_..o.b_ ---- - Volume XL Friday PJ?OPERTY or. N::.;"\Vt•'Ot : .... y-.; •• ~:~.. .. .. -~ .... . ...... . "'... .. ... , ~AISLATlVE LI BRA.f~Y Pt.£ASE RETURN Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Third Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 65 19 June 1987

The House met at 10:00 a.m . MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Statements by Ministers PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. SOME HON ~ MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: On behalf of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Dinn), who is busy on Her Majesty's Business in another part of the city this morning - he will be here later - I wish to inform the House of data released late yesterday by Noranda Exploration Limited and BP Canada, SELCO Division, on results of exploration in the Tally Pond area, Central Newfoundland.

Noranda, operator of a joint venture project with B P SELCO, have announced the results of drilling on the Duck Pond prospect in the Tally Pond Beat . Assay results have been released from three drill holes which intersected a base me!tals deposit which also contains significant amounts of silver and gold. Zinc is the most abundant of the base metals in the deposit, which also contains copper and lead. A copy of Noranda • s release containing the precise data from the drilling is being distributed wit h this statement. The Duck Pond deposit represents a significant new discovery in the Tally Pond Belt.

The first discovery in that belt came in L3 553 June 19, 1987 Vol XL 1981 with the boundary deposit, about 4 kilometers Northeast of the Duck Pond sitE!, which was subseqently found to contain approximately 500,000 tonnes with copper, lead, zinc and silver values. This new discovery considerably enhances the potential of the belt. A new development in the belt would be of great benefit, in particular to Buchans. I hasten to add that not enough is known yet about the Duck Pond deposit to indicate whether it might be mineable.

The metals are said to be present in 11 ore grade 11 but first a sufficient quantity of matE!rial must be proven. Drilling is continuing and visual results from two additional holes are very encouraging. We look forward to the results of further drilling and hopefully another new mine for our Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the member for Winds or - Buchans . MR. FLIGHT : Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I wish to thank the Premier for making a copy of the statement available to the Opposition and to myself. I want to say, Mr .

Speaker, that it is a very positive statement. We welcome the statement, and I am sure that the people of Buchans and the Buchans area will welcome the statement. We have always had fairly high hopes for the Tally Pond area, as No. 65 R3 SS3

the Pre!mier statement, but year or so, it on copper, lead AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. FLIGHT: indicated in his up until this past was based strictly and zinc. It .goes back a long, long way. Now the Premier•s statement indicates that as a result of new finds there is a high content of gold and .silver which will make the deposit a lot more attractive. Mr. Spea·ker, there is not mtJch one can say except to be grateful for the news. I am sure that the people in the Buchans area will, as I said, be very pleased.

There is no question that Buchans stands in good stead to take advantage of that deposit if and when it is mined. There is direct access from Buchans to the Tally Pond site. Of course, most of the infrastructure that the American Smelting and Refining Company used is still in Buchans and that infrastructure, if indeed a mine comes from this deposit, is the!re and is available. Hopefully, it is that infrastructure that BP Selco and Noranda will u~e. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant way to start the morning.

I am pleased to acknowledge the announcement by the Premier and would hope that the deposit actually turns into a mine in the future. Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, it is a little L3554 June 19, 1987 Vol XL difficult to respond quickly, having only been given a copy of the statement and not having had a chance to assess what the actual facts say.

It is certainly fortunate that the discovery seems to be close to Buchans, which, as we all know, is a town that certainly could use a little bit of good news these days, and which, I think, brings us back to the whole question that we have often faced here in the House before of what we do with single industry towns and how we treat them in terms of making sure that their downturn is not completely on the shoulders of the people :in the community. We are fortune if this deposit turns out to be a property that can be mined economicctlly and can produce sufficient quantities of jobs for a long period of time.

In the future we should be looking at the whole question of what to do with single industr·y towns the day a mine opens. I am hoping that either this provincial government here, or the federal government, wi11 eventua1ly g•~t their act together and institute a single industry town policy so that we do plan for the closure of the mine on the day the new one opens. The only other comment I would make is to be somewhat cautious. As the operators of the mine in my district say, it is only ore when you can mine it economically. Even if it is cornrnerci<::~l grade, if there is not enough of it it is not worthwhile.

You have to be able to mine it on a consistent basis and be able to make money on it in order for it. to bE! a commercial ore deposit. I, along with the government and with the official Opposition, No. 65 R3554

sincerely hope that this is a commercial ore deposit when the final diagnosis is done. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Career Deuelopment and Advanced Studies. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing the approval of ninety-three new projects under the Private Sector employment Programme. These projects involve a total provincial contribution of $760,620 and will create 244 more jobs, seventy-two of which will be student positions. Mr.

Speaker, since Mary 15, 1987, 346 projects have received approval under this programme, for the creation of 773 new jobs, including 177 student positions. Mr. Speaker, when you combine that with the over 1,000 positions that we created in our Public Sector Employment Programme you will see that our programmes this year have created already close to 2, 000 jobs. Of the $5 million allocated for the Private Sector Employment Programme, $2.3 milliom has been spent to date. Mr.

Speaker, officials in my department continue to receive positive feedback from many persons in the business community concerning this job creation effort. In keeping with government • s commitment to approve projects as quickly as possible, we will continue to give top priority to the screening and approving of these applications so that the businesses wishing to take advantage of the programme will be in a position to get their projects in place and their L3 555 June 19, 1987 Vol XL employees working at the earliest possible opportunity. Thank you. MR. SIMMONS : Mr. Speaker . MR.

SPEAKER : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition . MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the Private Sector Employment Programme is one that we have commended before and we do so again. We think the idea is right. We believe, of course, that we are not going to solve the unemployment problem in the manner in which the minister is going about it, particularly when the House closes, in that he will not have an incentive for standing up to make a statement from timE! to time. We do not believe that we will solve it with the kind of misinformation he gave the House yesterday .

I was appalled, I say to him, to sit here and to hear that he did not realize that in the biJdget brought down by his colleague, the MinistE!r of Finance (Dr. Collins), there is a predi cU. on, a prediction which thE! minister yesterday emphatically denied as not being there. He attacked my friend from Bonavista North (Mr . Lush), dismissed the Economic Council as a fly-by-night operation, and proceeded to challenge the gentleman from Bonavista North that the prediction was not there. Well, I want to tell him that it is there and it relates directly to his statement.

He will find the following statement coming out of the mouth of Minister of Finance on April 9: 11 Unemployment should fall slighty, to about 19 .7 per cent. 11 Mr. Speaker, when all the rhetoric. is thrown aside and all No. 65 R3 555

the speeches are added up and all the fancy tables are totaled, the net sum of what this government 1 s overall objective is is .3 per cent, to drop the ratE! from 20 per cent to 19.7 per cent. 1 hat is what all that paper means and nothing more. Now, the minister can couch it how he wants. - He can sit there and get the right semantics in the hope of projecting the most positive message, the bottom line is that this government has no concerted effort, no solution on a permanent basis to the problem at hand. And what is the problem at hand? The most disastrously high unemployment level anywhere in North America.

And what is the solution from this governent? Another little pansy statement in which the minister gets up and reads well, and that he does, but he does not perform very well where it matters: he does not perform for the young people of this Province, he does not deliver for the thousands of people out there whose lives are being savaged because there is no solution from this government, because this administration has abandoned its responsibilities to the people of this Provtrce. Again, Mr.

Speaker, we encourage and welcome any initiative which makes any additional jobs available to the Newfoundland people, but we cannot get overly excited when we see how small a dent is being made in a very, very big problem. We cannot get very excited when we realize, Mr. Speaker, that this administration has no real understanding of the magnitude of the problem. If they did , they wo u 1 d not ins u 1 t it in the way they have again this morning. L3 556 June 19, 1987 Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member fo1n St . John 1 s East. MR. LONG: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies (Mr. Power) comes in with this statement in which he assures members of the House and members of the public that part of the Private Sector Employment Programme demonstrates a commitment to student and youth employment. I would say to the minister that his own figures again establish the fact that he is off his own target.

He promised, when he launched this programme a couple of months ago, that youth employment would be a requirement of 40 per cent of the jobs created, and by my calculation what we have here is less than 25 per cent. fhe minister has not identified any distinction between student and youth, and if that means you arE! unable to monitor and to track the number of jobs for people under twenty-five, then it is an indication that you are simply not maintaining a commitment to this 40 per cent target.

It is not being met, there is no evidence that it is not being met, and young people and students in this Province will continue to wait for some kind of commitment by this government to their particular needs. I would also say that the minister describes his programme as a creation of new jobs and says that th~se are new jobs that will last No. 65 R3 556

for a short period of time and that people this time next year will be looking for another programme to create more new jobs. It might serve the propaganda purposes of adding up new jobs created this year, but the problem is going to remain next year of the need for a real long-term job creation programme. The minister informs us that less than half of the $5 million available has been spent.

Presumably more than half of the monies available are still waiting for applications to come in, so why does the minister not make some of this $2.7 million available to the non-profit sector which is starving for public funds in this Province, which is suffering from cutbacks in social services, in transition services, and from the lack of available government support for public sector jobs? Make some of the remaining funds available. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister ofi Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I do not have a prepared statement this morning, and I am sure hon. members will understand why, but I thought I should take the opportunity to formally advise the House that in the early hours of this morning, as most hon. members may know, an agreement was reached on caplin prices between the fishermen and the processors. The goal of nine cents a pound by the fishermen in the 50 to 54 per cent category has been achieved, a settlement has been reached - L3557 June 19, 1987 Vol XL SOME . HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: and the fishery is off and running this morning.

We expect and anticipate that there will be! a few days, probably two or three days for sure, left in St. Mary's Bay, five or six days, or more, in Trinity - Conception Bay, and certainly perhaps even a couple of weeks in Notre Dame Bay and White! Bay. The anticipated production that will be produced is 15,000 tons and both the federal government and the provincial government have committed to ensure that the production levels do not go beyond that agreed-on figure in order to protect our position in the marketplace. The final thing r· would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, is that as soon as the Summer fishery is over, we will be moving on this with an open mind, but I have no intention of allowing this kind of si tiJation, where you have one product for one market, to develop again next year, and we are going to be taking every action we can as a government to ensure that it does not happen. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER : Mr . Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The han. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I share in the hon. minister's pleasure this morning to know that the cap 1 in strike is finally settled. I think the fact No. 65 R3557

that this $30 million or $40 million industry came so close to being lost this year - in fact, I suppose in some areas the caplin fishery was lost - demonstrates the need for the government to take some initiatives to develop a better marketing system to enable the caplin fishery to survive. The minister•s statement, Mr. Speaker, that he is determined not to allow this to happen again, I welcome that announcement, but I should remind him that a similar situation existed, I believe in 1985, and it seems to me that the minister should have acted then.

I do not think this should have ever been allowed to develop to the point that it did without some kind of an organized marketing arrangment being put in place by the government. Mr. Speaker, I suppose the chief reason for the dispute this year sterns from the fact, as is ofte!n the case, that in our fishery we are too reliant on one market. In the case of caplin, I think we are totally reliant or dependent on the Japanese market. I think that, too, points out the need for the government, working with the union and the processors, to set their sights on other markets.

For example, it might very well be that there could be markets existing in China, in South East Asia, and maybe certain European countries, where caplin could be sold. Mr . Speaker, again we welcome the announcement. We congratulate the parties who worked long and hard to bring about this settlement, and we are happy that it appears now that both sides are reasonably well satisfied. SOME HON. MEMBERS : L3558 June 19, 1987 Uol XL Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, we also welcome thE! news that there has been a resolution to the dispute.

I am not saying it is totally successful, because I think everybody does realize that we are going to pay heavily for it with a reduced quota of 15,000 tons, and also, of course, as the minister has said, with the fishery almost disappearing in some bays as a result of the delay. I join with the member for Twillingate in urging the minister to rnake sure that some mechanisms are put in place next year so that we do not have a repeat of the same process. I have heard a number of suggestions for attacking the probleHn, one of which is perhaps the single dE!Sk selling concept. That may be one answer to it.

One of the other concepts I have heard from, I think the member for Twillingate, was the pas sibili ty of additional storage facilities so we are not reliant on having to catch the fish, package it, and sell it almost immediately. So, on that basis, I think that we on this side are very much supportive of any efforts that the Minister of Fisheries, in conjunction with the union, can make in order to put a more orderly marketing system in place so that we do not end up with this cliff-hanger of a negotiated deal each year as we go through the caplin fishery, which, as everybody has indicated, is so No. 65 R3558

~r important to many fishermen in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! Oral Questions MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville . MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I would 1 ike to direct a question to the Premier concerning youth unemployment. Yesterday in this House, and over the last few weeks, we have asked a few questions concerning the youth unemployment situation in the Province, and specifically concerning the consistent figure of around 18,000 to 19,000 to 20,000 young people who have been walking around all year in the last number of years .

I would like to know will the Premier and his gov,rnment be undertaking to bring in or implement some programmes specifically to deal with the problem? While we have seen one or two measures come in in the last year, the problem still exists and the rate is still up 36 per cent to 40 per cent officially, which is an unbelievable figure.

So we would like to know are there new initiatives being planned specifically to deal . with the problem in the short term and also in the long term, hopefully so that young people can see that at least .there is a sign that L3 559 June 19, 1987 Vol XL something is going to be there to help them? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Premier . PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question I do not know how many times in the House over the 1 as t several weeks. I do not intend to go into a great verbose answer to the hon. member's question.

We have initiated a range of new programmes this year to try to tackle the unemployment problem and we will be monitoring the situation over the next few months to see . how successful they are, and then decide whether there are other new measures we can bring in, if, in fact, ·the success rate is not what we would like it to be. MR. K. AYLWARD : A supplementary, Mr . Speaker. MR. BARRY: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Stephenville . MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just one final supplementary to the Premier.

The problem is still there, accord:ing to the Newfoundland Statistics Agency, involving some 19 ,000 . While I am well aware you are monitoring the problem, the problem has been there for the last seven or eight years specifically, and the last four or five it has consistently remained high. I think your government has done enough monitoring. Is it possible that you could give an undertaking that you will look at bringing some initiatives forward, over the No. 65 R3 559

Summer period or for the Fall period, to deal with the major problem of youth unemployment in the Province? MR . SPEAKER : The hon . the Premier . PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr .. Speaker, when the hon. member s a y s -' you have done en o u g h moni taring, ' no, we have not. We have a new Youth Entrepreneurship Programme that we launched only a month of two ago . We want to see how that works, how that operates, and see whether it needs to be expanded or needs to be changed, just what we can do there, which is to tackle the problem in a more long term way.

The minister announced this morning some additional private sector job creation initiatives which involve the youth of our Province. We will have quite a few of the youth involved in the public sector employment programmes through Forestry and silviculture, through Tourism and Culture, Recreation and Youth as it relates to park developments, archeological development - a lot of which are student orientated - Fisheries, Rural Develppment and so on. So we are monitoring those new initiatives to see how they work.

Then, during August or September, as we take a look at them and examine what has happened and what has not happened, then we will consider whether in fact certain things have not happened the way we would have liked them to, and then we can amend or change for the sake of improvement at that point in time. But you do not sabotage a programme when it has had only an opportunity of thirty or forty days to operate. MR. W. CARTER: L3560 June 19, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member · for Twillingate . MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout).

Again it concerns the plight of many thousands of Newfoundlander fishermen and fish plant workers who this year are severely affected by the shortage of groundfish in the traditional inshore fishing areas. I know the minister has announced that hE! has made representations to his federal counterpart with respect to the possibility of extending, maybe, UI benefits to fishermen . I .am not sure if he has madE! a similar request for fish plant workers. I wonder is he able to report to the House now what the results of those representations are? Has he heard back from his counterpart? And if so, what is the answer?

MR. RIDEOU T: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Fisheries . MR. RIDEOUT : Mr. Speaker, up to the last time I was in the office, which was really coming to the House for the session yesterday afternoon at 3:00 o'clock, up until that point in time I had not had any formal response. MR. W. CARTER : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Twillingate . MR. W. CARTER : No. 65 R3560

Mr . Speaker, I hope what I heard is not true, but I am informe!d by highly placed officials in Ottawa that the minister's request will not be met, t01. they will not be acceding to his request to extent UIC benefits. I hope I am wrong. But in the event, Mr. Speaker, that is the case - it is probably hypothetical, I know, but it is a serious problem - can the minister tell the House if he has a contingency plan to put forward to Ottawa to alleviate the problem facing these thousands of Newfoundlanders who are now suffering because of a poor fishery? MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Fisheries . MR . RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gravity of the hon. gentleman's question. I am sure he will appreciate that it is a bit early to have contingency plans worked out for every eventuality. There have been improving signs over the last three or four days in many parts of the Provine~ including areas of Labrador, where the inshore groundfishery picked up tremendously over the l~st day or two in some areas. Now it is still proverbally as flat as a pancake in a lot of areas of the Province yet. PREMIER PECKFORD : It is good in Lawn, is it not? MR.

RIDEOUT: Excellent in Petit Forte, Lawn and that area, some parts of the Avalon Peninsula, even parts of Labrador . So it is starting to happen, it is starting to move .. L3 561 June 19, 1987 Vol XL So we have to continue to be optimistic. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman is aware is that those fishermen who· are able to take

part in the lump fish fishery have done extremely well. Now that there is a settlement in the caplin fishery, hopefully that will improve the economic activity of fishermen and they will be able to generate income for themselves and plant workers as a result of that. So to have a contingency plan in place on June 18 or 19 while we can be thinking in that direction I do not think we ought to move too quickly to try to cover every eventuality because there is still time to have a good inshore fishery. Let us b~ optimistic and hope that that will, in fact, happen. MR. W. CARTER : A very short supplementary . MR.

SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W . CARTER: I appreciate what the minister has said, but he must also appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of fishermen on the Northeast: Coast are not getting any fish and in many cases have not received a pay cheque since May 15. I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, would he seriously think about coming up with a contingency plan in the event the situation does not improve and in the event that Ottawa will not come through with an extension of UI benefits? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries . MR . RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, if the worst case No. 65 R3 561

scenario, a very bad case scenario becomes the order of the day, I think our track record speaks for itself: We will be there in spades with all the help that we can deliver to the people who need it most. Last year we did not bat too many eyelashes or fool around waiting for any assistance from anybody in bringing in the $1 million special Mackerel Assistance Programme. So the evidence and the action is there, loud and clear, that this Province will support the fishermen in every way possible, when possible, when we need to do it. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SIMMONS: I have a question for the Premier. It relates to Mr. Wilson's White Paper of last evening which projected that about $6 billion less would be generated over the next five years under the proposed new income tax regime. He indicated that that $6 billion revenue shortfall would be offset by a restructured sales1tax at the federal level, which could well mean an overall increase in the tax burden for certain groups of people in the country.

One of the possibilities the minister mentioned was a national sales tax with collaboration from the provincial governments or in collaboration with provincial governments. My question to the Premier, then, is: Will the Premier undertake that the Province will not enter into any agreements with the federal government on the matter of a national sales tax until such time as the House has had . prior L3562 June 19, 1987 'Jol XL opportunity to debate the issues, the principles that would be involved in such a collaborative national/provincial tax collE!Cting effort? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that commitment here today, it is impossible for me to so do. There are a lot of variables contained therein that are not clear at the present moment. As a result of the tax reform initiatives last night on the income tax side, and I do not know if aJ.J. han. mE!mbers are aware, there will be about 25,000 people in Newfoundland who are now paying taxes lAJho u..lill not be paying taxes as of next year. There will be 25,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will no longer be~ paying any income tax.

On the national sales tax, there are three alternatives being proposed by the ministe!r, and thE!Y are subject not only to discussion with provincial governmE!nts but also in collaboration and consultation with many interest groups around the country. We have not complei:ed our assessment. That is a very complex piece of business and that is why it has not been brought in as a finality right now. We are doing studies now on the three initiatives and how they would impact upon the Province and those kinds of things.

I can assure the han. member that we are not going to enter into any kinds of agreements with the federal gove~nment or anybody else which we think are going to be injurious to this Province in any way, shape or form. No. 65 R31)62

MR. SIMMONS : Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: I appreciate what the Premier says about the fact that this is at the proposal, the White Paper stage, but my request to him was quite specific. I would submit to him that I think if he wishes he can give the kind of commitment that was asked, but perhaps my request was not clearly understood so let me put it in perhaps another fashion . One of the options, as he I believe implied, is this national sales tax. That, I submit, - has a number of ramifications in terms of overall tax burden particularly.

It has ramifications, of course, in terms of our existing sales tax, which is already the highest of any in the country. The overall point to be made, Mr. Speaker, is that it would represent quite a sweeping change, and I am not placing a value judgement as to whether it would be a change for the better or the worse, but quite a considerable change in the way sales taxes are collec1ted in this Province and in the country at large.

In light of that, because there are a number of issues and principles which flow therefrom , would the Premier give to the House the undertaking, before he and his administration lock this Province into any new sales tax collection regime, that those issues that are involved in that matter would be fully debated, the House would have the opportunity to fully debate those issues here in the House of Assembly before such time as the dotted line has been signed? L3 563 June 19, 1987 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER : The han . the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that commitment at this time . MR.

FENWICK : Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker . My question is for the PrE!mier in the absence of the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. R. Aylward), and since it has been a theme of this whole session maybe it is appropriate that we close out on a question with regard to the joint project with the Sprung interests here in St . John 1 s.

I quote from the minister the Premier 1 s press release of May 8: 11 This new company has invested upwards of $35 million in extensive research and development over a ten year period . 11 My question to the Premier is this: Could he give us some description of the kind of investment that was done and thE! source of the money that was used for this $35 million in research since this seems to indicate a considerable amount of commitment on the part of this company for this kind of technology? MR. SPEAKER : The han . the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD : I thank the han . member for his question.

Over the next number of months there will be more and more information coming out on this whole matter, and I appreciate the han. member 1 s question in that regard. One of the reasons why No. 65 R3 563

some of the information has not been forthcoming up to now -some of the information -is because we are still negotiating from heads of an agreement to a legal agreement and all that that entails. So, until the agreement is done, some of the information cannot come out. Secondly, there are patents that the company has, and you cannot go giving information to competitors, to rivals who are trying to get as high technologically as this company now is. Thirdly, you have commercial problems as well, relating to price and markets.

As a matter of fact, I spent part of this week in Eastern Canada and the United States and had additional meetings on the whole issue of the question of markets, and I would just like to inform han. members that, in the absense of a specific written something from this government on it, I can as sure han. members opposite that, contrary to what some of the competitors say, the markets are not only there but there are too much markets.

We do not have enough facilities to meet thE! markets. 1 The $3 5 million and ten years, as the han. member might know, this company had been involved in buildings for quite some time, just buildings to be sold for recreational purposes, military purposes, exhibition purposes, and it was out of the ·kind of fabric that they were using in this building that they came upon this whole growing system.

Then they entered into an agreement with a leading scientist from England, who was here in the Province about a week ago in negotiating part of the legal agreement, and it was in consultation with this scientist L3564 June 19, 1987 Vol XL and the Sprung Group of Companies that they did their experiments, and in consultation with the National Research Council of Canada early on. They did a Jot of their experimentation in smaller buildings in Calgary with the scientist from England, who is also connected with other hydroponic operations in Europe. The $35 million, specifically, was Sprung money.

That is how much Mr. Philip Sprung 1 s company is out for this research, $35 million. So it was that company 1 s own money. There was a small amount of money from the National Research Council For one of the components of the testing process. So some of the research was done in Europl':~ in consultation, under contract with Mr. Michael Anselm, who as anybody who wants to check with anybody who knows will find, this person is very well thought of in the scientific community. So it was Sprung money almost totally and it was done over a ten-year period both in Western Canada and in Europe. MR.

FENWICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the~ member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: han. the My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is: In the last number of years, up until the time that the P. C. Government took over in the Fall of 1984, there was a federal government programme called the Scientific Research Tax Credit. Could the Premier inform us how much of the $35 million that Sprung has put into it came through what has been variously described by other people as one of the biggest boondoggles ever No. 65 R3564

existing? In other words, how much of the $35 million in actual research money came through the Scientific Credit Tax Programme, which was so wide open and so open to abuse that virtually every expert who looked at it considered it to be a total ripoff? MR. · SPEAKER: The hon~ the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I cannot answer that directly because I have not got the books of the Sprung Company and the flow-through of that $35 million right before me.

I will find out exactly, unless the hon. member has the information and he is trying to set me up with a question so that he can come back and say something else, which would not be uncharacteristic. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD : If the hon. gentleman is being honest and straightforward, then I am trying to be honest and straightforward in return . I have not got a copy of the audited statement on the $35 million in front of me. But, as 1 I remember it, that Scienti fie Tax Credit system only came into operation in the last three of four years. MR. FENWICK : It ended in the Fall of 1984 .

PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes . When did it come in? MR . FENWICK: In 1981. PREMIER PECKFORD : In 1981. So it was in from 1981 to 1984. I think most of that $35 million of research that the L3 565 June 19, 1987 Vol XL Sprung people did, at least a lot of it, wouJ.d have been spent before that. So how much was left and how much they quaJ.ified for under that programme, I have not got a clue right off the top of my head, but I will find out for the hon. member. MR. FENWICK : A final supplementary, Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon . the member for Menihek . MR.

FENWICK : Our information is, by the way, that the lion's share of it, the vast majority of it, did comE! through this programme. What I would like to ask the Premier is, since it is very likely we will not be sitting very much longer, would he be able to get the information for us? Becaus e we do not have the actual figures and it is an honest question. Give us some indication, because I think it would give us a feeling for how much of a commitment th ere has been .

If about $25 million of it came from this programme, then I would suggest that the amount of commitment was not nearly the level that we were first led to believe when we were told it was $35 million. So if the Premier could give us that information in the future, we would certainly appreciate it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD : I will try to get that information for the hon. member. I would just say to the hon. member that our position is the money that was spent was spent on good research for a new technology. It has No. 65 R3565

allowed for that new technology to be now the best in the world. Anybody who has got a grain at all, who has looked at this whole thing, cannot ~hallenge the following statement, that there is nobody on this planet today who can do in hydroponics what the Sprung Group can do. SOME HON. MEMBERS: What! MR. PECKFORD: That is a true statement; they cannot do it, it cannot be done. So the research has been done. If they used the federal programme to access additional funds or whatever, so much the better.

I mean, it is the NDP -is it not? - that is advocating all the time more public money for this, more public money for that, more public money for something else. And now when somebody else - MR. FENWICK: It is our money, taxpayer money! PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, that is my understanding of it.

But I am just theoretically now responding to han. members who, because of their 1 hypocrisy, will from time to time will get up wanting more public money on this, more public money on that, and then, when there may have been the pas sibili ty or probability that somebody got public funds, suddenly there is something wrong with it. Poof! MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: L3566 June 19, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, obviously there is no company on the face of this earth who could suck in the Newfoundland Government like the Sprung group did.

My question is to the han. the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey). The two speech pathologists at Western Memorial Hospital have been given their layoff notices and there is every indication, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Public Health will take over those positions. There is some fear, which I accept, that the Public Health Division cannot match the present services which are being offered today, let alone :increase and there is a clE!ar neE!d to increa·se -the seriJ:ices being offered over there.

So I ask tJ.Ji11 the han. minister today assure the 140 people on the waiting Jist for speech pathology at the hospital in Corner Brook -people with cerebral palsy, the mentally handicapped, stroke victims, the hearing impaired, some with Parkinson's disease -that their chances of getting tr1~atrnent will be enhanced as a result of the intended changes at the Western Memorial Hospital today? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot give you that assurance but I am sure speech pathologists, whether they are under the aegis of the Western Memorial Hospital or under the aegis of the Department of Public Health Services in Corner Brook, the service is going to b1:l identical. I am sure, having done your homework, you realize there is a great shortage of speech pathologists not alone in this No. 65 R3566

.... ---- -- -· --- ~ · · ------· - -- ·-· ----..-. .. ... - - ·· · ··----- ·--- ·· ... · - · - --· · _,.. ___ 9 ... .... ..... ...... -· Province but all across Canada . MR . DECKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, member for the Isle. MR. DECKER : the Strait hon . of the Belle I did not hear someone else ask a question, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. minister must be answering someone else • s question, certainly it was not mine.

Of course, the minister will not assure them, because he knows full well that there is going to be a downgrading of services in Western Memorial Hospital when there is clear need for an increase. Now I ask will the minister at tempt to correct this mistake? Will he comrni t extra money? Because what happened was the hospital budget was cut, and that is why they have to drop those speech pathologists. And there is some fear that, when Public Health takes over, the terms of reference will create a problem, but that is another point.

But will the minister attempt to correct this problem and cornmi t a i couple of extra salary units so that extra speech pathologists can be put in the hospital in Corner Brook - not a cutback, but an increase - so the needs of the people in Corner Brook can be met? DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Health . DR. TWOMEY: I wish that I could wave that magic wand and say there will be $100,000, $200,000, $300, 000 or L3 567 June 19, 1987 Vol XL $500,000 to distribute among all the hospitals in this Province. There have been not really a cutback in any hospital in this Province.

They all have at lc~ast 4 per cent over last year. I wish I could have all the money that you speak about and then I would have a Paradise. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HISCOCK : Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han . the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My question was going to be to thE! Premier, but the Premier is not here so I will have to direct it to the President of the Council (Mr. Ottenheimer). This Pl~ovinCE! has several outstanding agreements to be signed with the Federal P.C.

Government in Ottawa, such as the Secondary Roads agreement, the Agricultural agreement, the Co as tal Labrador agreement, and the Small Business agreement. With a federal by-election coming up in St. John•s East, can we expect any of these agreement:s to be signed, particularly the Secondary Roads agreement, which we have now been waiting for six years, and the Coastal Labrador DRIE agreement, because Labrador is being told by the departments of Municipal Affairs, Health and others that there is no sense applying to us for money because we are waiting for a new agreement with Ottawa?

When can we expect some of these agreements to be signed? MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. 65 R356'7

Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Government House Leader. MR. OTTENHEIMER: As soon as negotiations are completed. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Brett). Mr. Speaker, first I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Social Services for the assistance he gave me yesterday in helping a young boy from the Boys1 Home to have the opportunity of visiting his parents. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. EFFORD: I appreciate that.

But in connection with: that, Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that a new chairman has not been appointed to this new Young Offenders Review Board since the resignation of Mr. Hickey. I would like to ask is the minister aware of a number of problems that have been presented because of the Review Board being set up and the problems that the young lads at the Boys1 Home have been having in getting their cases reviewed?

Would he now tell us if he is considering abolishing this Board, since we told him in the beginning L3568 June 19, 1987 Vol XL we did not agree with it, and that such cases would be better dealt with by the Family Court? Does he not see that the cases of young boys at the Boys1 Home would be better and more efficiently handled at the Family Court than at this Young Offenders Review Board? MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Social Services. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowle!dge there have been some growing pains with the Appeal Board, particularly with the resignation of Mr.

Hickey, which really threw us for a loop. But u.Je fE!e1 that once we get a permanent person .in place then the s y stern should war k and it should be to the advantage of young offenders. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: the Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the minister 1 s answer because I think there must be some problem, and the minister must recognize that there is a problem, since he promised us over a month ago, said publicly in this House of Assembly, that by the end of May he would have a new chairman of that Board.

I believe the minister does see that there was a mistake there and that he should abolish the board. The next question, Mr. Speaker, pertains to the fact that we had No. 65 R3568

two fires, one at Pleasantville and one at Whi tbourne, and those young boys are now in two different places, in the Torbay Recreation Center and Pleasantville. From talking with the some of the parents and some of the people connected with the Boys 1 Homes, there is a considerable number of problems growing - right now. Number one, they are not getting the proper counselling, number two, they have to travel to and from one building to obtain their meals, and they are not getting the proper programmes that they had at Whitbourne.

What has the minister put in place, or does he have any idea of the problems at the Torbay Recreation Center and at Pleasantville? MR . SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Social Services. MR . BRETT : Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of problems, so the hon. member is right. We are doing everything that we can to cope with it. He is right when he said we have had two fires and which have thrown the whole system into turmoil. We are doinq the best that we can. We are moving them out during the day so they can get their programmes and their schooling, but it is far from adequate .

Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing that we can do any more than what we are doing. We acknowl~dge the many problems that are associated with that sort of thing. It is, of course, an emergency situation. All of this was brought on by the fire, but even if there had not been two fires, Mr. Speaker, the situation was still not what it should be with these old buildings we had. Of course, everybody in the House l3569 June 19, 1987 Vol XL is aware that we are moving it as fast as we can to start construction on our new institution. We will be picking the site very shortly for that and, if we are lucky, Mr.

Speaker, we might even be able to start construction before the end of the fiscal year. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : A final supplementary, the hon . the member for Port de Graue. MR. EFFORD : Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for those young offenders at the Boys 1 Home at Torbay and Pleasantville to say 1 We are doing all we can, but it is not good enough. 1 That is another admission on the part of the Minister of Social Services that he cannot competently do the job that is required of him.

We have to take into consideration that those young boys need attention and we cannot have a lapse of six or seven months. I ask the minister will he not immediately put a plan in place to better improve counselling, improve services for those young boys? It could be a year, it. could even be two years before those homes are built, and those boys are in and out on six month and ten month sentences. It is not good enough to say we got to wait for the homes to be built. We want something, we want it now and we want this minister to do something about it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. MR.

BRETT: Mr . Speaker, a lot of what is No. 65 R3569

happening now is very, very temporary, because the fire at Whitbourne was not all that serious, mostly smoke and water damage, and Public Works has been in and I believe they have completed their assessment. We should be back into the Boys • Horne in Whitbourne early in the Summer, probably in July month. I stand to be Eorrected on that because I do not know the exact date that they udll be going back, but the mast that has to be done at Whitbourne is clean up, painting and cleaning up smoke damage, and there is some minor electrical damage!.

So a lot of the problems that we have now will be overcome within a matter of weeks. Of course, we still have to cope with the problems that we have at the Recreation Center by having to keep boys there. But there is very little we can do, Mr. Speaker, any more than we are doing because there is no other sui table place in this city and, as a matter of fact, I do not know if there is another suitable place in Newfoundland. We looked at some adult correctional centers, but as the minister I do not look very kindly on that and I do not think anybody in the House does.

We do not want to loci< up those young offenders behind 'bars, that sort of thing, we have to keep them in a proper environment. So while we recognize the problems, the han. member, I am sure, also recognizes that all of this is emergencies and we are doing the best that we can. Whitbourne will be back as it was very shortly, then we will still have to contend with the problem we have at the Recreational Center, and there is very little we can do about that until we get our new institution. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! L3570 June 19, 1987 Vol XL The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

At this stage I would like to weJ.come to the galleries Mr. Alex Snow, Mayor of Labrador City. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Notices of Motion MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I will and I will just have with reference to it. give noticE! a few words I give notice that I tomorrow ask leave to the following resolution: wiJ.l on introduce

WHEREAS the last review of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly took place in 1979; and

WHEREAS all caucuses :in the House of Assembly are desirous that a review of said Standing Or·ders bE! undertaken; and

WHEREAS it is beneficial to review periodically the parliamentary rules governing the practice and procedures of the House of Assembly; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that a Standing Orders Committee consisting of the hon. members for: Lewisporte (Mr. Russell) Fogo (Mr. Tulk) Carbonear (Mr. Peach) Fortune -Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) Humber Valley (Mr. Woodford) Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) St. John1s East Extern (Mr. Parsons) be appointed to Standing Orders No. 65 r·evil':!W in order said to R35'70

recommend to the House of Assembly at its next sitting amendments which will update the practice and procedures of the House of Assembly . Let me just me say, by way of explanation, that this notice is given after consul tat ion with the official Opposition and the third caucus,- and obviously they nominated their own membership therein.

Hon. members are probably aware as well that in our own Standing Orders it is stated that in the First Session of each Assembly - and each assembly is the group after an election there is provision for the appointment of a Standing Orders Committee, and that in fact was not done, and that would have been in 1985. This fills in that gap. I think it is fair to say, as well, that all interests in the House do wish to review the Standing Orders.

I know there are certain matters there that the government feels could be updated, streamlined, improved, one being when we finalize budgetary matters there is a procedure where one goes in and out and in and out and in and out of Committee three times, and it is all prp forma. I think the usual procedure in Ottawa, and perhaps other places, is that the budget motion is that this House agrees with or endorses the budget of the government, something like that,

whereas ours is that the Speaker leave the Chair, he leaves the Chair, and he goes back and forth about three times. So I am sure that the Opposition have suggestions and the third caucus as well. So that is by way Then, to make obviously we would it today to have of explanation. it operative, need to vote on it established, L3 571 June 19, 1987 · Uol XL and there has been consultation on that as well. Others may wish to speak on it, in which case I will sit down, and then what we could do by leave is pass it here rather than going Orders of the Day and c a 11 in g it , because it wi 11 then be done. MR.

TULK: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: We on this side welcome the resolution that the minister has put forward. I say to him that I want to make a couple of remarks on this, but before I do we haVE! no objection to passing this resolution immediately because we think that it is long overdue. IF you look at our Standing Orders you will see that in some cases .the organization of them is piecemeal. For example, you can find references to private members' bills, for example, all over our Standing OrdE!rs anywherE! you care to look.

Besides that, there are many rules and procedures that we in the Opposition beJ.ieve neE!d to bE! modernized in keeping with the way that we would like to see this House run. So we welcome the initiative. We also welcome, I say to the Government House Leader, the consultative process tha ·t he used in putting together this resolution and in setting up this committee. I say to him it is a welcome change from what we have seen on many occasions from the government side of the House. Mr.

Speaker, on this side we would invite all of the members in the Legislature to make submissions to this Commit tee, to hau e an input into it, and perhaps it might be a No. 65 R3 571

chance for the general public, who at times - I believe a lot of it is from misunderstanding -take a somewhat less than admirable stance about their politicians and the way they behave in this Chamber, to make suggestions and recommendations to us as well as to how they think we should proceed. Perhaps in the process the g~eral public as well as ourselves might become a little bit more educated. So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the initiative by the government. We welcome the consultative process. I say to the minister, let us get on with it and let us get it done. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, there are just three or four items we wish to see the committee address. Again I endorse the comments of the Government House Leader and the official Opposition House Leader in endorsing the committee. We think it is, again, a situation whereby in 1979 there, were only two parties in the House and we now, through Your Honour1s ruling, have three parties, three caucuses, yet we do not have a set of orders that really reflect that and define what the roles and responsibilities are. I think this is an excellent opportunity to do that.

The other things that I think the committee should address are questions about whether or not we should televise this House. Since the Standing Orders clearly do not c a 11 for it or a 11 ow for it , it would be, I think - I do not want L3572 June 19, 1987 Vol XL to prejudge the commit tee because it obviously has a wide mandate - appropriate for the question of whether we should televise the House to be seized by the committee and some recommendation come back to the House itself afterwards. There are obviously some questions about Question Period.

We now have a system whereby the first individual standing up should be recognized under our Standing Orders. Perhaps we should look at some other Legislatures where there is a natural roster in which the parties divide the number of questions, which is a more orderly procedure to have in place. So, Mr: Speaker, we certainly endorse the resolution. We end or s e the committee and we f e e J. that we should be able to have a much better co-operative spirit in the House once we make sure that the rules themselves reflect the reality of the House here in 198'7 rather than 1979. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Lead1?.r of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Could I get the attention of the minister for just a moment? I would like the gentleman from Menihek to just give ear for a moment, too, because I think it is an important issue in how this committee does its work. I understand that the mechanism exists to appoint the Standing Committee, albeit by leave, to increase the numbers from five to seven. I say to the minister that the assignment the House is about No. 65 R3572

to give to this committee is not your normal Standing Committee assignment. It falls more in the area of your Select Committee assignment. He will be aware, without my spelling it out. that the Select Committee, first of all, would have considerably more latitude. Because, I would submit to. him, that the committee might want t.o do things, engage in activities, that a Standing Committee would normally want to and there might be some expenses involved in that.

I would ask him to consider making this a Select Committee for the reason I just gave in terms of the activities it might get into. but also because of the nature of its assignment, which really is beyond the normal Standing Committee assignment, I submit to him. It is an ad hoc function that once done hopefully will not need to be done for some time to come. MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Leader. MR. OTTENHEIMER : Government House Mr.

Speaker, I have no serious objections to what the hon. gentleman is suggestin~. but one of the reasons I did it this way is that obviously the Standing Orders do provide for such a committee which we do not have. I think if it is understood that this ·committee will have the wherewithal to do what it wishes and deems necessary to do, and that is really done in consultation with the Speaker and not the Government House Leader, then the objectives will be achieved . MR. SIMMONS : That is understood. L3573 June 19, 1987 Vol XL MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is understood . If there is no further comrnE!nt.

I would move the motion. MR. SPEAKER : All those in favour of the motion - please say 1 aye 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye. MR. SPEAKER : Those against 'nay'. The motion is carried . Orders of the Day On motion, the following bills were read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper: A bill, Community Province." "An Act To Establish A College System In The (Bill No. 13).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Establishment And Operation Of The Institute Of Fisheries And Marine Technology, The Fisher Institute Of Applied Arts And Technology And The Cabot Institute Of Applied Arts And Technology". (Bill No. 12). A bill, "An Act To Memorial University Act". (Bill No. 39). Amend The (Pensions) A bill, "An Act To Amend ThE! Financial Administration Act. 1973 11 • (Bill No. 27). A bill, "An Act Corporations Act" . To Amend The (BillNo. 38). A bill, "An Department Of Act To Amend The Rural, Agricultural No. 65 R3573

And Northern (BillNo. 37). Development Act11• A bill, 11An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law11• (Bill No. 43) . MR. OTTENHEIMER: Order 10. Bill No. 34. MR. SPEAKER: Order 10. Committee of the Whole on a bill, 11An Act Respecting The Return Of The Business Of Fishery Products International Limited To Private Investors11• 0 n mo t ion , t h a t the House res o 1 v e itself into Committee of the Whole on certain bills, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Committee of the Whole MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Please! Shall clause 8 carry? MR. FENWICK: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for ~enihek. MR.

FENWICK: Mr. Chairman, I really believe that almost everything has already been said about the FPI B'ill from our side, so if we can we were going to stick to the last two clauses, because we are sticklers in regard to observing the rules of the House.

Clause (8) says: 1 The provisions of this Act which apply to FPI Limited or Fishery Products International Limited shall also apply to any successor corporation of FPI Limited or Fishery Products L3574 June 19, 1987 Uol XL International Limited whether formed by way of amalgamation, arrangement or otherwise. 1 The only comments I have to makE! about the particular clause are that what I think it does tell us is how transient these organizations are.

I was listening this morning to the CBC radio when they had the ceremonies up on Signal Hill, and it was interesting in that there was a gentleman there who was an expert in the old merchant firms of Newfoundland and was talking about the old merchant firms that had prosecuted the fisheries, the flags that they had and so on, and what was quite interesting is there were only four firms dating back to the last century that still exist and, as near as I could make out, none of them WE!re in the fishery.

Most were Ed ther insurance brokers or were into supply companies, li.ke Harvey and Company which is in oil and everything like this. So what it tends to suggest to us, I think, is there is a transient nature to these businesses and indeed thE!re probably will be a transient nature to Fishery Products International in terms of where it is going.

I would like to suggest to the minister and to everybody in this House that twenty years from now, or thirty years from now Fishery Products International may be a company located in Panama, it rnay be involved with deal:ing with God knows what, and have nothing to do whatsoever with our particular fishery. And it is by way of suggesting that we really are unleashing this company, we are unleashing it in a way that in my opinion we have virtually no control over. In looking at the clauses I think we have adequately No. 65 . R3574

shown that many of the provisions that we have here are subject to reinterpretation under the Charter of Rights, many of them are a violation of the economic union clause, and when we get to clause (9) we will indicate how we think that that one possibly is unconstitutional as well or could be . challenged as being unconstitutional.

So I think it unfortunate that because we have had a prosperous fishery for a short period of time, which I hope, by the way, will last long, but because we have had that prosperous fishery over the last year or two that we are in a position to be able to sell Fishery Products International for a substantial sum and that having sold it the provincial government would make back the $48. S million - or is it $48.7 million? I forget the exact . amount - that it invested in it. But in essence it has at the same time given away the major instrument of control of the offshore fishery.

I think that that is very unfortunate. We have made the point so many times that I am probably getting a little bit repetitive in saying the same arguments again, and I do not want to particularly go through them time and time again. So what I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that it is unfortunate that we have done that, and eventually I think we will live to regret having made that decision. Indeed, the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) has already indicated he is quite regretful that he no longer has the good input to Fishery Products International he had.

I think we will see in the future that we will have less and less control of it . That, Mr. Chairman, is a L3S7S June 19, 1987 Vol XL major mistake and one that I wish we had not made but one which, when we form the New Democratic Party Government in this Legislature, we will quickly correct. We will revise this piece of legislation and buy back a sui table portion of the company to make sure we have that window on the industry and that we have some degree of control of it. So it is not an irrevocable mistake, provided we get an NDP Government in good time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question! Qu~stion!

On motion clause 8 carried . MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 9 carry? MR. FENWICK: Mr . Chairman . MR . CHAIRMAN : The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Just a few more comments on that particular clause, Mr. Chairman. It says : 1 A majori ty of the members of the board of directors of each of FPI Limited and Fishery Products International Limited shall be residents of the Province. 1 Mr. Chairman, this is, I consider, probably one of the weakest clauses we have there . As I understand our Canadian Constitution the concept of the economic union is paramount.

This is a country in which you have the right to work from St. John 1 s to Victoria, from the high Arctic down to Point Pelee in Ontario, the most Southerly point. We have that right to work anywhere in the country. Concurrently, we also have the right invest our money any place in the country, with very minor restrictions in terms No. 65 R3S7S

of affirmation action programmes and so on. We also have, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, the right to be a me~mber on the Board of Directors of any corporation that is registered in this country, and that a provincial Legislature such as ours that says that you have to be a resident of a .Province to be a member of a board, -I would suggest to you, is open to challenge under the Canadian Constitution. Now, I should point out that I would hope that it would be upheld, because I think this is one of the very small ways we have of having influence upon this particular corporation.

But given my experience and my understanding of the Constitution, and indeed the Minister of Fisheries• (Mr. Rideout) comments where he said that there is a division of opinion on whether or not it would hold up, I think we very clearly have a situation here where we do not know whether or not this particular piece of legislation will hold up. The other question I have to ask about it is: What do you do when you appoint these board members?

Do we take the board members and we hold them down at 1 the first board meeting and we take a branding iron and put a big N on their forehead and say you are now designated as a Newfoundland and Labrador Board Member and God forbid you should ever leave this Province and establish residence anywhere in the world or we will strip you of your rights as a board member? In other words, Mr.

Chairman, do we actually alloca ·l-.e which ones are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or is it just sort of a survey that we conduct every three or four months to determine who stayed in the Province, who has moved in from outside and so L3576 June 19, 1987 Uol XL on and so for·th? In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult from the reading of it to understand what mechanism will be involved in order to make sure that this provision is endorsed, even if, quite frankly, tt does not fall down as a result of ·a challenge under the charter.

So I believe it is the Achilles heel of the agreement and as a result of it being the Achilles heel it i.s the doorway through which control of FPI can eventually slip off to people who are not residents of the Provj,nce and who have not got the best interests of t~e Province at heart. So on that basis I think that it is a flaw that we should not have allowed to appear there, but quite frankly I do no l see any other way that it could have been drafted. That is probably as strong a clause as you could put in there. I think anything worse would be even more~ easily challenged by the Cons tit uti on .

In other word s , M 1n . Chairman, what I am saying is there is no control of this company and, since there is no control of it, I do not see why we are putting in these pet:ty clauses in order to make it look like we do have control. With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and allow my colleague to have a few words as well. MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for St. John•s East. r.!IR. LONG : Thank you, Mr. Chairman . Just a few brief comrnE!nt.s to follow on what the hon. the member No. 65 R3576

for Menihek has said but to put the question of control in a different light and not in so much as this clause raises legal questions but in so much as this residency requirement of the Board of Directors represents, I would submit, a rather weak gesture of compensation in as much ·as the company is being privatized, the effort - to have the Board of Directors Newfoundland residents is to somehow suggest that they will in that way be bound to put the interest of the Province and the interest of the people of the Province before anything else. What I would say to the minister and to the gou ernrnent, Mr.

Chairman, is that the problems that we have seen in the industry in the past is not a question of Newfoundlanders being involved in positions of power at the center of the industry, but a problem of the bottom line being the bottom line, the bottom line being a question of profits and the interests of share holders . We saw FPI in the past, and the Lake Group of Companies. and the other companies that produced the downturn in the indus tr·y that forced both levels of government and the banks to come in LJJi t.h a restructuring agreememt, these people were all Newfoundlanders.

Their primary interest was not the questions of social protection of the industry; their basic, primary objective was to deal with the bottom line of profits and to protect the position of shareholders. So what we see, Mr. Chairman, is an attempt to try and suggest that the interests of the people of the Province and the public interest will be protected because these people are Newfoundlanders.

But because these people are Newfoundlanders means little when the fundamental role that they are charged with, L3577 June 19, 1987 Vol XL as members of the Board of Directors, is to ensure the profitability of the corporation . That is what they answer to first and foremost, the shareholders and the bottom line. So it is an illusion to suggest that because the Board of Directors are, as in the legislation, obliged. required to be Newfoundlanders, that that is somehow going to protect the interests of the fishing communi ties and the people in the Province. What we are sa ying, Mr .

Chairman, is that the gove rnment is abdicating any public responsibil ity by handi ng over th e corporation to private hands, and there is ver y little that the ·government ca n do in the way of trying to compensate fo r that, and that this residency req uirement of the Board of Directors will certainly not make up for what is essentially a giveaway to the private sector that will allow no guarantee for public accountability. There is only another clause or two remaining and the two schedules that we must pass.

Th e questions that the member for Menihek has raised about this, and then the argument that I have been submitting, that making the majority of board members resident Newfoundlanders , will not guarantee any real degree of public accountability for the corporation, and these are the essential problems that we have with the legislation . We argued for some time during second reading that we were opposed in principle, not to present any argument against the importance of the restructuring of the industry and the necessary moue to modernize and streamline and make more efficient the operations of No. 65 R3577

this corporation. But we would suggest that it makes little sense at this historic time, when the government has brought in an unprecedented budget with unprecedented deficits, unprecedented debts that everybody in this Province is having to cope with, that when we have a corporation that in a two year period - began to turn its operations around for various reasons - the industry began to turn around and very healthy profits were made last year, $40 million - that the immediate response by the government is to take the corporation out of public hands and to give it to the private sector.

Somehow, when profit is being made by an institution that is in public hands, then that is a no go, that is not the way for the government to get itself involved in the economy. As we see in other ways, the pattern is consistent with cutbacks in social programmes. But essentially, Mr.

Chairman, we are arguing that at this time in the Prouince 1 s history, when we see this public corporation turning a healthy profit, it would have made a lot of sense to keep that company in public hands. to bring the profits back into the public treasury in order to allow the government to initiate its own programmes to try and regenerate the economy in the Province. That is the essential argument in principle. then, that has been manifested in a number of the clauses that we have been through.

In par·ticular Clause No. 9 which is the one we are speaking now, the residency requir·ement, is a last fall-back attempt by the government to try and tell the people of the Province that this L35'/8 · June 19, 1987 Vol XL company will be obliged to haue. as its primary obj ectiue. the protection of the interests of the people of this Province. t.he fis h:ing communi ties. and the fishing industry. We would say, Mr. Chairman, that that is simply not possible by a weal< gesture of obliging these people to be resident in Newfoundland. It simply will not work.

Their primary goal will be to protect the shareholders and the bottom line and not the industry, the people of the Province, or the fishing communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! On motion, Clauses 9 through 10, carried. On motion, carried.

Schedule A and B. Motion, that the CommitteE! rE!port having passed Bill No. 34 without amendment, carried. A bill, John 1 s 1972. 11 11

An Act To Amend The St. Fire Department Act, (Bill No. 2) MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall Clause 1 carry? MR. FENWICK: Clause 1, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The han. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: I was listening to the Minister of Justice ( M s U erg e ) - by the way . if the Minister of Justice is within sound of my voice would she please return to hE!r seat? yesterday speaking on the second reading of the legislation and for No. 65 R3578

once I am willing to agree with the argument she has put forward. I think at that point she should probably also agree that the legislation should not be used to deprive the members of the St. John's Fire Department from something which they wanted, an Arbitration Award. Just g~ back a slight bit and then indicate what the amendment is I am going to propose, she has indicated that there is a Fire Chief and there are two Assistant Fire Chiefs .in the department. There are a ls 0 now I 0 r there . h a v e been, four shift superintendents, who were added in 1983.

There is an indication several months ago that they added four additional shift superintendents, and when they did that they also asked for a piece of legislation to ensure they would not be members of the bargaining unit. But, of course, at the same time the Fire Captains were dropped, - I think eight of the fire captains are being dropped over the next couple of years - which would be an indication that the bargaining unit would be weaker, it would lose a number of members.

So what I am proposing 1 here as an amendment is that, I believe that there is a compromise that t.l.lould protect the integrity of the bargaining unit and at the same time allow the department to pass through legislation that would in fact correspond with what is being done now. Clause 1 says: 1 Subsection (2) of

section 20 of The St. John • s Fire Department Act, 1972, is amended by striking out the words 11 other than the Fire Chief and the Assistant Fire Chiefs" and substituting the words "other than the Fire Chief, the Assistant Fire L35'79 June 19, 1987 Vol XL Chiefs" - and amendment "and superintendents .. 1 • here the is the shift My amendment would be to add, after the word superintendent and such shift superintendents shall be limited to four. 1 If there is a page here I can give you a written copy of the amendment. The intention would bE! this, Mr.

Chairman : It would not change at all the meaning of the legislation, but would just say that the shift superintendents who are outside of the bargaining unit, would be restricted to thE! four who are currently there. We would not increase the number of shift superintendents who are out of the bargaining unit .. I wi 11 go back just a bit over the argumE!nt in case the Minister of Justice (Ms. Verge) - MR. TULK : On a point of order, Mr . Chairman . MR . CHAIRMAN (Greening) : Order, please! A point of order, the han. the member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: I do want to hear what is being said in this Legislature and it seems to me that there are conversations going on all over the place on all sides of the House. So, could we haue some order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: Just to s.ummarize what I said to the minister, going back ouer the minister 1 s <::omments when we spoke in second reading, there is a Fire Chief and two Assistant Fire No. 65 R3 579

Chiefs and four superintendents who in the past were outside of the bargaining unit, and these were the management structure. Now, there was an intention to add four additional shift superintendents. This was being done over the last couple of months. This is the action, of course, that the firefighters in the local were objecting to, because they saw the positions of eight fire captains, who are in the bargaining unit, being abolished, and at the same time four additional positions as shift superintendents being created. MS VERGE: There will be mine . MR.

FENWICK: Well, I remember there is a whole bunch more, but I am just concentrating on the parts in dispute here. My amendment would add after the word 1 superintendents 1 and you have the wording there so I cannot exactly read it back, these shift superintendents would be restricted to four. The intention is you can have your shift superintendents, out of the bargaining unit, but you do not have the leeway to addl twelve or sixteen or eighteen shift superintendents and erode the strength of the bargaining unit.

So the intention there is that the four shift superintendent would be out of the bargaining unit but restricted to four in number. Whatever you call the other shift superintendents, maybe assistant shift superintendent, for example, it is perfectly all right with me as long as they remain in the bargaining unit. In other words, what I am saying is that this amendment would protect the bargaining unit and at the same time allow the department whatever L3580 June 19, 198'/ Vol XL leeway it wished in order to say that these are the management people and they do not have to be in it. So that, amendment. way? Mr.

Chairman, is rny Is it in order, by the MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Shall the amendment pass? MS VERGE: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Mioister of Justice . MS VERGE: Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that before the Arbitration Award, which has been accepted, there were thirty-three senior officers of the St. John 1 s Fire Department, out of a total complement of nearly 300, who were not in the bargaining unit, who were management. With this change, Mr.

Chairman, there IAJill be, following the increase in the number of shift superintendent. positions from four to eight, eleven out of nearly 300 out of the bargaining unit as management. So there will be a reduction from thirty-three before the arbitration to eleven following the reorganization out of a force of 300 members who will be management and not part of the bargaining unit. Mr. Chairman, the three ranks who will make up the eleven will be the same three ranks who always have been out of the bargaining unit, whom the arbitrator considered belonging out of the bargaining unit.

Those ranks are Chief,· Assistant ChiE!f and shift superintendent. Mr. Chairman, anyone using common sense can see No. 65 R3580

that out of a force of nearly 300 members there has to be more than three members, more than just the Chief and the two Assistant Chiefs, out of the bargaining unit. We are maintaining the third rank in the hierarchy out of the bargaining unit and that has always been the case since that third rank was introduced in 1983. -so, Mr. Chairman, there is no change from current and past practice that will result from this amendment.

The amendment will simply make the act accord with past practice, the current act having come in before 1983 and before the rank of shift superintendent was added to the hierarchy of the St. John 1 s F lre Department. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Nay. MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment is defeated. Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill No. 2 without amendment, carried. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Order 12 Bill No. 6 . A bill, "An Act To Amend The Conflict Of Interest Act, 1973. 11 (Bill No. 6) Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR.

OTTENHEIMER : Order 13. Bill No. 23. A bill, "An Act Canada/Newfoundland Accord (Newfoundland) Act. 11 To Amend The Atlantic Implementation (Bill No. 23) L3 581 June 19, 1987 Vol XL Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. OTTENHEIMER : Order 14. Bill No. 17. A bill, 11

An Act To Amend The Day Care And Homemaker Services Act, 1975. 11 (Bill No. 17 . Motion, that the Committee report havinq passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. OTTENHEIMER: ·order 15 . Bill No. 26 . A bill, 11

An Act Respecting The Department Of Energy And Other Matters Related Or Incidental Thereto. 11 (Bill No. 26) Motion, that the Committee rE!port having passed the bill without amendment, carried. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Order 16. Bill No. 40 . A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service (Pensions) Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act." ( B i 11 No . 40) MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 1 carry? MR. OTTENHEIMER : Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The han. the President of the Council. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, on Clause 1, also on Clause 2 when it comes, there is an amendment to be made. This is the amendment that hon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) referred to yesterday and explained yesterday, but he cannot No. 65 R3 581

move it himself. So I u..lill move that clause 1 of the bill be amended by striking out the period after the word 'Plan' and by adding, immediately after the proposed

section 14(5)(b), the following: 'where the effective date of the reduction is prior to age sixty-five the amount of the reduction as calculated under Subsection (3) shall be reduced by .5 per cent for each month the effective date as established under paragraph (

b) is less than the date established under paragraph (a) . ' MR. FENWICK: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Chairman, you are only moving the one amendment at a time, is that correct, because there are two there? AN HON. MEMBER: It is the same amendment. MR. FENWICK: I know it is the same! for both, but are we discussing both the same time? I assume we are. Mr. Chairman, the question is how much of the damage that has been wreaked by this government does this particular clause repair? It actually is quite a tiny amount when you look at it.

It is my reading of it -and the minister can get up and debate afterwards and clarify it if I am in error as he is so wont to do, or claims he is so wont to do -that if it is . 5 per cent for each month prior to age sixty-five that is taken, that the earliest that you could L3582 June 19, 1987 Vol XL possibly use this is at the age of sixty, which would be sixty months prior, at .5 times sixty months, which would mean a 30 per cent change in the amount of offset that would occur.

In other words, Mr: Chairman, if an individual were to lose $1,000, say, using the offset procedure, then under this amendment he would only lose $1,000 minus 30 per cent, or $300, for $700. That is the most advantageous situation that I can find if a person takes retirement at age sixty. So instead of losing $1,000 through the actions of the government, 30 per CElnt less is lost and therefore they only lose 70 per cent of that which would mean a $700 reduction in pensi.on rather than $1,000 reduction in pension.

Nou..J taking· that same $1,000 offset, if it were to occur half way between age sixty and sixty-five, instead of a 30 per cent reduction in the loss it would only be a 15 per· cent loss. I am saying this because I want to make sure that I have the understanding correct.

In other words, if you are half way between sixty and sixty-five, instea.d of having the thing reduced by 30 per c en t i t wo u 1 d be red u c E~ d by 1 5 per cent, in which case instead of thE:~ individual losing $1,000 under the actions the government is taking, they are being generous enough in giving the individual back $150 on a yearly basis. Of course, the closer you get to age sixty-five the more miniscule the actual saving becomes.

If, for example, you at age sixty-four and you are losing $1,000, since it is only twelve months times .5, which would be 6 per cent less, in that case it is only $60 that the individual would get back by this generous amendment. In other No. 65 R3582

words, the sum effect of this particular thing is that in the best possible case an individual instead of 100 per cent of the loss that he is being nailed with now will only lose 70 per cent. The worse possible case, for a person a month or so before age sixty-five is he would lose one half of 1 per cent of it and he would lose 99.5 per cent of it. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is like somebody has come and pulled your wallet out of your pocket and instead of taking $1,000 has taken anywhere from $700 to $999. SO.

In my opinion it is still robbing from these poor pensioners and from all the 24,000 people on pensions that are currently going there. So on that basis I cannot see how we can possibly vote fqr an amendment that still allows the theft of between 70 per cent and 100 per cent of the money from these poor individuals. I would also suggest that this is not exactly what Jake Epp asked for in the letter that he wrote to the minister. He said in there - let us see if we can find that particular letter and I quote from it, 1 In general 1 DR. COLLINS: Where did you get the l~ter? MR.

FENWICK: fact I have five Almost every copy of it has on to me. As a matter of copies of it . pensioner who got a been forwarding them DR. COLLINS: Where did you get the letter? MR. FENWICK: He sent it to the pensione rs who initially -asked for it. DR. COLLINS :· He sent my letter to the pensioners? L3583 June 19, 1987 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: No. He sent he sent you raised the they sent it DR. COLLINS: I see. MR. FENWICK: a copy of the letter to the pensioners who issue with him, and on to me. You thought we stole it out of Jake Epp 1 s Office, did you, or out of your office? What did he ask the minister to do?

I quote: 1 There are two 1..\Jay s that plans could co-ordinate their benefits with flexible CPP retirement benefits prior to age 65 without unduly penalizing pensioners. The first is to ignore the early payment of the CPP benefit and then make the same reduction at age 65 that would have been made in any case. 1 That is the argument, that is thE! high route, that is the noble course to take, and that is what the minister and his government should have done. As a matter of fact. after we deal with this amendment we have a further amendment which will say exactly that and which will be introduced afterwards.

But what is the other way Mr. Epp suggested? 1 The second _way is to apply the reduction at the time the CPP benefit becomes payable, but modify the amount of the reduction to recognize that will apply for a longer period of time. 1 So what the minister has done is say we will take this arbitrary formula of .5 per cent for each month earlier and we will use that to reduce the amount that we wil1 take back from these pensioners. No. 65 R3583

In my opinion, if he wanted to do that he should have been much more generous; instead of taktng . 5 he should have taken something like 1 per cent or 1.25 per cent, something closer to the actual amount that has been taken away. And I am pretty sure that that is what Jake Epp had in mind when he wrote the letter, although quite frankly-he and I are not on a conversational basis, although maybe the minister is and he can tell us exactly what Jake Epp had in mind.

I suggest to you that he thought that somewhere more than 30 per cent at maximum was the amount of money that he wished to see returned to_ the pensioners. So, Mr. Chairman, what I can say is that this is if anything an admission of guilt on the part of the minister. It is an admission that what he is doing is an exceptional action, it is the most mean spirited

interpretation of the CPP changes and our own legislation of any government in Canada. He is not going to get aiJJay with it because we will continue to say to the very day I die that. he robbed the pensioners of this Province and he took money from them that they legitimately earned in a manner which this government has no right to do. And I will still continue to insist on that, and more and more the pensioners, and the people who will be pensioners under that system, are beginning to understand that whole situation. This is giving them back 30 per cent or less of what is being taken from them.

It is not enough. We clearly are going to vote. against this amendment. We will then propose our own amendment, which we intend to vote for, and if that is not accepted we intend to vote against the bill L3584 June 19, 1987 Vol XL tn its entirety. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, what can you a load of garbage like wonder? MR. LONG: say to that I That is what you always say, you call it gar.bage. DR. COLLINS: It is a way of operating.

I do not know how many people in this House, but I know that: there arE! some, the hon. the member for Twillingate (Mr. W. Carter), for instance and some others, who remember what went on in the late 1930s and during the early 1940s when a gentleman named Dr.

Goebbels was in the German Government, and he was following the orders of his leader, and t~he orders of his leader was to say something, it does not mat."l:E!r if it is true or not, as long as you say it and keep saying it and keep saying it, because you must kE!E!p saying it very frequently if it is a lie, if it is an untruth, if it is a distortion, if it is something that is unreal, unna·tural, irrational, you have to keep saying it more and more and more. If you do that, finally you will have a number of people believe you and that Luill become, in their minds, truth.

Now there was a fallacy to it that we all know, that after a while that false truth comes out and the real truth goes in because the old expression that you can mislead some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the No. 65 R3584

time. And, of course, Dr. Goebbels and his friend, his boss, Mr . Hitler, they learned that to their detriment. This has happened in other jurisdictions too. So what we have here is the hon. the member for Menihe k saying, 11 I do not care what this amendment does, I am going t~ continue to the day I die putting out the distortion that I am now putting out, and I will continue doing that. 11 So, I mean, U!hat can you say? I cannot ask th~m to stop doing that.

He should stop doing it because he is confusing, disorientating, doing damage, causing hurt to pensioners who should not have that done to them, but I cannot stop them doing that unless I sort of muzzle him in some way, and I have no interest in muzzling, unmuzzling, demuzzled, mismuzzling or doing anything with the member for Menihek because he has this impossible ideology, this NDP ideology that does not look at truth. They have a fixation on a certain narrow perspective, a certain view of life, and the facts do not matter, laws do not matter.

We saw that,f the han. member demonstrated that himself personally, to him laws do not matter, logic does not matter, consensus does not matter as long as they see something that is the way they are going to go. Now, Mr. Chairman, what have we done here? As I explained yesterday the federal government brought in a change in CPP. They did not increase CPP benefits. The CPP benefits after January 1 are exactly the same as the CPP benefits before January 1. There is no increase.

Over an actuarial period of time, if I can use that L3 585 June 19, 1987 Vol XL expression, the pensioner gets exactly the same amount of CPP, but it is spread out longer. Instead of getting it in a chunk from sixty-five until the day he demises, say, seventy or whatever, instead of getting it from sixty-five to seventy he will now get it, if he elects to take early retirement, from sixty to seventy. It is the same amount of money spread out over a longer period of time. In other words, the CPP benefit for the early retiree, if he takes up the option, is actuarially reduced.

Now, if the federal government had come to us right at the beginning and said we would like to integrate this with your particular pension arrangements, that would have been the ideal way to go. Why this did not happ1;!n I cannot answer. Mr. Epp at some point in time may well answer publicly. He has not answere!d to me personally satisfactorily why he did have that consultation, but the fact is that he did not do adequate consultation . There was some consultation of a broad brush type, as does he wants to integrate this with pensions across Canada, but that was not sufficient.

It should have been focused on each province, becauSE! each province's pension plan is different. I suppOSE! I should not say that, but I know ours is different from any of the others. Whether they are different I am not even interested in, Not having done that detailed consultation with .us, we immediately could see where this would damage our pensioners . So we put in place - Bill No. 40 unamended - a remedial measure immediately to take care of the clear damage we could see that this arrangement was going to do . We then continued conversation by No. 65 R3 58 5

phone, by letter and so on, by visitation of officials with the people in Ottawa to further clarify what the federal government had in their mind precisely and how this would integrate with our plan. We finally got that all str-aightened out and that is what this amendment does -an amendment to the amendment, shall we say.

What the amendment to the amendment does is: As CPP benefits are going to remain the same although spread out actuarially·, we are going to take a reduction amount, which is in the act -the han. member does not believe acts, of course, but I can assure him that it is in the act; it has been in the act since 1967 and we have used it ever since 1967; there has been early retirement ever since 1967 and reduction factors have in place for these early retirees ever since 1967, nothing new -and we are spreading out that reduction amount, too, so that there will be a less severe impact of this reduction factor at sixty than it would be at sixty-five, but there would be a better benefit at sixty-six, sixty-seven, sixty-eight and sixty~ine.

So, in other words, the provincial stream to the retiree will be exactly the same but it will be spread out because he is taking early retirement, and the CPP benefits wi 11 be exactly the same but they will be spread out because he is taking early retirement, so there is no robbing of the pensioner. This is the distortion, the big -may I use the term and I am going to accuse Dr. Goebbels of this now -. lie that Dr. Goebbels perpetrated. Dr. Goebbels was a terrible, terrible man because he engaged in big lies. L3586 June 19, 1987 Vol XL MR. LONG: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: A point of order the han. the member for St. John's East. MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman, I let that go the first time but I have to rise on a point of order. The IAJay in which the Minister of Finance is accusing my leader of being like Dr. Goebbels, and the1 member for St. John • s North (Mr. J. Carter) yesterday talking about Hitler, is absolutely unparliamentary, should be withdrawn. Why do you not have some respect for the level of debate in this Chamber and stop getting down into the dirt and slime talking about Goebbels and Hitler?

Why do you not. deal wt th the substance of the argument and stop this name-calling? No wonder the high school students are shocked when they carnE! in and see the level of debate that. goes on in this Chamber. You should be ashamed of yourself. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of orde1r, there is no point of order. The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, if you have a rather stubborn donkey and you want to lead him somewhere, quite often you first have to hit him over the head lui th a piece of two by four to get his attention, so that is what I have done here.

The hon. the member for Menihek has perpetrated so much distortion about this matter going back several months, or at least a month, that he has confused the pensioners so much that I have to bring out in a very dramatic fashion what he is doing. He is No. 65 R3586

not doing a proper thing. He is confusing the pensioners unnecessarily. Pensioners will not lose, they will get their pension benefits spread out in a certain way. The CPP is actuarially changed, the reduction factor is actuarially changed, but the same benefits over that actuarial period are there. Now, the han. -··member says, 'I do not like the percentage.' I could not care less whether he likes the percentage.

Ours is given to us by an actuarial expert who says this is the right percentage to do this factor, to change the method and spread things out, so pensioners get the same benefits that they would get anyway. There is no robbing. It is all done quite straightforward. There was a de 1 a y i n do i n g i t , b u t it was not my fault the delay was there. I suppose I should take some of the blame, because I should have hopped on the plane the first time his came out and sat outside Mr.

Epp' s office and said, 'For God's sake, look at our plan down here, see what you are doing to our plan down here. ' I did not do that and I could be criticized for it. Anyway, it is all straightened out now, there is no robbing. Pensioners should f not be concerned. Their rights are preserved. What was in the act is still in the act but the method is changed.

If they want further explanation from this of a very technical nature that I do not think the Committee would be interested in, they can go and visit our actuary, and he t.uill be only too pleased to take their precise pension amounts and work it out for them and show them that over the period of time that they are expected, according to actuarially tables to live, that their pension rights are preserved. No increase in CPP, no L3587 June 19, 1987 Vol XL decrease in the stream from the provincial plan, exactly the same, but spread out a different way.

Now, I do not for one minute think the member for· Menihek will stop perpetrating his distortions on the poor unfortunate pensionE!rs who will be mislead by him. I do not for one minute think he will stop that. He should, but I do not think he will. I think there may be some people in the media who get taken in by the glib garbage that is put out by the NDP and say, 'Since there is a bit of smoke here there must be fire.' There is no fire. It is all smoke and mirrors that the han. member i s get t i n g o n wi t h . The r E! i s no fire whatever.

I am willing to believe that perhaps some people in the media may not look on it that way , b u t I cannot do an )I t hi n g about that. All I can do is I can assure the House on the advice we have gotten, the input we have had from actuarial experts we pay very expensive contract fees to exactly for this advice, that they assure us the right figure is in there. The spreading out that the Feds did we have now done, and everything is even-steven and the pensioners have a right to perserve it. That is all I can say. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The han. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, our position is clear on this particular bill. From the beginning of this bill we No. 65 R3587

said we saw no jus ti fica tion for any reductions to early retirees of their pensions because they were receiving Canada Pension Plan. No reductions, Mr. Chairman. We have seen no justification, we still have not been convinced by the minister that there should be any reason or that there are no substantive reasons- given why there should be reductions. Let me further state that we think that the decrease in reduction that the minister has given tod~y by his amendment is too little as well .

The fact that the minister can give a reduction, the fact that he can start decreasing the reduction means that he is on the way to eliminating the thing entirely. Now if you only moved from . 6 to . 5, the minister could easily have gone, it seems to me, to . 3 or to .2. and possibly could have eliminated the reduction entirely. But, Mr.

Chairman, there are two things: first of all, Lue believe that we have gained a victory, that we have been able to penetrate and permeate somewhat the intransigence of the minister. his tremendous inability to be able to conceptualize 1 and grasp the need of the average Newfoundlander. So. Mr. Chairman, it seems as though we have been able to penetrate somewhat that very hard attitude that he has towards the average Newfoundlander by his very little concession to decrease the reduction. So, Mr.

Chairman, to vote against this bill today would be to vote against two improvements in the present circumstances, as an improvement, though a very small improvement. At least now people have the choice of whether ·to apply for Canada Pension and thus L3 588 June 19, 1987 Uol XL have the reduction factor entered into their provincial plan, or not to take the Canada Pension Plan and receive full benefits. So that is a bit of an improvement over what was thE:~ situation when the reduction factor was applied to their pension regardless of whether they received Canada Pension or not. So it is an improvement.

People do now have a choice. The choice might be the equivalent of dying by the hangman or by a lethal injection, it might be as narrow as that, but, Mr. Chairman, at least there is a choice. We would not want to vote against. that choice. We would not want to be seen to be voting against t.hat choice that is now offerE!d to people, although again we think there should be no reduction . Secondly, we would not want to vote against the decreaSE! in the reduction that the minister is now giving, albeit it is very, VE!ry little. So we would not want to be seen to be voting against these two measures.

But we want to serve a warning to the minister that we are not going to let up either. We are not going to let up in this pension matter. We want to ensure that all of the pensioners in this Province, the public pensioners and other pensioners in this Province, receive the full benefits of pensions to which they have contributed. Mr. Chairman, I wonder why thE! confusion right now? Were the pensioners of this Province ever aware that when they retired there was going to be a reduction in their provincial pensions? Were they ever aware of that? MR. DINN : No. 65 R3 588

At age sixty, yes. MR. LUSH: At early retirement. The pensioners who talked to rne tell me they were not. Now, Mr. Chairman, if this were negotiated and became a matter that was decided upon through collective bar.gaining, one would believe that pensioners would be aware of it. So another hole in the argument that the minister is advancing is it seems as though this was not negotiated, that the minis ter is somehow manipulating the rules to the benefit of the Province. So, Mr .

Speaker, because we see two improvements here today - one, the choice of whether one accep-ts Canada Pension and either decides to have or not to have the reduction, which we see as an improvement as opposed to the carte blanche application of the reduction factor in the beginning; and, secondly, because there is a small decrease - we do not want to be seen to be voting against these two improvements, be they very, very small. The other thing, Mr.

Speaker, just in conclusion, is we believe that we have somehow broke~ down the callousness and the insensitivity of the Minister of Finance and we believe that to be a victory too. The more that we can press him in this matter, we believe that we may in time get him to eliminate the reduction completely and entirely, the way it should be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . MR . CHAIRMAN : Shall the amendment carry? MR. FENWICK: Mr. Chairman. L3589 June 19, 1987 Vol XL MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr.

Cha.irman, just by way of notice, we will be moving an amendment, after this amendment is dealt with, to another part of the actual bill itself. We will be getting to that, so that the Chair knows that we are coming to it. There is one question I have for the Minister of Finance. I have looked at the pooled assets of the pen .sion plans. If we look at the four plans themselves, there are two plans that are seriously in default on a current account basis. In other words, each year the premiums going in are not enough to pay out. Those arE! the Uniformed Services Pension Plan and the MHA Pension Plan.

In other IAJOrds, of the four plans we have, the Public Service one with 24,000, the Teachers with 8,000, the Uniformed Services with 1,000 people, and the MHA one !Ali th fifty-two of us in it, and I gUE!SS a few retirees, there are two plans that are seriously in default on a current account basis. In others words, the premiums corning in do not pay for the pension going out in the MHA one and the Uniformed Services one. The Uniformed Services one is being reduced now, and the rninister•s major argument is that it is not paying its own way. So I have one question for the minister.

Is he willing to get the MHA Plan and have it reduced whenever each of us takes our CPP at age sixty? Are you willing to have the MHA Plan reduced by the same several thousand dollars or so that you are imposing on the 24,000 public employees? If you are wi 11 in g to do that , then I am going to take back what I am going No. 65 R3589

to you say are to you now . 8 e cause if not wi 11 in g to do it , you hypocrit and you are saying that the public should live under a are a actually employees particular should not. set of rules and we MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please! I would ask the hon . member to withdraw that remark. MR. FENWICK : Is that unparliamentary? MR. CHAIRMAN: That is . MR. FENWICK: I am sorry. I did not know that the words were unparliamentary although the actions were not. I certainly withdraw them. DR. COLLINS : You should be proud of yourself. You are learning something about parliamentary rules. MR.

FENWICK: I have never, ever seen the Minister of Finance so rattled as he has been on this issue, because he knows he is s~anding on quicksand. He knows the pensioners, all 30,000 who are either about to receive pensions or who have, know in their pocketbooks that we are right, know in their pocketbooks that we have the goods on him this time, that he is acting like, as the member for Fogo used to call him, the Grinch who stole Christmas. And, quite frankly, he is, because there it was, a week after Christmas, and all of a sudden he was taking money away from our pensioners. Mr.

Chairman, we are right, we L3590 June 19, 1987 Vol XL know we are right, the pensioners know we are right and the media know we are right. It is only the Minister of Finance who, for some amazing reasons, thinks that taking $1,000 to $2,000 from each one of these pensioners is not reducing their pensions. How he can imagine that I do not know. But he is certainly living in a dream world on it, and on election day his own voters in St. John 1 s South, who are in that plan, wi11 be very happy to tell him what they think of his actions in this regard. Mr.

Chairman, as soon as we deal with this amendment WE! tJJould like to bring up our own amendment. On motion, amendment carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 1 carry? MR. FENWICK: Mr . Chairman. MR . CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for Menihek . MR. FENWICK: I would like to propose an amendment to clause 1 in BilJ. No. 40. Before I read out the amendment, I would just like to tell you what the effect of it will be. If you have the particular bill, claus~~ 1,

section 5 says, 11 A pension of an employee shall be reduced under subsection (3) at a time which is the earlier of . 11 That is the way i l: reads now. Our amendment would change that to, 11 A pension shall not be reduced under subsection (3) until the employee reaches the age of 65. 11 That will be the change to it, and what it will do is protE:~ct all the pensioners between the ages of sixty and sixty-five. No. 65 R3590

I will read amendment . out the actual Under Btll No. 40 delete everything from clause 1 and clause 2 after subsection (5) and subsection (3) respectively and replace with: 11 ( 5) A pension shall not be reduced under subsection (3) until the employee reaches- the age of 65. 11 Moved by the member for Menihek, seconded by the Member for St. John's East. The purpose it quite straightforward.

What it is saying is that the benefits which have accrued to our pensioners as a result of actuarial changes, and the Minister of Finance has been in total agreement with us on this point, there is no more that you are getting from the Canada Pension Plan as a result of the changes, all you are getting is less money earlier, and, by the time you die, you actuarially will have received the same. What we are saying is that we should not have tampered with our plan, and we are saying that the age of sixty-five is early enough to reduce the whole thing.

I think we have hashed the arguments out e no u g h and i t i s a rna t t e r now , I think, of just voting on the amendment. We certainly intend to vote for it, because we think that this is the right, proper and just thing to do. MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment is in order . All those in favour of the amendment 'aye'. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR . CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment . L3591 June 19, 1987 Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS : Nay. MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment is defeated . MR. FENWICK: Division. MR. PEACH: You cannot have a division, boy, you have to have three. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members .

Division MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House Question? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Ready. AN HON. MEMBER : One moment. ready All those in favour amendment, please rise: for the of thE! The han. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Simmons), Mr. Hiscock, Mr. Flight, Mr. Tulk, Mr. Callan, Mr. Lush, Mr. W. Carter, Mr. Baker, Mr. Kelland, Mr'. Decker, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Long. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against ' the amendment, please rise : The han. the Minister of Justice (Ms Verge), the hon. the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey), the Han. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout), the han. the Minister of Mines (Mr.

Dinn), the han. the Minister ·of Consumer Affairs and Communications (Mr. Russell), the han. the President of the Council No. 65 R3591

(Mr. Ottenheimer), the hon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), the hon. the Minister of Forest R e s our c e s and Land s ( M r . Simms ) , the hon. President of Treasury Board (Mr. Windsor), the hon. the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr. Young), the hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Matthews), the hon. the Minister of Environment (Mr. Butt), the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle), the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard), the hon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. R. Aylward), the hon. the Minister of Social Services (Mr.

Brett), the hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism (Mr. Barrett), r~r. Baird, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Reid, Mr. Peach, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Woodford. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is twenty-four to twelve. On motion, clause 1 40, carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 2 carry? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: of The hon. the President Council. MR. OTTENHEIMER: defeated, Bill No. of the Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment with respect to clause 2 on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance, which, of course, is required because it is a separate clause.

It is of the same effect, but I think I am required to read it out. I move that clause 2 of the bill L3592 June 19, 1987 Vol XL be amended by striking out the period after the word 1plan1 and by adding immediately after the proposed

section 22 (3) the following: 11Where the effective date of the reduction is prior to age sixty-five the amount of the reduction as calculated under subsection (2) shall be reduced by .5 per cent for each month the effective date as established under paragraph (

b) is less than the date established under paragraph (a) .11 MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Just a word of explanatidn, Mr. Chairman. The reason why we haVE! to do the two sections is the first clause deals with the Public Service Pension Plan, and we have already dealt with that in a VE!ry sensible, logical fashion, and the second clause deals with the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, so we had to bring in exactly thE:~ same amendment so that we are just repeating now what we have just gone through, by way of explanation. In

summary, again, pensioners get no increased lifetime benefits from the CPP change. Pensioners get no different lifetime benefits from the provincial stream. There is no change one Llla y or the other. Lifetime pensiton is spread out a different way. If we conclude this in the House of Assembly here, we wil1 be sending this information to all our pensioners, all our employees in a very concise way. They will all No. 65 R3592

understand it. They wtll know that it should not be di started. There are no improvements in their CPP stream as of January 1, no improvements whatsoever. It is spread out, no improvements. There is no decrease in the provincial stream, no reduction. It is spread out but no difference. We will be explaining that t~ all our pensioners and all our employees after we finish this exercise. On .motion, amendment carried. On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried. Motion, that the Cornrni ttee report having passed Bill No. 40 with amendment, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Terra Nova . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considE:~red the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills Nos 4 34, 2, 6, 23, 17 and 26 without · amendment, and Bill No. 40 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again. On motion, report received and adopted bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave. MR.

SPEAKER : The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report Bill No. 40 with amendment. When shall the report be received? L3593 JUnE! 19, 1987 Vol XL MR. OTTENHEIMER: Now . On motion, report received and adopted, amendment ordered rE!ad a first and second time. On motion, amendment read a first and second time, Bill No. 40 ordered read a third time presently, by leave. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, in calling theSE! bills for third reading now I will have to, naturally, use the numbers that are on today' s Order Paper, which are the numbers indicated in Committee. I will use those numbers. Order 10. Bill No. 34 . On motion, the following bi1ls were read a third time, ordered pas sed and their titles be as on the Order Paper: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Return Of The Business Of Fishery Products International Limited To Private Investors". (Bill No. 34). A bill, John's 1972 11 • "An Act To Amend The St. Fire Department Act, (BillNo. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Conflict Of Interest Act, 1973". (B.illNo. 6). A bill, "An Act Canada-Newfoundland To Amend The Atlantic Implementation Accord (Newfoundland) 23) . Act". (Bill No. A b i 11 , "

An Act To Amend The Day Care And Homemaker Services Act, 1975". (bill No. 17). A bill, "An Department Of No. 65 Act Respecting The Energy And Other R3593

Matters Related Or Incidental Thereto11• (Bill No. 26). A bill, 11 An Public Service The Uniformed Act11• (Bill No. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Act To Amend The (Pensions) Act And Services Pensions 40). Motion 1, the adjourned debate.- Budget On motion, the House resolved itself into committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the raising of supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has about five minutes. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, it is such a long time ago, I believe some time in April, since we last had a chance to talk about the budget that I cannot guarantee there will be complete continuity, except there will be a continuity of the concern we were expressing on that particular day. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps before I get into the substance of it it is worth drawing attention one more time to the way the parliamentary process, in particular ·the budget process, is being quite deliberately perverted by this administration. By way of example, to make my point, let me draw your attention to other jurisdictions.

Could the table indicate what time I have? AN HON. MEMBER: Nine minutes. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, something else I had first, L3594 June 19, 1987 better because do in Vol XL the normal course of events I only have nine minutes remaining. I submit that when I moue the following amendment I will have some extra time and I will develop two or three themes at that particular point. Bui: so as not to run out of time, let me come quickly to what I would like to have a little time to lead up to but do not, unfortunately. I would like, Mr.

Speaker, for the reasons that I gave in the first part of my speech, back in April, and other reasons I will give subsequently, to moue the following non--confidence motion in the administration: That all thE! words after 'that' be struck and replaced with the follot.uing: 'This House deplores the government 1 s failure to deal adequately with the disastrously high levels of unemployment and its failure to provide competent management of the Province's finances, public statements by the Premier that 11We 1 ue got at the outsidE! two years and then its 1933 all over again11, and the administration's abandonment of its responsibility to manage the Province's financial affairs and stated intention to let the problems remain unsolved until the federal government takes responsibility for them.' I was waiting for a signal from Mr.

Speaker, I gather the resolution is in order so I shall proceed. I was makin,g the point first of all, Mr. Speaker, that the process here is being undermined. Here we ar·e now, on a day which may well be the closing of this House for a number of months, being asked to give comment on a budget that was brought into this House on April 2, more than two and a half months ago. If you look at the Ottawa jurisdiction - No. 65 R3594

MR. BAIRD: (Inaudible) . MR. SIMMONS: Is there some particular problem with the gentleman for Humber West (Mr. Baird) other than the ones we know about? MR.· SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Ottawa jurisdiction, the federal jurisdiction, you will find that built into the Standing Or