VOL. 2 NO. 52 PREL IMI NARY UNEDITED TRPNSCRI PT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1983

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2807 SD - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. - Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, p1ease ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to welcome members back after the Summer recess. I hope to see a number of proposals and plans and recommendations go on the table of the House in connection with the terrible state of the Newfoundland economy. Mr. Speaker, I will start out by asking the hon. Premier a question.

Because of the policy of his administration of keeping everything secret and sitting on information / I am wondering if he would tell the House,and indeed tell the people of this Province if there are any more unexpected disasters or gloomy news concerning our major industries that we can expect in the days and weeks ahead? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECEFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome the members of the Opposition here for this sitting as well. As most hon. members know it is only since this administration took office that we have had a Fall sitting.

This is not something that has been going on for years and years and decades and decades. There was a time when the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) was in government when they tried to get out of the House of Assembly as quick as they could in the Spring and did not have a Fall session. The Fall session has only become a part of the whole legislative process since this administration took office, Mr. Speaker. So that makes my response to the 5943

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2807 SD 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) all the more positive and favourable. I am very, very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition here and the other members of the Opposition. Contrary to the time when they did form the Government of Newfoundland, this administration is committed to having the House open more and more often than they would like to have it open if they had been in government. That is number one, Mr. Speaker.

On the other point of the foolish, silly little question that he asked , obviously if we all knew the answer to that question we would be in Heaven. We would have it made if we knew whether something was going to be a success three years from now or three months from now or four years from now or two years from now or not. That kind of a foolish, and silly question I do not think is becoming of the Leader of the Opposition.

If the Leader of the Opposition has a specific question on a matter of public importance to the Province, well then I think the Leader of the Opposition should ask it, but not to request the Premier of the Province to look into a crystal ball and try to guess the economic situation. Others far more qualified than I have tried to do that over the last few years, Mr. Speaker, and almost without exception they have been off in their forecasts.

So I do not think it behooves me at all to try, to make some kind of definitive statement as it relates to whether in fact this industry or that industry is going to be in this or that shape three or four months from now. And obviously the Leader of the Opposition knows that only too well,or if he did not he knows now. MR. NEARY: Mr, Speaker. 5 9 4

November 7, 1983 Tape 2808 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker,it is one thing to have a Fall session, then there is another thing to make it productive and not just come in here and waste away the time of the House. And with the answer that we just got from the hon. gentleman,it would seem that I got to him in the first twenty seconds the House was meetino, since we reconvened today. MR. CALLAN: We used to have Fall sessions. MR.

NEARY: I might say for the benefit of the hon. gentleman that we did have Fall sessions. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the hon. gentleman was this; because his administration and he himself sits on information ahout rretings they hold with Companies that are involved in our major industries, I ask the hon. gentleman is he now sitting on any information involving any more shut-downs concerning our major industries in this Province. Could the hon. gentleman tell us that?

I am not asking him to look into a crystal ball, I am merely asking him to level with the people of this Province and tell this House, and indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,if he is sitting on any other information. Bowater employees would not think the question was silly, or the people who work for IOC,or the people in the fishing industry would not think it is silly. So I am asking the hon. gentleman to come up front and tell us if he is sitting on any information that the people of this Province should have. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I will look into the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that there used to be Fall sittings on a regular basis years ago and we will see in the next twenty-four hours just how many Fall sessions there used to be, because from my information there have been very few,if any, and no regular ones. But the Leader 5945

November 7, 1983 Tape 2808 NM 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) said Fall sessions of the House and I do not think there used to be any. So that is the story. Now the other thing is the Leader of the Opposition says, you know, he wants a productive session and his opinion is that this is not going to be a productive session.

Now, you know, I have just got to say to the Leader of the Opposition I have a list of legislation here, and I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition realizes it or not, he is in the House long enough to realize, that one of our obligations on behalf of the people who have elected us is to pass various laws, to introduce legislation which will govern the way we operate here in the Province. As I understand it, the Select Committee on Elections and Election Financing and so on is going to report within the next couple of weeks.

That is a pretty big piece of legislation, a new election act, and along with that the public financing and accountability of political parties in this Province, which we have not had yet. To me that is a piece of reform legislation and I think for that reason alone the House of Assembly should be open. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear PREMIER PECEFORD: So, you know, that seems to be very important. I think the Minister of Health (Mr. House) today is going to introduce 5946

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2809 ah - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: the new Dental Act for Province. Now that is important. All the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) might want to talk about is resource development so on. This administration over here, Mr. Speaker, want to talk about those things, but we also want to talk about health and social services and things that affect pop1e, you know, social issues of the da". So I think th Dental Act is very important for a lot of people in this Province.

We have legislation coming up on education, legislation coming up on housing and a lot on the Student Financial Assistance Act. For example, the Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology Act, that seems to me to be important. Education and teacher training, Environmental Assessment Act. The Pensions' Benefits Act is going to be one of the big new pieces of legislation this session. That is important.

There are a lot of people in this Province who work with organizations or industry outside of government and have very little protection and I think they are looking to the government and to this legislature to provide it. So there is a whole range of legislation that is going to be introduced here, Mr.Speaker, which I think is extremely important. Talking about information, as I understand it, it was this legislature here, led by this administration, which instituted a Freedom of Information Act long before the federal government did.

So we took the lead ahead of the federal Liberal government in introducing this kind of legislation. So I can just say to the Leader of the Opposition I am not near as pessimistic about what this session is going to accomplish as the Leader of the Opposition. He would love for it to fail, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition this session will not fail, 597

November 7,1983 Tape No. 2809 ah-2 PREMIER PECIZFORD: notwithstanding his negative attitude towards the legislature1 which he is supposed to be a member of and is supposed to laud and see it as a way through which ,when he gets his salary, he can defend it in the eyes of the rest of the people in Newfoundlanth SOME HON.MEMBERS: I-lear, hear MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.NEARY: A supplementary, Mr.Speaker.

That was the most weak and feeble attempt that I have heard from the hon. gentleman.And here we are only a few minutes back in session when the hon. gentleman tells us that they have no plans to deal with the economy, we are just barely going to have things like dental legislation. That will put a lot of bread on the tables of the people who are struggling in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Most of it will be legislation of a housekeeping nature. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.SPEAKER: Order, please MR.NEARY: Oh, he is back. MR.MARSHALL: P. point of order. MR.SPEAKER: The President of the Council on a point of order.

MR. MrRSHALL: The hon. gentleman is picking up, Mr. Speaker, where he left off two decades ago. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR.MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is obviously out of order. He is making a speech. This is the Question Period. It has been five or six months since we sat and surely he has some questions to ask. MR. SINMS: A good point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I rule that it is not a point of order but merely a difference of 5948

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2809 ah - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): opinion between two hon. members. MR. NEARY: The hon- gentleman, of course, late arriving as usual, comes to the rescue of the Premier, who is digging the hole deeper for himself. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary. Will the Premier tell the House and indeed the people of this Province if his administration have any new initiatives - and I underline the word 'new' - do not attack the Government of Canada or do not try to blame anybody else - does the hon. gentleman's administration have any new initiatives to help the people of this Province 5949

November 7, 1983 Tape 2810 EC 1 MR. NEARY: who are unemployed and people who are economically marooned as a result of the terrible state of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy resulting from lack of planning and lack of action on the part of his administration? PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Neary) question out of touch and out of tune with what is going on in the economy. There were some people in St. John's just recently talking about planning and management. "The investment experts praise Newfoundland Government management" was the headline in the paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: That sounds to me like rretty good stuff! They went on to indicate that the people of the Province should be aware that Newfoundland ismanaging its affairs, in their opinion - that is completely outside, objective, neutral opinion by a national group - that the Government of Newfoundland is doing a pretty good job in managing its affairs. So I would direct the Leader of the Opposition's attention to some objective analyses done by people outside of govermuent. Now, believe it or not, Mr.

Speaker, whilst our unemployment rate is too high - it is very much too high and we all know about that, significantly higher than what we find in other provinces, and we have been trying to change it - it has,from October, 1982 to October, 1983, gone down. You know, Mr. Speaker, in the midst of a lot of our economic problems it has actually gone down. So whilst, obviously, we have to get through the Winter and next Spring, we are trending in the right direction. 5950

November 7, 1983 Tape 2810 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Just over the weekend, the Conference Board of Canada, another fairly reputable group of people, came out with some prognoses, some predictions about the economy, saying that it would grow this year, would be in the positive, and we had indicated that it would be even. Our economic growth rate for 1984 is supposed to increase by some- where over 4 per cent, according to the Conference Board of Canada, and that is better than New Brunswick, which is only supposed to grow by 3.4 per cent in 1984.

The rate of growth for Nova Scotia, where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) wants to see all the activity go from offshore, this Province of Nova Scotia where - MR. NEARY: That is not true. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh PREMIER PECKFORD: - all the Liberals in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, want to move to. Of course,, most of them are now in Nova Scotia because it is pretty hard to find any around Newfoundland anymore, Mr. Speaker. MR. WARREN: Call the by-election, boy. Go way PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, I would like to show you the poll. You are on your way out.

So the rates of growth for Nova Scotia and P.E.I. - now this is the Conference Board of Canada. I am trying to answer the Leader of the Opposition's question about economic growth and economic activity, Mr. Speaker - it is supposed to drop off somewhat in 1984, Nova Scotia's economic growth. This is the Conference Board of Canada, Mr. Speaker, these are not my figures. Unemployment is supposed to drop in 1984 in Newfoundland further than where it is right now and, of course, any drop at all is well worth it. 5951

November 7, 1983 Tape 2810 EC 3 PREMIER PECKPORD: So, Mr. Speaker, when one looks outside of government's predictions, statistics, one sees that there are independent experts in Canada who are looking upon Newfoundland in a much more favourable light on what the Government of Newfoundland is doing than is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary). So I direct the Leader of the Opposition's attention to that. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, let me say that 5952

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2811 MJ - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: through the past year, right up until a couple of weeks ago,the Government of Newfoundland has been supporting the small fish processors all over the Province with somewhere around $32 million or $33 million in guaranteed loans to individual plant owners, which is creating thousands and thousands of jobs . We Fought hard and we negotiated hard and we bargained hard until we got a restructuring agreement which would see a lot of the fisherman - MR. NEARY: You could have had it five months earlier than you actually did.

PREMIER PECKFORD: I shall demonstrate to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) the significant differences between the two over the five months. So, Mr. Speaker, we were able to keep plants opened where everybody had thought for sure they were going to close down. We have more say now in the deep sea fishery than we did since 1949, We have done that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have turned around the situation in Baie Verte and have a lot of people employed there. We have turned around the situation in Flat Bay,where we had a small mine,and brought jobs there, Mr. Speaker.

We are now working on St. Lawrence in the mining sector to try to turn St. Lawrence around and, Mr. Speaker, you know, we do not wait too long. The shipyard in Marystown made money for the first time in this past year. That is not a bad situation. So, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at outside experts and what they think of us as opposed to the Opposition,and when one looks internally at the kind of initiatives that we are taking to try to help the forest industry, the mining industry, the fishing industry,our record is good, Mr. Speaker, and we do not have to listen to what the 5953

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2811 MJ 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) has to say about the performance of this government. The people of Newfoundland know and independent experts know, and both look favourably upon this administration. SOME HON. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the OppOsition, it is a pleasure indeed for me to welcome -to the Speaker's Gallery a former Sargeant-at-Arms of this Legislature, a gentleman who served it well, in the person of Mr. Hemmens. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, there is no harm to say that the devil quotes scripture to suit himself. We just heard a typical example from the hon. gentleman. I was passed a note, by the way; in 1966 the House sat in November and did not prorogue for two years. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to - quoting from newspapers, here is a good newspaper headline: 'Bowater Will Stay: Peckford Relays Pledge'. That was in 1983. Now, Mr.

Speaker, by the way, restructuring could have been signed five months earlier and it would have been essentially the same agreement. Maybe not 100 per cent identical but essentially the same agreement. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Says who? MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have the facts to back it up. Now, Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. gentleman a few moments ago if his administration had any new initiatives to deal with the horrible state of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. Now, let me get a little more specific. Would the hon. gentleman tell the House what he is 5954

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2811 MJ - 3 MR. NEARY: waiting for on the offshore? What is he waiting for? He was given a mandate April 6, 1982 to negotiate an agreement. Now what is the hon. gentleman waiting for? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. We are waiting for an answer from a letter we sent Mr. Chretien there several months ago which he has not answered to this moment. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, let me ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary. The hon. gentleman,as I understand it,will be meeting face to face tomorrow with Mr. Chretien at a press conference being held by Husky and Bow Valley. The two hon. gentleman have been invited to sit at the head table at the press conference. Will the hon. gentleman take advantage of this meeting to get negotiations going and carry out the mandate that he was given in April, 1982? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for Canada (Mr.

Chretien) will be here with a number of companies - it must disappoint the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) awfully because this is all supposed to happen in Nova Scotia again - and the Minister responsible for Energy in Newfoundland and Labrador (hr. Marshall) will be sitting down with a number of companies 5955

November 7, 1983 Tape 2812 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: announcing a new, positive initiative that is being undertaken by a number of these companies as it relates to the offshoreb Mr. Speaker, if the opportunity arises we would love to be able and no doubt the Minister responsible for Energy (Mr.Marshall) will do so1 to remind Mr. Chretien that it would be a nice idea if he answered his mail. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Could the hon. gentleman now tell the House , Mr.

Speaker, what he is waiting for in the case of the former employees of Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador West who are economically marooned? What is the hon. gentleman waiting for? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFOHD: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the consideration by Cabinet of the report of a task force which has been underway now for the last number of months which government will be considering over the next two weeks. And so at tha t time1 once that has been considered by Cabinet, then we will be informing this hon.

House and the people of Newfoundland what we intend to do as what this task force reports relative to the hardship that people in Labrador West are undergoing right now. So we are right on top of that, Mr. Speaker, no problem. The task force is just finalizing its report, it will be before Cabinet over the next few days or hopefully in a week or two, so then we will be able finalize decisions based upon the recommendations coming out of that report. That is what we are doing there, Mr. Speaker.

So we are not really waiting for anything except to sit down over the next few days and consider the report that the task 5956

November 7, 1983 Tape 2812 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: force has put together relative to the hardships now being undergone by a lot of people in the Labrador West area. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: I presume the hon. gentleman is aware, to be more specific with a supplementary question, that an awful lot of homeowners in Labrador West are having their personal credit ruined for life through no fault of their own, What is the hon. gentleman waiting for? Why can he not deal with this situation? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the complexity of the situation in Labrador West and just wants to brush it over with a broad brush. Number one, the problem in Labrador West,as I understand it- and this is why the task force was established in the first place- is to deal with the dislocation, disruption and hardship being suffered socially by the people of Labrador West and how we could arrest it, especially as it related to housing.

This was in the terms of reference of the task force, which was given very specific terms of reference and also a very specific time frame so no time was lost. So what we are faced with,Mr. Speaker,is to look for some independent,objective assessment of that hardship and then to make certain recommendations along the lines of trying to reduce that hardship. Now1 as I understand it,there are quite a few mobile homeowners in Labrador West, a few hundred, then you have quite a few people who have mortgages on single family homes, and then you have the 5957

November 7, 1983 Tape 2812 PK - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: added complication where some of those mortgages are insured by CMRC and some are insured by a private insurance company, So you have at least three different types of housing problem in Labrador West,and it gets a little bit complicated when you are dealing with private insurance companies, also with private banks and this is the whole reason why the task force was set up in the beginning. So we will be addressing those problems, Mr.

Speaker, in a real and naningful way when we have an opportunity over the next few days now, or a week or so to fully analyze the report by the task force that just finalized it last week. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: It seems a long time now, so could the hon. gentleman tell us what he is waiting for in the case of the Golden Eagle Refinery at Holyrood? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, no pxoblem. Negotiations are ongoing between the Minister of Development (Mr.

Windsor) and Ultramar and Metro Fuels Limited on the whole question of the refinery at Holyrood and if there is some way to reactivate it. You know, there are sensitive negotiations going on, they have been going on now for months and the Minister of Development has been right on top of them and Cabinet has been informed II 5958

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2813 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: of the ongoing discussions there, Cabinet was informed again this past Thursday, and actions are being taken by the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor) now and ongoing negotiations with those companies to see whether in fact we can reverse a bad situation at Holyrood. So we are on top of that too. Another one, Mr. Speaker, please? MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Again, of course, we did not get anything definite from the hon. gentleman. Obviously they have no plans, Mr. Speaker.

Could the hon. gentleman tell us what his government is waiting for regarding the inshore fishery where the Fishermen's Union tell us that the small boat owners are either bankrupt or facing bankruptcy? What is the hon. gentleman waiting for before he deals with this situation? Is he waiting for all the inshore fishermen to go backrupt and have the boats seized or taken back or hauled in on shore? What is the hon. gentleman waiting for? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. PREMIER PECEFORD: We are waiting to see, Mr. Speaker, the definition of the problem.

Fvery fisherman in Newfoundland is a different quintal of fish,if you want to use a good comparison. You have your small boat owners, like your lobster boat owners ,from somewhere around eighteen and a half feet long to somewhere in the twenty-three to twenty-five foot class; then you have another group who will be somewhere between twenty-five and thirty-f ive;and then you have your larger boat owners between forty-five to sixty- five. Then you have those who prosecute crab almost exclusively, you have others who just have a groundfish licence, you have others who have both a groundfish licence 5959

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2813 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: and a salmon licence and a lobster licence. So you have to define what the problem is. It is no good to try to say that all the boat owners in the inshore fishery are in trouble - some are, some are not. And as I understand it the Fishermen's Union now has taken upon itself to call a conference to fully define just what the problem is. And when the problem is fully known and within our ability to do anything,then we will,in consultation with the union and the federal government decide whether in fact some kind of a remedial programme is necessary or not.

That iswhere that is, Mr. Speaker, The union has highlighted it, we are aware of it and we are going to try ,together with the union and with the federal government,to see whether we can define exactly where the worst problems exist and where they do exist, then if we can all get together to see if we can help remedy it. That is the story on that, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, what an answerl Here they had the whole Summer to prepare plans and propo.sals to put on the table of the House to deal with these matters. Could the hon. gentleman tell us what he is waiting for regarding the funding of the Cow Head development project in the district of Burin - Placentia West? Why has the hone gentleman not put funding in place for that development? What is he waiting for? And what is he waiting for regarding the shipyard when everybody in this Province knows the deep sea fleet is obsolete and aging and a couple of trawlers should be built at the Marystown Shipyards on speck?

What is the hon. gentleman waiting for before he does something to boost the economy of this area? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premiere PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think we have already done something to boost the economy of that area by 5960

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2813 SD - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: forcing the federal government to agree with us that Grand Bank should be given an eighteen • month chance to stay into operation and.1after that time,to assess the situation with that plant rather than try and close it down immediately without it having a chance. So therefore we gave an eighteen month breathing spell for Grand Bank which is in that area. On Burin we want to change it to a secondary processing facility to ensure that there is still some economic activity ongoing in Burin which earlier on the federal government did not want to do.

That is two things. As far as the shipyard goes, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this past year has been the first year that that shipyard has shown a profit, that they have actually made money. Every other year since it has been in operation it lost money and this past year it has made money. So that is a pretty significant thing that we have done there, Mr. Speaker. Now as far as building new trawlers, the first thing that has to happen is that the new restructured company has to get established and a full assessment done of what they are going to need for the future in the way of new trawlers.

And,after that is done in the agreement there is a provision which says, 'Marystown has to be very favourably considered in any construction of new fishing trawlerst. So we tried to cover and protect Marystown in that. As it relates to the other development,on Cow Head,which is in the Spanish Room area, we want to get into more servicing of offshore exploration and development kind of rigs, design work is proceeding. The Minister of Development (Mr.

Windsor)- only a few weeks ago announced that we were moving ahead on our own to finalize design for the road down to the ocean, to Mortier Ray, and then a dock to be built, so that we will have at that point in time the really only facility in the 5951

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2813 SD 4 PREMIER PECKFORD: Eastern seaboard as I understand it where large 1huge rigs , both on the exploration side and the development side, can come right in to the bay, a very sheltered bay, and park just the same as you would park a car or a small boat. They will not have to take their labour force and bring them out into the middle of the harbour or the middle of the bay with the extra expense that that has cost. So that is right on

schedule and design work will be finalized before the end of December and then in the Spring we will see what happens to Cow Head. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. 5962

November 7, 1983 Tape 2814 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think what the Economic Council of Canada said about the recovery in I think it was Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland is true, that the recovery will be very slow. And we can see why, because the administration have no plans to deal with these matters that we are raising here today. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. gentleman another specific question and see if we can get an answer. If he cannot answer it, perhaps he might refer it to the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins).

Since we have reached the point of diminishing returns in the collection of retail sales tax in this Province, has the administration given any thought to lowering the sales tax, either for an indefinite period or for a specified period of time, thereby increasing consumer purchases and stimulating the Newfoundland and Labrador economy? Is the hon. gentleman listening to me? PREMIER PECKFORD: I am listening. MR. NEARY: Because obviously, Mr. Speaker, the increase in sales tax up to twelve per cent has been counter-productive and we have reached the stage of diminishing returns.

Would the hon. gentleman tell us if his administration has given any thought to reducing the sales tax to motivate consumer purchasing and stimulate the Newfoundland and Labrador economy? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, that question is based on a false premise and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) should have left it to his Finance critic to ask the Minister of Finance that question, because obviously he is not very well prepared today. We are not at diminishing 5963

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2814 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: returns on retail sales tax, we are predicting somewhere close to a 16 per cent increase this year, from $275.6 million last year to $320 million this year. So the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) should get his facts straight so that when he poses a question based upon some premise, the premise itself is valid. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, that is really a bright and intelligent answer. The hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, obviously has no plans.

The hon. gentleman was talking about profits at the shipyard. Well, I was down there on the weekend and all we heard about was lay-offs in the shipyard. MR. TOBIN: The hon. Premier is far more intelligent. Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. NEARY: Mr. Ignorance. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: Well, we had more at our youth convention in Gander than the hon. gentleman had at his. And by the way, the hon. gentleman should not misquote Robert Frost. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. gentleman about another project. MR. PECKFORD: I did not misquote. MR. CALLAN: You used the quote in the wrong place. MR.

NEARY: - He used his quote in the wrong place. And my hon. colleaguewho was an honour student in English - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would like to pose a question. MR. NEARY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. gentleman now what he is waiting for. He seems to be waiting for something, we do not know what it is. We get the same answers year after year after year, we will get the same answers next year. What is the hon. gentleman waiting for 5964

November 7, 1983 Tape 2814 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: in connection with the development of the Lower Churchill? MR. SIMMS: Have you got an hour? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gets up and asks a question on retail sales tax, his facts completely incorrect, an erroneous prediction, saying that we were at the point of diminishing returns. Well, I just demonstrated to the Leader of the Opposition,and he could not come back on it, that we were going to have an increase in retail sales tax, so he dropped that like a lead balloon.

He is exhausted already on the first day, the first Question Period, Mr. Speaker, T.'ie Lower Churchill. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if we develop the Lower Churchill tomorrow we would have to increase electrical bills by about 100 to 150 per centd So I can only take it from the Leader of the Oppostion's question that he wants the Government of Newfoudland to go ahead and develop the Lower Churchill so he can charge 100 per cent more on everybody's electrical bill in the Province than we are charging right now. What are we going to do with the Lower Churchill?

Has the Leader of the Opposition done his homework to show that the Lower Churchill - Gull Island and Muskrat-delivered to the Island right now will cost anywhere from 60 to 90 mils per kilowatt hour and the consumer in Newfoundland right now is paying somewhere beteen 23 and 28 mils per kilowatt hour. So he wants us to quadruple the electrical rates in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition wants to increase electrical fees to the consumers in this Province. Shame1. Shamet And I will not bow to the pressure to increase that 100 per cent. No, I will not, Mr. Speaker.

Never. Never. Never. 5965

November 7, 1983 Tape 2815 EC - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please The time for the Question Period has expired. MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let two statements the hon. gentleman made slide along: Number one, the hon. gentleman made a statement earlier that he attributed to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, which is completely false, untrue, that we wanted to see all the industries go to Nova Scotia.

The hon. gentleman said that and then he built on it himself, something like the CBC do, they use a word and then they build on it and they attribute it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman has had criticism of the CEC for doing the same thing with them, so I am just throwing it back at the hon. gentleman. And the other thing is with regard to development of the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody in this house could be silly and foolish enough to make a statement like the hon. gentleman just made, that the development of the Lower Churchill, the development of the rivers in Newfoundland that flow into the Province of Quebec, that the reopening of the Upper Churchill contract could trigger increase in the electricity rates in this Province. That is too silly to talk about, but if I leave it on the record, Mr. Speaker, somebody upstairs may report it. So the hon. gentleman is getting away with nothing in this session of the House. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, heart PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. 5966

November 7, 1983 Tape 2815 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier, to that point of order. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight around here. There are rules in this House, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) has to abide by them the same as everybody else. And everybody knows, who knows anything about the rules of this House, that what the Leader of the Opposition just did was abuse them. There is no point of order, and for the third time in eight minutes he has been shot down. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition certainly did not raise a valid point of order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! NOTICE OF MOTION DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, 1978 (No. 2) and also "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act, 1973". MR. OTTENI-IEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills: "An Act To Give Effect To The Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction", "An Act Respecting Reciprocal Enforcement Of Custody And Access Orders", "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Human Rights Code". MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. 5967

November 7, 1983 Tape 2815 EC - 3 MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Govern Collective Bargaining Between The Government Of The Province And Interns And Residents In The Province." SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills: "An Act To Authorize The Lieutenant-Governor In Council To Enter Into An Agreement With British Newfoundland Corporation Limited And N.

Rothschild And Sons Limited And BRINCO Mining Limited", and a bill entitled, "An Act To Repeal The Ferries Act." MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Crown Lands Act". MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills: "An Act Respecting The Granting Of Degrees And Respecting The Operation Of Universities And Other Degree Granting Institutions In The Province", "An Act Respecting The Conferring Of Titles And Degrees By Queens College", and 5968

November 7, 1983 Tape 2815 EC - 4 University Act". MR. SIMMS: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) Recreation and Youth. "An Act To Amend The Memorial Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Culture, MR. SIMMS: I give notice that I will on tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act" - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart MR. SINMS: - which will provide for the safekeeping of Liberals in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker. 5969

November 7,1983 Tape No. 2816 ah-1 MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Health. MR.HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:"An Act To Amend the Hospital's Act, 1971", and "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Nursing Assistants. MR.SPEAKER: Are there any more notices of motion? The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills: "An Act To Ratify , Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Entered Irto Between The Government Of The Province And The Government Of Canada Respecting The restructuring Of The Newfoundland Fishery." SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: ' I

An Act To Amend Certain Acts Respecting Government Departments To Provide The Power For Ministers To Enter Into Agreements Subject To Specified Terms And Conditions", and'2\n Act Respecting Certain Powers Of Appointment." And, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move that this hon. House adopt a resolution to authorize His Excellency The Governor General to issue a proclamation respecting amendments to the Constitution of Canada. Thi§ has to do with the subsequent agreement by all the provinces and the federal government for amendments to be placed in the Constitution dealing with aboriginal rights.

And it is necessary for all the parliaments of Canada, all the legislatures of the provinces l4R. ROBERTS: I thought it eras seven out of ten they need. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, in this case it is all. I know all about seven out of ten. The member for the Straits of Belle Isle (Mr.Roberts) did not need to turn 5970

November 7,1983 Tape No. 2816 ah-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: up to tell me that today. Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of that. So all the legislatures of all the provinces plus the Parliament of Canada will pass this resolution and then we will be able to make the appropriate amendment to the Constitution of Canada. MR.NEARY: I just want to ask the hon. gentleman if he is going to move that resolution now? We can pass it sow. Does the hon. gentleman want to do it now? PREMIER PECEFORD: I am sorry, the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not understand.

I think the Speaker called, Notices of Motion, so this is a notice and then tomorrow, if we call it,we will debate it. MR.NEARY: Okay, fair enough. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Are there any more Notices of Motion? PRESENTING PETITIONS MR.SPEAKER: The hon. member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 2,290 residents , people who live in the Trinity South area. And what I mean by Trinity South is it actually takes in part of the district of Trinity-Bay de Verde, represented by a PC gentleman whose signature, Mr. Speaker, appears on this petition.

I am glad to see that as well , of course, as my own signature. Mr. Speaker, the people whose names appear on this petition are from Heart's De1ight and they are from all up and down the Trinity South shore, Norman's Cove, Bellevue, Blaketown, Dildo, South Dildo, Whitbourne, Markland, Whiteway, Cavendish, Old Shop, all of the towns and villages, Mr. Speaker, located,as I said, in that area referred to 5971

November 7,1983 Tape No. 2816 ah-3 MR. CALLAN: commonly as Trinity South. Mr. Speaker, let me read the prayer of the petition signed by 2,290 residents. "We the undersigned workers and residents of Trinity South request that government take steps to insure the North Atlantic Fisheries Plant at South DildoTrinity Bay, be supplied with fish and that the plant be reopened to provide the employment that was provided in previous years. The fishery has always been the backbone of the Trinity South economy and during the past several seasons the declining fishery has produced ever increasing unemployment and welfare. 5972

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2817 MJ - 1 MR. CALLAN: We believe that a plant such as North Atlantic Fisheries should not stand empty and idle while people who are willing to work must endure the hardships associated with a work season that lasts for only three or four weeks.' i'i' that, Mr. Speaker, has been the experience of that Arctic Fisheries Plant in South Dildo, now named North Atlantic Fisheries. Even though we all know of course that Nickersons own it, why the name was changed in the last year or so is questionable,because nothing else has changed in the plant.

The fish plant workers there usually get about three or four weeks work and that, of course,is early in the Spring during the caplin fishery. No codfish brought in there and with the decline in the squid and so on, nothing else happens in this fish plant. So it lasts for only three or four weeks says the prayer of the petition. 'Raw material must be provided', say the petitioners, ' to enable the plant to remain open for a greater portion of the year. We want the plant open and providing employment.' So, there it is, Mr. Speaker, there is the prayer of the petition. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in the five minutes that I have in Presenting Petitions I cannot help saying I feel sympathy and perhaps sorrow for the people who trudged from door to door to door and from town to town distributing this petition and asking people would they mind signing their naxrs in support of their efforts to try and get some employment at North Atlantic Fisheries in South Dildo - I have one minute left, five minutes really fly - because, Mr.

Speaker, the experience in the past several years in this Legislature has been that whether a petition is presented for new roads or improved roads or whatever,it seems to fall on deaf earsE I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the same thing does not happen with this petition. I 5973

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2817 MJ 2 MR. CALLAN: hope, and no doubt we will be hearing from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) in response to this petition, or perhaps the member for Trinity - Bay de Verde (Mr.

ROid) may want to speak on it since it effects his constituents as well, but if we do not hear from the Minister of Fisheries today to any large degree, perhaps in the next day or so, when the fishery restructuring bill is introduced into this Legislature, we will hear a lot and not only about the plans that the federal government and the provincial government have for the fishery in this Province in general. As I said, Mr. Speaker, if we do not hear it today, hopefully we will hear it in the next several days. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! Order, please! The member's time has expired. MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I ask that this petition be laid on the table of the House and referred to the department to which it relates and I hope the Minister of Fisheries speaks well of it. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: I want to respond to the petition signed by so may residents in the Trinity South general area and to say, first of all, that it is important not to confuse this plant referred to in the petition with another fish plant operation called the Marpro Company Limited. MR. çALLAN: It is in the same building. MR.

MORGAN: It is in the same building but a different operation completely. MR. CALLAN: One primary and one secondary. MR. MORGAN: North Atlantic Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, was formed by means of provincial government assistance 5974

November 7, 1983 Tape 2818 PK - 1 MR. MORGAN: and the Newfoundland Government becoming a shareholder in the company formerly known as the .Nickerson operations in Newfoundland. Nickerson had bought outin their early days,the Arctic Fisheries operations.

They could not afford to carry on and we had to become shareholders with the company and also give them some government guarantee to enable the Nickerson operation to continue in Newfoundland, One of these plants was this plant at Di ldo which was owned by the Nickerson Company, now owned by the - Newfoundland Government with Nickerson in a company called North Atlantic Fisheries. The plant was originally built, Mr.

Speaker, and the gentleman who brought forward the petition I am sure is aware of that,to process pelagic species, the squid and the herring species and mackerel species in particular,and these species have not been in our waters in the last number of years. The squid, for example, was a total failure this past year. It was not constructed for the processing of groundfish. MR. WARREN: - It was down on the Labrador. MR. MORGAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) would he please keep quite because the petition is a rather serious one and I want to respond to it in a very serious light. MR.

TtJLK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I would like for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan), whatever he is responding to in this House to refer to a member who is speaking and not to a member who is not speaking. MR. SPEAKER: I would like to remind all hon. members that when a member is speaking he does have 5975

November 7, 1983 Tape 2818 PK - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): right to be heard in silence. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the protection from the Chair. Mr. Speaker, the situation is that I fully support the petitionand the people asking for - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MORGAN: - extra or additional raw material for a plant which was built as an inshore plant, pelagic species, not for groundfish, but can be adapted to process groundfish. I fully support the petitioners and the petition.

In fact,I am hoping,over the next few days,to be able to have a situation resolved whereby a resource-short plant programme can be put in place whereby fish from the offshore, from a quota allocated by the federal government, which is a good move indeed, a very positive step in the right direction, having a quota from the offshore allocated for the very sole purpose of having fish to into the inshore resource-short plants, like the one now referred to at Dildo,in the off season to the inshore season, like in the Fall of the year,ljke right now for exarrple.

Of course the Dildo plant wouldautomatically qualify to have fish from that programme. And if we can get that programme in place, the two levels of government working with the industry, that is the objective now, the next few days in fact, Dildo would have some fish coming into it like many other resource-short plants along the Northeast Coast, have fish coming from the offshore, as I say, in the off season,to the inshore. And that will help substantially the employment situation in the Dildo area.

But I want to say again in response to the petition, that the people in the area surely must recognize that that plant today would not even be open if it was not for the concern and the recognition of 5976

November 7, 1983 Tape 2818 P1< - 3 MR. MORGAN: the problem by this government - MR. '7ARREN: By the people - MR. MORGAN: - by the Premier and this government, in putting up the necessary millions of dollars to keep that plant and other plants that were formerly owned by Nickerson in operation in this Province. We did then show our concern, Mr. Speaker, and we will in the future. for all plants in the rural parts of our Province that the peonle depend on so much for their livelihood in rural Newfoundland. Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.

NEARY: Mr. Speaker, one thing about the Provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) he will support anything, but when it comes to action, Mr. Speaker, therein lies the problem - MR. TtJLK: We get none. MR. NEARY: - we get none. Now, Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan), on behalf of 2,290 people of voting age who live in his constituency. They have a very valid point, Mr. Speaker - MR. CALLAN: And Trinity-Bay de Verde. MR.

NEARY: They live in two districts, These people who signed the petition represent voters in two electoral districts. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a big problem in the area;,?~! arprojs closing, North Atlantic had already closed, the government forgot all about the people in the North Atlantic Fisheries Plant in that area , and would not have thought of it today except my colleague brought a petition in from the people 5977

November 7, 1983 Tape 2818 P1K - 4 MR. NEARY: in the area to ask the government to take steps to try to find a supply of fish for that plant. They used to truck fish in there at one time, they trucked it from as far away as Port au Choix, on the Great Northern Peninsula. Now, Mr. Speaker, this raises the 5978

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2819 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: whole question of what happens to the inshore fishery, what happens to the inshore plants? Government has no policy concerning the inshore plants. What is more important, what happens to 11 the plants that are owned by Nickerson? The Nickersor Company has now become a part of this new super company. As hon. members know s three companies will make up this new super company - Penney, Lake and Fishery Products, Nickerson. Now, Mr. Speaker, what happens to the Nickerson plants?

One would have thought that North Atlantic Fisheries, located in South Dildo, would automatically be a part, be included in the restructuring - would you not? - because it is owned by Nickerson, Nickerson is involved in restructuring Perhaps the minister could tell us at some point in time why that plant is not included in restructuring. We have the same problem out in Port aux Basques. MR. MORGAN: It is included. MR. NEARY: It is included in restructuring. MR. MORGAN: Dildo is. MR. NEARY: Dildo is included. - MR. MORGAN: Dildo, Charleston, Bridgeport and Black Tickle are included. MR. NEARY: Goods Well, Mr.

Speaker, that is one thing that is cleared up. So all they need now is a supply of fish. The federal government saw to it that these plants would be included in restructuring. So what they need now, Mr. Speaker, is a supply of fish. The hon. gentleman told us that within a matter of a few days he would announce a programme for these resource-short plants. The hon. gentleman told us the other day that the bottom had fallen out of the negotiatio is, that it was virtually impossible. to get an agreement. MR. MORGAN: The two industry parties. MR. NEARY: The two parties. Well,we look 5979

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2819 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: forward to what the hon. gentleman has to say about a programme to supply these resource- short plants and we hope, Mr. Speaker, that this plant in South Dildo, owned by Nickerson, will be one of the plants included in the restructuring and will get some of this fish. Mr. Speaker, we support the prayer of the petition and we look forward to hearing the minister make his statement in a few days, that they will have a supply of fish for that plant. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, in keeping with our policy, our philosophy, on this side of the House, we think the housekeeping legislation should be brushed aside and we should discuss matters of higher priority. I would like to move, under Standing Order 23, that the regular order of business of this House be suspended today to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, hardship, suffering and severe effects on Newfoundland and Labrador families, caused by the current crisis in the provincial economy. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, I just draw to your attention it is not the matter that has to be urgent, it has to be the urgency of debate. I do not know what the hon, gentleman has in mind by that particular motion,but I do know that there are many matters on the Order Paper that would give him quite enough range to be able to meet the concerns that he puts forth; in this particular notion. In narticular Mr. Speaker, I can say that - well, I mean, I will not say particularly because I do not see that the economy is in the urgent state that the hon. gentleman would like to 5930

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2819 SD - 3 MR. MARSHALL: address it. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, it is not the urgency of the rnatter1 it is a matter of urgency of debate,and this is not a matter of urgency of debate. MR. HODDER: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: It certainly is urgency of debate. MR. NARREN: Look at Corner Brook and Labrador City. MR.

HODDER: The Standing Order is placed there to cover emergencies as they arise in the Province and to cover any situation that might arise in the Province which should be debated in this House. Now,if government feels that the economy, as the minister says, is not in terrible shape, then perhaps the government will be strong enough to stand up and defend themselves on this particular issue, because certainly more than half a million Newfoundlanders in this Province do not feel the way that the Premier feels, or the House Leader (Mr. Marshall) opposite. I contend, Mr.

Speaker, that this is an urgent matter and it is also a matter which debate should be called on in this House, particularly at this time in our history. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL; I am not going to enter into debate with the hon. gentleman, 5981

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2820 MJ 1 MR. MARSHALL: I will just refer you to page 92 of Beauchesne, paragraph 287: ""Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means "urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately." I think that answers it, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: If I may, I agree with the House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) opposite that "urgency of debate" this Standing Order would not be approved if there were other ways in which to debate this particular matter. But, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that it has been publicly noted that in this Session we will be dealing with legislation. And my understanding from the government opposite is that we will be dealing with the matters which the ministers brought up today, the variety of silly little bills which have nothing to do with the economy. There was only one bill, Mr.

Speaker, that came up today which had somethinq to do with the economy and that was the restructuring deal which is already done and which must be passed in both the House of Commons and in this House to ratify the deal. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no opportunity to debate the problems of this Province in the bills that have been brought forward or are on this Order Paper. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I would merely like to point out to the House that if this debate were not allowed toda' it would be contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 23. Because as Your Honour knows1and Your Honour probably 5982

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2820 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: has observed from what has transpired here today1 the government have no intention of giving the Opposition or the House or the people of this Province an opportunity to debate the horrible, the desperate state of the Newfoundland econrmy. In effect, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman was saying when he raised his point of order was that they intend to orchestrate what will be debated in the House.

Even thouqh there may be things on the Order Paper, there is no guarantee from the government that they are going to allow us to go back to the Throne Speech, that they are going to introduce measures whereby we can debate and discuss the economy. They have no intention of laying plans on the House to deal with the terrible state of the Newfoundland economy, Mr. Speaker, and so ltherefore,we are effectively silenced on this matter and I would ask Your Honour to take that into account.

The spirit of Standing Order 23 is to give members of the House an opportunity to debate emergency situations that the government try to suppress, and that is the point we should keen in mind, Mr. Speaker. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, a brief reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary).

Of course there will be fairly wide-ranging debate1 or the opportunity for wide-ranging debate,especiallv with respect to the government's restructuring legislation which restructures the entire fishery and,of course,that is in a sense the backbone of the entire economy. So I think there will be ample opportunity but specifically, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this specific Standing Order and it has been ruled in the House of Commons by former Mr. Speaker Jerome and it is a ruling which has been implemented in this House, this Standing Order,the 5983

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2820 MJ 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER: intention behind it is for an emergency debate with respect to a specific occurrence, a specific happening, a specific event, not a general condition which prevails for some time. It is a specific occurrence or event rather than a general condition. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! Having read the motion put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary), I too must agree that the intent of Standing Order 23 is to deal with a very specific problem that is meant to be debated because of the urgency of it.

This motion is certainly much more general than that and indeed the Standing Order 23 is not that the matter is not urgent but that the matter deserves debate at this time. I think that the motion as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Oopsition- is too vague, for one thingS There is also on the Order Paper,of course he Address in Reply and the Committee of Supply,so there will be an opportunity to discuss these matters sometime during this Session. So I will have to rule the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's motion out of order. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, before Orders of the Day are called1with leave of the House I would like to move the replacement of the former member for 5934

November 7, 1983 Tape 2821 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) on the committees to which he was a member, the Public Accounts Committee, I move that the hon. the member for the district • of Bellevue (Mr. Callan) , replace the former member for Terra Nova on this committee; and on the Election Expenses Committee, that the hon. the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) replace the hon. the member for Terra Nova. Mr. Speaker, if in order - I feel sure the Opposition will concur - I would like that motion out now. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Is it agreed to put that motion? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. NEARY: I second the motion. MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) , replace the former member for Terra Nova on the Election Expenses Committee, and the hon. the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) replace the former member for Terra Nova on the Public Accounts Committee. Those in favour of the motion, "Aye". SOME HON. MEMBERS MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: Aye. Those against, "Nay". The motion is carried. Bill No. 26. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Dentistry And Dental Surgery In The Province." (Bill No. 26) MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. MR. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill. It is of course dubbed as a new bill but it is

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Dentistry And Dental Surgery In The Province. Also, I might point out 5985

November 7, 1983 Tape 2821 NM 2 MR. HOUSE: there was a number of amendments required as the old act is more than ten years old and we believe that revising it in a new act is a much more efficient way of handling this situation. I think possibly we can make a few remarks. Perhaps every ten or eleven years we should be revising these professional acts to accommodate the social growth and the professional growth that has occurred over the years.

And I would say at this time perhaps that growth cannot be better exemplified than in the dental profession and I would like to pay tribute to these people, the dental profession, today. We have now in that time, I think in a ten year period, doubled our output in the number of dental people in the Province and we have, of course, our progranunes in just about every part of Newfoundland. I do not think there is a part that we do not have some modicum of service now.

I want to point out too that it is pretty appropriate now that we bring this bill in because the Dental Association just met in their annual meeting this week and they did discuss parts of this bill and, of course, some new programmes in public dental health. One thing I think I should acknowledge now at this time is the fact that they bestowed a life membership on one of the older members of the profession in the person of Reg Ball, who has been serving more than forty years and is still active. I just wanted that recognized. SOME HON. 14EMBERS: Hear, hear MR. HOUSE: Mr.

Speaker, in going with thIs, I just want to point out, from a service point of view, i do not know of any profession that has been responsive to our needs as the dental profession has been And perhaps people of my vintage would know this, perhaps would have 5986

November 7, 1983 Tape 2821 EC - 3 MR. HOUSE: experienced it more than most other people because when I compare the dental services today with what we had when I was growing up, for instance, I do not think there is any comparison. I think to look at the improvement has been nothing but a pleasure for me. And when I see my children coming now and looking forward to their dental visits and so on, you can see the great advancement both in corrective and preventive care. And I think that has been brought about by our good programmes and by the very positive attitude of the dental profession in the promotion of preventive health as it applies to dental care. 5987

November 7,1983 Tape No. 2822 ah-1 MR. HOUSE: I was one of the persons who saw a part of the parody, I guess, in After Joev where they mentioned, of course, dental care. There was a little skit there on dental care where at one time at the first chance one was apt to get all one's teeth taken out and get dentures. That was not far from reality, that was very close to reality, and it was close because of the problems that you had getting dental services and when you got in that chair the thing to do was to get rid of these things. MR. SINMS: Potential problems. MR.HOUSE: Yes, potential problems.

Teeth were recognized then as potential problems and not something that could be kept a lifetime. And from what I have seen in the dental profession, that has been turned around completely and our programmes today are very healthy programmes. Now this act today, of course, will have three basic things, I suppose, strengthening what has happened in the past and tidying up a lot of the programmes. It will continue the separtation of the Dental Association and the Dental Board, that is the first one. This is a feature of the existing Act and a very progressive one.

In larger professional organizations,there is a very great need to ensure that the regulatory aspects of the profession are separate from the private. That is very key and this new board will have more clout in the regulatory aspects of the profession. The Dental Association is strongly in agreement and committed to that separation of duties and responsibilities. Sometime ago, of course it is pertinent in the medical board,we established the principle of appointing representation from the public at large to professional boards. This is a positive move and allows the public to have its interest represented

November 7,1983. Tape No. 2822 ah-2 MR.HOUSE: by people other than the people being regulated. Our experience with this in the case of other boards has been quite positive both in terms of the non-professional members themselves and the professions being governed. Indeed,some of the boards, and particularly the medical board, I might mention, have indicated to us that the public member often brings a new and interesting perspective to some of the issues which are brought before the board.

Apart from the public being represented,another group will be represented on the board and that is for the two dental auxiliaries. They are currently regulated under the Dental Association, those being dental technicians and dental hygienists. Presently these auxiliaries are not represented on the Dental Board but,as I say,are regulated by the Association with no formal input into the regulatory process. This Act will see those come under the regulations of the Board and be regulated by them.

This Act will also see the auxiliaries gain full representation on the Board so that they will have some say in the matters affecting their own groups. And this is, I think,a very progressive step which will see so many dentists , so many auxiliaries and a member from the public at large. The other important point we want to look at is licensing. On the subject of the Dental Board I want to say that government has had excellent co-operation with the Board over the years in terms of licensing recruited dentists to serve in the under-serviced areas of the Province. Some thing I would like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that we have a programme in the Province where we support dentists in what we call under-serviced areas. We support them in training bursaries and

November 7, 1983 Tape 2823 EC - 1 MR. HOUSE: they come back and work for us in under-serviced areas. We support them also in providing a start-up grant to help them with it because dentistry has certain built-in costs that other professions do not. We support them also by guaranteeing a certain income; some of the areas are large areas to cover.

And, of course, the other thing we do is we have encouraged people to go into these remote parts but have recruited them from outside of Canada sometimes when we are not able to get Canadians and that is where we are very grateful to the board for having allowed that kind of licencing. So we have been able to recruit dentists and provide services through that programme which otherwise would not have been able to be provided. And this has been especially true in getting our children's dental programme spread throughout the Province.

It is a programme that has been of great benefit and it is one I think we could all be proud of, and that is why I said at the beginning that it has changed the total outlook on dentistry in the Province. Now, in the last decade, 1971 to now, the dental professional population has doubled. I believe we have about 125, from 60 up to 125 at this point in time or the last statistic we took. So to do that in that period of time, I think, has been no mean feat. Under the existing act, one of the changes coming about here now is the fact that we are going to change from permits to a provisional licence.

People brought in who did not have the Canadian licence, or originally the Newfoundland licence, we allowed them to upgrade but we also allowed them to stay in these communities without upgrading. A lot of them have given 5990

November 7, 1983 Tape 2823 EC - 2 MR. HOUSE: good service and we are still maintaining that. So for these people who caine in there will be sort of a grandfather clause, I suppose, that will allow them to remain in these communities and they will be getting an automatic provisional licence. For those who will come after this goes into effect. they will get a provisional licence but there may be a time limit where they may have to upgrade. That will be left to the board, Mr. Speaker.

One of the major responsibilities the board will have is to make that determination in conjunction, I suppose, with advice from our own division. The provisional licence is a - more appropriate term to describe licencetured status of those dentists who do not measure up to or meet the Canadian standards at this time.

So in referring to the permit holders, again I want to reiterate our thanks to those people as a group, who are in more remote practices who have contributed much to our society and to the growth of our dental health services, I want to thank them, and in keeping with this contribution, and recognizing the importance of the contribution, the new act with the full agree ment of government, of the department and the dental board will, as I said, convey automatic provisional licences on current permit holders and will protect those licences in terms of time.

That is to say, while the board will and should have the right to vary the conditions under which - - any licence but a full licence is granted, the act will provide that no stipulation in terms of time be set for these people. I have no hesitation in saying that it is our collective view that these people may remain in the communities they are serving and where they have 5991

November 7, 1983 Tape 2823 EC 3 MR. HOUSE: built up considerable practice in many cases. They will be able to continue to serve the people under the new act. The third thing I suppose that it does, apart from the major housekeeping, is that the act provides for a number of important matters, such as the discipline and regulatory 5992

November 7, 1983 Tape 2824 PK - 1 MR. HOUSE: rnechanisms to ensure that the practitioners who step beyond the bounds of what is ordinarily required may be dealt with by, of course, the profession itself. So these are the three major points. There are a number of as I say, housekeeping items. All in all, Mr. Speaker, this bill represents considerable progress in terms of continuing evolution and regulation of the dental profession in the Province, and I would ask everybody's support on it. Thank you very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for the Strait of Belle. MR.

ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me at the outset say that we have been swayed by the minister's eloquent reading of the remarks which he prepared-or the notes, I should say. I certainly am not accusing him of doing anything unparliamentary. We are swayed by it, we are convinced, we are overwhelmed and, as a result, we are more than prepared to support this bill when it comes to a vote,as I assume it will, at some point today or tomorrow in the House. It is noteworthy, Mr.

Speaker, that in the four or five months since last we met in the House,given all that has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador for good or for ill, economic triumphs which are mainly those of the Government of Canada, economic disasters which are not the fault of the Government of Newfoundland in most cases but which they have done nothing to alleviate and little to improve, but, given all of that,when the House meets again, comes together after this five months holiday,the first legislation that we are called upon to deal with, the very first matter is a bill to update the legislation under which the profession of dentistry is carried on in this Province.

That is not to say anything at all about the lack of importance 5993

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2824 PK - 2 MR. ROBERTS: of the dental profession; I will deal with that in a second or two. It is obviously an important profession, it has a role to play in the affairs of this Province. We are blessed with a large and a very competent group of men and women practicing dentistry. Over the years, as the Minister of Health (Mr. House) quite correctly pointed out, there have been significant improvements in the dental care available to the people of this Province and that has been reflected in significant improvements in the dental health of the people of this Province.

But you know, it is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that, given the news from Bowater in Corner Brook, given the news from Western Labrador, given the situation in the fishery, given the Minister of Finance's (Dr. Collins) repeated admission that his budget is about as reliable as a weather forecast, adding all of these thing together, it is significant, Sir, that the government's first legislative matter, its first debatable matter in this House is 5994

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2825 SD - 1 MR. ROBERTS: a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Dentistry And Dental Surgery In The Province." You know, there is a very old and trite saying that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. It seem here we are biting while the Province sinks. This priority which the government have assigned the time of the House is a pretty telling indication either of the importance they attach to the House, maybe they do not think it is important that matters be debated here, or, alternately, it is a telling admission of the fact they have nothing to debate.

We see the Premier playing his childish little games at Question Period. He will probably now go home tonight and have littlefrissons of joy at the thought that he won the Question Period today. I have never heard of any parliamentary leader in this House or in any other who really measured his standard, his performance, by the standard which the Premier has adopted as his own, and we have heard it many times said, 'I have won the Question Period'. do not know what he thinks it is, a game of darts in a corner club or something, you know. MR. NEARY: We like to let him think that. MR.

ROBERTS: Does he think this is a beer garden or a bear garden that he wins the Question Period. But, Mr. Speaker, you know, let me leave the point by simply saying that if anybody wants to know why this Province is in parlous state in which we find ourselves today - MR. CARTER: Rubbish. MR. ROBERTS: - it is the fact that the member for St. John's North LMr. Carterl is not the Premier. If he were the Premier, Sir - since he interrupted me I am forced to confess it - if he were the Premier, Sir, we would not be in the state we are in today.

God alone knows what state we would be in but we certainly would not be in the one we are in today. Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is the first measure brought forward by the ministry 5995

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2325 SD 2 MR. ROBERTS: in this resumption of a session of the House tells for itself. And if anybody wonders why Newfoundland and Labrador is in the state she is in and what our government are doing about it,all they have to do is sit here today or find out what is happening here today and they will have a large part of the answer. Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill itself, as the minister has quite rightly and very ably said, is a very inconsequential piece of legislation.

It does not achieve very much, it does not make anything any better and, I think it is only right and proper of me to say in all fairness , it does not make anything any worse. There will be little change in any home in Newfoundland and Labrador tonight if this bill gets second reading,as I hope it will. Why do I hope it will get second reading if it is of such relevantunimportance? The reason is that the quicker we get it out of the way the quicker we can get on to something more important, the economic situation in the Province and the government's programme or lack of programme in dealing with, it. Mr.

Speaker, the bill itself does not have very much in it that is new, If my friends opposite, I know it has been months since they have seen each other and had a chance to chat and bring themselves up to date,but if they could keep it down to a relatively dull roar I should appreciate it very much.. You know, over the vacation, or whatever you want to call it, Mr. Speaker, I had cause to be in London and for the first time in my experience. I had an opportunity to see the House of Commons in London and I happened to have had the good fortune to be there on a day when Mr.

Kinnock, the new Leader of the Labour Party, made his first major speech. He moved a motion of non- confidence in Mrs. Thatcher's ministry and he made a speech. And two or three things struck me. If I 5996

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2825 SD - 3 MR. ROBERTS: may, Mr. Speaker, I confess it is not thoroughly relevant but it may be of interest to hon. gentlemen, perhaps even of some value to them. One of the things that struck me about the House of Commons, aside the fact the whole Chamber is not much bigger than this one and it is a facility for 635 members was the fact that during the entire course of the afternoon1 and I was there from - my friend from Grand Falls (Mr.

Simms) would know when the House meets / he has been over many times, I am sure - 2:30 p.m.,I believe , the House sat, The Speaker's procession came in just the same as here. If ever the trapping of an elephant were on the back of the mouse, we do it here so it looked just the same, exactly the same type of format, carrying on a tradition. But I do not think a voice was raised, I sat there from 2:30 neigh on to 6:30 p.m. and it was the Prime Minister's question day, a number of quite effective questions asked and quite effective answers given by Mrs. Thatcher,and then they went on and, 5997

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2826 MJ - 1 MR. ROBERTS: as I said, had this debate on Mr. Kinnock's motion which had to do with the National Health Service. Nobody opposite will be surprised to learn the government carried the day on that. But it is like the House here, the government on the issue is far out of touch with the people of the United Kingdom. In any event, what stuck me is that no voice was raised and I think it made the debating so much more effective, and I could not help but think of this House where we end up MR. SIMMS: You mean all throughout the afternoon? MR. ROBERTS: All throughout.

There were sharp remarks, I say to my friend from Grand Falls (Mr. Simms), the debate was not all sweetness and light, but there was none of the bawling and screaming and shouting to which we are prone in the House. MR. SIMMS: That was unusual. MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may have seen it. I have no doubt my friend from Grand Falls has seen many things that I cannot even dream of - MR. SIMMS: Of course, I have not seen it while you were there. MR. ROBERTS: - but I can only report what I saw and heard.

I have no doubt, Sir, that he has been in many places and heard many things that I can only but read about in the sorts of books that the NOP are going to have taken off the shelves. MR. SIMMS: I read Clapp's Rock. MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has read Clapp's Rock? He has done more than I have done. I was in Clapp's Rock but I don not think Clapp's Rock appears as a work of fiction. It is called - what is it called? - a romana% clef. For the benefit of my friend from Harbour Grace (Mr. Young) that is romance of the keyhole. MR. YOUNG: You must have been a college student. 5998

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2826 MJ - 2 MR. ROBERTS: I think it is fine to see such two fine gentlemen as the member for Exploits (Dr. Twomey) and the member for Harbour Grace (Mr. Young) together no doubt they have much to compare since last they met and had a chat and in a moment they can have a cup of tea outside the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, let me come back, if I may though, to the dental bill. MR. CARTER: Get on with it. MR. ROBERTS: I do not think my friend from St.John's North (Mr. Carter) should say, 'Get on with it'. He and I appeared together at a Tory meeting recently. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

ROBERTS: We did indeed. It was a grand occasion. I knew what I was doing there, I was not sure what my friend from St.John's North was. MR. MARSHALL: Where was that? MR. ROBERTS: It was here in St.John's, I say to my friend from St.John's east (Mr. Marshall). My friend from St.John's East was the butt of considerable mirth there, not from me, I hasten to say, but from the P.C.s who were there. It was a roast of the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) . I have no doubt that the gentleman from St.John's East would much like to have roasted the gentleman from Mount Scio but he was not given the choice.

It was a fund raising effort. PREMIER PECKFORD: Did the hon. gentleman bet burned? MR. STAGG: What is this about mirth? MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman from St.John's East is mirthless. I take the point of my friend from Stephenville (Mr. Stagg) and endorse it. Mr. Speaker, let me say that my friend from St.John's North was the hit of the evening, the absolute star of the night, and added considerable luster. 5999

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2826 MJ 3 MR. ROBERTS: I might as well let it all come out. Mr. friend from St.Mary's - The Capes (Mr. Beam, who is cowering there on the backbenches for fear that the word will get out, he too was there and, Sir, his contribution was excelled only by that of the gentleman from St.John's North (Mr. Carter). I think that should be recorded. MR. CARTER: Is that relevant to the dental act? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it is relevant to the dental act, Sir, because if ever there was somebody who should have a bite taken out of his posterior is the gentleman of whom I spoke. Mr.

Speaker, the bill itself has nothing of any great significance in it. It is house-keeping legislation of the first order. The dental act has been in force since 1968. As with many of these professional acts it needs updating from time to time, and I take the point of my friend, the Minister of Health (Mr. House), that every so many years these acts should be updated. I do not know if I would agree with them they should be done every ten or eleven years. All that does is make work for lawyers and the legislative draft people and both of them have enough to do without make-work programmes of this sort.

The hon. gentleman in introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, if I read him and heard him correctly, said that there were three major changes and one of these was the separation of the association and the board. DR. COLLINS: He did not say (inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Sorry. Did I not hear him correctly? MR. DINN: (Inaudible) composition of the board. MR. ROBERTS: One of them - I thank the hen. member - was the reformation, JjIOI

November 7, 1983 Tape 2827 NM - 1 the broadening of the dental board to include lay representation. And the second, as I understood it, was the question of broadening the representation on the board to include so-called dental auxiliaries . And I confess the third escaped rre entirely , unless the minister could help me out. MR. HOUSE: The change of licencing. MR. ROBERTS: The change of licencing procedure. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the last first because it is certainly the least important of three relatively unimportant changes. All that has happened is

Schedule "C" to the ac.t has been dropped,

Schedule "C" as it appeared in the revised statutes,anc' it has now been replaced with a broader power which allows the licencing board to licence anybody who, in its opinion, ought to be licenced. And that I believe was set forth in

Section 19. (1) (b) (i) "The Board shall issue a licence to every person who pays the prescribed fee who has completed the entire course of studies required by and holds a degree or diploma in dentistry or dental surgery from a univeristy, college or school of dentistry or dental surgery recognized and approved by the Board." Well that is hardly going to set the heather ablaze on the hills, Mr. Speaker. The other two changes have some merit, and let me say it and let me record it1 I am glad to see the discipline process opened up by including lay representation.

It has been done now with the Law Society and I believe the minister said it has been done with the Medical Association, the Medical Board, but if he did not say it let it be recorded, it has been done. The only problem that there is, Mr. Speaker, is that we have not gone far enough. Let me say to the minister, because he has the responsiblity for supervision 6001

November 7, 1983 Tape 2827 NM 2 MR. ROBERTS: of more of these professional groups,I venture to say,tharx any particular minister, individual minister ; what we need in this Province is a professional discipline's act, Ontario has one, I think it is called the Health Disciplines' Act- It should be broadened to include all the professional disciplines, the lawyers, the architects, the hairdressers, the morticians, the whatevers who are incorporated under the authority of acts of this House.

And let me say to the minister that in those cases, those disciplinary boards or panels ought to be composed entirely of lay people. It is time, in my submission, that we take discipline out of the hands of the closed trade union and I do not say trade union in the sense of the Trade Union Act1 or the Labour Relations Act we now call it -- but entirely out of the hands of the so-called self-governing professions. There is ample opportunity and there are adequate methods to ensure that professional input comes in. Let us take ,for example,the Hairdressers' Association,which I assume has disciplinary power.

I have not bothered looking it up. My friend from Kilbride (Mr. Aylward) indicates that he is intimately acquainted with the Hairdressers' Association. In his case, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say he pays full price for a hair cut but half of it is a searching fee and half is the cutting fee.

But let me say that supposing a hairdresser steps out of line and does whatever she or he ought not to do and is brought up before the board; in my submission the lay board would receive evidence as to professional misconduct from people qualified to speak, but would decide without having in its midst any professional people itself. And I suggest that is a principle that we should look at very seriously in this Province. I regret the fact that this act does not go that far but still it is an improvement. 6002

November 7, 1983 Tape 2927 NM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: The separation of the association and the board of course is not terribly new. The act we are repealing, or the act which will be replaced by this one - it is subject to legislation orovided for a disciplinary process under the terms of the dental board. It also provided an association. You know, insofar as it goes it is good. There are, however, two noints that with respect I take issue with the minister on maybe he will address them in his closing remarks First of all,I notice that,as I read the act,member- ship in the association, by which I mean the economic union, the trade union as opposed to the boards, membership in the 6003

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2828 ah - 1 MR. ROBERTS: association appears to be compulsory, that if I want to practice dentistry in this Province I must belong to the economic unit, the union. I am not so sure that is correct. We do the same thing with the doctors. I have equal doubts about it there. This, of course, as the minister would agree is separate from the board; the board is a disciplinary body. It is a closed shop. We are legislating a closed shop.

And I can just imagine the words and the reaction of the ministers if any trade union, a labour union in this Province, dared suggest, dared request the Legislature to legislate a closed shop. And at least in a labour union you have a representation vote or a representation process supervised by an independent board. Here you have nothing. You just have a self- constituted association which, is continuing being blessed by the Legislature of the Province.

And so, I simply say to the minister, I see no valid reason why a dentist or a doctor should be forced to belong to the association as differentiated from the medical board, or the dental board in this case. In my own trade, where we have a pretty tight union, we do not have to belong to the Canadian Bar Association. The Law Society seems to be a never-never land, half trade union and half disciplinary body. Sooner or later, presumably it will get its act together and come forward and become just a disciplinary body, leaving the economic functions to another body.

We did that with the nurses ten or fifteen years ago and I do not think membership in the Newfoundland Nurses' Union is compulsory. MR, HOUSE Not the union by the association. MR. ROBERTS: The Association. But the ARNN is., as the minister would concur, equivalent to the dental board in this legislation we have here. The minister is 6OOL

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2828 ah - 2 MR. ROBERTS: is looking quizzical. It is the licencing and professional discipline body, and what I am saying is that everybody practicing a profession must be subject to the licencing and regulatory authority. I do not care what we call it, the ARNN, the Medical Board, the Law Society, the Dental Board, it does not matter, but, and this is an important 'but', I suggest that the Legislature ought not to require as a conditon of practice of that trade in Newfoundland that one must belong to the economic group, the trade union group, if you wish.

And the point of comparison I make is just imagine the howls that would come if this Legislature ever did what it has refused to do and that is legislate mandatory membership in a trade union, maybe any trade union, for anybody working in a job within the ambit of trade unions. MR. HOUSE: Teachers (inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Teachers belong to the NTA. I make the some point there again. You know, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There should be no distinction.

So that is two points; number one, we should have a separate professional disciplines board functioning under special, specific legislation and, secondly, I suggest that the membership in the association ought not to be made mandatory. The bill unfortunately continues that. It is not unique, we have talked of others in the Province. 6005

November 7, 1983 Tape 2829 PK - 1 MR. ROBERTS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch upon, to me, the gravest deficiency in the bill. The minister has left us. Maybe I should adjourn the House until the minister can get back. I trust the minister can hear what I am saying. Whether or not he agrees with me, I am sure he will want the opportunity to - he did not go out for a cigarette, did he? I mean, the Minister of Health (Mr. House) does not smoke. There ought to be a law. MR. HODDER: He probably cannot understand you. MR. ROBERTS: Well, my friend from Port au Port (Mr.

Hodder) says the minister may not be able to understand me. I take his point and I concur, but all you can do is lay it out in simple language and hope for the best. And the Minister of Health at least tries, unlike some other hon. gentlemen opposite who do hot even try. MR. CARTER: Say it in Latin. MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? MR. CARTER: Say it in Latin. MR. ROBERTS: I would say it in Latin except then only the gentleman from St. John's North (Mr. Carter) and myself would understand it, and the Speaker would probably rule it unparliamentary. In fact, if I said what I really think about the gentleman from St.

John's North it would most certainly be unparliamentary, whether I said it in Latin or in English or in French or Spanish. He speaks Russian. I believe he is the only

November 7, 1983 Tape 2829 P1< - 2 MR. ROBERTS: member of the House who speaks Russian. I do not know whether he knows more than the rest of us or whether he knows less than the rest of us, but he knows Russian. In any event let me deal with what is the major deficiency in this bill and that is the denturists' situation. A number of years ago this House set up a Select Committee and the Select Committee - if I am not mistaken Your Honour was a member of it. Your Honour shakes his head; you begged out on that one. MR. SPEARER (Aylward) : The former member for Kilbride (Mr. Wells) was. MR.

ROBERTS: I bows to your reverence accordingly." Your Honour will learn, if he has not already, that members come and members go, but constituents and constituencies go on. But there was a Select Committee with Mr. Wells -Mr. Robert Wells was the member for Kilbride at that stage. A distinguished member, he set the pattern that has been carried on by the present member. Mr.

Wells chaired the Committee,they had widely attended hearings, anybody who was interested came, representations were made, a report was made, and,as I recall it,a commitment was made by the government that there would be legislation brought into force to legalize the practice of denturism in this Province. That legislation has not seen the Statute Books, it has not been put into effect. It is in print but it has not seen the Statute Books in the sense it is not the law. MR. CARTER: Would the member permit a question? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course. MR. SPEAXER: A question from the hon. member for St.

John's North. 6007

NoverLiber 7, 1983 Tape 2829 PK - 3 MR. CARTER: The member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) has kindly yield for me to ask him a question. It is a perfectly straighforward question and I say this to him, Would the hon. member himself go to a denturist or have any member of his family go to a denturist? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: The answer, Mr. Speaker, of course, is yes, without any hesitation. Just as while I have my eyes dealt with by an ophthalmologist because I have an eye condition.

That has nothing to do with the fact, my vision is bad as well, but I have a pathological condition of the eye which requires treatment from time to time. ANiisN.1EMBER: That is right. MR. ROBERTS: No, no. I am doing the hon. gentleman the honour of trying to answer his question seriously, if he does not want to respond in kind let him just say nothing if he might, Sir.

But the point is that while only an ophthalmologist can deal with the pathological situation, the diseases that the eye can be subject to or the conditions to which it can be subject from time to time, an optometr±st,sometimes called an oculist,is more than capable of giving vision tests and refractions and that kind of procedure. Thme the analogy is dead on, it is dead on and I have no hesitation in saying the denturist is qualified to do certain specific types of work and procedures.

In fact, in many cases the practice in this Province has been that the denturist was employed by the dentist to do the work and the only thing the dentist did was add an amount on on the way through. Now I do not know if that still is the case, but that was historically the case and I believe that came out quite clearly in the evidence given before the Select Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Robert Wells.

November 7, 1983 Tape 2829 PK - 4 MR. CARTER: But they worked under the dentists. 6009

November 7, 1983 Tape 2830 EC - 1 MR. ROBERTS: You know, they say they work under the dentists. The supervision was the same as the hon. gentleman's supervision of his savory farm, a distant and, in many cases, you know, absent. Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. gentleman's point as being a serious one but my answer is equally serious, I have no hesitation in saying that, given certain types of situations, a denturist is just as capable or more capable.

And I can expand that; if we were on a general health bill, I would talk about the fact that nurse practitioners can do many of the things which doctors do in this Province and can do them far better and far more cheaply and far more effectively. And I do not think there is a member who can, with knowledge and with accurancy and with truth, dispute that proposition.

The same is true in my own Drofession, you know, the scandal of lawyers charging for handling conveyancing transactions when in almost every case the work is done not even by paralegals who at least have some training, but is being done by a stenographer. That is one of the scandals of the law in this Province. It is getting much better because of competition and now things have to be done a little better because the competition is a little stronger and that makes people measure up to the mark. Mr.

Speaker, to follow on on the hon. gentleman's point, because it deals directly with the denturist situation, what I suggest and urge we do is regulate the denturists, licence them and set standards. The problem with the denturists in the Province, one which they themselves acknowledge, is that there are no standards. They are the very first people very responsibly to come forward and ask for a board to govern them and ask to be regulated by defined and precise standards, and that is the weakness now. 6010

November 7, 1983 Tape 2830 EC - 2 MR. CARTER: That is rubbish MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may think it is rubbish. I mean, the hon. gentleman may think what- ever he wants but the facts are there. He may disagree with the denturists. I could not care less whether he agrees or disagrees, let him state his position here in the House and sobeit.

What I am saying is that the denturists are the very people who have come forward and said, 'We want standards.' Now, some may say, Oh, they want a grandfather clause, but that is another point, Whether there should be a grandfather clause automatical17, extending to everybody who today calls himself or herself, as the case may be, a denturist, or whether there ought to be an initial entrance, I do not know, although we have used the grandfather clause principle in just about every kind of situation in this Province, Mr. Speaker. But I am not taking a definitive position today on that.

What I am saying is that this bill does not address the denturist situation in a way in which I suggest it should. What it does do though - and again, the very wide words - it gives the dental board a power to make regulations. The power is found in

Section 21 - I am sorry,

Section 22 is the one I want; there are two sections giving the board power - gives the board the power to define a dental auxiliary and to classify dental auxiliaries. Then, if you refer back to the definition

section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which is

Section 2 and you look up the definition of dental auxiliary, you find in subsection (

c) of

Section 2 it says, 'means a dental auxiliary as defined in the regulations.' It is purely circular. So what we have now in this bill is a situation whereby the dental board, five of whose eight members are dentists, can define what they regard as being a dental auxiliary, 6011

November 7, 1983 Tape 2831 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: and that,of course,extends beyond any doubt to the work beinq done by denturists. The minister shakes his head, I hear him to shake his head, if that is not mixing the metaphor, but I would simply say that is the way the bill now reads. I am not saying it is what is in his mind, I am saying it is what the bill now provides, if he but looks at

section 22, subsection (1). And this bill would allow the Dental Board in my view, as it now stands, to govern the practice of denturism in this Province once it becomes law. And I am saying that is wrong. I am saying MR. CARTER: No way. MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. My friend from St. John's North (Mr. Carter), am I wrong in principle or am I wrong in my reading of the bill? MR. CARTER: I think you are wrong in principle. MR. ROBERTS: We1lI will deal with the principle in a moment but let me deal with my reading of the bill. I am right in both as it will turn out.

But the bill gives the Dental Board, five of whose eight members must be dentists, gives the Dental Board the power to define what is a dental auxiliary and I see nothing in here which would in any way inhibit that power and which would in any way prevent it extending to and embracing the entire type of work known as denturism. MR. CARTER: Sobeit. MR. ROBERTS: And my friend from St. John's North says sobeit. We will now join issue on the principle. The principle is that the denturists have been recognized by this House. The government have not, the government have not proclaimed the act.

The House has recognized the denturists, acting upon the recommendation of the Wells Committee, made after hearings and consideration, pondering the issues, as a self-separate profession, and this bill simply destroys that. MR. CARTER: Good. 6012

November 7, 1983 Tape 2831 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: My friend from St. John's North (Nr. Carter) says 'Good" and I say to him if that be the policy of the ministry which he so slavishly supports, if that be the policy of the ministry then well and good 1let the Minister of Health say that and i will take issue with the Ninister of Health. But he has not said that.

What I take issue with now is that this bill perhaps unbeknownst to the minister, - I am not saying the minister sat up nights and plotted this,and I am certainly not saying his officials sat up nights and plotted it, what I am saying is that this is what the bill before the House would do and I suggest to the minister that is wrong. I suggest that the denturist profession ought to be regulated. It is a continuing scandal and a festering sore in the body politic of the health professions in this Province, including the denturists themselves, that they are not regulated.

They ought to be regulated by definite stated standards and they ought to be given the opportunity to be measured by professionally qualified people in the same way as are the dentists or the doctors or any others. And that does not mean that the denturists should be regulated by the dentists any more than the dentists should be regulated by the doctors or the doctors by the lawyers or the lawyers by the hairdressers or anybody by anybody else. We accept the principle of self—regulating orofessions. I have already said, Mr.

Speaker, that I think there should be a separate health professionor professions in factdiscipline board extending to all of the professions incorporated by virtue of acts of this Legislature as a means of enforcing the public trust. And that is all we should be concerned with. We should be concerned with the fact that if there is a breach of professional discipline, if there is professional misconduct there must be a method and the means to bring these people to brook and to bring them up before an impartial group which can hear the evidence, can hear argument and then can render a decision.

That is our concern, that and making sure there 6013

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2831 SD - 3 MR. ROBERTS: are adequate standards in place that if a person calls himself a doctor he or she in fact is qualified as a doctor and so forth on down the line. Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other very minor points which have some relevance to the principle of the bill. The minister mentioned the new discipline process and I looked it through; it is fairly standard in form but may I suggest to the minister one point The appeal which is provided, and in my view rightly so, from the decision of the discipline board, and I am down now in Sections 27 and 28, the appeal is to a judge of the Trial Division of the 6014

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2832 JV - 1 Supreme Court. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and his colleague.the gentleman from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall)1 could take the point,an appeal ought perhaps to lie to the District Court as well as to the Judge of the Supreme Court. We have a number of judges, I believe we have seven in the Trial Division now throughout Newfoundland but they are all stationed here in St. John's. The District Court, of course, has nine or ten judges who are stationed at various points throughout the Province. In

Section 28, I believe, I think there is another reference to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, but it is a fairly simple matter in principle but I believe would facilitate a situation,particularly given the fact that there are quite a number of dentists who live and practice outside of St. John's and who might not have access quite as readily to the Judges of the Trial Division as they would to a Judge of the District Court. But to sum it up, Mr. Speaker, the bill is not a terribly exciting one. It is not offensive in any way, we have no difficulty in supporting it.

It does however, fail to deal with the denturist situation and, in my opinion, for the reasons I have stated,opens up a possibility that the dentists who dislike the denturists - whether they should or should not is beside the point, the fact of the matter is they detest and dislike the denturists, they made that clear publicly and privately time and time again.

That is fine, this House has heard that and has decided against the down- putting or the putting down of the denturists and has indeed enacted legislation the House has not the government - the House has enacted legislation constituting a profession of denturisrn whatever the correct term is. I am not sure if they are called that or they are called something else 6015

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2832 JV - 2 MR. ROBERTS: in the bill but there is a bill on the Statute Book , it is just that it never became law, it is simply thereat a fiat of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Let me close by saying two things number one, I would like to associate us on this side with the tribute brief but eloquent paid by the Minister to the dentists of this Province. There is no doubt in my mind they have done a first-class job, and that includes Dr.Ball, a prominent member of his profession and a prominent citizen of Central Newfoundland.

My friend from Grand Falls made a partisan reference0 I cannot help the fact if the good doctor has partisan foibles, but in a professional sense he is an ornament to the profession and an ornament to the Province. Let me say as well that it is a matter of regret for those of us on this side,that all of the vast improvements which have come about,ad.mittedly,in dental practice in this Province have come about in the distant past,there has been no significant change. There are more dentists true, but the iIinister of Health (Mr.

House) has no more to do with that than he has to do with the fact that snow will fall between now and June month in this Province on at least one occasion. I tell him that and I tell him there will also be more dentists next year. That is not why we have more dentists, we have more dentists because more are being produced, because there are more young people going into dental college and so forth. The hon. gentleman talks of support programmes.

Our support programmes are not particularly generous and they have not been improved very much0 I think the only change in the last ten years has been the introduction of a practice subsidy and I think if the Minister really checks back with the records he will find that that was always 6016

November 7, 1983 Tape 2833 EC - 1 MR. ROBERTS: another. But the point I am making is there has been no expansion of the dental prograrnmes'in fact,if anything, there have been restrictions of them over the last three or four years and that is not good. Dental health has been in many ways the stepchild of public health in Newfoundland and Labrador over the years. It began to get its place in the sun when the Children's Dental Programme came along.

It still has not got to the point it ought to get to and I simply say to the minister that I know he has many difficulties, I know that he has no money, I know that his colleagues have no sympathy for the whole point of providing of health services or any concern for these feelings, but I say to him, Mr. Speaker, that there is one area in particular that needs a great deal of attention from the minister and that is the question of the dental programmes being provided to the people of this Province, including in particular, children's dental programmes.

I gather there was a lot of discussion about it at the Dental Association meeting over the weekend in St. John's and I say to the minister, I think the dentists there, if I understood correctly what was reported, and if what was reported was, in fact, correct, the dentists had some good suggestions for them. Mr. Speaker, with those few brief remarks, more extensive than I had planned, but goaded, as always, beyond forebearance by my friend from St. John's North (Mr.

Carter) - I do not know what we would do without him, Sir, a real burr under the saddle of the horse of progress - but goaded, as always, beyond forebearance by his intemperate and incessant attacks, I was forced to defend myself as best I could against him, so I had to use another two or three minutes. 6017

November 7, 1983 Tape 2833 EC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister the points I have made are ones which he ought to take unto his heart and ponder and then we will see what, if anything, comes of it. But the bill, itself, Sir, for whatever it is worth, we do support it. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to speak in this debate originally because the bill, as the hon. the Minister of Health (Mr.

House) brought in, and as he explained it, it shows that it is an extremely important bill and it is a very useful bill. But I felt that I had to respond to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member opposite because, as is so often the case, if you listen to his remarks somewhat uncritically, you are inclined to accept them. He makes what are plausible statements, plausible arguments, but in actual fact if you look at then in some detail they fall to the ground, they are just argumentative points, they are sort of debating points rather than anything else.

The one that particularly caught my attention was where he said and I cannot quote his exact words now but he said something along the lines that, as everyone knows, that many of the things done by doctors can be done by nurse practitioners or whatever. As I say, I cannot quote his exact words but that was the sense, the thought that he was trying to get at. Now, if you just examine what he said in some detail you can see that this was just a debating ploy on his part that has no validity, he has ncbasis for making such a statement.

If you look at the content of medical practice, one aspect, carrying out surgical operations, now, you know, in contra- diction with what he says, I do not think that any 6018

November 7, 1983 Tape 2833 EC - 3 DR. COLLINS: reasonable oerson will accept that someone who is not trained particularly in surgery can carry out surgical operations, certainly not a nurse practitioner. A nurse practitioner can do many things and is trained for many things but is certainly not 6019

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2834 MJ 1 DR. COLLINS: trained to carry surgical procedures. Secondly, if you look at the care of patients in hospitals, be it surgeon or be it physician or whatever other type of doctor, a doctor gives care to patients in hospital by supervising their care there. He very seldom does any care himself. He very, very seldom gives injections or what have you.

He is there to supervise and set the complexion of care that is given andof coursethe reason why he is supposed to be able to do this and I think most can really, is that he has got training in that particular sphere, he has got specific training there. Now,as I say, nurse practitioners have there own training and their own expertise but it is not in giving medical care. They are not qualified for that in their training.

Certainly they are not qualified under our legislation, but even quite apart from that they are not, and they would be the first ones to admit it and to support the statement, they are not qualified to give medical care. Another aspect of medical practise is seeing people in the office or in out-patients or whatever when they cofle in with a variety of complaints and again the doctor does not very often give care there. He might give some care, moreso than, say, in hospital practise, but it is not a major part of it. His major

part is giving medical opinion. Now,some of the conditions that he is asked to give opinions about are fairly minor conditions. They are not minor in the patient's mind. Quite often what is a very minor condition, in the patient mind is a very, very worrisome thing and the patient wants his fears and his concerns allayed and allayed in a way that he can accept and be happy about and forget and he goes for that reason. Now,again, a nurse is not trained to do this. Her job is not to carry out medical diagnosis, give medical reassurance and so on and so forth. So if you look at many of the things that the hon. 6020

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2834 MJ - 2 DR. COLLINS: member opposite said about physicians and this remark he made, this generalization he made, you can see that if it covers anything at all it covers a very small part of medical practise. Now it cannot speak in regard to the law in the same way I can speak in regard to medical practise, but I suspect that what he has even said about the law is much the same. I think he said something like secretaries can do what lawyers do in terms of conveyances.

Well,now, if I buy a piece of property and I want it conveyed to me so that it is done in a proper fashion and is not open to challenge any time in the future, which may be for decades or whatever I go to a lawyer and I pay the lawyer on the basis of his expertise and his training and his legal care and attention, I want him to make sure that this conveyance is done properly to me and I recompense him for that.. I do not recompense him for the fact that someone is typing up a document or whatever. And I am surprised that the member opposite, who himself is a practising legal professional,would take that attitude.

I would have thought that a man in the position that he is in would have had more insight into what his profession is all about and I was amazed and that is what made me get to my feet to make a comment on the outrageous statements that the member opposite made. So many of his remarks are along these lines and I think that over the coming weeks we will,I am sure,all make an effort to listen to the points he makes in debate and not just accept the plausible words that he says, we will look at the contents of his remarks and I am afraid that 6021

November 7, 1983 Tape No. 2835 SD - 1 DR. COLLINS: we will find them very deficient and very minor and very miniscule. So with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this bill. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the only compliment I want to make is this, that after listening to the hon. gentleman, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), Mr. Speaker, now I know why the finances of this Province are in such an incredible mess as they are, after just listening to what the hon. gentleman had to say in support of this b