Volume XL Tuesday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Third Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 3 3 March 1987

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Before calling for Statements by Ministers I would like to rule on · a point of order raised by the hon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) yesterday. It is fairly long, so I would ask you to bear with me. Since the election of the member for St. John's East (Mr. Long) I have been giving consideration to the question of whether the two members of the New Democratic Party constitute a group for the purposes of the proceedings in .this House.

I felt that this matter should be raised in the House in the first place rather than trying to rule in a vacuum. Our Standing Orders are silent. Unlike some other provinces, we do not have

an Act of our Legislature to cover the matter. For example, Nova Scotia which has the .same number of seats we have, recognizes a third party if they have two members and they had candidates standing for three-quarters of the seats and receive 10 per cent or more of the votes officially recorded. I think a qualification on these lines is necessary; otherwise, for example, if two members broke away from either side they could claim recognition as a group or party even though the electorate had not endorsed this move.

It would appear that in New Brunswick one member, with certain qualifications, would be recognized as a Party and the numbers for recognition vary from two in the case of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, to twelve in the case of Ontario. On April 20, 1960 Hansard records L112 March 3, 1987 Vol XL that Mr. Duffy leading a party of two (The United Newfoundland Party) spoke in the Address in Reply immediately following the Leader of the Opposition. At that time there was not an item on the Order Paper equivalent to our 'Statements by Ministers.' Mr.

Smallwood leading a party of four responded to a Ministerial Statement on March 4, 1976, (see Hansard of that date, pages 2317 to 2319). On that occasion Mr. Neary asked permission to comment when Mr. Smallwood had finished, but was told by the Speaker that the . only person who co "uld make brief comments was the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader of a recognized group or someone speaking on their behalf. Clearly, Mr. Smallwood was recognized as the leader of a third party at that time.

On May 22, 1985, Hansard records that the then President of Council stated: and I quote, "I think there is a ruling that for a group to be recognized as a party in the House it has to have three members. I think that is clear," end of quote. I have had an exhaustive search made for such a ruling but cannot find it. In the past various Speakers have ruled that a single member does not constitute a group. In connection with making such a ruling on March 10, 1976, and recorded in Hansard on page 2 713 the.

Speaker made the following which I accept as setting a precedent in this matter: " ... in this Legislature the right of the Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of a recognized group, and group there means, Parliamentary group, a caucus, more than one person, that that No. 3 Rll2"

right may be ceded to another honourable member speaking on behalf of that leader." In particular I would draw the attention of Members to the Phrase " ... and group there . means parliamentary group, a caucus, more than one person .... ". In addition it is characteristic of a group that the members composing it have a community of interest and concern, a common connection, a collective unity and in my opinion on that basis as well, the member for Menihek and the member for St. John's East constitute a group for the purposes of the proceedings of this House. Does recognition as a group entitle the members to any right over ·and above that enjoyed by other members?

(1) The rules governing the length of time a member may speak in a debate would not be affected since they are set out in the Standing Orders ( S.0.49) and can only be changed by a two-thirds majority of all members, according to our House of Assembly Act.

(2) Consultation on the· members for committees appears to be a courtesy and the House is governed in this matter by Standing Order 84 and concurred by the House.

(3) Address in Reply. In the past there has been a response by a spokesman -for a third group but this actually is a right shared by all members.

(4) Responding to Ministerial Statements by right is a privilege. The suggestion of the Government House Leader yesterday that the group of two would have Ll13 March 3, 1987 Vol XL half the time of the official Opposition appears to me to be a reasonable one considering the comparative-numerical strength and we will adopt it. I might add that in very short Ministerial Statements it is not too practical and I feel one should not be too rigid in these cases. I rule that the members for Menihek and St. John's East constitute a group for the purposes of the proceedings of this House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker., MR. SPEAKER: The hon the President of the Council. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon members at this time of the f it"st pieces of legislation which will be presented by the govet'nment in this Session of the House of Assembly. Notice of these will be given by the mini stet"s within the next few days and the bills, themselves, will be cit"culated to all hon. members within the next few days. Of course there will be further legislation announced later on in the Session, but this constitutes the fit"st package, the first group of bills.

There will be: An amendment to the Department of Development and Tourism Act, the School Attendance Act, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) No. 3 R113

Act, a new Occupational Therapists Act. The St. John's Fire Department Act will be in for amendment, as will the

Summary Proceedings Act. There will be a Prisons Act and Uniformed Services Pensions Act, a Municipalities Act, a Newfoundland Veterinary Medical Act, 1971, a new Provincial Institutes Act, a new Community Colleges Act, and a new Aquaculture Act. As I said, notice of these will be given by the relevant ministers within the next few days and the bills will be distributed within the next few days, as well. A.lso, the government will be announcing the second installment of important legislation in the near future. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, we again welcome what appears to be the co-·operation of the government. We would hope, also, that we may be able, at some point in time, to get a longer agenda for debate laid out in the legislature, as the hen. gentleman is now doing with the format of his legislation. In the proposed legislation, in terms of jobs creation I think you could probably look at two of the thirteen. I kno\4 it is number one, and possibly number thirteen as well.

Of course, we would hope that the government would introduce measures in this House to see that things to create more jobs in this Province, legislation and, indeed, policy statements are forthcoming in this Session of the legislature .• as well. L114 March 3, 1987 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: First I would like to thank .the Speaker for his ruling. I would also remind the Government House Leader - well, of course, he would not know whether he should have given me a copy of the list of proposed legislation · at this point.

The only point I make at this time is that the legislation on the community college and the provincial institutions, we would hope that the minister will give considerable priority to these pieces of legislation. There are people throughout the Province who are eagerly awaiting the institution of both community colleges and . provincial institutions, wanting to know what can be in place by September, as, indeed, in my district, and we on this side will be very co-operative at e"xpediting this legislation to make sure it · is passed. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Minister of Mines and Housing.

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for Housing, I would like to take this opportunity to update members concerning an earlier decision made by government and previously announced by me during the last session of the House, authorizing the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation to offer for sale a number of multiple-unit apartment buildings in No. 3 Rl14

Stephenville. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that the sale of three twelve unit buildings comprising thirty-six apartments has now been finalized by the Corporation. The buildings, located at 10 Alabama Drive and 23 and 25 Oregan Avenue, have been sold to Delco Holdings Ltd. of Stephenville who will officially assume ownership on April 1. I might point out, that the sale of Mr. Speaker, these units resulted fro~ an initial expression of interest early last year by several private concerns in the area to purchase a number of these units owned by the Housing Corporation in Stephenville.

The final selection of the Delco Holdings bid was made after Corporation officials were satisfied that a fair price had been settled on and that tenants would lose none of the rights they held under the auspices of NLHC. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the monies realize~ from the sale will be applied to · renovations and upgrading of the Corporation's remaining housing portfolio in the Stephenville area. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to advise members that by divesting itself of these rentals, NLHC is striving to promote a more competitive rental environment in the Stephenville area. 'Furthermore, where possible, the Corporation will continue to ·consider the sale of such units on a Province-wide basis. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that individual tenants will now be written immediately advising of the sale of these units. Thank you. MR. K, AYLWARD: LllS March 3, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for giving me a copy of his Ministerial Statements earlier. Looking at the press release and the statement, the concerns that were· expressed by tenants of the area and myself seem to have been met somewhat, in that it is a small company in the Stephenville area, or a small group of people, who will be purchasing the units. So that concern has been met. At this point in time I would want to express my dissatisfaction with the way that the co-operative idea was · thrown . around by the department in . government that was handling it.

The local people of the ar.ea who were trying to put a co-operative group together found that they 'were having great trouble with getting the full co-operation of government on that. Also, I am wondering why the Westel'n Tenancies Board's decision has not been announced yet on rental increases, Ol' the taking back of l'ental inct'eases ~ against the Housing Corpot"ation.

About six months ago, in September, the hearings were held in Stephenville, and NLHC, for the first time, had .to bring in new financial information because it was not disclosing proper financial information to the tenants of the Stephenville area. So I am wondering why, since that decision has been in government's hands for the last number of weeks, it has not been announced. I look forward to that Ministerial Statement, also, in the near No. 3 RllS

future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! · MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate, also, the Minister responsible for Housing (Mr. Dinn) giving me a copy of the statement ahead of time. Th~s is . one that we had some contention on last Spring, about how it was being sold and the rush that seemed to be occurring. If I remember correctly, we are talking 250 units - was it? - or somewhere in that range, anyway. Only thirty-six of the apartment units have been sold, so obviously a lot more are on a block.

The minister was kind enough to inform me that approximately $15,000 per unit was the going price on the sale, or in that range. What I am hoping will happen, the same as the member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward), is that in the future · there will be some encouragement to the tenants, themselves, to get together the kind of co-operative that they initially explored last Spring, and hopefully in the future they can take over more and more of this housing themselves. Because there was a fear there that they might end up in a p_os_ition where they were much worse off than before.

Hopefully, they will have the time now to put together their own proposal , and I would certainly hope that the department would encourage that sort of activity. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker. L116 March 3, 1987 Vol . XL MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Consumer Affairs and Communications. MR. RUSSELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for clarification for the bon. the member for Stephenville. He mentioned that the decision of the Tenancies Board has been in government hands for a while and wonders when it is going to be released. That is not correct.

I share the member's concern that we would like to have it before this. We are making every attempt to get it, but we do not have the decision as yet. As soon as we get it, we will let it be known. MR. K. AYLWARD: To that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr . To that point of order, the bon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: I had been informed by a source, about two weeks ago as a matter of fact, that it was in the hands of government. That is what I was told. I am sorry if that was wrong.

Maybe that Committee is having a tough time making their decision, since NLHC gave the wrong financial information. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. There is a difference of opinion between two bon. gentleman. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The · bon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. DOYLE: No. 3 R116

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform members of the bon. the House of Assembly of the appointment of Mr. Arthur Colbourne to the position of Assistant Deputy Minister of Local Government with the Department of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Colbourne will be replacing Mr. Ronald Corbett who will be retiring effective May 31, 1987. Mr. Corbett has served the government well and faithfully for over thirty-five years and for the last eight ye;irs a.s ADM of Local Government. Mr.

Colbourne brings with him over twenty-five years of experience in the field of Municipal Administration, including over the decade with the Department of Municipal Affairs. Since 1974 he has worked with the department in the City of Corner Brook as Western Regional Supervisor. Prior to his work with the department, Mr. Colbourne worked as Town Manager in Happy Valley - Goose Bay from 1962 to 1966 and held the position as Town Manager in Marystown ·from 1966 to 1972. He was also employed as the Town Manager in Burin from 1972 to 1974. Before becoming involved in Local Government, Mr.

Colbourne had' worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a period of approximately four years, starting· in 1957. He is a graduate of Memorial University of Newfoundland and in addition to his work experience he served as Chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators as well as having been the Chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Ll17 March 3, 1987' Vol XL Development Council. The Department of Municipal Affairs welcomes Mr. Colbourne into his new position.

We feel that because of his wide experience and knowledge in the municipal field he will be an asset to Municipal Councils all over Newfoundland and Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for giving me this announcement earlier. I extend congratulations to Mr. Colbourne from the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the official Opposition. We are quite happy to endorse · the appointment of Mr. Colbourne. I think it is a very wise choice.

I have known Mr. Colbourne ever since I went to Memorial with him, some thirty years ago. I think he is a fine man. I hope that he will be able to do something in the department to · change the way that grants are given out, take them from a political to a straightforward needs basis. This would be my wish and the wish of a lot of Newfoundlanders. Thank you, very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. No. 3 Rl17

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Just to echo the same sentiments, Art Colbourne and I actually served on the executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council for a couple of years. I know he is a competent administrator and I believe that he .will do an excellent job for . the Department of Municipal Affairs in his new role. MR. SPEAKER: Before we get to Oral Questions I would like to welcome to the gallery Dianne Forsey and Glenn Rodgers from St. Stephen's School, and the twelve students who are accompanying them. SOME.HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Oral Questions MR.

BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask is the Premier aware that apparently certain if not all vocational schools around the Province have informed their instructors that their salaries are not being paid this week, that there is some delay possible in the payment of salaries? We understand with respect to one school that in fact other employees were paid today but the instructors did not receive their pay at the normal time. Certain Lll8 March 3, 1987 Vol XL instructors had b.een alerted earlier in the week that this might happen.

I would ask the Premier is he aware of this and does it have anything to do with the Province's financial position as put forth by him not too long ago? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition will not be getting paid next week. No. Of course it has got nothing to do with it. It is the first I heard of it and I will take under advisement the question from the Leader of the Opposition and get an answer for him before the House closes this afternoon. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR.

BARRY: Leader of the I finq it somewhat amazing that the Premier is not aware if there are problems in departments with meeting conuni tments to provincial government employees. If the Premier ·says he is not aware of it I have to take his word for that. PREMIER PECKFORD: It cannot be very important. MR. BARRY: No, only to the several hundred employees who are waiting for their salaries. Otherwise it is not very important. PREMIER PECKFORD: There must be some reasonable explanation for it . No. 3· R118

MR. TULK: That is an important enough reason. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he would inform this House is the Province facing bankruptcy within two years or is it not? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, ·I would like to ask the Premier if he could explain why he made that statement on province-wide television? And I think ~n The Sunday Express it was carried.

Why did the Premier make that statement · to The Sunday Express that the Province was going to be bankrupt within two years, if that is not the case according to him? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier .. PREMIER PECKFORD: I have explained that publicly on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, over the last week. I am sure all hon. members are aware of what I said publicly at that time. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition. the Leader Ll19 March 3, 1987 of the Vol XL MR. BARRY: I know, Mr.

Speaker, this hon. member is not aware of what could justify or explain the Premier of the Province making such a remark. Did the Premier, at the time he made this remark, have any advice from the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) with respect to the potential impact of such a statement on investor confidence or on the credit rating of the Province? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I am quite familiar with those matters, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance and myself consult regularly.

I am very amazed that on the one hand the Leader of the Opposition expected me to know that some vocational instructors were not being paid this week, while at the same time he was not aware, when they have been in the press for the last couple of weeks, of my statements relevant to the or~ginal statement that I had made. I find it rather inconsistent on the one hand the Leader of the Opposition expected me to know about certain payments that were not going to vocational instructors and at the same time he was unaware of public statements that were all over the media for the last couple of weeks. MR.

BARRY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr. Speaker, would the Premier indicate to this House whether a statement by him that the Province was going to be bankrupt within ·No. 3 Rll9

two years was considered by him to have any inpact on the credit rating or on investor confidence in this Province? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: All these matters were considered, Kr. Speaker. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

I wonder does the minister consider these erratic statements made by the Premier concerning the Province's financial position to be rational, prudent and ·responsible, and whether they will erode Cabinet's credibility with the federal government, with labour, with industry, with the whole financial world, and with the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance . DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any erratic statements by the Premier. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Bonavista North. MR.

LUSH: I do not know where the minister has been for the past couple of weeks, Mr. Speaker. Anyways, I have a further question to the Ll20 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Minister of Finance, I wonder if the minister would not admit that such erratic statements by the Premier, or by any other Cabinet minister, could, and will, have a disastrous effect on investor confidence in the economy of this Province and on the Province's already rock-bottom credit rating?

Because, if I might add, investors who would invest in this Province, and the rating agencies, would have no way of knowing whether the Premier is espousing reality or whether he is engaging in dramatic exercises of exaggeration, hyperbole, fancy and sabre rattling . MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, if there are errattc statements they are coming from members opposite in this regard.

But to clarify any doubt the bon. member may have ·in his mind, I might say that there is an issue of one of ·the Province's series of debentures in place in Europe now which is being extremely well received. r·will be in a position to bring the details to the House very shortly. But there is certainly absolutely no problem in our placing our paper. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the bon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, whether the minister would indicate that after these erratic statements by No. 3 and impulsive the Premier, and R120

after his own acknowledged inability to control the deficit of this Province, in view of these factors I wonder whether he has been contacted by any of the credit rating agencies suggesting any changes in the Province's credit rating? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Very simply, no, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

It is now two years since the Offshore Development Fund was established, which provided for an expenditure, cost-shared, of $300 million over the five year period. Prorated that would mean about a $120 million expenditure to date. I understand the actual agreements signed total about $34 million. I wonder would the Premier indicate whether this is up to his expectation on the matter or whether there is some reason why more of the ·funding has not been committed at this point in time? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I thank the bon. the member for his question.

It is a very, very good question, and I am very pleased to answer it. No, it is not up to our expectations, as I perhaps indicated publicly some time ago. We have before the federal government now a range of L121 March 3, 1987 Vol XL new initiatives under the development fund. I am pleased to report that later this week the Minister of Energy, (Mr. Ottenheimer), in consultation with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) and the Minister of the Transport (Mr. Crosbie) in Ottawa, will be making a very substantial announcement on the spending of a large portion of that fund.

So, before this week is out we will see a very large increase in expenditures from that fund to very worthwhile projects in the Province which will get off the ground immediately. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Fortune Hermitage. MR.

SIMMONS: Mr. ·speaker, in addition to the $34 million that has already been approved to date, I understand with what is being considered now - I would assume these amounts the Premier made reference to totalling another $60 or $64 million -assuming it all gets approved in the next few days you are still talking under $100 million. I understand from a source in Ottawa that part of the problem is the absence of worthwhile projects from the Province.

It has been contended that literally everything the Province has put forward has either been approved or is under scrutiny right now and ought to be approved within the next few days. I want to ask the Premier, then, No~ 3 R121

respond to the allegation have reported to the Has there been any of project proposals to Ottawa for the would he that I House? shortage going up expenditure Development of the Offshore Fund? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am very, very happy to answer that. Whatever the bon. member's source is, I would ask him to get another source very, very quickly. One sure thing is that the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Ms Carney) in Ottawa, the present Minister (Mr.

Masse), plus all "of the Cabinet and the bureaucracy that we have dealt with is that they are falling over backwards complimenting us on the quality of the proposals that are going forward. Now may I also add that the federal government has under the Accord and under the Development Fund ~he right to make proposals too, although they have not proposed any. It has only qeen us who have been doing all the proposing, which we do not mind at all because we want our priorities to be education, training and research and development and so on.

So they have · been waiting for us even though they have the right under the Development Fund to do so. But nothing could be further from the truth. All the proposals that have gone forward have been extremely well researched, those from the private sector and the public sector, and from various agencies around Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very, very happy that the federal government has responded in writing complE}menting us on the level of quality of the proposals that we put forward. I L122 March 3, 1987 Vol XL am sure, later this week when the Minister of Energy (Mr.

Ottenheimer) makes the announcement on the additional funds that are going to be going into projects, everybody will see the high quality of the projects that will be undertaken. MR. SIMMONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the bon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: One final supplementary to the Premier. The cost-shared nature of this offshore development requires a draw-down of $75 million by the Province over the course of the agreement.

Is the Province's current financial straits, cash flow problems, in any way impeding the progress of the expenditure of this Offshore Development Fund? To say it differently: Is the fund going a little more slowly than would appear to be justifi'ed? Three hundred million dollars over five years would appear to be about $60 million a year, which would mean $120 million to date. Expenditures to date, plus what is pending approval, total about $94 million or $95 million, which is a bit of a shortfall. In view of that, Mr . Speaker, what is the reason?

I have no difficulty with the Premier's statement about the quality of the projects, that is not what I said, I talked about the total number of projects and whether there was a shortage of projects. Nobody is alleging that those that have gone up have not been quality projects, that is not the issue. But is it the shortage of good projects, Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER: No. 3 R122

Order, plE;!ase! Would the hon. member please pose his supplementary question? MR. SIMMONS: By all means. By all means. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has posed his question, maybe the hon. the Premier will answer it. MR. SIMMONS: No, Sir. By all means I will pose it. PREMIER PECKFORD: If it is a supplementary, you ~re breaking the rules. MR. BARRY: So are you by interrupting. MR. PATTERSON: Go back to the Arcade · selling socks. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

SIMMONS: By way of final supplementary, if it is not the shortage of good proposals going up, has it anything to do with the Province's current cash flow problems that we are not getting the expenditure within this fund that would be expected at this point in time, two years into the agreement? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it took a long while for that supplement~ry. I just point that out to Your Honour because that is not the way we are Ll23 March 3, 1987 Vol XL supposed to operate in this House, according to the rules. I dealt with the question of quality.

On the question of quantity, no. What we have had to do, because there are so many proposal coming in, is we have had to assess them very, very carefully to try to grade the ones which we thought should have the highest priority put on the table before the government. And then there has been some slow-down in the response time from the federal government. Now they tell us that they have overcome that problem that they had in their system, and that in future projects and proposals that go forward fc·om us will be dealt with far more expeditiously than they have in the past.

We have that in writing from the federal government over the last month or so. But we have to first of all high grade, if you will, or go back to the proponents of the various projects and proposals and m~ke sure that what we have going forward is good in quality as well as in quantity. As far as money goes, no, Mr. Speaker, there has been no question because of our share of the money. Nothing has been slowed down, from our point of view, because of quantity, quality or rttoney. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier of the Province. It seems as if the Finance Minister can go around preaching about the Province's money scene being a dismal situation, it seems as ··if the No. 3 Rl23

Premier of the Province one day can say we are bankrupt and then the next day say we are not. It seems as if o.ne day he can say, ' I am the friend of John Crosbie,' and then the next day 'I am not.' I would like to ask this question of the Premier: Who is responsible for the financial situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador if it is not your Minister of Finance and if it is not you? If you could tell us which one of the twenty-two ministers over there it is, I would love to know and so would everybody else _ over here so we can all find that out for the rest of this Province. MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier: PREMIER PECKFORD: The answer is very obvious, Kr . Speaker. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon . the member 'for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a list here uf the federal transfers to Newfoundland since 1979. Since this Premier has been existing in this Province, doing so well with our 21 per cent unemployment rate, he has received over $9 billion from the Feds. SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: How many? L12·4 Karch 3, 1987 Vol XL MR. -K. AYLWARD: Nine billion dollars. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the bon. member to pose his supplementary. MR. K. AYLWARD: My question to the Premier is, again - and I would like an answer, not a boomerang - would he tell us who is responsible for the expenditures of money in this Province and who is accountable for it? Is it John Crosbie in Ottawa or is it the Premier of Newfoundland down here? Which is it? Tomorrow is it going to be him, or the next day is it going to be the Minister of Finance? MR. FLIGHT: What happened to the $9 billion? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, as I said to the bon. · member in answer to his · original question, the answer is obvious: Everybody knows who is responsible for the expenditure of funds that come to this Province. I would just hasten to say to the bon. member not to be so naive to believe in absolute dollars how much is coming to the Province. The argument that we have been using, and continue to use with the Minister of Transport as with the Minister of Finance, (Kr.

Wilson) is that the equalization formula is unfairly applied across Canada as it relates to losing money because of population loss, and it has nothing to do with the needs of the Province or how much it costs to provide services. The inflation factor in equalization for post-secondary education and No. 3 Rl24

health costs is much higher than the increased amount of money that we are getting from the federal government. And over the last number of years, both on equalization and EPF, we have been getting less and less of an increase to cover the larger and larger increases that are being incurred in the public service of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is the point. On regional and economic development, I refer the han. member to a latest study by the C.D. Howe Institute in 1986, and to a more recent study in the last month by APEC, · both of whom confirm the contentions that I have been making. MR. K.

AYLWARD: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the han. the member for Stephenville. MR. FUREY: Ask about the shortfall in ~rovincial revenue. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it was $150 million last week. Two months agd it was $45 million or $50 million, now it is $150 million we have to go to Ottawa for. When are you going to accept the responsibility, Mr. Premier? You do not want to say it is yours. I mean, are you going to accept it when you ask for a mandate · .in your next election, I would like to know? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Ll25 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is obvious. I do not know if the han. member knows what that means. It means that we are responsible for the expenditures of money in . the Province. And I would just say to the han. member, as I have said to han. members over there opposite, anytime anything comes up in this House that has to do with expenditures, the members opposite are saying 'Spend more.' They bring petitions to this House.

They criticize this government when we went from 7, 6 and 5, to help control our expenditures on the wage side, to 5, 4, and 3, to 0 and 0, and I do not think anybody in this Province wants to go back there. If anything is done to curb expenditures, that crowd over there, Mr. Speaker, ·criticizes us for holding back. If we spend more - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: then they are criticizing us because we have a deficit. Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both ways. We are responsible for how the money is spent and how the money is collected. And we will stand proud, Mr.

Speaker, in saying that we are trying to do as good a job as any government in this nation in spending the money fairly and equitably around the Province. MR. BARRY: He is a $9 billion man. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: No. 3 R125

Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and it has to do with the practice of double dipping. DR. COLLINS: What? MR. FENWICK: The practice of double dipping. Just to give a bit of background, the practice of double dipping occurs when a K.H.A. or another government official resigns or retires and goes on pension, then is hired back to a board or other appointment and additional salary pension that he receives an on top of a continues to receive.

There are more and more ministers of the Crown over there retiring every ~ay, and we now know that Tom Hickey is now double dipping and so is Bill Marshall. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Finance is, given the dismay state·of our finances, does he approve of this practice of double dipping? Is he willing to look at the pension legislation, both for ourselves and in other areas of the government, to see if we can pass amendments to the legislation to prevent this kind of double dipping from occurring again? DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Ll26 March 3, 1987 Vol XL The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: I thought for a minute there, when you mentioned double dipping, we were dealing with sheep or something. I do not _ know what the han. member is specifically referring to. I do not know. If he is referring to what I suspect he is referring to, it is perfectly proper and there is nothing unusual, strange, weird or wonderful about it. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek, a supplementary. MR. FENWICK: Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister of Finance feels that double dipping is acceptable, then why do members of the . public service . who retire and then are brought back to work in the public servici, after they have accrued a full pension, have to have their pension deferred until such time as they retire? In other words, if double dipping is all right for han. Tory members when they retire, why is it not also a worthwhile and reasonable for all the other people? The other question that I would like to ask is why did the minister reduce the public service pensions that were received - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: Why were the public pensions o~ public servants, who retired early and elected to receive an early No. 3 R126

Canada Pension Plan payment, also reduced by this provincial government, which does not believe in violating people's rights? DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.· Speaker, all these matters that the bon. member is bringing up are quite according to whatever legislation is in place, and whatever regulations and arrangements that have been in place for many, many years. There is nothing strange or wonderful about this. He was referring to the integration of public services pensions with the CCP. I mean, that is common. It has been going on for year to year.

Nothing has been changed in that regard. The bon. member has got some kind of hobbiehorse he is rising on there. I -do not know what this double dipp _ing is. It is some cute little phrase, I suppose. It is his phrase, not my phrase. · MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. FENWICK: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Fogo. MR. FENWICK: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. It is in regards to the labour relations mood in this Province.

Yesterday ·· I asked the L127 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Premier a question in the Legislature which he refused to answer. Let me now ask him if he can answer this question in the Legislature, as it is the proper place for him to answer it. Does the Premier agree with, or, more importantly, is it the policy of government to allow double-breasting in this Province's construction industry? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr _. Speaker, let me just say, in relation to yesterday, when I did not answer the question, that I wanted to be , absolutely clear on any answer I gave.

I have here the document that the construction trades used as their agenda, when they came to the meeting last year, that they later r:eferred to, whereby I was supposed to have promised them tpat the refinery in Come By Chance would be done with all union personnel. Here is the document from the construction trades which has nothing whatsoever to say about the Come By Chance refinery. It was not raised at the meeting at all. I checked with the other witnesses who were at that meeting and all confirm that the meeting had to do with the agenda as put forward by the construction trades.

I have it here as Exhibit A, Kr. Speaker, to demonstrate that what I said was truthful and honest. On the question of double-breasting, there are a number of reports with a number of recommendations that are before the government right now. As I have indicated already in the last number of days, we will be .making our position known on these various briefs and reports, No. 3 R127

including this brief that was put to us by the construction trades which had nothing to do with the Come By Chance refinery at all. We will be making a statement on our response to the various recommendations from those reports, which includes the issue of double-breasting. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, member for Fogo. MR. TULK: the han. the Mr. Speaker, what the Premier prints and what the Premier says are not always one and the same thing. As a matter of fact what he says one day is not always the same as what he says the next day. The Throne Speech, Mr.

Speaker, says, "My governm~nt" - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the han. member pose his supplementary? MR. TULK: Sure. Is that statement that is in the Throne Speech by the government of this Province, the statement that says the Premier feels "that the current balance of protection of private rights and union rights in the labour legislation of our Province provides a fair and equitable treatment for all •• mean, Mr.

Speaker - I ask the Premier through you - that there will be no legislative or regulatory change to cure the social upheaval that is being caused by the labour relations atmosphere in this Province? Or does this mean that the Premier was play-acting and Ll28 March 3, 1987 Vol XL being dramatic, posturing, when he stated , that Bill 59, which restricts the right of unions to strike, was bad legislation, and when he promised co-operation to .the founding convention of the newly-formed provincial Council of Labour? Which does it mean?

Does it mean that there will be no legislation or was the Premier again playacting those few months ago? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the bon. member in reply to a previous question about the issues that are now before us relating to recommendations of the various reports, we will be making our posi ~ion known on them very, very shortly. As the bon. member's question relates to the newly-formed Council ·of Labour, they have met with the government on a number of occasions since that meeting.

I have met with the head of the organization and the Cabinet committee has met with them on a number of occasions to review various issues that they want to bring before the government. The Federation of Labour every year presents a brief to the Cabinet. Those issues which are now before us relating to the issues that come out of those reports, the Harris Report and others, are being dealt with by . government, and very, very shortly we will be making our position known on them. Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, we do not intend, as we indicated in the Throne Speech, to move in a direction whereby we order every single employer in the -Province by law whom they are to hire. We do not believe that particular point of view is one that can be upheld No. 3 Rl28

by the Constitution of Canada. We think we would be violaEing the individual rights of citizens. What we are trying to say in the Throne Speech is that we have to balance off these rights. The unions have rights, and I would defend to the death their right to organize. They must always have that right, but then that right ~o organize must also be balanced with the right of individuals. We are not a society of just structures and organizations, or collectives; we are are a society which has a composition of groups as well as individuals, and individuals also have rights in a democratic society.

That is what we are trying to say, Mr. Speaker, that there must be a balance between the rights of individuals versus the rights of groups. There must also be the right of a union to organize. There is no question about it. That is a hallmark of democracy, a hallmark of North American society, -and I would defend it and argue for it to the nth degree. But we must also remem~er the rights of individuals, the rights of employers and the rights of everybody else. It is that kind of balance that we are trying to strike, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in this document the Premier again, of course, says one thing, then he stands in this legislature this evening and says Ll29 March 3, 1987 Vol XL something else. Let me a ask the P~emier a very simple question. He has created the worst labour mess in this Provine that any Premier has ever seen.

Now, I ask him, as the Premier of this Province, when he is going to stand in his place and tell us that he is going to provide the leadership that is necessary to get this Province back to work, and to get it back to work in a fair and equitable manner? Stand up and answer the question and provide some leadership! MR. FLIGHT: Specifically as· it applies to Come By Chance. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, as the Throne Speech outlines we are going to expand the Rural Development Authority.

He has asked for some specifics, so we are going to expand the Rural Development Authority' so that people· can borrow from the· Rural Devel~pment Authority for the service sector as well as the resource se~tor. MR. TULK: When are you going to answer? PREMIER PECKFORD: I am answering the question: How are we going to get this Province moving? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: We are going to expand the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation so that people all around the Province can apply for loans in the service sector as well as in the resource No. 3 R129

sector. Mr. Speaker, we are going to, through tourism, parks, fisheries and agriculature this year, provide hundreds and hundreds of jobs, 6000 all told, to various Newfoundlanders and Labradorians ar:-ound the Province. We are going to institute a programme with the private sector whereby any new job created by a company over last year will have 50 per cent of the wages paid for by the Government of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. That is how we are going to get this Province moving. We are also going to have a new youth entrepreneur programme that we are going to be bringing in .this year, Mr. Speaker.

We are also going to have a new business equity programme that we are going to bring in this year, Mr. Speaker, and expand the Venture Capital Programme. These are the measures we are going to use to get this Province going, Mr. Speaker. · SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is just time for a short question and answer. The bon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier how does the presence of out-of-Province workers at the Come By Chance refinery jibe with the Premier's long-touted local preference policy?

How is it that with so much unemployment in this Province that we have out-of-Province persons working that that refinery? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. Ll30 March 3, 1987 Vol XL PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, on every Liberal project that was ever created in this Province there were ten times as many outside people coming in to work than there are now in Come By Chance, -where we have 192 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and 5 from outside who are refinery specialists that they cannot find in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud that the member for Bellevue brought that up.

One hundred and ninety-two versus five, _ and we are still paying off $49 million for Liberal mismanagement · at Come By Chance, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the member for Bellevue should hang his head in shame when he talks about it when we look at what happened in the Liberal days. Not only did they bring in more from outside, Mr. Speaker, but they put the Province doWn in the hole. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: There are rules with respect to misleading this House.

When the member for Bellevue gets up and asks about outside workers and the Premier gets up and says, 'They are specialists,' we would like to know who established they are specialists. Your Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) has not yet established they are specialists. PREMIER PECKFORD: No. 3 R130

To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. The hon. the Premier, to that point of order. PREMIER PECKFORD: Here is my learned friend on the other side of the House who does not know the rules of the House yet. That is not a point of order, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Why does he not ask that question during Question Period, Mr. Speaker? MR. BARRY: They are not specialists. PREMIER PECKFORD: They are specialists. We have 192 Newf~undlanders working there. It hurts, Leo, I know. It hurts! It hurts! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, there is no point of order.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. Notices of Motion MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask hon. members on both sides to please have some silence. L131 March 3, 1987 Vol XL The hon. the Minister of Development. MR. BARRETT: Mr. ~peaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Development And Tourism Act." MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Occupational Therapists." MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills: "An Act To Amend The St. John's Fire Department Act, 1972," and "An Act To Amend The Prisons Act ·and Uniformed Services Pensions Act." Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR.

BLANCHARD: I have some information in answer to a question that was asked yesterday with respect to safety inspections and monitoring practices at the refinery project in Come By Chance. I would like to table that, Mr. Speaker. No. 3 R131

There was a second question that wak asked by the member for Bel~evue (Mr. Callan) and I thought I had the information with me, Mr. Speaker. I do have it and I will have it sent up to the House and produce it before the close of business today. Orders of the Day MR. OTTENHEIMER: Motion 1. MR.. SPEAKER: This debate was· adjourned by the bon. the member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter). I think he spoke for about two minutes so he has almost an hour. .The bon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take

part in this very important debate over a very important resolution. I think I should make it clear at the very outset of my few remarks exactly where the members of this side of the House stand in terms of the Canada/France fishery agreement. We, Mr. Speaker, are absolutely opposed to that agreement. Make no mistake about it. Let the word go out today to members opposite and to all of my fellow Newfoundlanders that members of the Liberal Party are absolutely opposed to that Canada/France agreement. We do not accept the principle, Mr.

Speaker. that there should be one pound of fish, indeed, not even a tom cod, given to France or Ll32 Karch 3, 1987 Vol XL indeed to any other foreign country in the Northern waters within our Continental Shelf. Mr. Speaker, not only are we against the allocation of quotas from the areas 2J+3KL - ·and that is area now referred to in the resolution not only are we against the allocation of quotas from that area but we are against the allocation of cod quotas from any area of the Northern waters, and that includes the areas 2G+2GH. It is regrettable, Mr.

Speaker, that the government members opposite agreed with their federal counterparts to the allocation of a quota in the 2GH area because that fish is as much Northern cod as is the fish that swim within the 2J+3KL area. What members opposite are saying by virtue of their agreeing to that allocation is that fishermen who · fish the inshore stocks in Northern Labrador are less important than fishermen in other parts a( Labrador who fish the stocks that migrate to their particular areas from the 2J+3KL area.

We believe that the fish stocks in the 2GH area are equally important to this Province and to our fisheries and therefore we oppose any allocation of any stocks, as I said a mo':ll.en t. ago, including the 2GH area. I am at a loss to understand, Mr. Speaker. how the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rid .eout) and the government opposite can differentiate ·between the two issues. We on this side of the House certainly do not. We support to a point, Mr. Speaker, this resolution I suppose.

Indeed, we requested back as early as January 27 that the government call the House together and present this resolution and maybe even hand No. 3 Rl32

deliver it to the powers that be in Ottawa. Indeed, in our letter to the Premier, signed by our leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) and dated February 13, the leader without doubt, Mr. Speaker, agreed to the calling together of the House for the presentation of a resolution dealing with the Canada/France agreement. In that letter we offered to support any such resolution. We had certain reservations, Mr. Speaker, about the contents of the resolution, the draft of which was forwarded _ to our leader by the Premier.

For example, the third "WHEREAS" states that "the Government of Canada deliberately excluded the Province of Newfoundland from participation in, or knowledge of the Paris meeting contrary to the established practice." Today we have some ·reservation about that particular "WHEREAS". I will be moving an amendment, Mr. Speaker, to the resolution in the course of my remarks asking that the words "or knowledge of" be deleted from that "WHEREAS". I move now, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the member for Mount Scio (Mr.

Barry), that the words "or knowledge of" be deleted from the third paragraph of the resolution presented by the government. That "WHEREAS'' should then read: "AND

WHEREAS the Government of Canada deliberately excluded the Province of Newfoundland from participation in the Paris meeting contrary to the established practice .. " That is an amendment, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move to the resolution. I have a hand writ ten copy here, Ll33 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, which I will be happy to give the Speaker. I am sure he will get a copy. MR. OTTENHEIMER: I want to· ask the bon. gentleman, is the amendment -am I correct - to delete a phrase? MR. W. CARTER: To delete three words in the third paragraph, and the words are, "or knowledge of". MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. MR. W.

CARTER: I make that amendment, Mr. Speaker, because we are far from convinced. I am not suggesting that the bon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) is lying. I have too much respect for the bon. minister to eyen suggest that he would deliberately misled or lie to the House. But what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, the fact that maybe he was not briefed on that proposed meeting by his officials and by other highly placed officials in the present government, is no excuse. We have a telegram, we have a communication from the Minister of Transport, · Mr.

Crosbie, who cleaTly · states that a number of senior officials within the Provinc~al civil service were notified· well in advance ·of that Paris meeting. In fact, in Mr. Crosbie • s telegram to the Premier he lists some of the people who were contacted by officials of the Department of -Fisheries and Oceans and by others to the effect that the Paris meeting was to take place. Indeed, himself No. 3 the Minister of Fisheries yesterday in his speech R133

left no doubt at all in the minds of the House that he was informed of the proposed meeting I think as early as January 20, when in fact the -meeting was planned for January 24. So he was given notice. I believe that is what he said. If not, he can correct me, Mr. Speaker, but I seem to recall that the minister did in fact state that he was informed of the impending meeting on January 20, and that on January 24, the meeting was in fact held. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that being the . case, and I am quoting the minister - I am assuming that is correct ·- that being the case, if the minister had four days notice of that meeting and having been warned that Northern cod would, in all probability, be a bargaining item on the bargaining table, then surely the minister should not have waited · four days before raising a -public outcry. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on a ·point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): A point of order, the bon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR.

RIDEOUT: I do not want to interrupt the bon. gentleman but this is too important an issue from my perspective as an individual to be misquoted .' What I said in the House yesterday, and if the bon. gentleman has the Hansard in front of him, Hansard will bear me out, was that I was called on the 20th and asked what our position would be if Northern cod were placed on the table in the next round of negotiations. I went on to say there was no hint, question or otherwise about any proposed meetings to take place in Paris.

Ll,34 March 3, 1987 Vol XL The only question was what would Newfoundland's position be if Northern cod went on the table? Not that 'there is a meeting planned' or 'what do you think about putting it on the table at a meeting on a certain date,' I made that all clear yesterday. I do not want to be misquoted because it is to important from my perspective and neither do I want to interrupt the bon. gentleman in making his remarks, but that is clearly what I said, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Twillingate . MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, I do not have Hansard either but if I have misquoted the hon. minister, then I apologize. It was clearly my understanding when the minister spoke that he did state that he was in fact telephoned by an official · of, I think -he said Fisheries and Oceans or maybe External Affairs, and made aware that Northern cod might very well be a bargaining chip at the forthcoming Paris meeting. That was my under-standing of what the bon. minister said. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not change the matter.

If the minister was warned well in advance, four or five days in advance, that a meeting was to be held and that maybe Northern cod would be one of the bargaining tools used by the negotiators, then' surely the minister, realizing the importance of that issue and the seriousness of that suggestion, should . have raised a public outcry against it. I suggest to you that maybe if that w~re the case, if a public outcry had been raised, I am sure that the powers that be ·in Ottawa, especially the negotiators and the ministers whose departments were No. 3 R134

in the process of conducting negotiations, would have taken notice and maybe this deba~e would not have been necessary. In Mr. Crosbie's communication or telegram to the Premier he clearly states, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and of Canada, that Barbara Knight, for example, the Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Development or Intergovernmental Affairs, was informed of the impending meeting on January 20.

In fact, a telephone call went forward to Miss Knight on that date "to inform her that Canada was considering a potential offer of a limited amount of 2J+3KL cod to France in exchange for a guaranteed written commitment to submit the boundary dispute to arbitration. She was informed that a meeting for the federal officials was tentatively scheduled in Paris on January 23. In addition," I am again quoting from the minister's telegram to the Premier, it says, "your Minister of Fisheries" -and these are Mr. Crosbie's words -"was telephoned on January -21 by the Chief of Staff of Mr.

Siddon and given the same information. Mr. Bowers also called your Chief of Staff, Wayne Clark, Ray Andrews," who was the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, Mr. "Fred Way", a highly placed official of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and again "Barbara Knight to pass on the same message." Mr. Crosbie, in his -telegram, Mr. Speaker, reminded the Premier that "there were at least six telephone calls before January 24 to indicate what was being considered." Now, I am not standing in my place today to defend the action of Mr.

Ll35 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Crosbie or those of the federal government, far be it for me to do that. I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) and the Premier and other ministers opposite can harqly claim that they were unaware that the issue was to be discussed and that Northern cod would be a key bargaining element in the process that was about to take place. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we on this side find it difficult to accept that third

WHEREAS in the resolution, and that is why we have, today, moved an amendment suggesting that the three words, in particular, be deleted from that resolution. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the statement made by my colleague opposite, the Minister of Fisheries, yesterday in his description of the ac.tions of the .federal governm~nt.

There is no doubt about it, the Government ·of Canada had no right whatever to use Northern cod as a bargaining tool in their negotiations ~ith the French. · When you realize and read some of the press repo~ts that have come out of Ottawa and out of the offices of ministers opposite as to why that action took place, then that makes it all the more despicable.

To think that the Leader of the government of this country would use Newfoundland's most important resource, the lifeblood of this Province, Northern cod, just to ingratiate himself with the French government and to make himself look good in time for the proposed Francophone Summit Conference to take place sometime in September, I think, then that makes the actions of the government that much more difficult to accept. There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, No. 3 R135

that the government of this country must accept, one very simple and very straightforward fact of life, that Northern cod is to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador what the wheat fields are to the Prairies and they dare not do anything that would have the effect of interferring in anyway with the rehabilitation of those fish stocks, or interferring with the rights of Newfoundlanders to them. That is the lifeblood of our Province, that, Sir, is the foundation upon which the future social and economic well-being of this Province must be bui+t. ·It is our past, it is our present, and it is our future.

Codfish is just that, and officials in Ottawa, bureaucrats and politicians, must come to learn that very early in the game and that we are not going to put up with it, and we are not going to stand by and allow anybody to tamper with it. I have a few words I want to say this afternoon concerning the actions of our federal minister in the Mulroney Cabinet. Mr. Crosbie, in the course of the big debate that occurred in the House of Commons, the special debate that occurred, stood in his place and tried to. act as if he knew nothing about what was happening. In fact, he tried to wash his hands of the whole deal.

In fact, he finis.hed off his speech that night by demanding that the Government of Canada apologize · to the Government of Newfoundland, and to the people of Newfoundland f9r their actions, for refusing to have representatives from the Newfoundland Government take

part in those negotiations. Mr. Crosbie got up and demanded that the Government of Canada apologize to Newfoundland. Did he not realize, I wonder, that Mr. Ll36 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Crosbie is that Government of Canada, he is a very important part of that government, and that the Government of Canada is made up of Mr. Crosbie and the other .­ what? - forty-odd Cabinet ministers?

So for him to get up and try to disclaim any responsibility for what happened and to act as if he were an innocent bystander without any special responsibility at all to the Province, I think was the height of hypocrisy and certainly something that Newfoundlanders should not forget. Mr. Crosbie, as I said, is the Government of Canada. He and the other ministers are the government, and it is not enough for him to just get up and wave his arms and demand that certain things be done, because that is not good enough. Mr.

Spea~er, the whole business of the Canada - France fishery deal, I think, pretty well speaks for itself. I think it pretty well sums up the sorry state of federal - provincial relations. When .the government of our· country, our national government can, in the first instance, for example, go to Paris to negotiate a trade-off of one of our most important resources without even a reference to Newfoundland's minister in the federal Cabinet, that, in itself, is unforgiveable.

To think that those negotiations would take place ·without Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet being invited does not say very much for the esteem in which the bon. member is held in Ottawa or just how seriously he is being taken. I think it is equally serious and unforgiveable that the Government of Newfoundland was not invited. They were told about the meeting, No. 3 R136

yes, but_ I will accept their that they were not invited to part at the meeting. That Mr. Speaker, in my view, inexcusable. word take too, is There are a lot of Newfoundlanders, certainly people in my district, who are having some serious doubts as to why the Premier is making the charges he is making against Ottawa and raising the type of furor he is raising over this issue.

They are not questioning the need altogether to object to what happened, but I am afraid ·a lot of Newfoundlanders, and I think members on this side are no different, will have to agree that it appears that the Premier is doing probably the right thing but for a very wrong reason. We all know ·that the fortunes of the party opposite are at an all time low in this Province. We know that the fortun~s of their soul mates in Ottawa are at an all time low, probably the lowest in the history of this country in terms of a party in power as opposed to the other two parties.

There is a strong suspicion in the Province that the present government, the present Premier, is using the issue as a means of bo~stering their own stock in the hope that maybe they will get back into the good graces of the Ne~foundland electorate. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, and we have strong-suspicion that it is, then I repeat that the Premier is doing the right thing but, obviously, for the wrong reason. Another very important thing that came to light in this whole scenario, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that the Premier of the Province, at the height of the so-called Canada-France fish war, did not L137 March 3, 1987 Vol XL have any dialogue whatever with the federal minister in Ottawa. It has come to light in the course of correspondence and statements coming out of Ottawa and. out of Confederation Building, the eighth floor, that there was absolutely no communication whatever between the head of this government and Newfoundland's minister in the Federal Cabinet. That, too, Mr. Speaker, is a sad state of affairs, I think, and one that most Newfoundlanders would take a very dim view of.

A few moments-ago I made reference to the allocation of cod from the area of 2GH to France, the fact that the government opposite agreed to that giveaway. Now the Minister of Fisheries went public shortly after this matter became a live issue and admitted that he was party to_ a meeting wherein it was agreed that the Government of France would get 1,000 metric tons of cod from the 2GH area -1, 000 was in the minister's initial announcement.

That subsequently has been changed, I think, where the minister now agrees -I believe he did in his speech yesterday -that he and his colleagues agreed to a 2, 000 metric ton allocation. Now Mr. Bowers, who is, I believe, the Executive Assistant to the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has stated publicly and privately, certainly privately to members of the Opposition in a briefing session, that the minister did in fact agree to the entire 3,000 metric ton giveaway. MR. RIDEOUT: The second time he is wrong. MR. W. CARTER: The minister says, 'the second time he is wrong.' Well, I recall No. 3 Rl37

the story, Mr. Speaker, of a mother's only son who joined the CLB which, as we all know, is a church organization here in St. John's. She went out to watch the young son at his first parade and apparently as the ·members of the CLB were passing, the young fellow was the only chap out of step, he was out of step with the other members of the brigade but the mother, of course, she wanted to believe that the whole brigade was out of step with her son. Well, that is like the Minister of Fisheries now. It appears that Mr.

Bowers, again a highly respected member of the federal bureaucracy, executive assistant to a very influential and powerful minister in Ottawa, a former executive assistant I believe to the hon. the Premier, it appears now that he is not telling the truth and that .the Minister of Fisheries is the only person who ·is . Mr. Bowers made no bones about it, Mr. Speaker.

In his briefing of members of the Opposition, and he had no axe to grind, there is no reason why he should try to mislead the members of the Opposition in the course of his briefing session, he made no bones about it that the hon .. minister opposite and the union, something else that was rather surprising; it is rather surprising that the Fishermen's Union would sit quietly by at a meeting, as did the minister, and allow 3,000 let us say the minister is correct in what he is saying and that he only agreed . to a 2, 000 ton allocation, the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that by making even a 2,000 ton allocation available to the French it was establishing a very serious, disastrous precedent and, in fact, that could very well have been the L138 March 3, 1987 Vol XL thin edge of the wedge. And because the minister and the federal government and the union agreed to that 2, 000 or 3, 000 ton allocation in the Northern part of our waters, the 2GH area, then that might have been the lever that they subsequently used to extract from the Government of Canada a further agreement an allocation, under certain conditions, from the 2J+3KL area would be made available to them.

It is a sad situation, Mr. Speaker, that the government of this country, in terms, again, of the 2GH allocation, with the concurrence of the Government of Newfoundland would dare entertain .any kind of a proposal from a foreign power, and that an allocation be given that power from that area, from the 2J+3KL area or the 2GH area.

It is all the more despicable, I suppose, if that is · the right word, Mr, Speaker; when you realize that it was only a month prior to that Paris meeting, maybe less than a month, that the federal authorities unveiled their 1987 management plan for Northern cod and that Newfoundlanders, Canadians, were told that their quota would be reduced in that area by 10,000 metric tons.

We were told, the Newfoundland Government, the Newfoundland people and other Atlantic Canadians, that the fish stocks were in such a sad state of array that time would be needed in order to rehabilitate those stocks and that a reduction of 10,000 metric tons in the offshore quota would be necessary. We accepted that. In fact a lot of us said, and I think I am on record, too, as saying that maybe that allocation should have been greater, that instead of 10,000 metric tons it might well be that there should No. 3 Rl38

have been probably a 20,000 metric ton reduction. I hold to that now. I still believe, in terms of the offshore quota, that there should have been an even greater reduction in the allocation. Be that as it may, as I said, the ink was hardly dry on the offshore management plan before our heroes in Ottawa saw fit to disregard the need for reduction of quotas to allow the stocks to rehabilitate and again gave the Government of France certain rights. I am not suggesting that they were given any specific quotas, we all know the terms of that agreement.

Certainly the door was left open, the door was left ajar whereby the French government could, in fact, be the recipients of a fairly substantial quota of Northern cod, plus the 2,000 or 3,000 metric ton quota they .received from the ·2GH area. Kr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the fishing industry in Labrador is vitally important to the future social and · economic well-being of people living in that part of our Province.

I do not think we can afford the luxury of tampering with that resource or doing anything that is going to jeopardize the ~ights of our fellow Newfoundlanders who depend on that resource for their livelihood. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to get this resolution to Ottawa. The fact that it is being done now, I" think, again speaks for itself. When we received that letter from the Premier back on February .13, there appeared to be a great deal of urgency attached to it. In fact, the Premier, in his letter to my leader, suggested that the House would reopen within a few days to debate the issue.

As I said, we asked that the House be L139 Karch 3, 1987 Vol XL opened back on January 27, but to no avail. We wrote the Premier again on February 13 agreeing to a special Session and the adoption of the resolution, only to have it brought to the House on March 2, more than a month after we initially requested that the House be called to debate the resolution. Mr. Speaker, while the Minister opposite, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Rideout), can get in his place and he can in very loud and clear terms condemn the Government of Canada for their actions, and we join him in his condemnation of that government in that respect, I do not think we can allow him to just wash his hands of the whole affair and disclaim any responsibility for what happened. As I said a moment ago, the minister was clearly made aware of that proposed meeting four or five days in advance and it was then that he should have raised a public outcry. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up any more time in this .debate. I welcome the opportunity to say these few words.

I can only say again that this party, members on this side, stand absolutely opposed to any giveaway to the French, or, indeed, to any other foreign country, of our Northern cod stocks. Again, getting back to the 3000 ton giveaway in 2GH, it has been rather interesting to hear the excuse of members opposite for their actions, the excuse being~ of course, that these · are surplus stocks. Mr. Speaker, how can you say that we have a surplus of codfish within our waters, within our jurisdiction? How can you say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a surplus when we have fish plants operating on the Northeast Coast No. 3 R139

of our Province, in Labrador and on the East Coast at about 30 per cent or 35 per cent of their actual operating capacity? · How can you say that we have surplus stocks in our Northern waters, whether it is 2J+3KL or 2GH? MR. TOBIN: We do not have the technology. MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, the bon. member opposite says, 'We do not have the technology.' I would suggest to the hon. member that we do have the technology, that the only reason we are not harvesting that resource to its total allowable harvest, or catch, is that we have never been told to do so by the powers that be in Ottawa, nor have we been encouraged by the government opposite. MR. TULK: They could catch it off your district and mine. ·MR. W. CARTER: Yes. The reason for · that is obvious, the old greed factor comes into play, a factor that is not unknown to the fish merchants in this Province. They find it, Mr.

Speaker, a lot cheaper, they can save a lot of money by fishing on the Funk Island Banks and by raping the resource on the Northern Grand Banks. MR.· TOBIN: Not true. MR. W. CARTER: The bon. member says it is not true. Well, let me remind the hon. membe _r, Mr. Speaker, that in the years 1985 and 1986 , 99 per cent of the total offshore effort was caught on the Funk Island Banks and on the Northern Grand Banks, the two Banks that supply L140 March 3, 1987 Vol XL the inshore fishery on the East Coast and on the Northeast Coast of our Province.

Ninety-nine per cent of the total harvest by the offshore was conducted on the Funk Island Banks and on the Northern Grand Banks, one per cent was taken on the Belle Isle Bank and on the Hamilton Bank. Now, of course, again the reason for that is quite obvious. The reason, of course - I repeat being that it is much cheaper. It is much easier to prosecute the cod fishery, for example, on the Funk Island Bank where you do not have to contend with ice infested waters, and where you have short distances to steam to and from the fishing banks.

Consequent!, it is much cheaper to fish in that area than to press on into Northern waters to fish in the 2GH areas. That, Mr. Speaker, is the only reason. · It is not that we do not have the technology. If the French have it we have it. If not, we can ·get it._ What nonsense! Why would the French want an allocation of 3000 tons off the Northern Coast of Labrador if they could not harvest that 3000 tons? I do not think the French, Mr. Speaker, . are just going through the motions of trying to get an allocation without any prospect of harvesting it.

The fact of the matter is, we are not harvesting that resource not because we cannot but because we . do not want to, and, of course, the reason why we do not want to is because · it is a little more costly than fishing, as I said a moment ago, on the Funk Island Banks and Northern Grand Banks. It is as simple as that. If the big fishing companies were told that they had to find their way into Northern waters, North of the 2J+3KL area to fish, then, I suggest to you, they would find No. 3 R140

it. Mr. Speaker, we have the boats, we have ice-reinforced trawlers in this Province. MR. GILBERT: If we do not, we should. MR. W. CARTER: We do. FPI have a number of ice-reinforced vessels, and National Sea have a number of ice-reinforced vessels that could quite easily penetrate the ice-infested waters off Northern Labrador. We do have the capability, the technology, but we do not have the will to do it, and we do not have the will because it is more expensive fish to catch than what it would be, as I said, in the Southern waters. That is what makes it all the more important, Mr.

Speaker, that we not look upon that resource as being surplus. Surplus, yes, but only because we have not even tried to harvest it. I would have preferred, for example, to have seen a bigger concentration of effort in the 2GH area than we are seeing, for example, on the Funk Island Banks and the Northern Grand Banks. I would prefer that there be a greater effort put into harvesting. that resource as opposed to the Southern Banks. Mr. Speaker, the government opposite and the Minister of Fisheries especially, seem to be hung up on the designation of Northern cod.

Now, they talk about Northern cod as that cod that . is in the areas of 2J+3KL. There was a booklet put out by the government some time ago called Strength From The Sea. It is a publication of the present administration, and in this booklet, Mr. Speaker, they talk a lot about the Northern cod stocks and its migration patterns. In it they have a map, in colour, and it L141 March 3, 1987 Vol XL shows Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, and the entire coast line of Labrador.

It is not written on the map, but I suppose Nain would be the most Northerly point on this map, as it is probably the most Northern point in the 2GH area. I think I am correct in saying that. In this booklet they talk about the Northern cod stock migration, and in it they have shown the entire coast line of Labrador. They have also included little arrows to show the way the fish migrate. They show the Northern cod stock migration. That stock that is available to the Northern Labrador fishermen comes from the 2GH area, and there it is here.

Now, the question, of course, that must be asked is why do the fishermen in places like Punch Bowl, or some of the · fishing communities North, say, of the Hamil ton Inlet, deserve less attention or less consideration than do the fishermen in the Southern part of Labrador? That is the question, · I think, Mr.. Speaker, that members opposite must answer. Why are they saying that fishermen where the inshore fishery migrates from the 2J+3KL area are deserving of that much more consideration than fishermen in the areas where the stocks migrate from the 2GH area?

It appears that the government opposite, for whatever reason, appear to have written off that stock and are content to allow foreigners to rape it, to take it ,· giving them allocations without consideration of the effect it can have on the small inshore fishermen in Northern Labrador. Not only· are these stocks important, Mr. Speaker, to Northern Labrador fishermen, they are equally important to fishermen No. 3 R141

from the Twillingate district and, I presume, from Fogo district, and Bonavista North. Fishermen from my district last year, in Summerford especially, and Twillingate, went to Northern Labrador and prosecuted the cod fishery. When they could not get a decent catch or decent harvest inshore, in the Notre Dame Bay area, they packed it in and headed for Northern Labrador where, I might add, they did very well.

That is why it is so important that that particular cod stock be protected and preserved for the use of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and not be used as a bargaining tool by the Government of Canada in order to ingratiate itself with the Government of France, especially in view of the forthcoming Francophone Summit Conference. Mr. Speaker, again I want to stress that we, on this side, are against the giving away of any codfish anywhere within the Northern areas, 2J+3KL or the 2GH. Again, I say that we will be asking that the resolution be amended to delete the words that I have indicated this afternoon. MR.

SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: With respect to a question asked earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition in Question Period concerning vocational instructors' pay, whatever problem existed, as the Premier indicated during Question Period, was apparently an administrative problem. The operative point is that the problem no longer exists and, in Ll42 March 3, 1987 Vol XL fact, the instructors will be paid on tomorrow, as usual, which is the normal payday. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the bon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that .Premier indicated. is not what the As a matter of fact, the Premier indicated he did not know what the problem was. I still doubt that it was an administrative problem rather than a financial problem of this Province. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, there is no point of order. Before I recognize the bon. the Mini~ter of Education, I would like to welcome to the gallery Mayor Hank Shouse, Councillors Dennis Conway and Herb Brett, and Town Manager Al Durno from the Town Council of Happy Valley Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this resolution, seeing that it is extremely important to the social and economic well-being of the Province. We have, this past year or so, perhaps this past two or three years, been concentrating fairly heavily on offshore development, but when we talked No . 3 R142

about offshore development, basically we have been talking about offshore oil development. We have been accused, perhaps, of putting all our eggs in one basket. Now, anybody who really knows what is going on realizes that is not exactly true. There· are a couple of other major renewable resources that will have and have had and are having a tremendous effect on the future of this Province. One is the fishery and the other is our hydro resources. Sometime ago, at the hands of a previous administration, we saw what poor management would do or could do - AN HON. MEMBER: Not true. MR.

SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please! MR. HEARN: with a resource. We saw a renewable resource given away without any protection for this Province and today we are suffering drastically. One of the reasons why the Province is in a poor economic state is because of a giveaway in the past. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what $600 million or $800 million a year could to the economy of this Province.

So consequently when a second resource, another renewable resource, the fishery, was seemingly headed in the same direction of a giveaway, then it was time for us to stand as we would if we had been in the seats of the gentlemen opposite some years ago. However, what happened was that during the past few years Canada have had negotiations with France · Ll43 March 3, 1987 Vol XL to try to settle the dispute off the South Coast, specifically overfishing in an area known as 3Ps.

I suppose Newfoundlanders never had a better or a clearer indication of the various fishing zones because when we talked about 2J+3KL or 2G, 2H, or 3Ps it meant nothing to most people. Now, most people you talk to sincerely define the various fishing zones and can tell you who fishes there and how much is caught, etc. However, the 3Ps area where the French have been greatly overfishing because they claim jurisdiction over a large territorial . area around the Province off St. Pierre et Miquelon has caused a severe problem to the various fishermen and fish plants on the South Coast of this Province.

In order to settle this dispute a conunittee began negotiating, a conunittee comprised of several members from the federal scene and members from the Department of Fisheries and Intergovernmental Affairs here. During all the meetings that were held to negotiate and to discuss the problem, our people . we"re notified. They took

part in all discussions. When we talk about a lack of conununications, as had been mentioned, there was no lack of conununications up to then because, as each meeting took place, our own members were directly involved, reported back to the respective departments of the governiRent here, and everyone was fully aware of what was happening. But suddenly, out of the blue, our government, our Department of Fisheries is notified indirectly by somebody from the private sector that there is a meeting taking place which should be No. 3 Rl43

attended by our representatives on that respective committee. Then we find out from our federal member that no, there is no such meeting because he was advised by the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that there was no meeting taking place. So everybody thought it was a false alarm. Then it was discovered that, yes, some people were over in France, but once again the message was delivered 'do not worry, they do not have the power to sign anything binding. ' That was said publicly on radio by our representative in the federal Cabinet. MR. FLIGHT: That is your buddy-buddy. MR.

HEARN: friend, your He did not · know either. I mean, he was only saying what he was told, as you would ·do. . Quite often you would probably say a lot of stuff you were not told, but anyway. Then we find out that there was an agreement signed, an agreement which could lead to a giveaway which could be comparable to the giveaway of our hydro power in Labrador. It was · an agreement which not only could be a giveaway, it is an agreement which has given away a vital resource. As my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Rideout) pointed out , yesterday, already the French have been given access to 3,000 tons in 2G and 2H. Along with that, a more serious implication is the fact that in that very agreement on the table they have laid the promise that, in effect, if they sit down to negotiate an agreement, there will be cod from 2J+3KL on the table. L144 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Whether or not an agreement is reached, if it goes to binding arbitration, just by that cod being on the table we have set a base from which they will negotiate.

It is there, it will be pointed out that you already agreed in the agreement of such a date to give cod from 2J+3KL and consequentiy, we presume then that we will build on that base. In any arbitration usually you build from a common base. So right away we have lost, unless that agreement is rejected, torn up and just put away in the files to be forever forgotten. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question? MR. HEARN: Sure. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo; MR. TULK: I would just like to ask him if I heard him correctly.

I want to ·ask who it was and when did he say they informed the provincial government that there was a meeting in Paris but they did not have the power to sign anything that was binding? Who said that and when? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education . MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, he did not hear me correctly. I did not .say anything about the provincial government saying that we were informed. I said that the federal minister said that they were informed that there was a meeting in Paris, but that the people who were over there did not have the authority to sign anything binding. I did No. 3 R144

not say who informed the . federal minister. I do not know who informed the federal minister, but I do know that the federal minister was informed not to worry about it because they are not empowered to sign anything binding. Apparently it was on the weekend of the meeting in France or while the meeting was supposed to be going ahead in France. MR. BARRY: So why are Crosbie then? MR. HEARN: you lashing Who is lashing into Crosbie? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. HEARN: into This is the point.

If you go back, go back to what has been said by everybody, look very carefully at the criticisms and any of those that were directed directly at the federal minister and question yourselves as to whether 'the federal minister was singled out, and ask if he was criticized in that manner for not advising us of the agreement, of the team not being over there, etc. Just look up the facts and you will find out that . no criticism was levelled . at Mr. Crosbie in that regard: However, Mr. Sp~aker,- MR. TULK: ' He does not want to be confused by the facts. MR. FUREY: And Tom Siddon is not a liar. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Ll45 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Order, please! MR. BARRY: I wonder if the Minister would consider a short-question? MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with my remarks. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Question Period is tomorrow. will have half an hour to questions, Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: They ask A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: . I wonder if the Minister would indicat.e whether his provincial riding falls within the St. John's West federal riding of Mr. Crosbie?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: To that point_ of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: It is very unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition, who gets sixty minutes to speak in this debate, would do such a thing as he just did now and take away the time of the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn) who only has thirty minutes. The hon. minister would like to continue his speech No. 3 Rl45

and he should give him courtesy. MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order - MR. BARRY: the Mr. The minister and former Speaker makes a valid - MR. SPEAKER: To that point of heard enough on order and there order. order, I have that point of is no point of The bon. the Minister of Education. MR. BUTT: Sit him down. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to - MR. BUTT: Sit down! MR. TOBIN: Name him; Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I did not intend to interrupt the minister.

He is making a very fine speech but we cannot take ourselves too seriously from time to time and I think it is a little humourous that the minister would try to backtrack when' perhaps he recognizes that his constituents have a lot of respect for Mr. Crosbie who happens to be the federal member for some of the same people that he represents. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Ll46 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows very well where my district is. The hon. member also knows that I worked very hard during Mr. Crosbie•s campaign.

The hon. member knows that I, with my organization, won every poll in that federal riding for Mr. Crosbie even despite the fact that the former Minister of Fisheries was running against him, a former member of the area. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, during this past year around the Province of Newfoundland many areas suffered greatly due to a lack of resource. It was mentioned earlier by the membet" f.or Tw~llingate (Mr. W. Carter), the affects· on his area for instance, the affects o.n Fogo, the affects · on the whole East and Southeast coast of Newfoundland, in most places.

You had 1i t tle · bits and pieces here and there that were not affected perhaps because .of a small bunch of fish that managed to get to shore or whatever. Generally speaking the fishery was a disaster on the East and Southeast Coast of Newfoundland. It has been pointed out by people in the know - not by the biologists or the so-called experts - but by the fishermen of the Province that perhaps - in fact in their mind it is not perhaps, it is a definite yes - the poor fishery was caused by overfishing in places · such as the Funk Island Banks and the Northern Grand Banks.

Statistics will show that their theory seems very, very reasonable. I do not think there is doubt in anybodies mind that that could easily be a fact behind No. 3 Rl46 .

why the fishery was so bad this year. Last Fall I had the opportunity with a few of my colleagues one evening to meet with Mr. Siddon, the federal Minister of Fisheries, and we discussed the disasterous fishery in the Province. We pointed those facts out to him.

A little later on the federal government cutback on the offshore fishing effort by 10,000 met~ic tons in the respective areas, but above and beyond the cutback which reduced the offshore fishing effort, they suggested, in fact they said they would monitor, the fishing effort of the offshore companies to make sure that it was not concentrated on the Northern Grand Banks and the Funk Island Banks but it would be spread out over the major fishing areas, including the Bell Island and Hamil ton Banks.

Consequently, this would offer a fair amount of reprieve to the inshore fishery and in a few years we would see if the stocks returned to shore. Personally I have no doubt that this is the case. I agree wholeheartedly with what the fishermen are saying because we have always said, Who knows more about the fishery than the fishermen around the coast of this Province? The area, however, not necessarily affected by the overfishing in 2J+3KL, was St.· Mary's Bay. Our stock somewhat, perhaps, comes from that area, but we are also affected by the 3Ps stock. T.hat is a concern to our district.

Even though during this past couple of year.s we have had a very successful fishery with all plants going, a fair amount of the resource is brought in from outside. But, if the continued L147 March 3, 1987 Vol XL overfishing effort takes place and keeps taking place in 3Ps, then certainly areas such as st. Mary's Bay, the Burin Peninsula, all the Southeast -Southwest Coast, will be affected by that. An effort has to be made to reach an agreement. France, undoubtedly, is going to hesitate to sit down to negotiate.

They are going to hesitate to go to arbitration because in a previous case, the Channel Island case, they, themselves, won the case which undoubtedly would set a precedent for the area of St. Pierre et Miquelon. In the case against Britain where Britain was trying to claim fishing jurisdiction arot1-nd the Channel Islands, France, of course, took them to court and France won. I think the court basically said that small islands could not expect to claim large areas of jurisdi~tion around the .island themselves. Undoubtedly such a precedent would also apply to St. Pierre et Miquelon.

I do not think anybody doubts that. So the longer France goes without going to arbitration, then the longer it can continue to claim, on its own merits, jurisdiction over large areas of the fishing grounds off the shore of St. Pierre et Miquelon. However, in order to facilitate an agreement, one of the things that the Province did agree to, as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) has already said, was to put 2,000 metric tons of cod from an area where there is little or no fishing effort, as he demonstrated yesterday, by the Newfoundland fishing companies; cod which has been classified as surplus cod.

I do not think any of us will agree that there is any such thing as surplus cod because No. 3 . R147

cod does move. However, it is an an area that could perhaps, in light of the fact that the French have certain fishing rights anyway, handle the effort if, by giving that 2,000 metric tons this was the only reason it was put . on the table - France would reduce its effort in 3Ps, the effort which last year saw them catch somewhere in the vicinity of 25,000 metric tons, if they would reduce their fishing effort in that area and if there would be no fish from 2J+3KL on the table. So what happened? We saw no reduction in the fishing effort. We saw no agreement to reduce the fishing effort in 3Ps.

We saw a promise, a commitment, to put cod from 2J+3KL on the table. So, consequently, because these two giveaways were listed in the agreement, it automatically meant that the Province did not agree to give the 2,000, and as it happene4, to become 3 , 000 tons of cod from 2GH to the French. So, consequently, we can say that we did not agree because we only agreed to give 2, 000 metric tons if, and only if, there was an agreement ~o reduce the effort and if there was no cod from 2J+3KL on the table.

So, consequently, the Province did not give away any fish at all or did not agree to give away any, under the circumstances. So, consequently, we have then an agreement which certainly compromises our position in relation to deveioping the fishery around the Island. It certainly compromises the future of the fishery for people who fish on the South Coast, in particular, and not only that, certainly all the Northeast and Southeast Coast if cod from 2J+3KL becomes part of the final bargaining. Ll48 March 3, 1987 Vol XL So, consequently, Kr.

Speaker, it is no wonder that the Province was upset, it is no wonder that the Province took ·a strong stand on this matter· because this is our future. It is a motherhood issue and, I presume, that the resolution is going to pass unanimously.

The question, I suppose, is why are we saying in such strong language "that this House of Assembly record its unanimous condemnation of this infamous agreement made in callous disregard of the livelihood of Canadians dependent on this fish resource and the deliberate denial of the legitimate participation of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: and "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we urge the Government of Canada to take . all necessary measures to have the boundary issue resolved without compromising the vital interests of the Province of Newfoundland." That . is what it is doing.

What happened shortly after the Province took such a strong stand in relation to the fishery, when every person in the Province, with few exceptions, some of them being the members opposite who procrast"inated on the issue, but with very few exceptions, when individuals right across the Province stood together .on this issue? What happened when the federal budget carne down and the announcement was made that there would be a exemption of taxation for farmers in the West, an exemption of 3 per cent? No mention was made of fishermen. Right away when the question was raised, where are the fishermen, No. 3 Rl48

we were told automatically, bang, the exemption is there. Now, I ask, Mr. Speaker, if we had not stood up so strongly on the previous issue against the federal government, just shortly before, would we or would we not have gotten the exemption for the fishermen so quickly? It is a question that perhaps bears some consideration. However, Mr. Speaker, my time is just about up. MR. FUREY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for st. Barbe. MR. FUREY: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

The member says that. it was his lobbying and their vociferous complaints to Ottawa which allowed fishermen to be included in that rebate, as I understand it, that is what he said. MR. TULK: That is what he said. MR. FUREY: Now, it is interesting to note that fishermen will only get three cents per litre rebate while farmers will get 7.5 cents a litre rebate. So will the minister undertake to insure ·that he will be even more vociferous to pick up the extra 4. 5 cents a litre for Newfoundlanders? MR. HEARN: That is not a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, and certainly that step has already been taken by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) and others because when it comes to dealings for the L149 March 3, 1987 Vol XL fishermen of Newfoundland or any other person in this Province, this government has never, never hesitated to stand up for what is right . and what is proper. Consequently, when the vote is called a . little later, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the others, will only be to glad to stand up to support the resolution so ably presented yesterday by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries. Thank you. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have stood by, listened and watched patiently for the last six. months and I am sick and tired of hearing the French issue over and over by· the government members who are supposed to be· responsible and looking after the affairs of this Province, opening their mouths and absolutely nothing coming out but false statements with no basis, no substance or anything else.

Here I am asked to support a resolution that if you value up the total of the ink and the the total of the paper it is writ ten on, it values abou.t ten pennies and that is about the value of this if I support it and it. goes of to Ottawa. Here, Mr. Speak~r. we have a situation with the federal government, the same stripe as what we see across from us, the· same blue, demoralizing stripes up in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, who are supposed to be looking after all No. 3 R149

Canadians. One of the greatest disappointments that came out of Ottawa since the federal election is the fact that there is one goal in mind, one set goal and that is to demoralize and to take away all the rights of the Newfoundland fishermen. They cannot come out in one statement or one bill or one legislative law and say, "we · are going to do away with the inshore fishery, we are going to do away with the rights of Newfoundlanders," but they can take it away in small pins.

Stick the pin in, and eventually, after a period of time, they will demoralize them and discourage them enough · so that the people will just fall away from the fishery. The newer generation and the younger generation will not get into it. That is the long-term attitude of the federal government and that is the way they intend to do with with what we have going in this Province. MR. FUREY: The death of a thousand cuts. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the situation with this French issue is not what is being told by members opposite.

Here is an example of where they are · covering up and blindly leading Newfoundland people. Political and hypocritical statements are being made by the Premier every day, every time he comes on the news media. Back in November, December · and January, when all of this was going on, we did not even have a Minister of Fisheries, he . was not heard. After the damage was done, he then comes out of the woodwork and starts making statements, statements to no avail, statements to no effect. The point is, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Minister of Fisheries, Mr.

Premier and every L150 March 3, 1987 Vol XL member opposite, and every person in this Province, whether we send an all-party resolution to Ottawa, or whether we send it to France, or wherever we send it, it will have no effect on the decisions that are going to be made. The rights of the Newfoundland fishermen are going to be taken away and there is nothing that the government of this Province is going to be able to do about it. There are a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, why this is continuing.

One of the main problems is the fact that our government, our provincial government, is not responsible and is not able to manage the affairs of this Province, neither financially, nor health-wise, nor education-wise, nor in any other aspect of their ministerial departments to do the job that· would ensure protection for Newfoundlanders. Since 19 79, this has been more evident . than ever it could be in any political system. We have seen our financial situation go from $855,000 to over $4 billion in debt. What have we seen for it? Absolutely nothing.

We have seen the financial strain on the common people growing even larger and larger. We have seen no concrete platform for the creation of jobs. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. We get false promises, yet billions of dollars are spent year after year. MR. J. CARTER: Talk about concrete platforms. MR. EFFORD: Concret platforms for your savoury farm, that is about all we will get. Mr. Speaker, the situation here is more serious than just the overf ishing by the French or the No. 3 R150

fact that they got an allocation of 3,000 tons of Northern cod. The situation here is the way in which our Newfoundland fishermen are being treated. If members opposite were half as serious about fighting for individual rights and protection of our inshore fishermen in Newfoundland, we would be a lot better off.· SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

EFFORD: The situation now is that most of the fishermen who have $1 million boats, with bank payments totalling $50,000, $60,000 or $75,000 a year, and who had a licence in -1985-1986, they have received letters in the mail saying, 'Your licence is no longer valid because you did not fish on your boat last year. Because you had another skipper on your boat, your licence is no longer valid.

The only way you are going to be able to operate now is on a day to day or a week to week permit.' I have not heard ·once, in all of the arguments put forward over the last four or five months, the Premier or any member of that government, or the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout), make reference to the way in which our Newfoundland inshore fishermen are being treated. Why was there never an all-party resolution sent to Ottawa to have the rights of our fishermen ·placed in the proper hands?

Decision should be made by people who know the industry best, not by bUJ;eaucrats in Ottawa who never saw an ocean, who never say a codfish, or fish of any species, except on a plate in a restaurant? We have never heard one member opposite say anything, or do anything, to get the decision-making back here. When L151 March 3, 1987 Vol XL decisions and regulations are made affecting our inshore fishery, let us have input from the local fishermen in this Province. Let us have private input. No, we cannot get that because it is not the Tory attitude.

The Tory attitude is not toward people, the Tory attitude is toward business, the large corporations, the multimillion dollar corporations, all dollar signs. I have heard so much talk about our Mr. White Knight it makes. me sick to my stomach every time I read the paper. The great Mr. White Knight was given $300 million to develop the fishery. By God, I will tell this House and I will tell any House, if someone gave me $300 million, I would perfect any business. MR. SIMMONS: You· are talking about cousin Vic, are you? MR. EFFORD: Yes, our great Mr. White Knight. What has he done for the inshore fishery?

As was stated earlier, he is destroying the inshore fishery. We do have not got the technology to catch the Northern cod. The French has the technology. We were given $300 million and a brain equal to none in Canada, Mr. White Knight, and we cannot develop the technology to catch the Northern cod. A great statement by the Minister of Fisheries and by the members opposite. Mr. Speaker,· the situation with our fishery is growing even worse. Now we have reached the point where we cannot expect any co-operation from our federal counterparts in the way of economics, in the fishery, or in any way at all for 1987.

No. 3 R151

.... The provincial attitude is even worse, even more pitiful. Because, as far as I am concerned and as far as the public is concerned, the general perception is that they have no understanding, no knowledge, no idea of exactly what is taking place. We have seen Germans, Russians, the French, and all foreign countries, continuously overfishing ever since the agreement was made for them to fish on the Grand Banks. One issue comes up because the financial situation is so bad in this Province, the labour relations are so bad in this Province - MR. FUREY: Unemployment . MR.

EFFORD: Yes - and the unemployment · situation is so bad in this Province that the Premier sees no way out, and the only way to cover up is with the Canada - France deal; a shell ·game, a blindfold, to take people • s. minds away from things that matter most right now. The statements that have been made have no concrete basis whatsoever. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout), the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Dr . Collins), and every member of the government, knows full well that what we are doing here is just a complete waste of time. No way are they going to change their minds.

If this administration was serious about doing anything about changing the negotiations, the House of Assembly would have been . open the first time that this issue was brought to the table, when the Minister of Fisheries, when members of the union and when Ll52 March 3, 1987 Vol XL members of this House of Assembly were sitting at the table and knew that they were beginning those negotiations. That is when the House of Assembly should have been opened - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. K. AYLWARD: That would have been in the Fall. The House should have been opened in the Fall. MR.

EFFORD: - not after everything was given away and everything was gone beyond repair . It is too late now to go crawling on our hands and knees and begging for change. We know that the people in Ottawa have no respect for members of the provincial government, and that is exactly what we are being told. Then we see the Premier come out and make a statement, "We are going -to call the House into a two day session." Real serious! Everybody in the Province .thougllt the Premier was serious. PREMIER PECKFORD: I was. MR. EFFORD: Oh, yes, quite serious.

Because a letter was not worded right, that was significant enough to keep the House of Assembly closed. Everybody in this Province knows full well that opposition parties cannot open or close the House. The Premier could have called the House together regardless of how that letter was worded." Go out and talk to the people around the Province and notice the attitude of the fishermen and the people on the street toward the foolish statements made by the Premier of this Province. Le .t him go out to No. 3 Rl52

the community of Port de Grave, where you have one of the greater fishing villages in this Province, and see the amount of money they have tied up. They know that we have a Premier who is leading them down ·a path of no return. You were elected to be responsible for the people, and during your term in office you are supposed to do that. If you are not competent to do that, you should bow out. And you should realize that what you are doing is just hideous, stupid mistakes, yet you are trying to portray the attitude that you care. No such thing comes from the Tory attitude.

All Tories care about are the high p~ofits on a corporation's financial statement at the end of a year. If Newfoundland for example, million, then discouraged. Light cannot they and Power, make $20 are all Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries's performance in this whole issue -I suppose one could say he is· serious when you take into consideration the fact that he knows no better, he does not know how to be any different. A serious attitude is not enough in this. Publicity is not enough. You can play the political game and you can try to get your name up in the polls, but that is not enough. MR.

FLIGHT: When are caribou? we going Buck Rogers. MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) spray them. MR. EFFORD: to get the Mr. Speaker, when Buck Rogers and the other gentleman are finished shooting caribou, I will continue with my speech. Ll53 March 3, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, the attitude of members opposite, lying back reading the paper or making jokes about the situation, is the reason why the Province is in the sad state it is in today. MR. WINDSOR: Not true. MR. PATTERSON: I am looking at a picture of a fellow kissing a pig. MR. WINDSOR: What does a pig look like? MR. EFFORD: If the member for Mount Pearl (Mr.

Windsor) would 'look at his face in the mirror each morning he would know what a pig looks like. I would not, Mr. Speaker, poke fun at children down in the Janeway Hospital for whom that money was raised and donated, for little children.. You should be ashamed, the member for Placentia (Mr. . Patterson) and the member for Mount Pearl, to make any comment about it at all. . If .I had .. to kiss a dozen pigs I would do it for the children at the Janeway, because I consider helping the children at the Janeway much more important than kissing a pig. MR. PATTERSON: That pig died of hoof and mouth disease.

So, tomorrow morning, when you look in the mirror, just think about what you just asked the member for Placentia, 'What does a pig looks like. • Mr. Speaker, I will think seriously before I even stand to. support a resolution that is going nowhere. I will think very seriously. I will listen to the debate, but _it is going to take a No. 3 R153

lot of convincing, Mr. Speaker. We know it is a piece of paper and we know it has to go to Ottawa, but it will have no impact on changing minds. With the attitude of members opposite and the Premier of this Province, the words he has been using, the posturing and the political talk that has been pouring out of his mouth with no substance whatsoever, it is going to take a lot of convincing before I stand on my feet to support this resolution. Mr.

Speaker, I have here in front of me letters from the · Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as far as licensing is concerned, telling fishermen in this Province that they are not allowed to go out and catch fish on the Grand Banks, yet other countries are out there raping our stocks. Again, I refer to the Minister of Fisheries being made aware of this time after time, of the unions being made aware of it, and of ·the federal people being made aware of it.

But it is not serious enough, not once is it serious enough, for the Minister of Fisheries to bring it up in this House of Assembly and call for an all-party resolution to protect the fishermen of this Province. "WHEREAS the Government of Canada deliberately excluded the Province of Newfoundland from participation in, or knowledge of the P.aris meeting contrary to the established practice." Mr. · Speaker, · it has been made quite clear by all members of the federal government that the provincial people did have knowledge thereof. It is true, from the very first time anybody sat down to the table in negotiations.

It was true that negotiations were taking place, Ll54 March 3, 1987 Vol XL and whatever affected was taking place everybody in Newfoundland. Here again I go back to ·the point that that is when the House of Assembly should have opened. It has been closed so long now that it is hard to remember when it was open last. But that is when something as serious as this should have been brought to the attention of the House of Assembly. You do not let the water flow out of the barrel and then try to put a cover on it, you stop it before it flows out, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. EFFORD: Mr.

Speaker, many times the question is going to be asked over the next several months, as our 1987 fishing season gets · underway, about the rights of Newfoundlanders. When are the rights of Newfoundlanders going to be protected? When is the f