals and lesbians,that is generally referred to under the general title of sexual preference,is different from sexual discrimination under the heading of sexual preference. That is an important area of public policy which certainly wili :be considered in the 8576

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3874 NM- 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: overall review of the act but the government is not now in a position to state .a public policy for an employer, that an employer would be contravening the Human Rights of people if sexual preference were to be a consideration. Certainly,at the present time it would not be a contravention of a person's human rights on the question of sexual preference. MR. WARREN: How about if (inaudible). MR.

OTTENHEIMER: What I am talking about and what the hon. gentleman was talking about was with respect to the employment of homosexuals or lesbians which is generally under the title of sexual preference as distinguished from sexual harrassment. And pbviously that is a very important public: policy, but certainly the government is not in a position right now to say that an employer should not have the right to exercise judgement .and discretion with respect to employment in terms of people's sexual preference,in that context.

So in conclusion there are thrP.P. matters which this bill will add to the Human Rights Legislation. Number one, a statutory reference for affirmative action so that groups which have been, for whatever reasons, historic, social, victims of systemic discrimination may be benefitted and given the opportunity to benefit from affirmative action programmes geared to them. That could be women, that could be unemployed people, that could be aboriginal people, and obviously others might come to mind as well.

So there is the affirmative action reference, there is the proscription of harrassment in general, including sexual harrassment but not limited to it, also proscribing harrassment on the 8577

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3874 NM - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: other grounds, essencially racial, ethnic, religious, political opinion and then; number three, the proscription of ·unwelcome sexual solicitation. I move second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Human Rights Code," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 79) !-iotion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Defamation." (Bill No. 70) MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we have before us here Bill No. 70, "An Act Respecting Defamation," which will essentially accomplish three things; It will codify the common law in a statute with respect to defamation; it will alter the common law in one respect, with respect to defamation; and it will repeal certain acts which have bits and pieces in them regarding defamation and they are listed in one of the clauses of the bill, the ones which will be repealed. The bill covers defamation in its totality and not broken down as it sometimes was in some of the older statutes referred to, you know,libel 8578

December 9, 1983 Tape No. 3875 SD - 1 . MR. OTTENHEIMER: being written, defamation and slander spoken, but treats it generically. And hon. members will be aware that, of course, it covers a broad array in terms of its

definitions, broadcasting and publication, you know, be it radio, television, closed circuit, microchip technology and these kinds of things. The purpose of that, obviously, is to make it all inclusive. So it will do three things: It will repeal statutes which will no longer be necessary when this comprehensive bill is enacted, it will codify the common law, and it will reform the common law, alter the common law in a beneficial way, which I would regard as a reforming of the common law in a specific instance and related to a specific court judgment.

Just by way of background, in 1978, I believe it was, in a case Armdale versus Cherneskey, or vice versa, the Supreme Court of Canada denied a classic defence in a defamation case, the defence of fair comment for publication of a letter to an editor if the publisher did not share the views of the writer. r-1R. ROBERTS: MR. OTTENHEIMER: MR. ROBERTS: just one sentence. MR. OTTENHEIMER: MR. ROBERTS : That is only one part of it. Right. If the minister would permit me The hon. gentleman. Just one sentence on it.

What distinguished the Cherneskey case is that nobody gave evidence that he or she, as the case may be, believed in it. The minister I know would want to state the facts correctly, Cherneskey ~~s a terrible blow · to the freedom of the press and the minister is doing the right thing to ask us to overturn Cherneskey which, of course, this bill will do. But what distinguished Cherneskey was nobody was put on the stand to give any evidence. The editor said that he did not believe it 1 because it was all the 8579

Decmeber 9, 1983 Tape No. 3875 SD - 2 MR. ROBERTS: same to him, he printed it for freedom of speech. But the letter was signed and the author of the letter was not called. Mr. Speaker, the letter called a member of a council in Saskatoon a racist, that was the defamation. That is a most important point there. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, with the new legislation the publisher will not be denied the defence of fair comment on grounds that the publisher did not hold that opinion published provided that also, of course, a person could honestly hold such an opinion, and the defendant is not required to conduct an inquiry or an examination in order to find out if the person whose opinions are being published did, in =act, hold that opinion or not.

Of course, that would be an onus on a publisher which he would almost be incapable of fulfilling and, indeed there would not appear to be any logical reason why he should fulfill it as long as· the opinion is of a nature that could honestly be held by somebody and not of such a nature which could not honestly - it must be close to reasonably -honestly be held by a person. MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) reasonableness as long as somebody honestly believed it. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

After the decision in the Supre~e Court the Canadian Association of Daily Newspapers, I believe is what it is called, were in touch with most of the provinces, I have no doubt with all of the provinces, and Newfoundland, as I am sure other Justice Ministries, had representation from the Canadian Association of Daily Newspapers. We also received requests from 8580

December 9, 1983 Tape 3876 EC - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: local newspapers in Newfoundland with respect to the decision and, indeed, it was the opinion of both the national association and of the local newspapers that the development of the common law, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the~~y decision was unwarranted, indefensible, improper development of the law and an unnecessary and unfair constraint on freedom of speech or freedom of publication in general.

The ~atter was discussed, certainly at the level of provincial justice ministers a few years ago and a number of jurisdictions have already passed legislation similar to this.

Indeed, this bill is based upon a draft bill emanating, from the uniform Law Conference, and they ' are a group of lawyers from all provinces' Justice Departments, people in private practice, a fairly broad, fairly comprehensive group who meet regularly once a year - I think they have committees which meet more frequently - and examine specific problems and issues with a view to making their services available in terms of drafting a uniform law.

And there are arguments back and forth whether provinces - you know, to what extent uniformity is advisable or not,and certainly we would all recognize that in the kind of federation and nation we are that uniformity for its own sake or uniformity in every legal instance, bearing in mind the different social and economic backgrounds and priorities of different provinces,is not a goal which one would put forward in its general application.

But, obviously, there are certain in­ stances as well where uniformity is beneficial, and certainly in this particular instance, uniformity among the various provincial jurisdictions would appear to be beneficial. And, indeed, I am not aware of any solid arguments that 8581

De.ceniDer 9., 19..83 Tape 3876 EC -2 'MR. OTTENBEI.MER.: would be against it, because i't i_s a codi<f.i:cation of common law \nth the reform in the Cherneskey, case. So with the enactment of this, a publisher, as a defendant, will not be denied the defense of fair comment c:m the gxrounds that he did not hold the opinion published, provided that the publisher did not know that the person expressing the opinion did not hold the ·opinion. But that is to a large exten.t aca