Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XL First Session Number 50 VERBATIM REPORT (Ha nsa rd) Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Thursday 31 October 1985

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (MeNicholas): Order, please! 4R. BARRY: -ir. Speaker, I would li'L<e to rIse on a matter of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of privilege. MR. BARRY I have two matters but they are separate and individual and I would like to deal with them one at a time. The first matter of privilege involves a statement made by the Premier yesterday - two statements, actually - to the Government House Leader (Hr.

Harshall) to the effect that, "Oh, we are aware of your strategy as deveLoped by caucus." The other statement had words to the effect, "I have my own CIA." 1 wonder if the Premier would give his assurances that neither he nor any government connected individuals are bugging, spying, eavesdropping, Hr. Speaker, or otherwise trying to prepare themselves for the obvious assaults that are hurting them, Mr. Speaker, in this House. I wonder if we could have that coimuitment from the Premier, not that it is going to help him very much if he is eavesdropping. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Hr. Speaker, let me just clarify for the benefit of the hon. members opposite and for all members of the House and for the people of Newfoundland, my CIA comes from members within the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, I must rule there is no point of privilege. MR. BARRY: I wonder if, Mr. Speaker, the Premier would indicate whether when he gave a statement Tuesday in this House when the brewery workers were present to the effect that the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Blanchard) was in Toronto on brewery business, I wonder if he is aware of the fact that the Deputy Minister of Labour, as I understand it, contacted the brewery workerst union and informed them that that was not the case, that though the minister was in Toronto he was not- there on brewery business? '.as the Premier intending to mislead or was he merely mistaken again? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: This is ridiculous. We are taking up this time now, Mr. Speaker, on a matter for Question Period. It is not a question of privilege. I will answer it, if I am asked, in Question Period. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! I do not think there was any prima fade case of breach of privilege. I would like to mention to the Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Barry) that he did raise a point of privilege which I intend to rule on, but I would Like to see the Hansard of yesterday before bringing in that ruling. MR. BARRY: L2642 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2642

Mr. Speaker, that may be difficult because I am not sure that the comments of the Premier were carried in Hansard. They were comments that were made to the Opposition House Leader (Mr. TuLk) , 1 think, when the Mansard mikes were off, but I am not sure of that. MR. SPEAKER: I can assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I will look into that matter fully. Oral Questions MR. SPEAICER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. the Premier.

I wonder if the Premier would be prepared to stand in this House and indicate just what will be the cost of a barrel of oil from Hibernia, what will the international price needed in order to ensure that Hibernia can he economically deveLoped, and what will be the revenue to government if current prices prevail while Ribernia is producing? And will he confirm that that will in fact be considerabLy Less than the *200 miLlion a year that he stated would he a reasonable estimate in his Rotary speech back in February? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Did you ever hear the like?

We are now entering into negotiations with the Mobil group of companies with the federal government for a full-scale development plan, the amount Canada benefits and Newfoundland benefits, the various royalty regimes and taxations that are going to apply. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) must know, or should know, but I am now coming to the cone Lusion that he does not know, and therefore I am very happy that the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall) is handling this matter now and not the Leader of the Opposition because we would be led down the garden path pretty fast if, in fact, his question is one that he asks legitimately, that the price of a barrel of oil and the amount of revenues that we are going to get are all subject to negotiation depending upon a whole range of factors, a whole range of variables. One does not know the answer to that.

It depends on how much the Province and the federal government want out on the front, as to whether the price then would be too low from an international price point of view or if we do not want so much out in the first year or two, the number of jobs that we have, the number of spinoff industries. That is all subject to negotiation between the three parties invo Lved. These negotiations are ongoing and when they have been compLeted we will be in a much better position to definitively and specificaLly give the Leader of the Opposition the answer.

But, at this point in time, that is a completely hypothetical kind of question which cannot be answered without the negotiations which are now ongoing. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: The Premier is going to have to be prepared to answer those questions before the Accord and Petroleum L2643 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2643

Royalty BILL comes before this House, Hr. Speaker. I would Like, as a supplementary, to ask the Premier whether he begins to realize that when he is dealing with the Government of Canada that every day is Halloween and the effect is trick rather than treat. Will the Premier confirm that the statement made by Ms Carney yesterday, the policy announced there, will result in Less revenue to the Province than under the previous royalty regime that would be in place, particularly considering the fact that the Petro-Canada back-in has been removed?

I would like the Premier to indicate does he agree with Ms Carney that that back-in was unfair in Light of the fact that the Newfound land regu Lat ions put the companies on notice before they went out there that they were subject to as rrøich as a 40 per cent hack-in and in light of the fact that participation through such a share being held by the Province was a very important way for the Province to obtain revenue? Is he satisfied with the new Tory business approach of going out and allocating acreage on the basis of cash bonuses and work commitment?

Did he not have that rammed down his throat, the taking away of the back-in, by the Prime Minister when he was down in the United States promising this to the U.S. oil companies and the Premier did not even know about it when it was raised in this House at the time? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, you know, the Leader of the Opposition is getting awfully excited every day. I cannot help it if the Leader of the Opposition is now in a position on the opposite side of the House that he does not have any say in what goes on as it relates to the offshore.

He tried for a number of years, and some of his cohorts tried and some of his friends tried to pretend that he was the one who brought in the petroleum regulations when he was not, that I happened to be the one at the time. I cannot help that. I cannot help it that he resigned from Cabinet because he could not have sway all by himself and not have a collective decision made by Cabinet. I cannot help that. All I can say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister of Energy (Hr.

Marshall) indicated Last night and again this morning, is that from the policy statement that was issued by Ms Carney last night, we are very, very excited about our future, and not only as it relates to the Hibernia development getting underway next year. I know the Liberal Opposition does not want to see it go ahead, but we have such exciting prospects offshore, Mr. Speaker! We do not have to own something to control it. We do not have to own the Mobil group of companies or be in there to control it. We are excited by what Ms Carney has said.

It will provide our Province with a great deal of exploration and development over the next number of years. We are looking ahead to a very promising day earLy next year when we will see the Hibernia development going ahead and ongoing exploration off our shores. You know, I am sorry if the Leader of the Opposition (Hr. Barry) and members opposite want to put a damper on all of this, but we are moving ahead, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to deliver on what we said we were going to deliver on in April L264 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2644

1985. Make no mistake about it! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is taking the same approach that he has criticized previous administration f or in this House. The Premier is prepared to go into negotiations and to give away, Mr. Speaker, revenue, something which he said, he would not do, in order to try and ensure political survival which is impossible, Mr. Speaker. He is a dead duck and it does not matter how much revenue from the offshore he gives away. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he wouLd answer this question: Will he confirm that there will be less royalties available as a result of the change in energy policy brought in by the Governinent of Canada, not just a back-in but also considering that Ms Carney has said that she is willing to make other royalty concessions, as did the Premier in his speech to Rotary last February, and would the Premier not admit that he made a terribLe mistake in terms of negotiating strategy when he opened the door and permitted Mobil now to take the position, Mr. Speaker, 'Oh, yes.

We are prepared to go ahead and we are prepared to put in concrete platforms, but only after we get concessions on royalties and taxes from this administration.' That, Mr. Speaker, has put the Premier in a totally untenable position which is going to cost this Province. Now deal with that question and stop your silliness. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I mean, the hon. member can tty as hard as he likes, Mr. Speaker. It was like the Kruger deal, when we were supposed to give it all away. It was like the St.

Lawrence deal, when we were supposed to give it all away. I cannot help it if the Leader of the Opposition, since he joined the Liberal Party, is in that syndrome of giving everything away. We have left it out of our vocabulary, now he has picked it up again since he went over there. We do not intend to give away anything. We do have, within the provisions announced last night, the liberty to negotiate a separate deal outside of what was announced last night. That is in the deal. That was in the policy announced by Ms Carney last night. We do not necessarily apply to that, that is to be worked out.

Newfoundland is protected under the policy. MR. BARRY: The back-in? PREMIER PECKFORD: Newfoundland is protected under the policy, we can negotiate. I am sorry, I am very sorry that the Leader of the Opposition feels the way he does about it. The Leader of the Opposition, and this is the sad part about it, has fears airight, fears that we are not going to give it away. His fear is we will not give it away and, therefore, he will remain on the other side of the House until eternity. That is the problem the L2645 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2645

Leader of the Opposition has. There are no giveaways here. We are going to negotiate a deal on Hibernia which is going to give us revenues and which is going to ive us jobs. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) did not think we could get the concrete platforms and we got them. The Leader of the Opposition did not think we could get an Atlantic Accord like we got, and we got that. And now, Mr.

Speaker, thirdly, we are going to get a development plan which is going to be good for Newfoundland in the short, medium and long term, which is going to mean jobs and revenues for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, notwithstanding the Liberal Party, notwithstanding the Leader of the Opposition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, could we have it quiet over there? Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries related to the bankruptcy or the closure of the Ocean Harvesters plants in Harbour Grace, Port de Grave and Old Perlican.

In his Statement yesterday, the Finance minister (Dr. Collins) said that the six-month period, which was actually ten, 'afforded the necessary lead time for the Province to assess the overaLl viability of Ocean Harvesters Limited over the longer term.' Presumably there was a written report as to whether the bankruptcy was caused by poor management, poor equipment, lack of financing or some other inadequacy. 1ould the minister table the report that obviously irtist have come. to him, or would he now inform the Legislature as to the reason for the closure of those plants? MR.

SPAKR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. HR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty well public knowledge that there was an announcement made around March last year that there would be a number of months of reassessment for the Ocean Harvesters operation and that, at the end of that period, a report would be made to government by the receivers, by the bank and, I believe, by the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation. That report was received by government around the end of September.

It contained a number of recommendations and a number of possible scenarios, none of which, under the present circumstances, Mr. Speaker, indicated that the Ocean Harvesters company, as we know it now and as presently structured, with its present debt Load, had any short-term or long-term viability. As to whether or not that report will be tabled at some future point in the House, Mr. Speaker, that remains to be seen at the present time. But that is basically the bottom line as recommended in the report. MR. TULK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: Hr. Speaker, the question that I asked the Minister of Fisheries was would he tell us the real reason - it was not in the L2646 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2646

Statement of the Minister of Finance yesterday - as to why those plants are not economically viable. Now, if he is not going to table the report, which I believe he should - after all, it is a matter of some consequence to the public of this Province - would he now give us the reason why those plants closed? That was my basic question to him. He has given no answer. I am told that the Harvest Star, which is a trawler owned by Ocean Harvesters Limited - PREMIER PECKFORD: That is owned by the government. MR.

TIJLK: Yes, it really is owned by the government, but under Ocean Harvesters - has a quota of 5,400 metric tons of fish, Northern cod, I believe, or most of it is Northern cod. I am also told that if there were another 3,000 to 4,000 tons and another licence issued to that company, it could have perhaps been viable. MR. RIDEOUT: Perhaps. MR. TIJLK: That is right. I am asking the minister to confirm or deny whether in fact that is the case.

I understand that the Harvest Star did not even catch its quota of 5,400 tons because it was not given the necessary operational capital by the Bank of Nova Scotia and the provincial government did not live up to its share of the bargain in providing the operational capital during those six months when it was under assessment. .'Jould he confirm or deny whether in fact it was a lack of stock, a lack of raw material that caused Ocean Harvesters plant to go under? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOIJT: Mr.

Speaker, I will try to deal with the four or five questions that were all wrapped up in the one question posed by the hon. gentleman from Fogo (Mr. Tulk). Every piece of information, Mr. Speaker, available to the government as a result of the six or seven month assessment period, indicated that the crucial problem facing Ocean Harvesters Limited, Mr. Speaker, was the debt load.

The debt of the company was such that whatever the scenario, whether you access more fish, whether you did something with management, or you did a whole range of options that were considered and recoimnended to us in the assessment reports, the whole bottom line was that you could do what you like but with its present debt structure the company is not viable.

There was no way in the short-term or in the long-term, whether you put in more money, restructured the debt or tried to access more resource, whether you did all those things or a combination of those things, the present debt structure of the company was such that in the short-term or in the long-term, doing any of those things or doing all of those things, could you expect to have a viabLe operation. So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the horrendous debt of the company dragged the company down. The company had a severe shortage of working capital. In fact you could say, Mr.

Speaker, that they had no working capital. So with all those things combined, Mr. Speaker, it was a financial problem. It was not a problem of L2647 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2647

access to more resource, it was not a problem of not enough resource. Obviously they could use more resource, because the inshore fishery this year was very, very had; the contribution to the company's bottom Line from caplin this year was not as good as Last year; the crab resource is down in that area as it is in many areas of the Province, all that kind of stuff. But whether you access more resource or not, the bottom line, Mr.

Speaker, is that because of the horrendous debt load that that company was carrying, the reconendation given to us was that there was no scenario where the company could be made profitable with that present debt load. As it relates to the Harvest Star, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman indicated in his question that the reason why the Harvest Star did not operate was because the Bank of Nova Scotia and/or the government refused to provide enough working capital for the vessel to operate. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct, that is absoLute not correct.

As a matter of fact, The Harvest Star made four or five excellent trips, brought back pretty close to capacity loads all the time. The problem was a problem that resulted from the Harvest Star having run aground a couple of years ago, did some severe damage to the engine, to the couplings and to the alignment, and the vessel completely gave out on its way back to the fishing grounds after four trips, I believe it was, and then had to be taken and put on dry dock in Marystown for repairs. So there was no question, Mr.

Speaker, of the receiver or the Bank of Nova Scotia or anybody else cutting off funding f or the operation of the Harvest Star. That is not why the Harvest Star did not continue to fish until its quota was taken. No such statement, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know - unless there is something I do not know - could be further from the truth. MR. TULK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just stated the obvious to us. We know why Ocean Harvesters went under. Obviously it was because of it's debt load.

But the question for him is, what caused the debt load that of that company to get where it was? MR. PECKFORD: They borrowed too much money, guess. MR. TULK: I guess that is probably the case. Let me ask the minister this question. In view of all of that this company has now got a debt load. We know thatis what put the company under. As I said that is stating the obvious. But what caused the debt load to occur in the first place? Was it poor management? Was it a lack of stock? Was it poor equipment? Just what is the probLem with that plant?

Let me go on, then, and ask the minister, if he is going to put that company up for sale, if he hopes to sell it, what does the government intend to do to see that those plants in the future are successful? I mean, he has not told us what caused the debt load, he has not told us what is L2648 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2648

going to happen in the future in order to see those plants viable. Can anything be done? Are we looking at another case of the government washing its hands of three fish pLants and 3,000 jobs? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. BARRY: It is an all plants closed policy. HR. RIDEOIJT: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the question raised by the hon. gentleman and then deal with the Leader of the Opposition before I sit down. Mr. Speaker, what caused the debt Load? WeLl, Mr.

Speaker, obviousLy there are a whole number of factors that caused the debt Load of this company to rise above manageable levels. Number one, there was a very ambitious capital expenditure programme undertaken by the company two or three years ago which the company principals say was warranted but some of their financial advisors say was not warranted. So there was a very ambitious capital expenditure programme undertaken by the company. The acquisition of the Harvest Star, Mr. Speaker, was thought to be a good investment and no doubt in most circumstances it would have been.

The fact of the matter is that for a couple of years the Harvest Star was, according to reports that we have available to us, very inefficiently operated, Lost a lot of money. Can that be bLamed on management? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. All I know is that it happened. You can talk to, I suppose, a dozen people in any waLk of life around that particular area and they will give you a dozen reasons.

All I know is that there are a number of instances cited which indicate that the company embarked on a very ambitious capital programme that came back to haunt it in years following when the fishery became constrained, when interest rates took off and all those kinds of things happened. Over the last number of months, the last year or so, they have been finding the effects of those business decisions I am sure they probably made those decisions in good faith, but have they since come back to haunt them on the bottom Line of their operations. Mr.

Speaker, back in 1981 the sales of that company, for example, were about $17 million. So far this year they are about $3 miLlion. So there are a whoLe bunch of factors have to go into the equation and be looked at in the context of the whole global situation facing Ocean Harvesters before you can arrive at objective conclusions. As to the comment made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, tied in with the last part of the question from his colleague, this government has supported an all plants open policy. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the hon. minister is straying from the answer to the quest ion. MR. RIDEOIJT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As to the last part of the hon. member's question, I believe is was what are we going to do about it, what we are going to do about it, Mr. Speaker, is what we said we would do in our statement yesterday. We L2649 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2649

are going to use every means available to us to attract another investor, to attract another corporate entity, to interest them in the assets of Ocean Harvesters. This government will Leave no stone unLurned, Hr. Speaker, to make sure that that happens. MR. TULK: Hr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. member for a final supplementary a minute ago. I have seen the hon. the member for Henihek (Hr. Fenwick) getting up on a number of occasions, so I now recognize the hon. member. MR. FEU2ICK: Thank you very much, Hr. Speaker. My first questLon is for the Minister of Social Services (Hr. Brett).

I heard from the news last night, and from other sources that we have also been able to access, that there is a public information officer, or a public information speciaList, whatever the new category is, employed with your department. It is also our understanding that this individual is the wife of the former member for Burgeo - Bay de Espoir, and we also understand that this individual was put in the job without any public advertising for the position, or any competition whatsoever. My question to the minister is, what is your explanation for this particular situation? HR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker. HR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the hon. member was home last night to he able to watch television. 1 was not, I was on the road. My explanatLon is very simpLe, Hr. Speaker; I needed such a person in the department. Mrs. Andrews had applied to the Public Service Commission for a position with government. I do not know if one would have become available sooner or later or not, but I was aware of the fact that she had applied and I was aware of her very high qualifications.

She worked for eighteen years with CBC, which they neglected to mention last night. She was the Executive Secretarty to Mr. Keith Morrow, who was then the Regional Director of CBC for the Maritimes. She has a resume that long, Mr. Speaker, and is a very highly qualified person, one who could fill the position. And since the position was only temporary and not a full-time position, it meant that it was not necessary for me to go through the Public Service Commission, therefore, I hired the lady because she was qualified to do the job. MR. FN1r2ICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Henihek. MR. FENWICK: Temporary or not the position was not advertised, there was no competition for it, and it was filled that way. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh! MR. SPEAKER: L2650 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2650

Order, please! Order, please! MR. FEUWICK: My next question, Mr. Speaker, is on the same individual. I understand the same individuaL is also on the Unemployment insurance Appeals Board and while 1 recognize that this is a federal appointment, I would Like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) if he had any hand whatsoever in the appointing of this individual to it, and would he know of any qualifications she might bring to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, I have no authority to appoint people, nor have I ever been requested to nominate somebody, or to have any say in the appointment of anybody to a IJIC or federal Appeals Board. That is, I would say, totally federal jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. MR. FENJICK: A supplemenetary, Mr. Speaker MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Port de Crave.. MR. ?EN1CK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries. MR. FEN1iICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I did recognize the hon. member for a supplementary.

I have now recognized the hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. FELP.'JICK: weLl, Mr. Speaker, there was only one suppLementary. In most cases there have been two or three. MR. SPEAKER: I have recognized the hon. the member for Port de Grave. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! U0 VMM.7T ri.'. Mr. Speaker, are you recognizing me? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. No. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Port de Crave. MR. FEN1ICK: I have just one more supplementary and that will be all. MR. EFFORD: I defer to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Since the hon. the member for Port de Grave has given way, I recognize the hon.- the member for Men ihek. MR. FEN'JiCK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My next question is also on a public information officer, or an information officer specialist, and in this case I would like to address it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle). It L2651 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2651

is my information that there is another position in that department almost identical to the one in Social Services which has also been filled without eompettton, without advertising. The individual wno Occupies IL is an individual by the name of BiLL Lormait whose chief cLaim to fame is that he was on the executive of the PC Youth Association. Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs please inform me whether that is accurate or not? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no need for

preamble in asking what is really a second supplementary. The hon. the member for Henihek MR. FENICK: Mr. Speaker, 1 have asked the question. 1,4ould the minister answer, please? 4R pwftg'p The lion. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that particular matter under advisement because I am not aware of how the hiring of Mr. Norman was done. I will report back. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr Speaker. P!A1CFP The hon. the member for Fortune-Hermitage on a supplementary. MR. SIMMONS: In reference to the answer that my friend the Minister of Social Services (Mr.

Brett) gave to the first question, I do not want to zero in on the particular case, but he said something that the House will find of interest and I would Like him to clarify it. His closing remark was that because of the particularLy high qua 1 if icat ions of the individua I he was discussing there was no need for him to go to the PubLic Service Commission. Can we, Mr.

Speaker, extrapolate f corn the implication in the minister's statement that they only use the Public Service Commission when there is a question of basic qualifications for the ,job, or would he care to take the opportunity to correct the record before it has other implications for other people who are applying? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quote myself verbatim but what I intended to say was that it was not necessary for me to go through the Public Service Commission because the position is a temporary one. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: I do not know why all the applause today. It is not my birthday. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: L2652 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2652

I guess it is because they have so little to cheer about and applaud about. Hr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and it is a supplementary, I suppose, to a question asked by the member for Fogo (Hr. Tulk) a few minutes ago and it concerns the announced bankruptcy of Ocean Harvesters. Last year when the restructuring agreement was being negotiated, Hr.

Speaker, members on this side, and others, expressed some fears as to what effect that kind of a conglomerate might have on the private sector, that it have the effect of maybe injuring or lessening the prospects of the privately owned plants to continue to operate. Is the minister satisfied now that the bankruptcy of Ocean Harvesters may not be a forerunner of what very well might happen to other plants now owned by private companies? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I have had extensive discussions with the present principals of Ocean Harvesters over the last several months, since I came into this portfolio, and I have had extensive discussions with the Independent Fish Processors Association. Hr. Speaker, anybody who knows the principals of Ocean Harvesters know that they are not backward about coming forward with their thoughts, and never once has it ever been indicated to me that there was any shred of indication that the financial difficulty surrounding Ocean Harvesters had anything to do with FPI or any activities of FPI or the presence of FF1 in this Province.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the originaL fears that were expressed by the independent operators back in the days when FF1 were horn - and I have tried to meet with them on a regular basis, probably every month or so - have been Laid to rest. As I understand it their interaction with FF1 is exceLlent. FF1 does good marketing work for a number of them. I have had no complaints or no expression of fears from either Ocean Harvesters, any of the independents, or the Independent Processors Association, since the first days that I have been in this ministry, concerning FF1. HR. W. CARTER: Thank you, Hr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has now elapsed. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I have two tablings, if I may. The first is The Twelfth Annual Report of the Newfoundland Liquor Licencing Board. I also have six Special rJarrants to be tab 1.ed under the provisions of

Section 28 (2) and (3) of The Financial Administration Act. These relate to funds for FF1, forest fire suppression, the salmon hatchery 1.2653 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2653

in Bay d'Espoir, the special sawmill assistance programme, the Canada Jobs Strategy programme, and certain residences in Labrador. ?titions HR. SIMHS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and 1..ands. MR. SIHMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of approximately 3,600 residents of Central Newfoundland - and I say Central in the broadest possible way who support a brief prepared by the Town of Grand Falls regarding the white paper on the reorganized vocational school system.

This, of course, being the final day for representations to the department with respect to that white paper, it is a very appropriate time to present the petition. The prayer of the petition reads as follows: "We, the undersigned, support the town of Grand Falls in their brief concurring with changes in the vocationaL school programme, the revision of existing courses and recommending the inclusion of such progralTuries as aquaculture, forestry and the selective aspects of health care and the offering of first and/or second year level university courses.

"'ge also support the estabLis1ment of a board of governors with broad representation consistent with the size of the board." I want to indicate too, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, my total support for this particular petition and I want to commend the town council on the initiative they took by appointing a committee to circulate the petition. I think they have done an excellent job. The petition, ir. Speaker, represents a broad spectrum of the population of the central portion of the Island of Newfoundland.

The petition was signed by people in some twenty-five different communities ranging from the Baie Verte area in the West through the Grand Falls area into the Lewisporte area and South to communities in Bay d'Espoir. I also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the brief itself, which the petition refers to, has also received support in the form of Letters and other documents from twenty-seven organizations that represent important segments of the public ranging from development associations, school boards, town council, chambers of commerce, service clubs and church organizations.

These twenty-seven organizations also cover a broad geographical area, Mr. Speaker, from White Bay and Bale Verte all around the Exploits central region down to St. Alban's, including Springdale, Green Bay, Harbour Breton, as well as Gander Bay and Lumsden. T. want to point out specifically, Mr. Speaker, that these representations, both in the Letter of support to the brief and in the petition itself, includes the public from nine provincial districts.

They incLude Bale Verte - White Bay; Green Bay; Windsor-Buchans; Grand Falls; Exploits; Fortune-Hermitage; Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir; Lewisporte and Fogo, all in varying degrees, of course. L2654 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2654

Mr. Speaker, the brief which has drawn such heavy public support in this petition, and from those twenty- seven oranizat ions that I mentioned, was recently submitted to my colleague, the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies (Hr. Power). In fact, it was done yesterday by the i4ayor of Grand Falls. The brief includes a number of points, including a few that I would like to highlight at this time. One of the main points, Mr. Speaker, is that the Department of Career Development set up the proposed regional community college system within the overall time frame set out in the White Paper.

Another important point, Mr. Speaker, is that the administrative headquarters of the Centa I Newfoundland Regiona I Cmraminity College he located in Grand Falls. The brief has also called for an autonomous board of governors, of course, which would be representative of a cross

section of the people in the Central Newfoundland area but small enough, of course, to operate efficiently. The brief recommends, as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Grand Falls campus initially offer a large enough selection of courses to enable students to enroll in a full first year university credit programme and that it also offer a part-time credit programme, university non-credit and certificate courses, and trades and technical courses as set out in the prayer of the petition. Two other points, Mr. Speaker, are among those that I want to bring to the attention of the House at this time.

These are that existing programmes and equipment in the Grand Falls District Vocational School he revised and updated to reflect current and future training demands and that an imimdiate start he made on retraining and upgrading instructors in order to give them an opportunity to keep up with those changes. Mr.

Speaker, obviously if we are to keep up and provide the types of training programmes needed to prepare our young people for the future, there will have to be an infusion of money into the reorganized vocational school system in order to provide the necessary materials and to be abLe to attract the necessary and highly trained technical and university faculty that will be required. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is any doubt that an expenditure of such funds would he looked upon in the future as money well spent. So may I say in conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, that the wide support for this particular brief is very evident both in the large number of people who have signed the petition and in the number of organizations that have joined forces with the town in seeking to have their recommendations and their brief implemented. It gives me pleasure, Mr. Speaker; to table the petition along with some supporting documents and ask that it be referred to the department to which it relates. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. L2655 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2655

MR. BARRY: I am not sure I caught all of the petition, I think I did. I think - MR. PEACH: (inaudible) -iR. BARRY: I will take lessons now from the member for Carbonear (Mr. Peach) when he reaches the front benches. One of these days he might do it. Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the Mouse can support the concept of adding the matters such as aquaculture, forestry, certain health care courses and certain university courses to the projected changes in our vocationaL system and trades coLlege system. However, I would like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that there is a very real problem - and the minister should address this - in the manner in which this process is being carried out. We have only recently learned that this paper did not draw upon the collective advice of those who are presently within the system. Basically, it was drawn up, as I understand it, by the minister with one or two advisers. AN HON. MEMBER: One. MR. BARRY: One adviser.

I think there was a real danger there, not that the minister should he afraid of discarding hidebound ideas that might be there, that might be heLd by those now within the system, but I am sure there are a lot of good, innovative and creative ideas from members of the existing system. I know there is a very real concern - because I have spoken with a large number of them - on the part of existing vocational and trade school instructors that the minister risks throwing out the baby with the bath water.

A lot of what is good or what could be made good within the existing system may be threatened if the minister does not, before this White Paper process is completed, draw upon the collective wisdom of those now involved within that system. I would suggest to the minister, in all seriousness, that he give serious consideration to the calling together of some form of conference of those with a view to having more detailed input that has been possibLe to date from those within the system. AN HON. MEMBER: We had one one weekend. MR. BARRY: I know there was a meeting in Grand Falls one weekend.

We had a member of our caucus out attending it. But the concern is there that there has not been adequate input from the members of the vocational system who are now there. So I would ask the minister to give that consideration. With respect to looking at new courses, I have written the minister with respect to suggesting that course in agriculture be added to the curriculum for Bell Island. There is a great interest in, and there are Lots of jobs being provided right now by that farm that the Bell Island Development Association has going.

What they want is to give young people some experience with the academic aspects of agriculture so that L2656 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2656

they might become more interested, more knowledgeable and involved and, in a smaLl way, start providing jobs which are desperately needed on Bell IsLand. The minister asked me what about - MR. SIiHZ: The petition itself, do you support the recommendations contained in the brief to which this petition refers? For example, they want the administration of the community college to be located in Grand Falls. MR. BARRY: That was the part that I missed. In January or February of this year I said in a policy speech in Gander that it was time for government to Look at the estabLishment of a series of regional colleges.

I see this dhite Paper as a step towards that. I can see where regional coLleges will develop. At that same time in the Lions Den of Gander, which has a great interest and is a competitor to Grand Falls with respect to the location for such a college, I suggested that it is not unhealthy to encourage a good competition between the two centres. I want to see more from Grand Falls. I want to see more from Gander before I am prepared to recommend that government take a position one way or the other with respect to the location.

Perhaps, in light of the fact that the minister fought so valiantly to get the forestry center removed from Grand Falls, maybe that requires some special consideration for the minister with respect to the location of the regional college. But, it is something that the two towns, I think, should be encouraged to show their stuff, get out and compete for this regional coLlege and I am sure the minister and government will end uv making a wise decision. If they do not, the peopLe will Let them know. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies. MR. POWER: Hr.

Speaker, I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) is in favour of the petition as presented, which means that the community colLege must be centered in Grand Falls. However, I guess, the important point is that the petition has been presented because there are certain persons in the Central Newfoundland region that are keenly aware and keenly concerned about what might happen in a coimminity college system for that part of the Province.

The member who presented the petition, and did so, as he usually does, very eloquently, is outlining the needs of the Central Newfoundland region, and not just Grand Falls because this community college system for Central Newfoundland takes in many, many coimm.inities. As indicated in the petition, anywhere from Bay d'Espoir to Green Bay, to Lewisporte, to the whoLe Central Newfoundland area and Gander Bay as well, there has been support for a community college system in Central Newfoundland. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) is not really correct when L2657 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2657

he says that we have not had full input when we identified the white paper. I gather he was quoting me when I was in Grand Falls on Saturday at a meeting and there was great concern as to who had wriOn or composed or directed the white paper. I said, at that meeting, that it was myself and my Assistant Deputy Minister who basically compiled the paper because some parts of it were very contentious as it related to laying off instructors, reducing courses, or reorganizing certain colleges in relation to the community college system.

So because of its contentious nature we did it, which is our job as poLiticians and as senior bureaucrats to he able to give direction. e were not dictatorial in our approach, Mr. Speaker, and said this is the opinion of one or two senior peopLe, get it approved by Cabinet and have it implemented without having full input.

I doubt if any paper like this has ever gone out to the public of Newfoundland so that every single individual, every organization, every trade school that we now have, every adult education group and every status of women groups so as to have input into what will eventually become a new community college system for this Province. How can you he any more fair than that, Mr.

Speaker, than to say that YOU want to make something better, you want to make some changes and you go out and you ask as many people of the 560,000 that are capable in Newfoundland to give you some feedback? 1.4e have done that. e have found in Newfoundland all kinds of responses, and the responses have been excellent. I am surprised myseLf that in the last month or six weeks we have had so many interested groups in all parts of Newfoundland sending in submissions, very detailed, very substantial submissions which I am sure took a lot of time to do.

Those submissions sent in to government are all unanimous in their agreement that there must he changes made to the vocational school system if we as a Province are every going to get our full share of whatever job opportunities might grow up in Newfoundland. The principles that we have in the ,Jhite Paper have also received unanimous agreement in this Province. The princip Ic of tlec.entra Lizat ion, of a I lowing persons in all parts of Newfoundland to have equal access to educational opportunity as inexpensively as possible.

So that a person is in Port aux Basques will be able to, in this new system, to have university-type courses taught in Port aux Basques, close to home and at less expense. The idea of decentralization is accepted by everyone.

The idea of transfer of credits between all our college systems and all our vocational schools is accepted so you do not have the unfair system, as we saw, the Premier and I, the other day up at the new College of Fisheries opening, that in certain times you could do an English course at one college, the College of Trades or the College of Fisheries, and you could not go to university and get credit for that almost identical English course which was taught at university. The idea of transfer of credits is unanimously accepted by everyone I have spoken to in Newfoundland. L2658 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2658

The reduction in certain training areas, the idea to bring in new courses - Mr.

Speaker, I will conclude in a minute - the idea of instructor retraining, of sabbaticals, of industry interface so that you can have uistructors from our schooL system going out in industry to Learn what is really happening, the idea of local, boards who Will take initiatives in an area about certain courses such as forestry courses for Central Newfoundland, agriculture courses or anything else and, finally, the idea that we will be very flexible, as a government, in trying to make sure that we adapt a new system to accommodate the needs of all the young students in Newfoundland. We intend to do that.

This government has made a very high priority of post secondary education in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I am almost Losing weight chasing the Premier around this Province announcing new educational deeds, whether it is the $5 million fine arts degree granting progratune in Corner Brook, whether it is up to the Institute of Fisheries or Marine Technology opening a $40 million building, whether it is Friday night opening a $7.5 million School of Music, and next Spring we are going to have many more announcements about post secondary education in this Province. We are going to make it better.

We are going to make it more responsive because the young people of Newfoundland need and deserve it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: By leave? By leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay, nay! MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker. R. SPEAKER (McNichotas): Order, pLease! MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker. The hon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of some thirty-five fishermen from McCalluin.

I will read for you the prayer of the petition: "The mandatory requirement to use Larger than five inch mesh nets for gill nets for fishermen at McCallum is grossly unfair and should be changed immediately. The fact is half the fish we catch are redfish, haddock and hake, and if we are forced to use five and one-half inch mesh size, we will not be able to catch these species and our income will be cut in half. It would he impossible for us to make a Living here anymore. ALL our catches of cod using five inch mesh size have been passed and graded as large.

Every fisherman in McCallum have five inch mesh size nets and we cannot afford to buy a new fleet of nets. "e, the undersigned fishermen of McCallum in the district of Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir, desperately request the House of Assembly and the Premier of the Province to make immediate representation to Ottawa to have this decision reversed in time for the 1986 fishing season. In support of this petition to the 1.2659 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2659

hon. House, we subscribe our names.' 'Go ahead. We will Let them fish on for this year and we will have a meeting with them sometime in December. $ Mr. Speaker, 1 wouLd like to say a few words about that. r. Speaker, those peopLe in that area of the South Coast, the cCalLum area, are the only people who fish continually with gill nets, and it is a problem that the federal Department of Fisheries has been aware of for the last five to six years. Every once in a while, it rears its head.

Someone from the federal Department of Fisheries goes in to McCalLum and advises those peopLe that they can no longer use the five inch nets and they iTuist go to the five and one-haLf inch gill nets. now, the fishermen in that area say they are concerned about the fact that all around them, up and down the coast, people are fishing with trawLs, and we all know that trawLs are not very selective.

They can catch the now famous tomcod and conner and other species, but with this five inch net they are talking about, they are catching the hake, redfish, and pollock, and the cod that they are catching are a large size. So they do not think it is a really serious problem with the depletion of the stock. The larger size they are taking is a good cash crop for them, really. With the urrent situation in the inshore fishery, the fishermen of McCallum are lucky to he catching any fish at all.

The Last time that federal Fisheries came in was about two months ago, and they told the fishermen to take up their nets. iow, after 1 phoned the various officials in the federal department, the director told me, T,hat the fishermen are concerned about right now is the fact that their fishing season Will be coming to an end. It will start again in March, and if they have not been given a decision by the federal Department of Fisheries, they are not able to go fishing again in March. Since traditionally they have fished this way, they are asking that they be allowed to continue in their traditional lifestyle.

If they are forced to go to a Larger net size, they will not be abLe to catch the type of fish they are now catching, the hake and red fish and po I Lock, and they are going to be deprived of a Livelihood. Also, if they are forced to change their method of fishing, there is going to be a cost involved. And, this year, with the situation in the inshore fishery, of which we are all aware, I am sure the cost to those people wouLd be unbearable. On my Last visit there about three weeks ago, they were telling me that those of them who qualified for unemployment insurance at that time were eligible for $110 a week.

I feel there should be intervention from the province. I realize that it is a federal problem, but these people are asking for the Province to intercede with Ottawa in order that they can carry on a Lifestyle that has been established down through the years so there will not he another conmiinity that we will have to move out and resettle. L2660 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2660

If they are not allowed to carry on in the Lifestyle that they have established, it is going to be another case of problems for the Department of Social Services. Jhat are they going to do with these people? Thank you, Hr. Speaker. AN HON. ?4BER: Well said! Well said! HR. DECKER: Hr. Speaker. HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. HR. DECKER: Hr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this petition. I want to compliment my colleague for the passion and the humanity which he shows in presenting this petition.

If I were a fisherman in HcCallum I would be proud to know that a man of his stature is in here fighting on my behalf to try to beat some sense into the heads of members opposite. Hr. Speaker, this petition is contained on one small page, it is the briefest petition that I have seen during my short stay here. But I would Like to draw to the attention of this hon. House some of the words that are contained in this petition to see what our people are saying. In the first paragraph, Hr. Speaker, the words 'grossly unfair'. That to me is an impassioned pronouncement.

That is a pronouncement on the situation as those fishermen see it out there in NcCallum. The size of those gill nets is being interpreted by a group of fishermen as being 'grossly unfair'. Mr. Speaker, this is so true of so much that we see in this Province around us today. The unfairness is so obvious that the peopLe are picking it up and when they present a petition to this hon. House the first two words which pop out of the f it'st paragraph of the petition are that something is grossly unfair.

That, Sir, is pronouncement upon all of us that a situation could exist in this Province when the size of a giltuet is perceived as being grossly unfair. In this petition, Hr. Speaker, I look at the common sense of the common man, the common sense of the fisherman. Half their catch, they say, is redfish, haddock, and hake. Yet they are required to have a mesh which is bigger than five inches. The common sense of the fishermen can see that a five and a haLf inch mesh is not adequate for them to catch half the fish that they are after.

Yet some bureaucrats in Ottawa, who probabLy does not even know the difference between a redfish and a codfish, dictates that they must use a mesh which is too big to catch half the fish that they are trying to catch. Then I go further down into that same paragraph, Mr. Speaker, and I see the words it wouLd be impossible for us to make a Living here anymore.' Surely members can hear the plea. This plea is coming from one of our small Newfoundland outports and the people are saying it is impossible for us to make a Living here any-more.

It is impossible, not because there is a shortage of redfish and haddock and hake, it is impossible because of the L2661 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2661

regulations. It is impossible because of the bureaucrats again. This is why it is impossible. If we did not have this silliness, this lack of knowledge, this lack of concern, if we did not have this Lack of concern and this lack of knowledge of the fishery, it would not be impossible for those people to make a living. But because of bureaucratic nonsense a group of people in McCallum are saying to this hon. House, it would be impossible for us to make a Living here anymore, Mr. Speaker. Can you hear the plea that they are making to this House? I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is not faLling upon deaf ears.

I see noses buried in the newspapers, I see heads stuck down, people completely uninterested, comp lete ly unconcerned about the people of McCallum. Is it any wonder that the bureaucrats get away with this nonsense when this hon. House sits back and listens to this impassioned cry that comes out from McCallum and says, Tt is impossible for us to make a Living here any more. What a cry! What a cry! MR. SPEAKER (MeNicholas): Order, please! The hon. member has now spoken for five minutes. MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. RIDEO1JT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries MR.

RIDEOIJT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, that I have no problem whatsoever in supporting the principle of the prayer of this petition. I wouLd assume that the prayer of the petition and the words so eloquently referred to by the hon. gentleman for the Strait of Belle Isle (Hr. Decker) are the prayer and the words of the fishermen whose names prepare on the attachment. MR. WARREN: I am doubtful. I am doubtful. MR.

RIDEOUT: I would assume that is their prayer, because the words that the hon. gentLeman so eloquently referred to are words typed on a piece of paper and signed by three gentlemen opposite. The attachment has thirty-five or forty names on it. MR. BARRY: Ah, you do not understand. MR. RIDEOUT: I am not saying - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas Order, please! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I did not open my mouth while I was listening to the hon. gentleman.

All I said was, 'I assume that that was their words, so eloquently put forth by the gentleman for the Strait of Belle Isle.' 'That is their plea, that is their cry', he said. Well, if that is their plea, if that is their cry, if those are their words, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support that, because I support the principle of this petition. L2662 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2662

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me also say that I agree that the common sense of the common man is very often overlooked by bureaucrats, bureaucrats everywhere, I suppose. But the further bureaucrats get away from the fishery the further they get away from the way of Life in rural ewfounti land and Labrador, and then more often than not the comiton sense of the common man, and the common wisdom that has been born and grown by generations in this Province, Living under the conditions we have, is forgotten, and the closer you get to the Ottawa Valley, Mr. Speaker, the more difficult that becomes.

And those regulations that the hon. gentLeman so eloquently brings in here today on behaLf of his constituents were regu lat ions that were put into place two or three years ago by another administration, by another government. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, IL will take a copy of the petition since I do not think one has been sent to me. I will support in principle the prayer of the petition, and I will ask that hopefully there may be some more compassion in Ottawa today, in 1985, than there was when those regulations were bought in three or four years ago. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FEN1JICK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that may be familiar to people. This one is from the District of Fortune and it has three live signatures on it. There is a total of 220, the rest being copies. I present the petition reluctantly because I was hoping that the member for the district, who has received the original, would have presented it. Since he has not, I assume he is not supporting the prayer of the petition.

I will give the prayer of the petition: It is essentially the same as the one presented from Red Bay, in that the individuals protest the high rates charged for diesel oil generated electricity. Again, it is a request for equality among all the people of the Island part of the Province who are being nailed for this oil generated electricity from the diesel plants despite the fact that the argument against them was that they were higher-cost operations. Mr.

Speaker, without going into the arguments again, the only element I would like to add to the debate today is that it is my understanding that in order to Lower their rates to the point where they would be the same as other individuals on the Island would require something like $5 million, which is in the area of 10 per cent of the profits of tewfoundland and Labrador Hydro, well within our means of doing it. I would say that in honest justice it should be done, and I would be interested in hearing the emher for this particular area respond to the petition. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I should Like to L2663 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2663

respond to the petition, and I would also Like to be abLe take an opportunity to Look at the petition, as weLl. and two other people. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is out of order. if we are going to TR. BARRY: I wi L Let you have a Look at it sometime. HR. MARSHALL: Yes, because it may raise a matter of procedure in the House. Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that this is a petition that the hon. member has brought from the town of Fortune? It is a copy of a petition. The three signatures that the hon. member says are on it are certainly on it. I cannot decipher who they are, but there are two from St.

John's and one from the hon. member himself. I do not 'now, but I would assume that of those two, one is a person by the name of Flynn, the other is a person by the name of Howse. It is a very easy thing for somebody to bring in a petition like this and to get somebody outside the district to sign it. So it is not really a petition from the town of Fortune. It is a copy of a petition from the town of Fortune signed by two residents of St. John's and the hon. member. Now there are certain rules, Mr. Speaker, and this is stretching the rules. This is not the petition that had been sent in by the town of Fortune.

This is a copy of it and it has been altered by those particular signatures. One-upmanship is fine and grand and all the rest of it but this is really an abuse of the privileges of this House. Under the rules, a petition has to be signed by the petitioners. The petitioners who presented this petition have not signed it. The people who signed it are the hon. member for Menihek do that, it is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to use procedures like this from time to time to embarrass hon. members which the hon. gentleman is trying to do. I think if this is allowed to go on it is just going to curb procedures in the House.

MR. FENICK: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek, to the point of order. MR. FENICK: Hr. Speaker, I do not believe I heard the President of the Council point to one single rule that is violated. it has three.igatures on it which are reaL actual signatures. it is a copy I fuLly admit. I did admit in my introduction that it was. That is because the original petition has not been presented by the member. I believe it is within the rules of the House and it should be accepted. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the tradition and practice of constituents, electors, or citizens being able to petition their representatives in Parliament goes back a long, long way. It is very important that that tradition be observed in the broadest possible terms, that L2664 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2664

the spirit of this not be impeded by the narrow technicalities, the pettifogging technicalities raised by the Government House Leader. to satisfy the Government House Leader. MR. MARSHALL: Hr. Speaker, what is the problem? 1-low much ti.me is it going to take? The substance of the petition is there. The Government House Leader, Hr. Speaker, must know that the ordinary citizen is not even aware of the fact that in this day of the photocopier that an accurate copy is not adequate. MR. TOBIN: It is an insuLt. MR. BARRY: Hr. Speaker, it is an insult! You are an insult to the House. Sit down. SOME HON.

HEHBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have members who cannot controL themselves. The gopher contingent, Mr. Speaker, cannot control themselves in this House. What. I am saying, Hr. Speaker, is that unless there is a question with respect to the accuracy of what is presented there should he no pettifogging technicalities that exclude the people of this Province from petitioning their representatives in ParLiament. It is unfortunate, Hr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader (Hr.

Marshall) is going to try and Limit by legal technicalities the form of petitions because the ordinary person is not aware, Hr. Speaker, of the technicalities that have to be met with in order The hon. gentleman wanted authority, look it is here. Standing Order 91 (a) , "A petition must be either printed or written and if more than three petitioners sign it, at least three signatures must appear on the page containing the prayer of the petition." The hon. gentLeman indicated, no doubt it is in the record, that his secretary signed it. What he has done, Mr.

Speaker, he has gotten a copy of a petition and copies are not admissible here in the House because a petition has to he signed. So in order to get around it the hon. gentleman signed it, his secretary, and somebody else. But it also says under Standing Order 90 that the member must sign, you know. So the question is whether it has got to he the member and three people, so in that case it would be out of order. But the point I am making is what the hon. gentleman is doing he is trying to one up the hon. member for Grand Bank (Hr.

Matthews), it is cheap, it is petty, it is not in accordance with the rules, the petition that was sent in by the good people of Fortune did not need signatures from St. John's to give it validity at all. I do not think that they would appreciate it. The petition that was brought in here and signed by the people of Fortune for somebody to get up and add names to it is altering it and you know what an affront and a breach of privilege of the people concerned. Whoever circulated that petition did not intend the hon. gentleman to have his secretary sign it, and somebody else sign it.

That happens to be a petition from the Town of 1.2665 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2665

Fortune and the peopLe from the Town of Fortune can taLk, they do not need the people from St. Joim' s to La 1k for them, neither do they need the member for Henihek to talk for them, they have a member in this House who is quite capable of doing it, has been elected once and elected again and he will he elected over and over again, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I have heard enough discussion on this matter. The petition, it is obviously and has been said this is a copy. there are three names here, one the hon. member's signature and two others from St.

John's. I am going to study this a hit more in this context for the future and I am not ruling this petition out of order because of that. But it is certainly out of order in the sense that a petition should he addressed to this House and this particular petition is not addressed to the House. HR. FENWICK: A point of order. MR. SPEAKER: I have ruled on that point of order. HR. FENWICK: May I make a point of order then? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: I do not want to challenge your ruling because - well maybe I will challenge your ruling, I am afraid I on going to.

We have presented tons of petitions in this House from both sides of the House in which there has not been a specific reference to this House. And they have been ruLed in order time and time and time again. So, Hr. Speaker, I chalLenge the u Li ng of the ChaIr. HR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is out of order. MR. FENWICK: I am challenging the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair please say "Aye", contrary minded "Nay", the motion is carried. Orders of the Day MR. MARSHALL: Motion 10, Mr.

Speaker, that is the motion on factory freezer trawlers. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce this motion. All hon. members of the House are aware, and I guess most of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are aware of the present application by National Sea Products to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa to licence a factory freezer trawler for the prosecution of the East Coast fishery, specifically to access L2666 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 E2666

fish from the Northern cod stock of f Newfoundland and that this application not only contains an application for one specific factory freezer trawler but to enlarge that Licence for a number of other factory freezer trawlers over time. Now, Mr. Speaker, when National Sea made the application to the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Nielsen), the first thing that we did through the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Rideout) was to try to get a copy of the application before we made any corment on it, and secondly, to try to get some reading from the federal department as to how they were disposed towards it. 1,ie had assumed, while we were getting a copy of the application, that obviously the app Lication wouLd be rejected out of hand because it violates il provision of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland. However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time decided to take the matter into consideration and refer it to an advisory coimtittee.

At the same time we were after getting a copy of the application to show that it was not just one factory freezer trawler that National Sea were interested in. Because National Sea have since been making the argument that this is no problem, that this one factory freezer trawler is just going to take fish out of our existing quota and therefore not impacted upon the amount of fish offshore for Newfoundland and so on.

After getting a copy of the application, we saw that they were not only talking about one factory freezer trawler, but many factory freezer trawlers, that they were talking about the Northern cod stock, that they were also talking about other species of fish, over time to be taken, including, perhaps, caplin and squid offshore. Therefore, when those two matters came together, our full knowledge of the application and two, consideration being given to it by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, we began to register our opposition to the application and to its being considered.

After we registered our opposition to it, Mr. Speaker, and after some time had passed, it became obvious that the National Sea interests and other corporate interests in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and even the North Shore of Quebec were beginning to Line up behind National Sea in Lobbying the federal government to approve such an application.

Obviously it was in the best interests of some of these corporate interests to support National Sea, because in supporting National Sea and factory freezer trawlers, more particularly, through National Sea it would give the other small fish companies and larger fish companies in Eastern Canada an opportunity to make an application for factory freezer trawlers as well.

It is a known fact, for example, that the Georgetown fish plant in Prince Edward Island has been closed down for lack of resource for perhaps a couple of years, and that the only way that this fish plant can get re-opened viably and consistently over a long period of time is to access additionaL fish, and really the only place that that fish can come from is from the Northern cod stock. are other smaller L2667 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2667

operators )V3 Scotia who are just waitr this application to be appso that they, too, can make ime case to have a factory frtrawler. lcw, ir. or, as a result, therefore ,ade our opposit Lan known to ederal Minister of Fisheries Nielsen) and to others ie government at Ottawa. in decided, because we saw the lobby group that was lininyith National Sea - not becaur love National Sea but they see a chance later on for thet factory freezer trawlers it was necessary for the Cent of Newfoundland and Labr to organize its opposition this application being con.

There were so much suppoming from other p Laces foLonal Sea that we felt it :o muster as much support could, in the Province shout the Province, to show ou of the story. So, Mr. r, we began by calling all the various groups inundland to support us in our on against factory freezer ers for wise, prudent, aL and rational reasons. tame obvious, even before asked various organizatia Newfoundland to support that a lot of misinformahad already been laid in tiridors of power in Ottawa. ard it from Mr.

Cummings fational Sea and others whlied in many of their sts that we were against ass, that the Newfoundla people, the Newfound lathing industry was against golity fish. All of these LflTOfl5 came out of various stts that were made by intertin Nova Scotia, including l Sea.

So obviously there was great momentum building in Ottawa and Eastern Canada that somehow Newfoundland was being romantic and idealistic about this whole matter and that they accepted hook, Line and sinker the argument thatsomehow the quality :ratLer was the big, important matter and that the East Coast fishery would not be able to continue to compete unless it got this great quality fish that you could get from the factory freezer trawlers which you could not get from the wet fish trawlers that we were using.

Obviously we then decided that we had to muster and organize support for our position and we went to the various coimrtunity leaders and provincial organizations around the Province. e were highly successful in getting the support of just about every single Province-wide organization. The Newfoundland Federation of Labour has come out in our support. The Federation of Municipalities has come out in favour of our position. The Rural Development Council has come out in favour of our position, and many other provincial organizations as weLl.

The Fishermen's Union itseLf, which represents all of the fishermen and fish plant workers in this Province, came out in our support.e have in the last month of so had telegrams and letters from just about every council and every rural development association, and from many individuals. So that was the first thing we did. At the same time as we called upon the people of Newfoundland to get behind us, that this was not a partisan issue, it was a Newfoundland and Labrador issue superceding or overriding political considerations, we decided that we would do some L2668 0- 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2668

research and produce a document which supported logically and rationally the position that we had taken. So we produced that document and we made it public and we have sent it to the Prime -1inister, to every member of he federal Cabinet and to every HP in the House of Courrtons. We aLso sent it to all the leading newspapers in Canada who are either bit interested in this matter, all of the newspapers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and even Ontario, to the Globe and Hail, to the Toronto Star, to the Ottawa Citizen and so on.

That has been done and I think we got a fair amount of publicity on that to expLain our position. Unfortunately, very often with the press and with other peopLe, they do not carry the reasons, they just carry that the Premier of Newfoundland is opposed to something or whatever, and they do not get into all the Logical, rational, sound reasons, that we are not against progress, that we are not against good quality, that we realize that you have got to have all these things. What it comes down to, and it is contained in the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of factory freezer trawlers is an issue of distance.

It has nothing to do with technology. It has nothing to do with quality. It has nothing to do with any of those things. It has to do with distance. Thankfully, we are closest to the resource so we can utilize the technology which will give us just as high a quality of fish and at the same time provide the maxilTujm number of jobs on shore for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue of distance. So when people talk about foreigners being over here when they should not be, I agree to an extent that they should not take our fish stocks.

It is a question of distance and that is why they have factory freezer trawlers. Why a r e, the factory freezer trawlers over here from 3urope? Because it is a question of distance. To come and go back from Europe to the Grand Banks, you need to have something to freeze your fish to keep it in good quality. That is why the factory freezer trawlers are needed. The long and short of it is that we do not need them because we are close. Nobody will recognize that simple little piece of geography, that we are cLosest to the resource and therefore have no need for this factory trawLer technology.

If we were further away and had a need we Li then we would use it because the need would be there. So, Mr. Speaker, we produced that document and we have distributed it far and wide. The Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, as another string to our bow, met with the Altantic Caucus of Ml's for the government side and explained our position to them, briefed them on our booklet and explained our position. MR. BARRY: All of the Atlantic MPs? PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, all of the Atlantic MPs in Ottawa.

We have briefed them on our position and they have a copy of our document and the two minister went through it, explaining each of the reasons, not the least of which, by the way, outside of quality and L2669 October 31, 1985 Vol XL. No. 50 R2669

distance and all the rest of it, is that we need it because we still have a lot of our plants with not enough fish in them. We have fish plants closed dOwn today, talking about enough fish. hid not the Least of it -ias the -hoLe issue of La Brittania, the ship that France has down in St.

Pierre and Miqueton, which is a factory freezer trawler, and Canada has said, 'You cannot use the factory part of that trawler because you have to be on an equal footing with the domestic bottoms and all the domestic bottoms are wet fish trawlers.' Well, as soon as Canada changes its views on that and allows domestic bottoms to be factory freezer trawlers, well then they do not have the equal footing principle to rely on anymore to keep France from using a factory freezer trawler. Then France is going to say to Canada, 'You told us equal footing. Equal footing was wet fish trawlers.

Now you are into factory freezer trawlers. We want to be on an equal footing so therefore we are going to have factory freezer trawlers.' And they have ten of them. So the issue goes even further than just a question of distance between here and Nova Scotia, the fact that we traditionally fish the resource, the fact that we need it and all the other good reasons. It also goes into international politics as it relates to the ongoing relationships between Canada and France over St. Pierre and Miquelon and their rights to fish the resource of f the Grand Banks. So it becomes a fairly important issue. So, Mr.

Speaker, we called upon Newfound landers and Labradorians to support us, we produced a brochure at the same time, then later we briefed the Atlantic MPs and then, thirdly, just yesterday or the day before, I communicated to the Prime Minister and to all of the ministers in the Federal Cabinet the support that we have received from all the provincial organizations, from councils all over the Province, to demonstrate to the Cabinet of Canada that this is not just a party issue or an issue just about the Government of Newfoundland, that this is as big an issue for the Liberal Party, for the New Democratic Party, for the Federation of Municipalities, the Rural Development Council, the union and everybody else, it is a total Newfoundland and Labrador issue.

So we have taken that third step of communicating back to the Prime Minister and to the ministers in the Federal Cabinet on the matter. Now the fourth step, Mr. Speaker, is to have this resolution passed unanimously by this Legislature so that we can communicate this to the Federal Minister of Fisheries and also send copies of the resolution to all the members of the Cabinet of Canada and to all the members of the House of Co-ITU'nons.

I guess some of us here in the House remertther when the Prime Minister of Canada said on a number of occasions on television that apparently I did not realize that fish swam, and because fish swam therefore they were a Canadian resource and all the rest of it. Of course, as I said in this House many times before, I had to point out to the Prime Minister that the Northern cod stock, which was the one we were talking about, did swim; the problem was that it swam from offshore Newfoundland to inshore Newfoundland and that, therefore, L2670 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2670

obviously, we should have first crack at it. It is really strange. Just imagine if the tables were reversed and the Northern cod stock was off Nova Scotta or off New Brunswick: Do you think in your wiLdest dreams <nowing what we know about the history of this country since 1949 to now, that we would suddenly be able to move in and take some of that fish and bring it back to Newfoundland because we were a fishing province, too? MR. SIHMS: Not on your life. PREMIER PECKFORD: Not on your Life.

Right up until 1976 or 1917 the Northern cod stock was an exclusive resource for the peopLe of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was after that time, after 1977, that the federal government began a 1 lowing people from the other Eastern provinces to take a part of that Northern cod and today their quota is between 30,000 and 40,000 metric tons.

We are the poorest Province in Canada, with the highest unempLoyment rate and lowest ncoines - whatever is high and bad we are, and whatever is low and bad we are that, too - yet there are those Up-along, some of the newspaper writers, especially, who have never been to Newfoundland, trying to tell us that somehow we are greedy or selfish. I mean, it is an incredible series of events when you come to look at it, because there are those who think of this as concerning as surplus fish. What surplus? There is no surpLus. It is a figment of somebody's imagination. And so we want, Hr.

Speaker, through this House, with the opposition parties to support this resolution, which is presented in a -manner which I think should be acceptabLe to all hon. members.

WHEREAS National Sea Products Limited has app Lied for a Licence to the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to use a factory freezer trawler; and

WHEREAS this application does not involve just one such trawler but others in the near future; and

WHEREAS these factory trawlers involve accessing the Northern cod of f Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS this means over time greater effort against the Northern cod stock and therefore more fish taken from Newfoundland; - which it has to inevitabLy mean. And that is where I take issue with Hr. Cummings and National Sea, they keep saying it very coyly in their statement, "This specific application, "This specific trawler", instead of dealing with the whole application when the whole application says more than one trawler. It says that we are going to be back Looking for three or four. that is in their application, that is a part of their application, not just this one but many more to follow.

WHEREAS the Northern cod stock is needed in Newfoundland, (the nearest land to this resource) to make money for our fishermen and fish plants, which are uneconomic, a viable business; and

WHEREAS there are 30,000 metric tons of Northern cod stock being Landed in Eastern Canadian ports outside of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS Canada should take more effective measure to terminate L2671 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2671

overfis)y foreign vessels within 00 mile Limit and undertal extend jurisdiction to inch entire Continental Shelf, tig the Flemish Cap; - we ncot even have aLl of our Cor I Shelf under the jurisdi.f Canada where there is a tot of fish, and because not in our 200 mile Limit L or within the area which w total jurisdiction over, ey in the world can come in agreements and take all thii Now if we had all the fisiwas on the Nose and Tail of tiks, as well as what we have the Northern cod stock, 11it be able to do a Little ccause we would have sufficich ourselves to say to othetians who are better off tha,yes, you can have some of fish as well, we could sui.t.

But here we are now and not even have all of the fis0ce of our Province under ttsdiction of Canada.

So how 4 expect somebody in the posihat we are in, who need all fish and more, to suddenly. seeing it being eroded aded away to other places w better than we are and who irther away than us and who never historically had thai to do with this resource QHEREAS tision in the 1983 Federal/ial Restructuring Mree'menteifica 1 Ly prohibits factory ir trawlers being used to t torthern cod; - this is did not think the Hinister Lsheries and Oceans was go:o consider the applicativ were very careful in that ucturing agreement, and, you Hr.

Cummings and National s comments not withstand.hat does not apply to Nova j That is why that provision was worded the way it was, it did not say Newfoundland, or Nova Scotia, or British Columbia, or New Brunswick, or PEI, the provision says, "Factory freezer technoLogy will not he used to harvest :orther -n cod" - full stop. Factory freezer traw]..er from anywhere to harvest the Northern cod. That is why it was worded that way.

It did not say factory freezer technology in Newfoundland would not he used to harvest Northern cod, it did not say, factory freezer technology from PEI, it said, factory freezer technology from anywhere. That is what the provision means, everybody knows what it means, and that would be a very unfortunate circumstance. This is not some small-time agreement, this restructuring agreement; this is a major agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland.

It had to pass by Order-in-Council of the Cabinet of Canada and an Order-in-Council of the Cabinet of Newfoundland, and we even went further and put it into legislation in Newfoundland. It is the law of the land in Newfoundland, it is in the legislation, and it and Order-in-CounciL agreement by the Government of Canada, so obviously they wou Ld have to go 'back and amend their Order-in-Council. I do not know about it legally, because it is only an Order-in-Council agreement. If there is any substance we can Lay our hands on from a legal point of view we will use it, but that should not be necessary.

It just retards good federal/provincial relations to enter into this and if for no other reason, and there are many, many others, as I have mentioned, it cannot be approved because it violates a L2672 t 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2672

federa 1/provinciaL agreement. So, Ir. Speaker, we want to see intatjjrus support for this resoLution so that we can once again use this string of our bow to strongly demonstrate to the federaL government, to the federaL Minister of Fisheries (Mr. NieLson), to the Prime Minister, to everybody in the Ottawa bureaucracy that the Government of Newfoundland is speaking with the full support of the political parties in this Province, with the full support of the union, with the Fisheries Association - I forgot to mention them earlier - Rural Development Councils, the Federation of Municipalities, and everybody else.

I think it would he extremely unfortunate if we are faced with the day when suddenly this license is approved and then suddenly you have France back trying to ge.t their factory freezer trawler used and other applications then coming from all over the place. It is going to he a sad, sad day. The Minister of Fisheries (ar. Rideout) was in Scandanavia a Little while ago and found out they are very, very concerned about. the quality of factory freezer trawlers.

When you have one, two, or three hundred people out 200 miles or more from shore for a week or two, or Longer, on a factory freezer trawler, there are morale problems and the question of quality becomes a very important one. They are not moving now in Iceland or Norway to build any further factory freezer trawler ships. As I understand it, only about 4 per cent of the whole catch in Iceland is landed by factory freezer trawlers, and they are very concerned, because most of the fish that Norway and Ice land have going into the United States market is wet fish landed by trawlers.

Because we are Canadians and we are supposed to know so-mething, about the fishery, if somebody on the East Coast of Canada who is head of a fish company suddenly makes the point that this wet Elsh trawLer technoLogy fish is bad quality fish, well, that is going to hurt the Scandinavians' fish in the United States just as much as it is going to hurt ours, because just about all their fish is wet fish trawler fish as well.

So the Scandinavians are very concerned about what National Sea is saying because it is going to hurt their markets as well, because just about all their fish that goes into the United States is not from factory freezer trawLers at all. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the reasons. The resolution goes through the main reasons here. And like all Newf ound Landers, and as everybody has said from time iimnemorial, I suppose, as it relates to Newfoundland's future, the future ist he based upon our renewable resources.

The renewable resources are the centre of our economic and industrial policy, and around that, from time to time, will rotate the offshore and the mineral industry. The forest industry is renewable so it should be in the centre with the fishery, and our agriculture and our tourism. These are renewable resources, they form the core of what is our economic future. They are the core and around them rotates the other non-renewable resources, like minerals and like the offshore, which can, from time to time, inject new money and jobs into the core of what is Newfoundland and Labrador.

And that is what we are hoping to do now with the offshore. The of fshbre is not the panacea to L2673 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2673

Newfoundland's future, but the offshore can assist in bringing in revenues and construction jobs to further stimulate the core economics of fishery and forestry. So we need to have access to that raw material which is off our shores to allow us to continue to have our economy based, to a Large extent, to that which has been natural to us for the Last 300 or 400 years, the fishery. In fact, Fishery Products International, the new fish company, have done their numbers.

They inherited three bankrupt companies, North Atlantic Fisheries, Fishery Products Limited, and the Lake Group of Companies, each one of them having so much debt. They have now restructured themselves. We have a good management team in there, and they are confident in their own minds that given half a chance, now that that debt load has been taken off their shoulders and they have been given some equity, they can have a very viable, profitable company based upon wet fish trawler technology and not factory freezer technology.

It is Fishery Products International which has won an award in the United States based upon wet fish trawler technology, and it is Fishery Products International which is today, out of the Burin pLant, producing secondary processed fish which goes directly on the supermarket shelf and which they can hardly keep supplied. The Americans have gone crazy over this fish product out of Burin. And, by the way, everybody told me years ago it was a dream, that I was absolutely foolish when I suggested it. I was laughed at by just about everybody. And how many are working there now? MR. TOBIN: Just about 300.

PTEMIER ?ECKFOBD: There are aLmost 300 working there now. But this is secondary processed fish from wet fish trawler technology. Because we are close to the resource, we do not need the factory trawLer technology. It is an unnecessary technology for us because we are so close to the resource. So it all comes down to a function of distance. The big problem here is the potential that this kind of application has.

It is not this appLication itself, if it was that one trawler, but if you look at that app I icat ion it contains provisions for more trawlers and what impact is that then going to have on the rest of the fish companies in Eastern Canada. Will they not want a freezer factory trawler also? Will not France want to use the La Britannia off St. Pierre and Miquelon? Will they not want their factory freezer trawler? Then you will get all the Europeans saying 'We have it made now offshore, because they have come along with us now with factory freezer technology.' So what does that do?

What impact will that have upon the resource that is going to be left to swim inshore for the inshore fishermen, and what impact will it have upon FPI, upon what resource will be left there for them and their wet fish trawLers? WiLL they then be forced into factory freezer trawlers and then several fish plants close down over a time because now the fish is being processed at sea, unnecessarily but forced into it by the trend of events of the time because of that L2674 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2674

originaIal by the federal governmel this particular applicat:o this is a sort of watershehe his tory of the fishery tern Canada because if, in an affirmative is .Vefl to pp Licat.ion what you are seei_a new coUrse taken on the oast fishery which will thei lead to the demise of much iinshore fishery and a restd, again, offshore fishery sound land based UPOU then anochno logy altogether and you p having a 30 per cent or cent unemployment rate in idland instead of a 19 per of 20 per cent unemploymite. I mean, that is what happen over time.

There ariEs, ands or buts about it. how does j .n with regional economic pment policy? We inentionedLn our booklet. How does thaer into regional economic pment, as espoused in the pies that have been agreed by the federaL governmentaLl the provinces, that we aposed to build upon our streni WeLL, our strength is going taken away. Our fish are to he taken away by another togy which, because they are r away, they have need of. at is not building upon our ths, that is taking away from strengths.

So the whole anal economic deveLopmentngopliy that all provinces Canada and the federal gc?nt have agreed to is beingiatd with the approval 0 License. There is case to be made, with veryie expansion, that one sectic the constitution, which 'Wsknd two or three other prenat the time were successful getting into the constitution in the way it is in there, on equalization payments and regional disparities. If you look at that

section of the constitution dealing with regional disparity and eqUa Lization you wi. Li. see that what wi IL bppeii in here, if this License is approved, flies in the intent and the spirit of that clause in the constitution. So it would violate the whole philosophy of regional economic development as espoused in this country and agreed to, and it would violate the spirit of the constitutional provision put in there on regional disparity. So, Mr.

Speaker, this application has very, very serious repercussions for the future of our Province and for the future of rur;a 1 Newfound land and for the future of our fishery. I know that the Liberal Opposition wish to put an amendment in and I have inìdicated to the Leader of the Opposition we would be opposing that amendment. I will not read it. He was good enough to give me a copy of it when I asked for it and so I will leave it to the Leader of the Opposition to make the amendment.

But we see it as totally unnecessary and, as a matter of fact, it tends to undermine that there is a government in Newfoundland who will agree to their amendment. But we will allow for the Leader of the Opposition to make the amendment and to read the amendment and speak to it. Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for, nothing more, nothing less, is for a unanimous resolution to go forward from this House so we, as a government, can have that as another string to our bow in our arguments to the federal government and to others who L2675 Oc 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2675

support National Sea 'to ensure that this license is not approved and further therefore, to ensure that we do have an opportunity over the next few years, as we restructure our offshore fishery, as we try to nake our inshore fishery more viable, that we have the opportunity to have the raw resource there necessary to bring about that viability that all of us are looking towards and which we are working very hard on.

So I would ask for the support of the Liberal Opposition and the member for Menihek in support of this resolution, for it not to go on too long so that we can move on with this other string in our how so that the peopLe of Canada, and the people in Ottawa, especially, and the bureaucrats and some of those who are working against us, will know that we are all strong in our support against this application and that we should not get tied down with methodology and all the rest of it. Do you support this application by National Sea or do you not? That is what it really comes down to.

In supporting the application of National Sea you are supporting an end to Newfoundland and Labrador as we know it. By objecting to it you are supporting the opportunity that we have to make our fishery and this Province more viable and more prosperous in the future. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I wouLd Like to say we have three questions for our Late show. One is from the hon. the member for Gander. He is dissatisfied with the answer given by the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs on his question regarding the annexation of Seal Cove and Foxtrap. Next is one from the hon. the member for Menihek who is not satisfied with the answer he received from the Premier on the proposed Elections Act. And the third is from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he is dissatisfied with the answer given by the Premier on the Province's offshore energy position. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we were first notified when we came into the House this afternoon that the Premier wished to have this resolution go forward.

Despite the short notice, we agreed. The Premier also asked us, at the same time, whether we would support the resolution? And we said, Hr. Speaker, that we would support that resolution provided the Premier would agree with the proposed amendment which I transmitted to him. That amendment read, and I would like to have this amendment added - I will table it in a second - to the final resolution; "And Be It Further Resolved that this hon. House communicate its opposition to National Sea's application by striking an all party Select Committee of this House to (

a) meet either in the Province or Ottawa with the Prime Minister and/or his Cabinet - and I have added these words as I mentioned across the House to the Premier - or members thereof. And (

h) take whatever steps are necessary to see that this important issue is resolved in favour of the Province's fishermen and plant workers." L2676 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2676

The Premier indicated across the floor of the House initially that this amendment would be acceptable. Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, presumably after receiving advice from the Government -Iouse Leader (ar. Marshall), the Premier indicated by a note that he would not accept this amendment. Mr. Speaker, 1 am proposing that this amendment go forward in any event. And, Mr. Speaker, if we do not have the support of the Premier for this amendment as he has indicated, we are opposed to the resolution that is put forward as it now reads by the Premier, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame! HR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, the reason we are opposed is because the Premier is playing silly, Petty partisan political games with one of the most important issues facing this Province. MR. J. CARTER: That is not true. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I have written the Premier and indicated our opposition to factory freezer trawlers. I have sent a copy of my Letter to the Prime Minister, to the Federal Fisheries Mini€ev (Mr. Nielsen), to our representative in the Federal Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. I had indicated that from my discussions with people around the Province, I cannot find anybody in favour of factory freezer trawlers, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody. There is nobody on this side of the House in favour of factory freezer trawlers. But Mr. Speaker, neither are we going to be part of a sham and a charade where we have a Premier who is trying to find another battleground, Mr. Speaker, after turning into a wimp, after turning into a lap dog, Mr.

Speaker, once a Tory Government was elected in Ottawa. e now find the Premier, as he sees the confidence of the people of this Province eroding in his administration; as he sees that he is on a slippery down slope that is going to see him turf ed out in the next election; he is desperately trying to find another battleground. Well, let me tell the Premier, Mr. Speaker, this is a battle that should be fought in Ottawa, not in this Province. There is no opposition in this Province to the position being taken by government. But, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier does not have the courage to go to Ottawa and fight the battle there. No! He would rather fight the battle through silly little press conferences and press releases, Mr. Speaker. Has his Telex machine on the eighth floor broken down now since we have a Tory Government elected in Ottawa? Why is he afraid to have a Select Cortmittee go with him to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, or to have members of the Government of Canada come here to hear our position? it is because, Mr.

Speaker, he is afraid to let members of this House see how weak :-e is when he comes face to face with his blue-blooded buddies in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, he rolls over and plays dead, whether it be on factory freezer trawlers or on any other issue of concern to this Province. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier delayed responding to the National Sea application? The L2677 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2677

Fisheries critic for the Opposition (Mr. Tulk), Hr. Speaker, had set out our position in Opposition to factory freezer trawlers within days, I think it was the same day or the day afLar, of the NationaL Sea application becoming public knowledge. The Premier said, 'I have to get the application to study the details of it.' Mr. Speaker, if the Premier opposed the application in principle, as he subsequently said he did, why did he need the details? Mr. Speaker, opposition in principle should be opposition in principle, and no details are necessary.

Details were not necessary for the Opposition to set out its position in opposition of factory freezer tcawlers. The Premier, Mr. Speaker, had first to try to determine whether he couLd afford to raise a whimper about factory freezer trawlers - AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. MR. BARRY: - or whether he would be sunmoned to Ottawa by the Prime Minister and hauled over the carpet for stepping out of line. And, you know, Mr. Speaker, by his waiting so long, it gave the federal Fisheries minister the opportunity to give that application serious consideration.

If the Premier of this Province had opposed that application as quickly as did the Liberal Opposition, it is Likely, Mr. Speaker, given the new era of consultation and co-operation, that the federal Fisheries Minister (Mr. Neilsen) would have rejected it out of hand. Mr. Speaker, the Premier, by his cowardly delay, Mr. Speaker, while he tried to check out ti e lie of the land in Ottawa, silently acquiesced, Mr. Speaker, and Let the federal Fisheries minister refer this application to the Advisory Corittee. R. . CARTER: Where is Mr. Crosbie in all this? MR. BARRY: Yes, that is the next question.

Where are our federal MPs? I think there might he one, Mr. Speaker, who has indicated that he supports the Province's position. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen Mr. Crosbie, the Province's representative in Cabinet, take a stand against factory freezer trawlers, nor, Mr. Speaker, have we seen a former federal Fisheries minister from this Province (Mr. McGrath) - MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! On a point of order, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) that I can table a letter from the HP, Hr. Joe Price - MR. BARRY: That is the one I mentioned. MR. MITCHELL: - in support of the Premier and this government in their stand on the freezer trawler issue. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is not a point of order. L2678 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2678

MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I understood there was one MP, and that was the one to whom I referred. House of Assembly happened to be witness to that confrontation. AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe that is why they had to renovate. dow, I WOULd he delighted for the member for LaPoile (Hr. MitcheLl) to take it upon himseLf, Mr. Speaker - and we could expect a report hack from him once he contacts Mr. Croshie. and Hr. Morrissey Johnson and Mr. McGrath - we will he delighted to await the report from the member for LaPoile once he has contacted these federal l4Ps and requested a similar letter from them. Because, Mr.

Speaker, the former federal Fisheries minister, Mr. McGrath has indicated to a radio station in this Province that he is not supporting the Premier's position. Hr. Crosbie is taking the position, he is supporting the federaL Fisheries Minister, which presumably now is the acting federal Fisheries Minister from the great fisheries port of White Horse, Mr. Speaker, the deputy Premier, Velco Lips Ne.ilson I think he is called. You know something, when you look at Mr. Neitson, I can understand Mr.

Peckford'z reluctance to bring a select c.mmitt.ee of this House up while he goes nose to nose, chin to chin, toe to toe, belly to beLly with Velco Lips Nielson, with his blue-blooded brother, Mr. tielson; I can understand why he would not want to have any witnesses to that battle, Mr. Speaker. The office of the Premier of this Province might never survive, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: It might be irreparably damaged, Mr. Speaker, if members of this HR. BARRY: That is a good point. Mr. Speaker, we would Like to hear further from members opposite.

If there is this great era of consultation and co-operation why is this a problem, why are we having a problem? Has that new era been somewhat less than a year, eh? Did that era last less than a year, eh, Mr. Speaker? Is that what has gone on? Is that what has happened. Mr. Speaker?

Has consultation and co-operation been suddenly revealed for what we have been saying it is all along, the same consultation that took place when the federal Forestry Minister invited the provincial Forestry Minister up to talk about the relocation of the federal forestry center and when the provincial minister comes back he tells us he had a wonderful cup of tea, Mr. Speaker, the best meeting he has ever had with a federal Cabinet minister. When he was asked, 'elL, what about the federal forestry center? Did you raise that?', he said, 'Oh, I did not want to disturb the great tenor of the ieting.

I did not want to interfer with these great vibes that were going between these blue-blooded buddies that were sitting together behind their conservative curtain,' Mr. Speaker. We could go down through the entire List of these great Little meetings that were held, these Little tea parties. The Boston Tea Party, Mr. Speaker, pales in comparison to what members opposite provided in the way of L2679 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2679

historica Its when they went up for tirst meeting with their fedOUnterparts because one aftei other they were told, herhe good Little boy or girt, ip on the hack of the head, there now. -ave a cup of It do not rock the boat. Do e nasty now', pat pat pat top of the head, 'Do not nasty. Remember consultat co-operation. We have you into that. That is your mode. Now the cation was after a federal d€ was made then the provinciater or premier was informed it. That was the definitiorconsu Ltation. And eo-operat'ell, welL! Yes, c.o-operati Hr.

Speaker, eo-operat :aking sure that the bLue vative curtain was pulled aithese meetings so that the l pubLic, members of this HE would say members of Parliawould not know what went on the scenes when these kisLue-blooded buddies got togE closeted behind their Cot Lye curtains, Hr. Speaker. is why we find the Premier o Province unwilling to go itig with that non-politnendment. There is not a al word in that proposed ant.

The Premis about bringing a Select Cot, to show unity of oppositioi talks about that underminitvernment in this Province. speaker, we have to go furtherground than the BeLL Islan mines go in order to under that crowd over there. Tb on their bellies, Hr. Spealiiey are on their backs and are as low as they can go. SOHE HON. 2: Hear, hear! HR. BARRY: You would need those giant excavating machines that they have up in the Labrador iron mines, Mr. Speaker, in order to get under that crowd there. Now, let us picture this, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier is saying that he wants another string to his bow, he wants a unanimous resolution to go from this House. Now, just ask yourself, Hr. Speaker, would representatives, a coimiittee representing every party in this House, would not that have more clout, would that not he more symbolic of unity of opposition to factory freezer trawlers than a piece of paper that the Premier is going to send up to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, the Premier would not even carry that resolution, if it were passed, up to Ottawa, he would mail it up and it would probably he mailed via Hong Kong, Hr. Speaker. Hr.

Speaker, I ask members to get up and deal with this question, where is his new era of consultation and co-operation gone now? Where is it, Hr. Speaker? Hr. Speaker, I would like to get back to that delay of the Premier in opposing, why was the Premier so tardy, if he was opposed to factory freezer trawlers in principle, why did he not state that when the matter of factor freezer trawlers being applied for first became known? Now, Hr.

Speaker, you know what is happening here, we all know what is happening, the people of this Province know what is happening, members opposite and the Premier are desperate to try and find an L2680 ( 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2680

issue to reverse their decline in popularity, Mr. Speaker, to reverse that political slide that it taking place. Mr. Speaker, with any poll taken in this Province, members opposite wouLd not Cvefl be found on it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, they have done their polls. I am sure they have done their polls. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (McNichoLas): Order, please! MR. BARRY: I am sure they have done their polls, Mr. Speaker. I am sure they have done their polls and those polls have terrified them. The polls were done months ago. MR. TOBIN: Look at the results.

MR. BARRY: The poLl was probably done about six days after the election, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and that poll estabLished probably 75 per cent support for the policies of the Liberal Party. Seventy-five per cent of the population six days after the election responded in that poLl that they supported the Liberal Party in this Province, and that is what has members opposite terrified. They are desperately looking around, Mr. Speaker, - MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible). MR. BARRY: Even the member for Grand Falls (Mr. Siimns) I think indicated another couple of days and they would have all been gone.

I mean he was almost gone anyhow. There was no question that he would have been gone. As a matter of fact, most cuembers have said the same thing over there. Another coupLe of days, they told us, another couple of days it would have been all over. Now, they have been afraid to say it within the ear shot of the Premier but they are also saying, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be another eLection with the same Leader. They are also saying, Mr. Speaker, that they are desperately looking around now for a new leader. I think the member for Grand Falls might have certain personal aspirations still.

He is looking for the Leadership Look. MR. SIMMS: Not at all. He is looking for the leadership look but as I told him before, Mr. Speaker, his campaign suffered drastically when he went up to the Federal Forestry Minister and did not raise the forestry centre. I think that the member for Mount Pearl (Mr. Windsor), at that point, came into the lead. There are a couple of othe.rs over there, Mr. Speaker,- MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for Burin-Placentia 1Qest. MR. TOBIN: We have before this House, Mr.

Speaker, a very important and L2681 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2681

significant resolution which was put forth by the Premier of the Province. Hr. Speaker, we saw yesterday evening in this House the ut ter arro;ance and cant ipt Lhat the Liberal. Party have for the fishing industry, the fishermen and £ isherwomen and the p lant workers in this Province. e witnessed that utter contempt, Mr. Speaker. T o d a y we are putting forth a resolution that deals with saving the jobs of Newfound].anders. MR. PATTERSON: They do not care about that, boy HR. TOBIN: e have the Leader of the Opositi.on, Hr.

Speaker, who is speaking to this resolution, talking about the member for Grand Falls almost getting - what did he say? - would have been gone in a coupLe of days. HR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker HR. TOBIN: Talking about the member for Mount Pearl, Hr. Speaker, being ahead - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TOBIN: Could I have silence, Mr. Speaker? R. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TOBIN: The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, taLking about the member for Mount Pearl being ahead in a leadership race over the member for Grand Falls. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

TOBIN: I submit to Your Honour that the jobs for Newfound lander put forth in this resoLution which this over-nment is f i;ht ing for far succeeds, Hr. Speaker, AN HON. MEMBER: Exceeds. HR. TOBIN: the ambition of a jealous Tory - AN HON. MEMBER: Exceeds. MR. TOBIN: Exceeds. Succeeds. It does not matter, Mr. Speaker. Far exceeds the ambitions of a jealous Tory who is now talking about the Leadership of this party. But I submit to him that he is totally out of order, and, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you, Your Honour, that you should advise the member that he speak to the resolution that is there and not to the fooliness of a leadership contest in this Province. Mr. TIJLK: Oh, my, look key aide to the Premier. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Reply to it! No, we are not going to waste the time, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has a certain amount of leeway to speak to the resolution. He is in order. L2682 October 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2682

MR. B Mr. c. I wonder if there is stillity on gophers in this Provit was there one time, I won it Is still there? e wilt j check that out, Mr. Speak Mr. If I could get back to mks. The problem with membesite and the reason they Lnterrupt is what they hear now they know it is true most of them have itidjcat to us at one time or aner the last few weeks. Boy, say, you are on a winn i MR. B Mr. they saw that they were to be wiped out with anothw days, and they realia-. Speaker - being despei cling onto power Mr. Speak4lat there is going to have a change at the top beforinext election.

They are zsperately looking, at the ime as they have a changadershjp, they realize they ng to have an issue, they ag to have something. MR.T1 Mr. S1kos all of that. MR. Bi Mr. Sjknows that. They ng to have something, Mr. 3' that they can use to try r up emotions. The same It they tried to Label everyt this Province who questihe adequacy of the offshcl as traitors. Now that totally failed, Mr. Speaknergize the Province, to geprovince to rise up, united no opposition to members opposite in whom all wisdom, of course, resides; now that they have failed to get everybody marching, Mr.

Speaker, to that single drum of the offshore, they are desperately Looking for another drum, Mr. Speaker. Desperately Looking for another drum. That drum, Mr. Speaker, is to try and make a political issue out of factory freezer trawlers, to try and pretend, Mr. Speaker, that there is someone in this Province who is not opposed to factory freezer trawlers. Mr. Speaker, why is it that we have to have this battle? I have not seen very zuich blood spilled yet, you know, I have not seen very much in the way of confrontation between the Premier. Have we seen the Premier go up to talk to Mr. Muironey?

Have we seen him call down the federal representative for newfoundland in the Cabinet to consult, like bringing back your ambassador, call back your federal representative for consultation. MR. F1JREY: (Inaudible) press release. MR. BARRY: That is where he is taking the battle, he is taking the battle to the House of Assembly. Who is in opposition in the House of Assembly to factory freezer trawlers? Is it the Mace? Are the clerks or the pages, Mr. Speaker? Has somebody found out that the cLerks and the pages are not prepared to oppose factory freezer trawLers? Are there 'mice around here somewhere, Mr. Speaker?

I know where the cockroaches are but are there mice as well? SOME HON. MEMBERS: L2683 ber 31, 1985 Vol XL No. 50 R2683

Oh, oh! MR. BARRY: Are the mice battling the Premier so that