VOL. 1 NO. 44 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED T RAN SCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR TIlE PERIOD: C 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1982

November 22,1982 lope No. 2520 ah-1 The House met at 3 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Choir MR.SPEA1<ER (Russell) : Order, please: RJ\ QIlISFi ONS MO. 1 <tO: 'lie en. *'e' loi oI the Opposition. MR.NEARY: Mr.Spcaker, I have a question for the Premier.

In \'tew of the violent reaction to the government's tax incrcases,and the lack of consultation with oryanizat Lons lii e the Federation of Mayors and Municipal It Los, the si linol hoards and the Restaurant Association and so fo th,and in view 01 the fact that this is unanimous, ths criticism of the government for taxing Chri stmas presents and donuts and hot dogs and footwear and clothing and so forth, in view of the severe reaction aoainst the government for imposing all these nee taxes,would the Premier indicate if the government is •nticipoting dropping their intentions to jo ahead with many of these hardship taxes, if they intend to flake any chancies or amendments to the tax increases I hat were outlined in the statment that was brought down in a Ministerial Statement in the house lost Thui sdey?

MR.SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all when a government takes certain measures either in a full-blowii budget or in an oconomic statement like we did last week, the level of consultation that can be had in that coiLext is limited. There was some consultation with outside interests in the preparation of it,but it is extremely difficult to S

November 22,1982 rape No. 2520 ah-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: get into [uli,widc ranging decision making process with variou groups within society because obviously most of tiese matters are fairly confidential and there is a eidc range of options available to government. Aid when you go to one group it is quite easy for them to be able to say the other group should be taxed or different things done to reduce the amount of assistnce,it is always somebody else and not them.

So I slould like to say first of all that it is difficult t do the wide- ranging consultation that would be necessary along the lines implied and stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Neary), so that is difficult in the process that we have. There wa some consultation but it was no1 as wide ranging as I am sure a lot of people would perhaps have liked to cc it.. But nevertheless the government is elected to govern and to take measures.

It has to look not only ..t this year but at next year, it has to look at a wIole range of prograrnmes,so what we were faced wilh , Mr.Speaker, was either to make some changes in laxation, number one; number two, to -I

November 22, 1 .982 laps 2521 EC - 1 PREMIER_PECKIORD: allow a deficit to be incurred, a real core deficit to be incurred if one agrees that the $25 million deficit we now have on current account is a one-shot deal in a jeiynierit back to the federal government or overpaymest:S over in the last three years. So we reduced proJramme; across th hoard where we could, to the school boards, I/0,uOU 1-50,000 out of $35 million, or whatever was the total we sivefi, which was not all that much.

We reduced by five cents on the first $2 million to municipalities and aiother five cents above that, which I think was sort of reasonable thing; another hundred and - I forget what the total there is, it may be $600,000 or $700,000 to all Lite :09 municipalities and like measure throughout the whole system. And alter making all those programme cuts, we cut over $11 million within government itself. I think that the point is often lost, Mr. Speaker, that there was over $11 million cut withlii government itself before we started cutting programmes and before we started increasing taxes.

So then you could either increase tax, as I say, incur a deficit on current ac.:ount in addition to the $25 million or the till rd opt i oil W is to cut otlie r programmes ; and the other }>roc;rImmlus to cit in order to real ize no deficit at all would mean (Jettin j into the heart and soul of some of the social programmes in this Province if you are really • merious, or otherwise, lay off a lot of people. So there are really three options available to qovernme it to (jeL us out of what could be a deficit by Marsh and hose were the three.

And what we decided to do was to lo a range of a 1 1. three, not just all taxation measuies, define the $25 million as not being an ongoing deficit 1 md do a wide range of programme cuts c; ')

I) November 22, 1982 tape No. 521 PREMIER PECKIORD. wihin (JoV roinent and outside of government for which (j()vni nuient is r sponsi bi c. MR. WARREN: S it down, oy You are wasting our time. PREMIER PECKIORD: We intend, Mr. Speaker, t o follow through on the leisure that WIn iiit1 ned in the statement last week. MR. DODDER: 'Lb 'jsmii' i a ft nq a long time to answer th( , question, I S he not? MR. WEARY: Oh, boy )h , boy PREMIER_PECK1ORD: Mr.

SpeakeH, I em trying to answer the ques Lion as reason, di I y as 1 en So of thoa Lb roe measureS that I outlined , t hose three options , we dcc I dud to do something in each one of them and we in t unit Lo Pil those in lt: at iVes to ensure that we have ci im i naIad the ft lie i t , that we Ire in a solid financial posLtion . To rIo 0 herwiso , we can do as the NDP suggest and some o1 her Li her tl economists and that is borr)w the (lef ic. t on current count , spend your way out of your problem, or cut o t her pi ogrlinrncs.

But we did not think wi could cut any other social programmes, neither did we think We could borrow LI' try to spend ur way out of the problem. MR. NEARY. Mr. Spcako. MR. SPEAKER (RUSSJ;II) '['hi' [lull. t 1, , '(' 1,1( r (if Opposition. MR. NEARY: di, Mu. Spiiikl, dospitc , the severe criticism and the bock] ash and t he viol ont react ion by the voters of this I'rov moo, whom Lh hon. gentleman betrayed, t '1

S November 22, 1982 Tqw No. 2522 MJ - MR. S. ' whom s duped in the last election, he intends to proceed, o jo ih 'ad MR. WM. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russo ii): Order, please! The hen, the Pros islent of the Counc cli MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gent lemon, Mr. Speaker, is (JlVlflg a speoch,)par I rein the itet that he is also reading it. The pros I ci ri thor bid and whoever has written it for him is rather had, Out that is not an issue. The issue realty is, Mr. Speaker, he is askinq a supplementary question and making a speech. MR. Si'EAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will permit the hon. the leader of the Ofs)5 I Li on (Mr. S. Nea ry) a supplementary question which shou 1(1 hI very brief. MR. hiOI?DEII: And the answer too, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen, the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NJ'IARY: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand from the answer that was i von t me by the 'rem icr that the government i ntcnds to 10 rge ahead ii i tO these cruel and cal lou.s tax i nc reases .

Now, won id I lie hon . qen Li eivan to 11 the House if he is sat is lied that ther cats coal (1 not have been macic and other sources of re ('flue (5)11 Id not, have been founcir Lor instance, let me qi'e the hon. gentleman an example: Could the hon. gentleman not have cut his Cabinet? lie has the biggest Cabinet i n the who Ic of Canada, the biggest Cabinet in Newfoundland cii nrc Cen Federation. Cou lii the hon. genti oman not have cot I lie Cabinet and thereby savc'cl several hundreds () I thousands 01 ito I I ar 5, reduce the numbe r of mini sters in the Cabinet?

What I am ask in I tue lion, gent I oman - 11 am lust using that as an i I lustration - is the hon. gentleman convinced that there con I d not have been further cuts in C P p n

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2 322 NJ - 2 MR. S. NEARY. expenditur of unnecessary, nonessential items, extravagance end weste under Lb it heading? And could the hon. gentleman also tell the HOUSC if he is satisfied that other sources o F revenue eou Id nc t have been lound? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. tue 'rein i or - PREMIER_PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S.

Neury) , 1 ike some other people in the community at I argo, fruit jrTic , to 1:iifl2 nikcS erroneous stat: onts If the leoler of the Oppiu;ition wants to ask a quest ion abc ut the lucction ( F t lie conom i C statement, why does he not ink i F wi l:.hotl: prefic i nq his question w i I Ii I: Ii opt; wli I cli it i intl. r in . Niirlll)elnie , I lie leader of the Opposition said that it was th lirqe:;t Cabinet in Canada. That i tint rue. The Lead r of the Opposition said that we have the largest ('ibi net in CinaIa - Now the Leader of the Oppcsiiion is wrong.

N( w, how can 1 respond to the core and substance 01 a quest i c n Fm en the Loader of the Opposition if he is going to pi i:ice lii s question with things that are untrue Tt: (Ii lot es, it makes the question that the leader of the Oppos it: ion win ho ing to ask lack credibili ty. And then the largest Cabinet since Confederation, that is untrue. So ii the Leader of the Opposition wants to get at the core 01 the economic statement given last week, let him ask the qucsl ion ot raight out wi thotit: trying to preface his question with a whole bunch of untruths.

November 22, 1982 rape 2523 PK - 1 SOME HON. MEMI3I:Rs: hear, hear: IRI:M1ER PECKPORD: So a ftor dealinq with those two untruths, let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) on the question of the size of the Cabinet 1 I had contemplated and considered that. And qiven the duties and the responsibilities that the Cabinet ministers are now cnrrvinq, I did not see - MR. IIISCOCK: What about [nterqovernmental J\ifa rs? PREMIER PECKFORD: Interqovernmental Affairs comes under myaeqis. MR. ILISCOCK: Exactly. PREMIER PECKFORD: So 1 could appoint another minister,is that what you mean? Enlarqe the Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh PREMIER T'[iCKPORD: Enlarqe the Cabinet. MR. NEARY: No, no PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it really is not a viable option at thin point in time. Most of the ministers are extremely busy in 1heir portiolios and there is a lot of work to be done. And I do not think that that was a place whore you could ;avc' a lot of money. Somebody else would have to pick U}) .1 lot of h(, res)onsibilities and I do not think that was viable opt ion at all, in my view. [lie ministers are busy about thei r work and 1 did not consider it to be a viable opt ion. MR.

S1'i:AKER (Russell): The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. TUSH: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins). I am wonderinq if in view of the fact that the President of the University was consulted re the qovornment s decis ion to cut back on the monies allocated to the University, so in view of that fact, Sir, and in view of the severe financial bind with u i .3 1

November 22, 1982 tape No. 2523 PK-2 MR. LUSH school ho.irdi; 100 in and have been in for sometime throughout the Province, I am wondering whether the Minister can indicate to the house whether or not school boards were consul ted, that is, the school. ineirds individuu I ly or through their ce I 1.cctive body, the edo ri - i On

C) I Schoo I Boards, whether they were consul ted in this matter with respect to reducing their gi aol -s by $1 50 ,000? 1 wonder the minister can indicate whether or nt thi woo done? WhLhor school boards wore consul ted either i nd ivi.dui 1 ly or through their main body, the Federation of Sch ui lio0 irds, re this cut of $150,000? MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : The hon. Mi ni S ter of 1" inunce DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I con tell the hon. member I hat 1 personally iii not unsiil I wi Lii the school boards'Phe 3 main method hy wh i.clm c]ove rnmcnt commun.L cates with school. boards, of course, .i s through the Department 01 Education . We a 1 so use the med ii hecauce the med ia i 0 useful mechanism for commun.ico L log with the pui)1 i c . I hope we never lose the media. I hope time mcdi a always will be with us because this is a useful met hod to get word out to the public. MR. CALLAN: ly George , he s got i.t DR. COLLINS: liv. publ i c seldom I i.stens to pronouncements by the hon. mnombe.r for Del 1 OVUO (Mr.

Cu] 1 an) for instance, but .1 if qove.rnmen L wants to pot sonle ft I 0 ml the media often the public become aware of Ii. So I hO].)Cm 1 have ongwered i lie hon. member's question, and if he wishes to ii reeL a quest ion I 0 the hon. Minister of Educat:i.on (Ms. Ver(jo) for detai i.s as to her conversations with the school boards, T am sure she will be glad to elaborate. I; 1

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2524 SD - 1 MR. LUSh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Supplementary, the hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSh!: To thr 'inistor of Finance (Dr. Collins), In view of thi fact, as [ understand his answer, that it was done t hrouqh the Minister of F:ducat ion (11s. Verge) if it were indeed dono,wI ich qovornment aqency then contacted the President of the Uni'ersity? Was it the Minister of Finance in his capacity as President of the Treasury Boar ? C in he answer mu that part, Mr. Speaker' MR. SPE/Kl:l[ : [he hon. Mini star of Fi nance DR. COLL1NU: Mr.

Speaker, in the statement it was indicated that Lh departments of overnment and the Crown aqencies and other aqences and the university were approached by the joverniiient, and mainly throuqh the mechanism of Treasury Board, to put in certain rostra mt measures. And the restraint measures that were asked of the Crown corporations were very much in line with the restraint measures that were requested of the Iepartmnnts of qovernnicnt itsel f. MR. LUSh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSh!: Well I will direct my question hen, Mr.

Speaker, to the Mi n inter of Education. The

preamble remains 1he sam, that - in view of the fact that the President of the University was ronsuited,and in view of the severe financial bind th t school boards find themselves in, were the school boards consulted re this reduction in their ([rant structure of $150,000 or was, as I am (latherinq from the Minister of Finance, this decision made unilaterally by the (]ovornment to cony out this rather extreme measure to school boards? c ')

November 22, 1982 'rape No. .524 SD - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Minister oF Education. MS. VERGE: Mi. Speak'r, over the past year I personally,as Minister of Fducation or this qovernrnent,have had extensive contact and consul tati.on with school boards about financing educat ion. I have had moo tlng5 and correspondonc with the Federation of School Boards a their annual mcctirif and I dealt with their executivo. T hive also had a lot of contact with i ndiv.i dual. school hoards, che.i rpoople and superintendents 01 a variety of the thirty-five school boards across the Province.

It was aboub a y or ago that the Federation of School Boards presented lo government a major report on the financing of education aid that report prompted extra work on the part of government iii examining the method of financing education. As a rsult; of the recommendations in that report, Mr. S1eoker, l:hero wor siihst:iiitial increases in operating granLs Ii om the provincia I govcrnhiient to th' school boards in the budget brought: do , in last pr1nq. I

November 22, 1082 Tape 2525 NM - 1 MS. The most signi licant increase was the $2.5 million Fuel which was qiven to those boards most in need. And, Mr. Speaker, one particular school board which had been in serious trouble previously got a 40 per cent increase from qovcrnment in our operating grant this year compared to what they qot in earlier years. SOME I ION. MEMBEPS : Oh, oh MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past, immediately before tie Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) delivered his ntatemnt to this hon.

House, I and my senior officials spent two hours meeting with the executive of the Fcd'ration ol School Boards, and, Mr. Speaker, the reduction in operating grants to school boards that ws announced is only $1 per pupil, a total of $150,000 across the Province. MR. NEARY: Were they told about it? MR. TULK: That moans a lot to a classroom that has no paper Lb is year. MS. VERGE: 1\nd, Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is not a sLqnificant reduction, and that is not going to seriously hurt any of the school boards. MR. NEARY: That is your opinion. MS.

VERGE: And it is only their duo share of the reductions that are necessary right across government departments and aqenu ies. SOME LION. MEMBE ES : Hear, , hoar. MR. SPEAKER_(Russell) The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Well, I Lake it then, Mr. Speaker, from the minlater' S 1 eSpOflSe that there was extensive consultation with educators throughout the Province, with the Federation of School Boards, and with other groups with r

November 22, 1982 Tape 225 NM - 2 MR. LUSH: superintendents. So I take it then that all of these bodies agree with this reduction of $150,000. I take it that the Federation of School Boarda and that all of the other bodies nid agencies that the minister consulted with, I take it then that they agreed with this $150,000 reduction. Mi I right, assuming that, that all of these bodies agreed with this reduction? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. MinisLer of Education. MS. VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, 1 ilo not suppose that any people associated with school boards like having to sacri lice anything from their budget anymore than people workincj in the Department of Education or any other government aqency. But,Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for every part of the pub] ic service, i iicludinq school boards and hospi tal boards and muni cipalit ics, to uacrifico some- thing for the common good and demon ;traLe leadership to all the people in the Province. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. meiriber for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: A supplemeriLary, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, as every hon. member k 'tows, school boards in this Province have been on the ierqe of bankruptcy, that has been a favourite expression of the irs 1 md to hoar the minister say that $ILO ,000 is not going to hurt, substantially hurt the educational programmes throughout this Province is surprislnq to say 1he least. A further supplementary to the ministier, Can he minister indicate 4 as to what areas will be afloctod?

I think the Federation of School Boards was quol ed as saying, Sir, that this was going to draw blood b 'cause there is no tat in Education, there is no excess inolies at all, and this measure was certainly going to draw blood • So could the minister indicate what areas because I am sure there are hon. members who do not know wheict Lii is

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2526 ah-1 Mr. LUSH: money is coming from, what this $150,000 is desi Inated for. Could the minister identify precisely whit areas of education will be affected by this redution of $150,000? MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, words like bankruptcy and blood ire inflammo tory, and, I think, are based on irresponsible reactions to the budgetary decisions that were taken SOME II0N.MEMI3ERS: Oh, oh! MS VERGE: - anyone with a grain of common sense is going to assess the impact of $1 per pupil. MR.NEARY: And that is a lot of money. MS VERGE: Now, Mi .

Speaker, $1 per pupil taken away from school lxard operating grants is not going to serionsly affect the quality of education in this Province. Schol boards will be able to tighten their belts and trim i ravel costs, overtime spending, non- teaching staff sal an s, the same as all government departments. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be very hard I or the ;choo.l hoards in this Province to trim only one (lot I r per pupil. MR.SPEAKER: The hon. member for Terra Nova. Mk.LUSII: Mr.

Speaker, it is fantastic a hear somebody soy I hat a $1 reduction per pupil is mt going to hurt the school boards of this Province when everybody knows t lie financial straits which school boards have bind themse] von in in this Province or the last number 01 years and the government having to bail some of them ut to keep them from bankruptcy. it is absolutely amazing. So, Mr. Speaker, the question is how can people do some belt tightening when they C. ,,

November 22,1982 'Pope No. 2526 ah-2 MR.LUSH: have no money to meet their ongoing needs? This is what this money is doing. Again I ask the minister Wi] L this result in any layoffs with school boards in terms of support staff? Will it mean not being able to purchase any - not extra, Mr.

It Speaker, will it mean not being able to purchase paper to carry on the ordinary rout ne maintenance, the day-to-day maintenance in schools? ;o whaf kind of a bind is this going to put school boards in from the point of view of being able to run their schools on a daily basis and will it result in the layoff of support staff that school boards have precious little of anyways? MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The hon.Mirnistor of Education. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, $1 per pupil substractcd from school board operating expenses is a miniscule fraction of the total outlay from government to the school boards.

And do not forget, 4 Cl

November 22, 1982 Tape 2527 EC - 1 MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, that school boards a I so get reveilue from local school taxation. LUSIP. oh, yes. HG VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the per pupil grant from Ji)varnmoiit is just part oL what government (4iVeS school boards. MR. LUSH: Yes, yes, Lhey will increase the taxes, i The buck. MS_VERGE: this year, Mr. Speaker, we are givIng each school board something like $203 a pupil - I may be a couple of dol lars out. We are subtracting only $1 a pupil from that amount. But over and above that, Mr.

Speaker, government is cj Lvi flg extra money for those school districts with above average dccl ininq enrolments, with above average heat and Light costs, with above average transportation costs, extra money for school boards oper- ating in Labrador, a $2.5 million fund distributed to those boards most in need with debt resulting from previous school construction and, Mr. Speaker, a $400,000 grant to help purchase equ i pment for the reorganized high school programme. Mr. Speaker, $1 a pupil is not qoing to seriously hurt school boards. 1. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Port su Port. I MR. IIODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education (Ms V( ,rge) - she has been talking about a figure of $150,000 to school hoards ,but I want to ta 1. k about a ii (j u cc o C $173, 000 which has been cut from the flay St. George Community College budget. I would like to ask the minister why it is that in proportion to the overall annual budget of that college it has been cut back more than any ether institution in the Province? '1 fl P

November 22, 1982 Tape 227 CC - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Rus;ell) : The hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the reduction in the budget for the [Jay St. George Community College was arrived at with reference to the nceCs of the college, the amount provided in the Spring budget and the ovcra[.l amount is determined to be reasonable. Proportionately similar reductions were made in the grants to the other colleges and again, in consultatloa with those insti tot ions, and the university, Mr. Speaker, has had a substantial reduction made in its budget.

All of those amounts were calculated with reference to the needs ol the institutions, the programmes that are now being operated and after dialogue with the administration of those institutions. MR. IIODDER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKEE: The hon. the member for Pert au Port. MR. FIODDER: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister say, in relationship with the needs of the college. Well, I do not know what the college nec Is, Mr. Speaker, but for the past two weeks they have not hid the heat on there and the lights are all off in the coliqe, if that is in relation to their needs.

But I woold ask the minister why it was in proport ion to their tote I budget in the

November 22, 1982, rape 2528, Page 1 -- apb MR. IIODDER; provincial budget, looking at the fiqures in the Fiudgot last year, why is it the college has been cut 6.6 per cont while, say, the College of Fisheries, in relation to its total budget, was only cut lick 2.1 per cent - I am not saying that any of these figures aic good figures - md the university 5 per cent? For instance, does this mean that the minister feels that the college is not as imiportant; as some of these other institutions? Is this a lack of commitment by the government to that institution: MR.

SPEAKER(Russell. : The hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the individual circumstance:; of eah of the post-secondary education institutions was eximined. Each of the institutions has had a reduction made in its operating budget. In the case of the Bay St. George community College, the amount was calculated, as I sad before, with reference to what was provided initially, the programmes which are being conducted and the needs, and mEter consultation with the administration of the college. MR. DODDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mt.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Port au Port, a supplemenLary. MR. IIODDER: My understanding is that the college voluntarily decided they would cut back $140,000, 1JiIL the minister then slapped $177,000 on them. I mean, does the minister feel, when she talks about in relation to S needs, that these colleges do not need heat and light any more? I mean, there must be rationale. You certainly have not given me any reanon why you would cut down. I mean, needs are only words. There must be a reason. MR. SPEAKER: the hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the reason for the reduction is obvious; the economy is in trouble and the ç q -

November 22, 1982, Tape 2528, Page 2 -- 'pb MS VERGE: fedceal government did not supply as much money to the provicial gevernnient as they told us they were going to. The pulp and paper mills, and the mining industry and the fishing industry in our province are in trouble, that is why we have to make reductions everywhere, including I he Bay Sf-. George Community College. MR. SPF:AKER(Russc,11) the to,,. tic member for topic River. MR.HISCOCK: My question is to the Minister of Finence(Dr. Collins) in the ab:;ence ol the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Did Ihc Minister of Finance along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs contact the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities with regard to the cutback in their budget? MR. SPF:AKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I presume there is a pattern to these questions. I presume we will go down through every item and finally we will get down and ask, Did the Minister of Finance consult with the Minister of Finance before he cut back his department , you know, and that sort of thing.

The point. alout a budget is that it is trot a popularity contest. (ou do riot go out and say all those who would like a tax curback, or a grant cutback or whatever, tax increase or a grant cut, would they step forward and,pleasc, the line form, on the left. A budget is a responsibility of government. It take,; this responsibility seriout;ly. It looks where its needs are, it looks where capabilities are of cutting back, Lf a cut back is required, and then it makes its decisions. And many of these decisions have to be kept in relative if not absolute secrecy - MR. HISCOCK: Why?

November 22, 1982, 'rape 2528, Page 3 -- apb DR. COLLINS: - until the statement comes clown MR. IJISCOCK: Why is LhaL? DR. COLLINS: Because all these matters, the economic staLemnts and so on and so forth, are very much related

November 22, 1982 Tape No.2!) !9 SD - DR. COLLINS: to the gov rnincnt budgetary position and the budgetary position shoild fir;t be presented to this hon. Ilouse. It should riot be presented to outside people and than as an aitert;houqht be presented to this hon. House. Wherever possible the Finil detai Is should Is * brought into this hon. House first. SOMElION. MEMBERS: Hoar, heat MR.FIISCOCK: Mr. Spcak MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. im'mher for Eagle River. MR. IIISCOCK: The minister has just said that with regard to the OCotiOlni C statement and that some of it had to be kept secret.

The President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) ended up say inq it was not the case and i t wool ci he only a Ministerial Statement. TI it is a bu(Iget statement we should be debating this now and not )niy have one Ouestion Period for it. With roger I to th ' part that F would like to ask is that last year when the Minister o F Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook) brought in Lh i.s act , it was a landmark on reform.

And one of the cornerstones of that was the tax incentive to have communities in this Province impose property tax wi Lh the i lea Lh' more property tax you collect from your residents in your municipalities the government will match that. Now after univ a year it is slashed altogether. Can the Mini ter of Finance (Dr. Is Collins) inform this hon. louse how wi I 1 the munici pal i Li make up for this loss of revenue? Will they have to rai 5-a taxes: Will they have to cut back servi :05? 1; this not another form of indirect taxation? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Mini stir of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Specik r, (unt to put this in a proper context,I think it might h( well

F) make a few figures known. In 1979-80 the tot ii amount of grants to municipalities was $28.5 million. MR. CALLAN: That was an election year.

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2529 SD - 2 DR. COLLINS: Now that was in 1979-80. In 1982-83, that is (ust over a thre year period, that amount had gone up to $51.9 million, or an 12 per cent increase in just three years. ()ME lION. MENII3ERS : hear, , hear. PP. COLLINS: So (luring the term that the 'eck Lord administration I is been respons ill a for the affairs it this Province the qr, its to munic ipal i ties have gone up by 82 per ccnt,which I tlink is a very sharp increase and I am sure that we wi (U 1(1 WI Ii it were more.

And when the new act was brought in ,there was no otiqqestion that this severe recess ion was on 1 he hon zen, a recession in no small measure brought on in Canada anyvav 'y the - PREIII ER PECKEORD : 110w much was it going back to '61? II wac only about $700,000. DR. COLLINS: We are going back by a miniscule amount , to use the word I hat the lion. Mini ste r of Education (Ms. Verg(,) usod prey , ioiii.ly, we are going back a miniscule amount from that $51.9 million. And when that new act was brought in, of course, the recession was not upon us.

The recess ion is upon us and we have asked the manic ipal i ties to take a very smi I cut mCI we hope that they will do it, and we expect they w I 1 I)o able to do it by a belt tightening measure ra thor thin rnduc nq serv i ceo. MR. SPEAKER: Order, p1 ease Time for the (luestion Period has xp i el. lie fore We proceed I would like ii the Ii I I c I a; I iol;iy Mr. Peter Lush, a Councillor from the Combo 'Iowri (cone i I i n tbi (Ii. ott i et of Bonavista NC) r t b SOME lION. MEMbERS : Iler, , heir.

November 22, 1982 ('ape No. 2530 NJ - 1 PRESENTING REPORTS BY StANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES DR. J. COLLINS: Mi. Speakec. MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Ue Miii stri - 0Ii r rice. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in accordarii' with the Financial Adininistrat ion ACt ,i would I ike to table copies of specie I warrants For the I)ipartirieni of Social Sorv.lccs and the Departments of Mines end Fnorqy. Mr. Speaker, a] co whilst I am on my feet T wool d I ike to tab I e the report of the Newfound] and and Lirbrirdr Computer ]N'iv ices LI rio ted for 1981-82. ORDERS OFT lIE DAY MR. MARSHALL: Motion 5, Mr. (peaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Met ion, I he hon. the Mini st( , r of Culture, Recreation and Youth LI.) inti sInce a hi 11 , "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act," carried. (No. 70). On clot 1)11, Ili I I No . 70 read a first time o rde red read a sec mci I i me on tome t'ri w by 1 cave. Motion, the lion, the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth to i iitrcdiii'e a bi I I, "An Act To Amend The Public Libraries Act , 1075," carried. (No. (c2) On mot ion , I] i I I No. 62 rca d first tiine.ir.lececl (Sd .1 .S000(IeI I. iH(o II irllrow by lejve. M si , I (II . I ii I II id 'II of the Council to i utroClncr' a hi I I , '' 0) Act.

To Arrienci The Leaseholds In St. John's Act,' carrie]. (No. 71). On 1)0 tiC)) , Ii I I No. 71 read a first time ordered read a second t I me on (a morrow by 1 caVe

November 22, 1982 lope No. 2530 Md - 2 Not - ion, the Non, the Minister I Justico to i.n t N nluco bi I 1 , 'An Act to Amend The Companies Act,' carl id. (No. On met: ion, [111 1 No. 75 read Ii ;JLimo iirili al el i :;iii,nl Lime en ouuirrow by leave. M 0 ion, second read jug of a bill "An Act to Amend 'I'he It a St . (;(,orqc Commun I t y Co I loge Act (Iii II No. It). MS. I. VENGC: Mr. Speaker. MR. SJl:AKI•:R (Russo I I ) : The hon. the Mini ster of Education. MS. VI:RCF:: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few brjol romarks to mike abut this Ni

November 22, 1982 Tape 2531 PK - 1 MS. VERGE: The bill deals w t h a number of matters which could be termed of a houcekooping natere, Mr. Speaker, to actually give legal accord La Caine of the administrative arrangements that have been opera Live at the Bay St. George Community College Foi the last couple of years. Mr. Speaker, I am now looking at the explanatory notes printed with the bill to refresh my memory. One of Lhc provisions of this bill, Mr. S})eLtker, deals with the composItion of the [hard of the College and it does provide for a studen L representative And as I say, Mr.

Speaker, in fact over the last couple of years there has been a student member of the Counci I, it sLudenL chosen by those attending the Col i.e'je , and I I el eve the I. a new student was just named for the present academic year. Another of f he members of the Board formally provided for in this hi] F is a representation of the faculty and again there has been f'tcul Ly ropresenui ti.on in fact over the last couple oF yea s.

And Li na].ly the hi 11 provides for , in a formal way, repicscntetion of the Department of Education,and a(lain tlit has been the case for the last couple of years, The )epa r I mint ' s rejtrcsen tat i ye on the Board is our Assistant Deputy Mitt i sLcr responsible for advanced tint cont inn i n ,tlticiit ion. Mr. Sped Ler, LI flO ther

C) f the provisions of the bill removes the tlIu i reincnt that members of the Board of Governors be bonded. Anti, Mr. Speaker, thi ii is consistent with leg.islat ion foveriti fig the other post- secondary inst i tut ions in the Provirce. So, Mr. . Speike r , tli is hi 11, to sum up, simply brings the ;overnn p body For the Day i-;t George Community College i ito line wi Lb thosc of the other colleges and,in terms of the composif ion of the membership of the Board gives effect to what hits actually been the case for the last few years. -

November 22, 1982 'Pope 2531 P1< - 2 MS. VCRCE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the opportunity affor'lnI by the presentation of this bill to this hon. house to n'tkca I ew jenoral remarks about the OtCCOSS 01 the flay St. (eorqr Community Colleqe. The institution is a model in our Irovinc. IL is the only one of its kind, established as a result of special circumstances in Stephenvllle and i 0

November 22, 1982 'fape 2532 NM - I MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the i nst.i Lu Lion has flourished since it was founded. It got off to a very good start under the chairmanship of an individual who is now present in I his hon. House, the member for the di strict of Stephelivi lie (Mr. Stsqg) , and over the years, Mr. Speaker, the college has improved in terms of the number and variet, and quality of the programmes that are offered to students. There have been now courses added over the Last lw years and they are popular. The feedback from students and people .1 lvi rig in the area has been extremely psitive.

Ano her in for improvenien L Mr. Speaker, has been the physical faci 1 ities. The col legc, until last year, was spread among a number of buildings left over from the Americans on the old llarmon Air Force Base in Stcphenvi[Le, as well as facilit ies in Stephenvi 1 le Crossing. Put, Mr. poaker, government funded the refurbishing 01 one 1 a I jo buildIng on the old Harmon Complex known is building 360 and most of the Stephenvi I le opera Lions of th cal I ego were consolidated in building 360 last year. fluild up '160 now houses the student residence as well as the dministrston offices and several classrooms.

That bui Idinq has been very attractively furnished and decoral ad and 'I thi nk li tal I y improved the image of the college in the community. 'Jo sum up, Mr. Speaker , the Bay St. George Community Cal loge is doing exce [lent work in providing education and traini rig programmes to students, students from the immedi ate Bay Si . George area hut ul no from other parLs of our Province. And, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing good work in that institution. I think it will continue to equip our people, young and old, for jobs that will be developed and offered in the 0 rovinci Thank you. ri 1

November 22, 182 Tape 2532 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER_(Ayiward) : The hon. member for Port au Port. MR. LIODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this piece of lec;i.s].ation, as the minister says,is housekeeping I eqislation. T understand that;

section 71 is in effect now nd this has just been passed to make the situation legal. Mr. Speaker, I would like to as well associate myself with the minister's remarks when she praised the cofleqe and the teachers and the proqrammes which the colleqe have instituted over the past years. r1

November 22, 1982 tape 233 - MR.}IODDER: I think I sliootd say, though that the col icqe has h ud a vacancy on i Ls boa rd of directors for quite a long Lime; is a matter of fact it was the subject of an edrtor a I in the dat I y paper on the West Coast, the Western Si ir recen Liy, where they called on the minister to a)pornL a chai roan of the board of directors of the col 1 ecje and I (1) rlt Six members because there are six vacancies on the hoard of di.ru'cfi>ir; at the present time and the cc] J.eje cannot luncLi on as a college with half a board of directors; because they arc, Mr.

Speaker, at the present time, the sonic as the Col leqe of fisheries ot Memorial Iiuilversit y I would like Li) ask Lhe mniniiifi.'r when st' speaks finaLly on this bill Lii ('Xh)liui Ii WhY his she not appointed the board of di rec Lees . I L is my under:;talidiliq that the staff at the col le(Je arc very de5.i eons thaL Lhe board of directors be appointed I wouLt a iso I ike to conic buack to what I was aski rig the miii is tee in Quest ion 'etiod Last year's budget for 1 hr licly St (eorje (omnunmu i Ly (oh loge was $2,831,500.

I would I ike for Lime niiiiiufer to explain why it was that they Wete cot had, nearly 7 per cent, because the college is a tledij] iiiij i nuLl Lotion, Qmey are trying to develop new proijrailluimeu . And I ;Iiou Id i-toy Ii i for the boric [it of members opposi e : Many peopie have • feeling that the bay S L . Ceorge Coinmun i ty Col 10(10 1 • college wh.i ch handles student juis L from the liay St. George area and that is not true, Mr. Speaker, because sonic of the courses bei moj of fered at the roll ege now have no students from the boy St . George a roe . I L is a provJ11cial institution.

It is not a kay si. t;eorge insti tution, L is a provincial ills tL Lut ion in every senSe 0 the word And that makes me wonder why it ii-; Lhat they are receiving

Nveinhei 22, 1982 T,ipe 23 13 ISC - 2 Ml.

IIODI)H'i: iu(h alitnidy LreatmenL, )cirLiculirly iii la' 1,1C 7 t 1 hal Lucy did not even have a hoard o I - U i recLo rI; / when Lie lie cuts were COifllfl(l 1 to fight Lliei i hail: le;; lot LInITI, and why it is the minister has its II (ll.1(h(l 1OJ hiei [cot on that; and I would ask why it I;; tiiaL Liii;; instil ultori, which is stru;qli.ncj to develop 111W courser-; - tiul by i La haute , Ilay S L George Community Colieqe, one 01 [lie Ihijnqs I hut the colleqe does for the comruniri ity - jimoy of the con i;a;; ar P province-wide -but they do have iiiqlil proqruuulmumes ;miei mu;jht ciasi-rc; which have been euiL uttit ,iiii.i Liiiy ala clittlimil omit their .1 iteracy programme, wli cii i;; 1 II I hi 0(01 lIeu , wh .i cli is aomeLliinq , I think linde Newloumuhliirmtl itmr-m oime ci the himjhest: proportions per 1)1)1)111 at mon 01 ill i Lola to i)eol)ie;, why the college Would be lorced i nLo Lii is bark icul ir eituaLon where the academic upjrad it1 imid Lie I I I otucy Courses have been cancelled because ci the Vie moire ciiLlm;ik;; by the department.

November 22,1982 'i'apo No. 2534 oh-i MR. NODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister when she inswored lily qUestion said that she had cut hack according to need in I ooki riq at the programmes. however 1 I would ask Lhe mm i sLot if she would look at that institution again because I do not think it is going to do much For the image ol that college . 'They have been pushed into a corner where the teachers now have little lamps on their desks, and have had br the last coupIc ol wuks ,and they have the heat down to somewhere around sixty-live while they are trying to save on their energy P i I. L. They have been forced into thoSe

part culai circumstances. Mr. Speaker, while I should be here urging and encouraging the minister to try to develop some of the programmes- at the present time the co I loge is looking at bringi RI in environmenta.L teclino logy coo rses , construct on I eclino logy, and computer technol oily -these coit I ;e have not been implemented because they cannot lint the money I torim tIme provincial government to enable them to bring those courses to the college. They have some very advanced courses in mineral technology and d Ftioj echnol oily, but they would like to expand thei r court-sn.

T bind rnysel f standng and instead ol tryi nj to ask I he minister to continue support I niust ask her why it is that she started to not support the cot loge? What is the priority of this coT 1 ego? T llican j is the (j')Vci iiiHl saying that the col loge is there but we are us t 'jo og to let it (lie a slow clea th or are they roil 1 y cot-tin i I Id to community education in the I'rovince T I IS lily belief that this institution can be a motto I insLiLuLion in Canada,not only in the Province. I tti.i uk it has been very successful in what it set out to do . but the

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2534 ah-2 MR.HQDDER: vicious cutbacks that we have seen in this statemenL that the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) brought into the House causes me to shake my head. I would like the minister to be very specific: Why is it that they have • 7 per cent cut in their budget while the CoUege of lisheries has a 5 per cent cut, the College of Trades and Technology a 2 per cent cut, and the university a i per cent cut? Why was it that she went out and deliberately - 1 mean, there must be a reason? It is an institution like any other. 51 1 1'

November 22, 1982, Tape 2535, Pago 1 -- apb We take students from all across 1he Province. We are very proud of our institution and yet the minister has just in my estimation, taken a blanket slash at this particular institution. Now, I would urge the minister to reconsider what she has done, and to perhaps take another look at this situation. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Bay St. George Community College Act', read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 8) MR. MARSHALL: Ordei 39, Bill No. 10.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland Fisheries Development Authority Act". (Bill No. 10). MR. SPEAKER(Aylward): The lion, the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. speaker, this bill is merely to take the powers, the functions and duties, the assets and liabilities which were held by the Newfoundland Fisheries Development Authority - that oJd Authority, of course, has been defunct for the last number of years. It was in action and in use back in the early part of the seventies and the late sixties. It is no longer an active organization. There are presently no assets.

The assets which were held by the Authority were passed over to the Facilities and Services Division of the Department. The functions which were carried out by the authority were also passed over to the department, in regard to the promotion and activity in the devvlopment division, and it is now to make it official through legislation to pass all assets, liabilities, functions and duties over to the Department of Fisheries. c 1 1 7

November 22, 1982, Tape 2535, Page 2 -- apb MR._SPEAK(ard): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries(Mr. Morgan) is asking to have

Chapter 259, 'An Act To Establish The Newfoundland Fisheries Development Authority" repealed, and nothing substituted in its place. The hon. gentleman is asking the House to repeal this piece of legislation and give the authority, the exclusive authority for all fisheries matters,to the minister. AN lION._MEMBER: To the department. MR. NEARY: To the minister. AN HON. MEMBER: To the department. MR. NEARY: No, he is asking to put the authority, the rights that were heretofor previously in this Act, to put th authority in the hands of the minister. MR. MORGAN: The department is in the hands of the minister.

November 22, 1982 Tape 2536 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. SpeaIer, if there was ever a time in Newfoundland's history NR. MORGAN: Here we eo Here we go! MR. NEARY: - if there was ever a time when we needed a fisheries development auLhority it is now. MR._TULK. A Fisheries Minister too. MR. MORGAN: What for: MR. NEARY: What for: To try to motivate the minister, if nothinq else. To try to stoor the minister in the right direction. To try to give the minister ideas, to make proposals, and suggestions, and give ideas to the minister because he does not have an original idea of his own, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman is presiding over the demise of the Newoundland and Labrador Fishery. MR. MORGAN: Not so. MR. NEARY: That is ro. And if the hon. gentleman had any sense, instead of repealing this act what he would ask the House to do would be to beef it up, get it to become active so that it could advise the minister on how to cope with all the problems, the major prohlems that we have in the fishery at the present time. Mr.

Speaker, as hon. members know,and as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know, this government with oil on its brain, the Premier with oil on his brain,have totalled neglected the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. The fishery,which was the backbone of this Province, our most basic industry, Mr. Speaker, has been totally neglected by this administration. Fisheries have been pushed into the background, and in the last several years the fishery had deteriorated to the extent in this Province that all the major fish plants are presently on the brink of bankruptcy. Everybody knows that.

Editorials are written about it. The administration 1 1'

November 22, 1982 Tape 2536 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: have to stick their finger in the dyke practically every day to stop this one or that one from going bottom up, from going under. And only at the end of last week, last Thursday, we heard reports about the biggest fish company in Newfoundland, Newfoundland 's largest fish company, we are told, was threatened by the banks that they would not receive any more credit, * din

November 22, 1982 Tape 537 NM 1 MR. NEARY: which wou]d mean that they would not be able to meet their payrolls. And members do not have to use very much of an imagination to know the company I am talking about. it it the largest single fish company in this Province. It is not Nickerson's. Nickerson's can close down the pLints they have in * Newfoundland and they would not be missed. Everybody thinks that Nickerson's is a big processor in Newfoundland. They only have a handful of plants scattered around Newfoundland, and most of them are closed.

If Nickerson's went belly up tomorrow, if Nickerson's went into receivership or bankruptcy tomor.iow they would not be missed in this Province. Maybe Nitiona1 ;ea would be missed, but National Sea we are toLd, is not in trouble. Nickersonswe are told, owes the Bank of Nova Scotia $100 million, and the Nova Scotia Government another $17 million or $20 million. So in the main their operation is in the Maritimes, in Njova Scotia, but not in Newfoundland.

They built a rint down in Jackson's Arm and I do not know if hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity to see that plant but it would be worth their while to drive down ovr that rough road down to Jackson's Arm and take a look arid see where thy put the plant in Jackson's Arm. It wa:; doomed from the day it started and it will never operate. So Nickersmn's are not all that big in this Province, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: Let them go. MR. NEARY: I would say let them go. MR. TULK: We will stirt anew.

November 22, 1982 Tape 2537 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: Pick up the pieces. The Lakes are big. The Lakes affect a large number of communities and of course the other big fish proce;sor is Fishery Products. If Fishery Products went under for some reason, if the banks cut their credit offno doubt there would be serious repercussions in a large number of communities throughout this Province. There would be repercussions. But, Mr. Speaker, the question arises again, how long can this government—and it is a provincial responsibi1ity.

I hope that no member of this House is sitting bac] on his haunches and waiting for the Kirby Task Farce - MR. TULK: Or the media. MR. NEAPY: Pardon? MR. TULK: Or the media. MR. NEARY: - or the media for that matter- I hope they understand that fish processing is a provincial responsibility and I hope that nobody is saying, "Well", pointing the finger and looking to the Kirby Task Force to step into provincial jurisdiction unless they are invited or unless the Minister of Fisheries is going to abdicate his responsibility and * 7

November 22, 1982 Tape 2538 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: turn the processing over to the Government of Canada. Unless hat is going to happen, it is up to this administration to determine what happens to the processors in this i'rovince. And how long more, Mr. Speaker, can we keep pumping money into these fish processing companies? I am not tilking about the little fellow, it will only cost $100,000 or $150,000 to keep him 0 going. That is not the problem at the moment. I think the Province could manage that. hi.ToBIN: The tragedy of the whole thing is that not one cent that we pump in gets back to the fishermen. MR.

NEARY: Not a cent, that is right. No mattr how much you pump into it, whether the companies are big, medium or small, no matter how much money you put in it never seems to filter down to the fishermen. But the question is, Mr. Speaker, can we afford, and should we - this is the question the minister has to address himself to,and that is why he needs a group like the Fisheries Development Authority to advise him, 1io' long more should we keep pumping money into these fish processing companies? MR. TULK: lie needs an umbrella. (inaudible) MR. NEARY: lie needs what? MR. TULK: An umbrella. MR.

NEARY: Yes, he needs an umbrella, as my hon. friend says. But how long more can we keep throwing good money after bad? And will it do any good, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time to merely keep these fish processors afloat? They will be back again next year looking for another handout, and the year after 9'7

November 22, 5982 Tape 2538 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: they will be back again. The minister is faced with a very crucial decision and it is this, Mr. Speaker, Should he hang on or should he let go? He has a tiger by the tail. Should he put more money into the fish processors to try to save them lirom receivership and bankruptcy, or I should he let them cj and pick up the pieces afterwards - SIR. TULK: And restructure - MR. NEARY: - and restructure the fishery? MR. TULK: The biggest question of all. MR. NEARY: Now that is the question. That is a very important question, Mr. Speaker, a very important question.

Should the minister, if he can find the money - and it is a provincial responsibility - should he step in with more money for the fish processors just to keep them afloat, just to keep them limping along as they are going now? Should he do that or should he let them collapse ani then expropriate the plants and restructure the fishry? Now, Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot of courage to Ia the latter. It would take an awful nerve and a lot of courage on the part of the administration.

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2539 NJ - 1 MR. S. NEARY: I would rile thatout right off the bat because I do not think th'y have the courage. I do not think they have the nerve to let a company like Lake or Fishery Products go into rece.vership or go into bankruptcy, the argument being it would affect too many plant workers and fishermen r' communities. So I would have to eliminate that right off the bat,altho'iqh it is something that the minister should address himsoli to.

Would it be less costly on the taxpayers and more bene'icial in the long run to the fisherment and tc the p [ant worker: to let these companies go ? They have themselves boxed into a corner. The\' nave themselves into the jam through their own mismanagement and putting fish plants in communities and in regions that they knew were uneconomical, where they knw they were doomed from the start. They knew that, Mr. peaker. So should the government keep bailing them out? An , Mr. hpeaker, if so perhaps the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. J. Morgan) can tell us whether a financial assessment is leinq done on these companies.

I am told that some of th se companies that I just referred to - the three biggies - still have their $200,000 a year directors in the United States. They have their offshore companies. They have susidi aries on t ho Ma i iil.and and in the United States that are feeding oil the parent company. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR._NEARY: Mr. Speakr, I hope hon. gentlemen are listening to what I am saying. SOME_HON. MEMBERS: Nowu are riot. MR. NEARY: Well, I will just repeat it, Mr. Speaker. MR. B. TOBIN: Oh, I am sorry. We were listening. MP..NEARY.

I am asking the Minister of Fisheries to tell this House before he puts one more dollar into these

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2539 MJ - 2 MR. S. NEARY: companies, has he sent in an auditing firm to have tho financial status of these companies assessed. [ know the Kirby Task lorcc is doing it right now and it is going to take them another two or three months before they finish theii assessment, but has the minister (lone t? because this is a provincial responsibility.

And if so, will the minister tell us if these reports and rumours that we are hearing about these companies having offshore companies and subsidiarios that are fattening and thriving arid leeching oil the psi ont company, do they have their $200,000 a year men down in the United States who ily in, jet into Newfoundland once a year and hang around the office for a few hours and then go on aqai.n to justify their $200,000 a year?

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2540 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, isit not about time that the minister told us what is happening regarding the fish processing part of the fishery - MR. TULK: Especially Fishery Products. MR. NEARY: -in this Province especially the status of Fishery Products and Lakes. Nickersons I do not even bother about They have so few plants in this Province they are hardly worth bothering about althouqh the hon. gentleman somehow or other scorns to lay great emphasis and great stress on Nickersons. If Nickerson'3 left Newfoundland tomorrow they would not be missed. MR.

TULK: It sounds good anyway. MR. NEARY: So we are really talking about two companie. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I put that to rest,about the Nickereon empire - MR. STAGG: The myth. MR. NEARY: - the myth about the Nickerson empire in this Province. Take out NatLonal Sea which is a separate company who seem to be doing dl right at the moment and just talk about Nickersons. If they were eliminated from the Newfoundland scene altogether, they would not be missed. So let us hear no more about that.

So we are really talking about two fish companies, we are talking about Fishery Products and we are talking about the Lake Group of companies. And it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, Ihat we are talkinq about a problem of gigantic proportions. The minister 1-inise1l admitted it will cost $150 million just: to keep these companies afloat, just to keep them in a position where they can stagger on until the next crisis arrives. That is no good, Mr. Speaker, that is not planning, that is poor planning. Should we keep sticking our finger in the dyke and bailing these companies out net knowing-Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentleman does it-not knowing about the offshore companies that these companies have in the West Indies, in he Haliamas, not knowing about how much they are Feeding into their subsidiaries and

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2540 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: offshoots, other companies on the Mainland of Canada and in the United States, not knowinq how much their Directors are beinq paid throuqhout Canada and the S c

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2541 ah-1 United States with their estates in Florida and their estates in the Bahamas and in the West Indies. And the minister cannot stand and tell no that that is not so because it is so. They still have their big estates in the Bahamas, in the West lndies, and in Florida. And that is that what we are going to be asked to subsidize in this House? Mr.

Speaker, the first matter the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan) has to address himself to is whether or not we should continue to throw good money after bad, whether or not we should keep puttng money into these proceusing companies or have we reached a point where we should say, no, you are not getting another cent. MR.TIJLK: Not one red copper. MR.NEARY: You brought about this financial situation through your own mismanagement and your poor planning and we are not going to bail you out any longer. Now , Mr.

Speaker, it is either that or keep priming the pump, keep putting the money in and keep challenging Ottawi,as the hon. gentleman does in this house day in and day out, to put money into those companies. And it is not a federal jurisdiction. If the hon. gntleman is going to stand up now after I take my seaL and say, Well, the Province cannot afford it, we would like to know what Ottawa is going to do. Well , Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. qentlomin then would be, what plans did the hon. gentleman put up to Ottawa? Could he table any plans that he has to restructure these cornpanies,in this house? Lay r 'i')

November 22,1182 Tape No. 2541 ah-2 MR.NEARY: it out on the table so we can see it, so we can make a value judgement on any plans that he might have. We have not seen any evidence of any plans yet in this House, Mr.Speaker. The hon. qentleman tells us, stands up and makes accusations mnd makes irresponsible statements about what Ottawa is going to do. It is not Ottawas jurisdiction. I would like for the minister to tell us what it is he wants Ottawa to do. Does he just want Ottawa to give him a blank cheque?

Or is he prepared to abdicate his responsibilities and turn the processing sector of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery over to the Governmcnft of (anacla? Is that what he is saying? Mr.Speaker, that is what the hon. gentleman has to address himself to.

November 22, 1982 'rape 2542 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: And I war. hoping that when the hon. gentleman spoke on second readinj to repeal the Fisheries Development Authority that he would iet up and tell us what the minister is going to do. lie is asking to have an authority eliminated, wiped out, that helped the minister plan and gave him advice on the future development Df the fisheries, and help?d him make regulations. The minister needs all the help he can get, Mr. Speaker. He needs all the help he can get.

And one would have thought that instead of repealing this act he would have broiened it, he would hav appointed Newiouncilanders of goodwill, businessmen - MR . STAGG: Do I have to listen to thi every clay? MR. NEARY: Yes, and you will have to listen to it more often If you do not like .1 it you can always go down to your little Parliamentary Secretaiys office that was appointed since the Budget was brought down in this Ilouse. MR. IIODDER: Plus your private secretary. MR. NEARY: With your private secretary and your telephone and all that sort of thing. MR.

STAGG: Does the hon. nniber for Pomt nu Port have a private secretary? MR. NEARY: you do not like it you can go on back down to your little Parliamentary secretary's office. MR. TULK: 110w private are theyY MR.STAGO: They are not private are they? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. NEARY: So, Mr. flpeaker, the hon. gentleman should have instead of repealing this act been seeking advice. The hon. gentleman has not lad an original idea in the fisheries since he took over. MR. IIODDER: No, nct one. MR. NEARY: 'L'tte hon. gentleman cannot just cope with the situation, the administraticn cannot cope with the

November 22, 1982 Tape 2542 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: problems of the fishery at the present time. The problems are gigantic, the problems are huge, Mr. Speaker. They are huge. And, Mr. Speaker, unless plans are laid out as quickly as possible we are going to have a complete collase, maybe not 100 per cent, but about 85 per cent collapse c the processing sector before the w nw quotas start in the New Year. That is how serious the situation is.

November 22, 1982 Tape 2343 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: Plant workers are wondering if they are ever going to be paid and when they get their pay cheques will they be honoured by the bank? A pretty serious situation, Mr. Speaker, to have that dark cloud hanging over your head, not knowing where you are from one day to the next, from one week to the next. They just had a big meeting down on the Burin Peninsula. MR. TOBI1'J: I was there. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman was there. I do not know what kind of a contribution he made. I did not hear him outline the plans of the administration that he is supporting. Mr.

Speaker, I did not hear the hon. gentleman or the other hon. gentleman who was with him, I did not hear either ccc of them - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, could I have silence please? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) Order, pleas€! Order! SOME HON. MLMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, if we cannot have silence, could you name buca? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

NEARY: I did not hear either one of these hon. gentlemen say to the people whom they met on the Burin Peninsula who were concerned about the fishery down there - I did not hear them say, Here is what the government plans, A, B, C, one, two thrce, here is what we are going to do. Because they had no plans, Mr. Speaker. They are flying by the seat of theLr parts and they have been for the last several years. Cheyhave no plans. The only plan they have is to keep attacking Ottawa hoping that that will distract from the real problems.

November 22, 1982 Tape 2543 EC - 2 MR. NUARY: The minister hopes that if he follows the Premier's example by attacking Ottawa,that that will distract from the real problems we have in the fishery. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this government has completely neglected the fishery. Now, the hon. gentleman will get up in a few minutes and say, 'Oh, yes, but ihat about - we put $25 million or $27 million into the fishery. We had to use this money to save the fish p1nts, to save the processors.' That is what he will tell u, Mr. Speaker.

I ask any thinking member of this I{ous, is that outlining plans for the future of the fishery by the minister standing and saying, Oh, we had to (live 25 million or $27 million to the processors to keep :hem from going bankrupt or to keep them from goinj int) receivership or to save the fish procossors'? Is that a master plan for the development of the Fishery, Mr. Speaker, or is that merely sticking your finger in the (lyke when a crisis comes up? MR. TOBIN: And it is going to continue like that until the federal government changes its policy. MR. NEARY: Changes what policy? flR.

TOBIN: On foreirn quota allocations. Mit. HODDETh On what? £'LR.TOBIN: Quotas. MN. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, is Romeo closed 1,ecause of the fish quotas?

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2544 MJ - I MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the problems that I am talking about navo noth nq to do with quotas or censervetion, they have to dc with mismanagement and it lie; to do wi th financial mismanagement of the plants. MR. G. TOBIN: Mismanagen ont of. Lhe quota system. MR. NEARY: I see. Mismanagement of the quota system. Mr. Speaker, this would be a nice administration to allow to carve up the quotas. I hear hon. gentlemen over there every day saying that they should have the right to set the quotes.

Whet kind of a jungle and what kind of a mess would we have if this hon. crowd were given the right to set quol as and Nova Scotia had the right to set a queti, Now Brunswick to set a quota, Price Edward Island to set 1 quota ant Quebec to set a quota? What kind of a mess would we liave on our hands? Mr. Speakr, what the hon. qentlemen are talking about is completely impractical It is not workable in the first place, It is impractical, it is nonsense and it is only politici rhetoric to try to embarrass the federal members and Ihe Government of Canada. Hon. gentlemen do not mean what they say.

And if they mean what they say, they certainly do not think about it. MR. TOBIN: Iher; veil ij i in that that p1 ant should be closed ihile we are giving away 83,000 tons of carl. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. DeBanc went through that the other day. If I were the member for the Burin Peninsula, I would discuss that with Ihe Premier. Before I would ask a question like that,I would ask the Premier about his meeting with Mr. hIlane last weekend. That is what I would

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2544 MJ - 2 p MR. S. NEARY: do, befor [ would ask a silly question like that. SOME lION. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: It is so obvious, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the gentleman is like the Premier, he does not understand. He may be t nice follow and he may be well-meaning and well intentioned,bu he does not understand. MR. C. TOBIN: What is your stand? is what I am askiot . Where do you s Land on it? MR._NEARY: On what? MR. TOB[N: On the plants closing down because of the lack of a fish supply while the federal qovernment is civinq away 81,000 tns of cod to the foreiqers. Where do you stand?

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, where we stand: The Liberal policy - MR. TOIIIN: On the fence, that is where you stand. MR. NEARY: No,we do not sit on the fence. Let me tell the hon. thu qentleman where we stand. Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that brought in the 200 mile management zone. MR. TOBIN: Yes. And did you go far enough. What did you do after you brought that in? MR. NEARY: Oh, you want the nose and tail now. I see. Well let is talk about the 200 mile management zone first.

It was a L beral government that brought in this great reform and i the members on this side of the House had their own way as sp 11cc! out by our upokesman on fisheries last session, last Spriiig in this House, we

November 22, 1982 Tape 2545 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: would not have one foreigner operating inside the 200 mile manaqement zone. Now, has that sunk in? That is what this side stands for. But if I were the hon. gentleman I would ask the Premier whst his side stands for. MR. TOBIN: Go on and talk to your friends about it and convince them to do it. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal position is, always has beenever since the day the 200 mile management zone was declared by a liberal administration in Ottawa, that the foreigners must go. They have to leave. MR. STAGG: Why are they not gone? MR.

NEARY: Well,I would like for the hon. gentleman to tell me thit. MR. STAGG: The federaL Liberals do not believe in it. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, if I were hon. members I would ask the Provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) , and I would ask the Premier why they are not gone. Do not ask us. You are the government and all you have to do - Mr. Speaker, ] would submit that all the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier have to do is to hoist the flag. That is all they have to do. Hoist the flag and Ottawa will say, "WeLl ,if that is what you want sobeit. Out they go.

But you will have to suffer the consequence MR. TOBIN: I know why they are not gone. MR. NEARY: Yes, and I know why they are net gone. MR. TOBIN: Because of the trade-offs. MR. NEARY: I know why they are not gone, it is because of the weak-kneed attitude of the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and the administration in this Province. That is wh' the" nie not cone. MR. TOBIN: It is the brade-offs too. c ':

November 22, 1982 'Papa 2546 PK - 1 V MR. TOBIN: Norway is in there at 4 oer cant, I think it is tarrif, Iceland in in there with nothing. MR. NEARY: And, Mr. Speaker, we have not hoard that kind of philosophy, that kind of policy - MR. SIMMS: You do not listen. Mk.NEARY: - come out of ministers, the mouths of ministets on the other side. They are not facing up to the situation, Mr. Speaker. They are not facing it. They are slinging and weishing on their responsibilities and they are abdicating their responsibilities and they are trying to slough it off on Ottawa and the Government of Canada. MR.

TOBIN: It is nobody else's fault. MR. NEARY: I am sure the Government of Canada would be ';lad to kick out the forr'Hners tomorrow if the Premier of this Province would get UP and say yes, kick them out . They have to go. M'. 11i)IC)lJ'i': What would happen to the trade offs then? MR. NEARY: Oh Ask the Premier. Do not ask me, I am not the Preniier. It is not the PrenLiar it is your PrjnV Mioistr, vrllr i'. 'low, Mr. Speaker, we need more than just rhetoric in this 1-louse by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan), we need more than that to the Government of Canada to say that the foreigners must (JO.

The hon. gentleman can get up and make alL the cheap politics he likes out of it, the foreighers musL go. It is up to the Government of Canada to kick them out. [ would like to ask the hon. gentleman to lay on the table of this House communications that he has had on this particutlar matter. ç '

November 22, 1982 Tape 2546 PK - 2 MR. TOBIN: What is your stand on the Nose and Tail Bank and the Flemish Cap? MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, that is another question. MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) what we are sayinq, what they are saying and what the foreigners are saying. MR. NEARY: Now, you just asked us about the foreigners. We gave you the answer. That is our policy, that is our philosophy. It is just like the oil, Mr. Speaker, we tell the hon. gentlemen that we think we own the oil. We think there should be an negotiated settlement. AN HON. MEMBER: Then you would think you would do something. MR.

NEARY: Because they grabbed the ball away fro:i the Liberals a few years back and have been carrying it ever since they think it is their issue. MR. DINN: Sign the Nova Scotia agreement for the oil. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, you do not have to sign anything. MR. DINN: Give it away. MR. NEARY: You do not have to sign anything unless you have a vicious mind like the Premier who thinks that everybody is an enemy. Somehow or other he has got the idea in his mind that somebody ia trying to force him to sign something. Who is trying to force him? Who is trying to force the Premier to sign aomething?

I say to the Premier - MR.. BAIRL) : Yo U a RI C I t I cii MR. NEARY: Is that so? MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): A point of order? MR. MORGAN: A point of order. MR._SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Minister of Fisheries. Cl

November 22, 1982 Tape 2546 PK - 3 MR. MORGAN: It is a fisheries matter, and it is passing over authority from an Authority, appointed years ago by the Liberal Administration, back to the Department of Fisheries. We are not tdlking about the It present negotiations or lack of negotiations on the agreement on the offshore, we are talking about a fisheries matter. * Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the person now speaking in the debate be asked to be relevant to the debate. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I - MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): To that point of order? MR.

NEARY: - may have gotten sidetracked off on the oil there, but one of the members was interrupting. So I will get back on target again, Sir, if you do not mind, and talk about the finhery. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

November 22, 1982, Tape 2547, Page 1 -- apb MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fisheries, the hon. gentleman must accept full responsibility for the mess that the processing sector of the fisheries is in today. The hon. gentleman was warned about issuing processing licences helter-skelter all over the place. MR. ;7ARREN: Too many licences, too many fishermen. MR. NEARY: There are too many licences, the hon. gentleman knows that. There are too many processing licences. And that is a provincial responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

There is no way - I hope I never have to say this again, but it seems to me that you have to say it every day, processing of fish, quality control, marketing is a provincial responsibility. Harvesting of the fish, conservation is a federal responsibility. When we talk about shared jurisdiction,there is where your shared jurisdiction comes in, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fishries(Mr. Morgan) can stand in his place all he wants and say, Well, perhaps my hon. friends on the opposite side can tell us how much money Ottawa is going to put into the processing sector.

Poor old Newfoundland does not have the money, we will just have to up the taxes, we want it from Ottawa. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is like the hon. gentleman saying, I am going down to the bank manager to borrow money but before I go down I am going to insult the bank manager, I am going to ridicule him, I am going to slander the bank manager, I am going to libel him and then I am going to go down and ask him for a loan. That is what the hon. gentleman is saying about Ottawa.

He slanders Ottawa, he slams them every chance he gets, he ridicules them, he lets go vicious attacks, personal attacks sometimea on Newfoundland's minister in the Government of Canada, and then he goes and says, Now, can we have a few dollars for the processing sector? MR. TtJLK: And he says, De Bane, I want to be friends with you. c

November 22, 1982, Tape 2547, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: And I want to be friends with you. Now, you understand that, but when I get in the House I am goinq to give it to you, I am going to give you a bolt of Lightening right where you least I- expect it. That is the kind of a policy they have, Mr. Speaker. That is tie kind of a policy they have. I And the minister could use all the advice and ill the counselling that he could get. Because as I said a few minutes ago, this administration is presiding over the demise of the Newfoundland fisheries, and, Mr. Speaker, i is shameful. It is shameful!

Because it is our most basic industry, it is the one industry that has kept Newfoundland going for the last 500 years. ,

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2548 ah-1 MR.NEARY: And what have they substituted in its place? Oil. They have oil on the brain. The Premier has oil on the brain. He dreams about it and he eats it. All he can think about is oil. Forget the fishery. The only time they worry about the fishery is when one of the processors comes in and says, 'Look 1if we do not have a few dollars by next week we are going bankrupt. ' Oil on the brain.I know there are people who will question whether or not that gray matter is there1 but I suppose some of it is there. Oil on the brain, Mr. Speaker. They have neglected the fishery.

And I can now see the wheels turning with the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall). He is going to get up and say, we spent $27 million, we had to bail these fish companies out, we had to save these jobs and we had to keep these communities going. Is that planning for the future of the fishery. Is that restructuring the fishery? Is that revitalizing the fishery? No, Mr. Speaker, that is like the little fellow in the dyke, sticking his finger in the dyke. The fact of the matter is that it is criminal the way this administration has neglected the Newfoundland fishery.

I would sity it is third or fourth on their list of priorities. The fishery should be number one. It should always be uppermost in our minds. They should have a master plan for the development of the fisheries. They should tell us man fashion if they have courage and if they have enough intestinal fortitude to do something about the marketing of the fresh fish and the fresh frozen fish in this Province. We have gone on record over here on this side of the House as advocating, Mr.Speaker, an extension of the terms of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation 53 I -

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2548 ah-2 MR.NEARY: or alternatively to set up a new corporation or co-op to market all the produce of the sea. That is a part of the conventional wisdom of this side of the House, that is a part of our ideology, Liberal philosophy. It was a Liberal government that set up the Canadian Saltfish Corporation in the first It placewhich is one of the success stories of Confederation. A real success story. And, Mr.Speaker, the initiative to expand the terms of reference of that corporation or to set up a new marketing board rests with 11 L

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2549 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: this House,with this administration. Ottawa cannot do it unless the Province takes the initiative, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware of that? And they totally ignored it and neglected it. I do not know if they are being stubborn because it is a Liberal idea, because it is a Liberal policy, because it is a part of our platform. Ts that why they are being stubborn about it? MR. TULK: It is not far enouqh to the right. MR. NEARY: Maybe my hon. friend is right, it is not far enough to the right.

It does not put enough dollars in the coffers of their buddies, their wealthy buddies and their rich friends. And they would not give their lawyer buddies anything, it would be too much of a challenge. It is a little bit to the left, not enough to the right. It would not follow enough consulting fees and legal fees. And they would not be able to make enough political appointments, Mr. Speaker, that is why. And the other thinq is it is a Liberal idea so, therefore,they have to be against it. They do not want the Liberals to get a little bit of credit. It is our idea.

We do not mind the government if they steal it on us. MR. TULK: He almost destroyed it a couple of weeks ago. MR. NEARY: That is right. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) went as far a few months ago as to attack the Canadian Saitfish Corporation, tried to destroy it and tear it down. Mr. Speaker, the reason I am speaking so long on this bill is it is shameful and irritating and it would almost make one cry, it would certainly make us sad when we see the way that this administration has treated the fishermen and the plant workers in this Province. Everything is oil, oil, oil, forget the fishery.

Our only real basic natural resource, renewable resource, let it go down the tube for oil. And then the Premier has the face to

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2549 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: tell us that if we get oil1 oil will pay for everything, oil will pay for the fishery, oil will pay for education, oil wLll pay for hospital services,health services. MR. TULK: Are you sure he said that? -p MR. NEARY: No, he did say it. MR. TULK: He might have changed his mind? lie might have changed his mind? MR. NEARY: If he changed his mind it is only since I started speaking here this afternoon. It is time now that somebody stood in this House and put the administration in their place, put them in the pew as far as their treatment of the fishery is concerned.

And, Mr. Speaker, let us hear no more, when they are responding to what I am saying, let us hear no more of these attacks on Ottawa, let them stand in this House and tell this House what their plans are to deal with the problems of the fishery. But.they will not do that, they will not do it because the only defence they think they have is to distract from what I am saying,

November 22, 1982 Tape 2550 SC - 1 MR. NEARY: the charges that I am making, and they are pretty strong, charges that this government is neglecting the fishery, and they cannot slough it off or weasel out from under it by saying, Well, what is Ottawa going to do? What is the Kirby Task Force going to do? q MR. TULK: What about the licencing policy? MR. NEARY: The Premier's licencing policy is he would like to see everybody into the fishery earning $1,000 or $1,500 a year. MR. TULK: He .;ould sooner nave 10000 fishermen makinçj $5,000 a year. MR. NEARY: That is right. He would sooner have 10,000 fishermen - MR.

TULK: Making $5,000 than have 5,000 fisherman making $10,000 a year. MR. NEARY: Yes, making $5,000 and 20,000 making $2,500. That is his philosophy. Put them in the boats and let them starve, that is his philosophy. MR. TULK: And he says, 'The bad ones, they will fall out.' MR. NEARY: Oh, yes, let them go rabbit hunting, let them go down and catch a few partridge, a few blueberries and a few bakeapples and a few partridgeberries. That is the Tory philosophy. That is the Tory codology, I can guarantee you. Mr.

Speaker, I hope that my few remarks on this bill will motivate the administration into laying out their plans in this house today. We cannot wait much longer, time is running out, the clock is tickinq. Fish plant workers never know when they go the bank with their cheques if they are going to be honoured. The people down in St. Lawrence do not know if their plant is going to ever reopen. The people down in Trepassey I 7

November 22, 1982 Tape 2550 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: do not know if their plant is ever going to reopen again. We hear a few weasely words from the member when he speaks in the House, we hear nothing from the administration, no guarantee. Weasel V words are not good enough, we want a commitment from this administration that that plant is going to reopen. What about Fermeuse? What about harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker, and what about all the other plants that are shut down because of financial problems? What about them? They have been swept under the rug now for the last several weeks. This is our third week in this House.

We have not hoard a statement on the economy, we have not heard a statement on the fishery. MR. CARTER: Sure you did. M.P. NLARY No, we have not heard a statement; we heard a statement on fiscal matters, we saw the administration tax Christmas presents and hot dogs and donuts and footwear and insurance and clothing and that sort of thing. We have heard all of that but we have not seen a statement of what this administration plans to do on matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction either in the fishery or in the economy of this Province. They stand rr

November 22, 1982 Tape 2551 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: over there day in and day out and outside of the House, they bring in resolutions that they hope will embarrass somebody. They play little political tricks and little games and they attack Ottawa, and they attack Nova Scotia, and they attack this one. Everybody is their enemy. But, Mr. Speaker, the peopLe want to know now what is this administration going t:o do on matters that come under provincial jurisdiction? That is what they want to know, what plans the administration have to cope with the problems of the fishery. And I do not think the old landlubber from St.

John's East (Mr. Marshall) is the one to stand up and tell us. lie would not know one end of a sculpin from the other. MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) to you, in that case. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we want the Premier of this Province who has oil on the brain, the man who has abandoned rural Newfoundland, who is now a city slicker, turned his back and hetrayeci the people who elected him and voted for hiir - we saw an example of that last Thursday, how he betrayed the peoPle who supported him and let them down and turned his back on them. We have seen that, Mr. Speaker.

So let us have no more political game playing, no more political trickery, no more resolutions that are only meant to embarrass arid not to accomplish anything, no more vicious attacks on the Government of Canada, whom this administration hvc to work closely with in order to revitalize the fiehery, Mr. Speaker, no more of that. Let them stand up, Mr. Speaker, man fashion and start to govern this Province for a change, something they have not done since they moved over there.

November 22, 1982 Tape 2545 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, if I had my way the foreigners would be gone. Okay? The foreigners would be gone. And if I was the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) in this Province I would not be looking to Europe, I would not be looking to Europe for new markets. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would not hang my hat,on the future of the fishery in Newfoundlandon finding markets in Europe. I would look to the. United States, to the Americas, and I would look to the West Indies, and I would Look to Japan. I would look to the Pacific. I would not look to Europe. MR.

TOBIN: Why? MR. NEARY: Why? Well,I do not have to go into it now but to give the hon. gentleman a brief answer, they are always looking inward and not outward. They do not want - MR. TOBIN: Because Iceland are in theEe with no tariffs and we are in there roughly with 15 per cent. No fishing inside th 200 mile limit. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would look to the Americas, mainly the United States, I would look to the Pacific, and [ would look to the West Indies. I would not be looking to Europe.

We1lI would take markets if I could • get them there1 yes, but I would not go with hat in hand on my hands and knees to get markets in Europe. And I think the administration is making a mistake. C

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2552 NJ - 1 MR. S. NEARY: Do they realize, Mr. Speaker, they are the government, they have to govern? It is something they have not done yet. They cannot keep attacking and blaming things on somebody else. Let us see the colour of their money. Let us see their plans. ANHON. MEMBER: This is a poor waste of time. MR. NEARY: Yes, it is a poor waste of time allright. It is a poor waste of time to talk about the fisheries. That is what hon. members think. Oil is all they ever want to talk about. They are so preoccupied with oil they can think of nothing else.

MRTOBIN: If that is an order, you have (inaudible) . You will soon lose your government (inaudible). MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is about that we had a good debate in this house on the fishery. It is about time, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that this bill was brought in today to triqger a debate because I am sure that is what it will do when I sit down. Forget the attacks. I beg members on the opposite side for a change to forget the attacks.

Let the Premier stand in his place and say, 'here is what we intend to do to revitalize the Newfoundland fishery: Number one, we are going to set up a maketing board or expand the terms of reference of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. Number two, we are going to do a financial assessment on the processinq sector and we are going to take a look at whether or not we should follow the same old policy of throwing good money after bad, taxpayer money into these companies where it is not warranted. We are going to take a look at that.

And we are going to work with the Government of Canada on conservation and management of the stock , and where new tharves and slipways and bait depots, all of that sort of thing, where all of these things should r r 1

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2552 MJ - 2 MR. S. NEARY: go. Here is our master plan.' That is what I want the Premier to stand up and show me. 'Here is our master plan for the development of the fishery.' Never mind pickinq out a little bit here and a little bit there and because they put a few dollars into this company and that company, that is the plan. That is not i plan, Mr. Speaker 1 that is merely dealing with crises, one crisis after the other. That is merely dealing with situations that occur on the spur of the moment, that crop-up. We cannot, Mr.

Speaker, carry on that way, with the Premier and hLs minister flying by the seats of their pants all of the time as far as the fisheries are concerned, no plans. Oil, oil, oil. All they ever think about is ofl, much to the dismay of the fishing industry of this Province. c. r -

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2553 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, you know, this House is here to debate, this House is here to scrutinize and examine plans and estimates. But, Mr. Speaker, day in and day out we just seem to be drifting in this House. There is never anything definite put before the House to discuss and debate. We can never get a handle on anything to decide, to determine whether or not we should vote for this proposal or that proposal because there is never any concrete, positive suggestions or policy or plans put before the House.

Let the government bring in a piece of legislation to change the marketing which has been one of the big problems in the Nowfoundland fishery for 500 years. Let them bring in a major reform in that regard and see how quick the Liberal Opposition will support it and praise the government for doing it. MR. TOBIN: I was just looking at the hospital programme the other day. MR. NEARY: What hospital programme? AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) got up and said cancel the hospitals. I (inaudible) MR. NEARY: Cancel what hospitals? MR. WARREN: (Inaudible). MR.

NEARY: I hope the hon. gentleman who is in his first year, not even a year old yet, will not be politically or intellectually dishonest with his constituents. I hope if the hon. gentleman is going to quote my hon. friend that he will quote him accurately. MR. WARREN: That is riqbt. MR. NEARY: And not do like the Premier does twist every little thing AN lION. MEMBER: I did not say that. MR. NEARY: - play with words and twist and turn and try to embarrass everybody and try to put people on the defensive. Mr. Speaker, can Your Honour tell me what that accomplishes? Is it getting us anywhere? Is that kind of r

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2553 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: policy that kind of strategy the Premier uses, is that getting us anywhere in the Province or is it getting us in deeper and deeper all the time? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cancel the hospital in Clarenville. MR. WARREN: You are more interested in the rabbit season, boy. You are more interested in the rabbit season. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Kirby Task Force no doubt will address itself to matters that come under federal jurisdiction,namely, management of the resource, conservation of the stock, research and so on.

No doubt the federal government will address itself to any problems within their own jurisdiction. They do not have to address themselves to problems under provincial jurisdiction, although I understand they are having an assessment made of the major fish processors in this Province that they are having great difficult with. They are having a problem getting a handle on it. That is provincial jurisdiction. And I hope the minister and the Premier do not look to the Kirby Task Force to resolve the problems n the areas that come under provincial jurisdiction 4

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2554 ah-1 MR. NEARY: unless, Mr.Speaker, they are prepared to give the jurisdiction to the Government of Canada as happened in the case of St. Anthony. St. Anthony is a good example of what we saw happen when two governments cannot agree on jurisdiction. You had the Government of Canada prepared to reactivate the St. Anthony fish plant and you had the Premier of this Province saying, No , it is our jurisdiction and if you intrude on our jurisdiction we are not going to give them a license, we are going to cancel their license.

And the Government of Canada had to take the position we are going to go ahead anyway whether you like it or not and you can challenge our jurisdictian in the courts if you want to. If it is a constitutional matter, challenge it in the courts. I hope it will not have to come to that again. But pretty soon, Mr.

Speaker, probably before this week is over, the provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan) and the Premier are going to have to ask themselves, will we pour more money into Fishery Products,and Lakes especially, to try to keep them afloat or will we outline a plan whereby the federal government can participate and jointly we will keep these plants afloat? And if we are going to do it jointly this House should know what plans they have. Never mind screaming to the press, we want $150 million.

The hon. gentleman has not told this I-louse how much he thinks should come from the Province and how much he thinks should come from Ottawa. Should it be 90/10, 50/50, 75/25 or should the minister take the position, we have cuddled up now and we have babied you long enough,you are not getting another cent. That is what the hon. gentleman and the Premier have to

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2554 ah-2 MR.NEARY: address themselves to, that is the question. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Your time is up. MR.NEARY: Yes. I wish I had another hour or two so I could rivet this message home. This government, Mr. Speaker, have grossly neglected the Newfoundland fishery and they have done it in favour of oil and gas. And I would say so farthat we have seen more gas than we have seen oil. MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : If the hon. minister speaks now he closes the debate. The hon. Minister of Fisheries. SOME HON.ME?IBERS: Hear, hear MR.MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, try as they will, keep on trying, to leave the impression that this government is not concerned about the most important industry we have, the fishing industry, they are not going to succeed. The people of this Province know iifferently, the people around the Province know quite differently. The fishermen, the plant workers, the companies) all concerned, all connected with the fishing industry are quite aware of this government's devotion to making the fishing industry a vibrant industry for the future. r

November 22, 1982, Tape 2555, Page 1 -- apb MR. MORGAN: And, Mr. Speaker, they can go on also and try to pretend that we do not have any policies on the fishing industry, because the fact is that we put forward, I guess, the most comprehensive policy position on the fishing industry ever developed in this Province, in fact, ever developed in the Atlantic region of Canada, when we sat down and put forward to the Kirby Task Force a few months ago i comprehensive, detailed policy statement clearly outlining what this government stands for as it pertains to the fishing industry, clearly outlining it.

MR.NEARY: Why (lid they not (inaudible) that policy? MR. MOPGAN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Neary) has not read that document. He wants to ignore the document and still leave the impression we have no policy. If there is any part of that policy document he disagrees with, let it be said what he disagrees with in the policy statement. I have yet to hear any comment from the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition or otherwise, as to what they disagree with; as to what we are doing in the fishing industry, I have yet to hear any constructive criticism. Mr.

Speaker, the fact is this government is doing lots for the fishing industry. I am just saying first-hand this evening - unfortunately I know that what I am going to say in the next half hour is not, again, going to be carried out to the people of our Province. Last Wednesday, on Private Members Day, a resolution was brought forward by my friend from St. Marys - The Capes (Mr. Hearn), an excellent resolution, excellent debate from both sides of the House. I think there were no more than two or three paragraphs carried in both print medias and two or three sentences carried on the electronic media.

Why is it, I wonder? Why is it? r

November 22, 1982, Tape 2555, Page 2 -- apb MR. MORGAN: But for the record, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, carried by the media or not, I want to make quite clear to this House of Assembly the kinds of things that we are doing for the fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, why are we developing facilities as we are doing around the Province? Many of my colleagues on this side of the House, a few on that side of the House of Assembly, they are aware of what we are doing to develop facilities.

Talking about responsibilities in the fishing industry they keep on saying the processing sector is the Newfoundland Government's jurisdiction and responsibility. Well, how about the supplying of facilities for fishermen? All of the harvesting in the fishing industry is under the f r

November 22, 1982 Tape 2556 PK - 1 MR. MORGAN: control of and jurisdiction of the federal level of government. If we said, "Yes, Mr. Otta'-a, because you have jurisdiction over the harvesting sector of the fishing industry we are going to stay away from it. T,7r. will not touch it, Mr. Speaker. We will not build baited trawl holding units, we will not build slipways for fishermen, we will not give loans to fishermen, we will help get fishermen new gear. Do we do that? No, Mr.

Speaker, we do not do that because we realize that it is so very important for both governments to work together for the sake of the fishing industry, P,nd we eat involved in building facilities. This past year we spent more than $3 million in building facilities which should have been built by the federal level of government. We do not say "No,you must build all the facilities"and us do noth±ng in that regard.

Do we say to the fishermen "If you want to do research work on deveLoping new techniques and new technologies and new types of fi3hing çjear that you must go to Ottawa to understand what you 3hould be doing in the fishing industry"P No, Mi-. Speaker. It is their responsibility, it 1r :.'nir jurisdiction. They shouLd show the fishermen how to becctne more diversified. They should show the fishermen how to improve upon their catching and harvesting techniques. They should show the fishermen how to improve their harvesting and total catch with better boats, etc., but they do not do it.

It is the Newfoundland Government who is out there on a daily basis working with fishermen's committees and fishermen to help them to become more diversified and more modern in today's harvesting techniques. Mr. Speaker, you talk about markets. It seems that we, the Newfoundland Government, has to be of total responsibility again here in the marketing of fish. The processing of fish, the Opposition wants to be1ieve r

November 22, 1982 Tape 2556 PK - 2 MR. MORGAN: is totally the Newfoundland's Government responsibility. MR. NETiRY: So it is. MR. MORGAN: It is clearly obvious why. A cw months ago,when this government was helping out the processing sector of the fishing industrywe were criticized for it, for putting money into companies to help them keep oing to provide jobs in fish plants.

In fact,all of the companies we helped and assisted we did it on some very strict criteria and we set down some very firm conditions and these conditions have been'et in most all cases and most all of the companies assisted are now on a viable footing for future years. So they want us to believe and the people to believe that because the processing sector is totally under Provincial jurisdiction that Ottawa should not assist us at all. is I said earlier1 if we took the same attitude in the harvesting sector and did not assist the fisheimn that would be wrong for the fishing industry.

We are helping out in their jurisdiction surely they can hel out in ours. Now we did help out the processing sector of the fishing industry through financial assistance. Not only that, that has been said over and over again, but 'iat else have we been doin, Mr. Speaker? Have we been

November 22, 1982 Tape 2557 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: sittinq idly by down in the Department of Fisheries in Atlantic Place, have not done anything to help the fishermen with regard to new equipment, have done nothing at all to help the companies with regard to improving their processing * efficiency? I wonder which government it is that makes loans available for secondary processing and goes Out there and gives them interest-free loans for two years? For what purpose? To get more jobs in the fishing industry, to take a product and then go into further processing so the end product leaving our plant is going where?

Directly to the consumer in the market place. Now, who is doing that, Mr. Speaker? Which government, I wonder, is doing that? Who is out there working with the fishing industry today trying to develop more species, different types of products and different species? The federal government? No, Mr. Speaker. Who is out there gathering information on a daily basis in the market place? Who is doing that? Development of different species - MR. ANDREWS: The scallop fishery. MR. MORGAN: Scallops is a prime example, the eels and other species, dogfish. But who is out there gathering information in the inarkct place?

Who is working hand in hand with the fishing companies and finding markets? What is the federal government doing? They have been doing things that we are not too pleased with and that is using fish to trade for fish markets; that is about all they have done with the exception of a few little efforts on behalf of the Industry, Trade and Commerce Trade Division over the last number of years. MR. STAGG: Carrying coals to Newcastle. 1

November 22, 1982 Tape 2557 EC - 2 MR. MORGAN: So we are Dut there working hand in hand on promotions with the fish companies. We are doing it on a monthly basis. We Net criticized for that. We get criticized for being out in the market place working with the fish companies. If someone from the Department of Fisheries is out there travelling with the fish companies trying to find markets, we are criticized for doing that. What else are we doing in the market place? Not only promotions, we are also doinj research work. We use the Fishing Industry Advisory Board, - is that a federal board?

No, it is a Newfoundland Government boarc. - to gather all the information and,again,to assist the companies in furtherinj r.iarkets not only in Europe, as mentioned earlier, but other locations, alternate markets in the Far East and the EasL Bloc countries and in other parts of the U.S. have yet to capitalize on in the U.S. market place. Now, what else are we doing? Is there anything else that we are doing? Oh, there are a few other things we are doing as well. I wonder which government is sponsoring and paying for the subsidies on the Quality Control programme? AN HON. MEMBER: What? Quality Control programme?

MR. MORGAN: Quality Control programme. It was this administration under the present Premier which initiated a quality programme in this Province for the first time, to do what? Fortunately, we had the co-operation of the lishermen's Union. We worked hand in hand again with the lishermen's Union and we developed pilot projects for quality control. What for? Because we are convinced thai the answer in the future is to put in the market place good quality 2

November 22, 1982 Tape 257 EC - 3 MR. MORGAN: fish. It has to be consistent, not one year good quality and the next year reasonably bad or reasonably good, but a con&;istent good quality fish for 1. r

Novemver 22, 1982 Tape 2558 NM - 1 the market place in future years. That is a must. So where does the - MR. NEARY: You are talking to the gallery. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to the galleries. The Opposition Leadercontinuously stands in the House to debate, both talk to the galleries, to two or three of his friends, Mr.

Speaker, I am talking in debate for the record of this House of Assembly, that the fact is that in working on developing market it ties into quality, and this government is determined to ensure that down the road, if everything goes well no later than '85 or '86, that we will have a quality control programme throughout this Province, through- out the Province whereby the guality will be recognized at the level of the fishermen, in other words,the man catching the fish, the people who are handling the fish, the transportation companies, the companies who do the processino in their plants, and out to the final brokers who are going to market the product.

It is recognized by all concerned that fish is food and has to be handled and dealt with and processed accordingly. Pnd if we can see the day when fishermen believe in that - for example, the Bonavista Peninsula, where product has been ongoing • for the last two years, again in co-ordination with the Fishermen's Union and with the companies concerned, and they are coming to realize that they must, the day is coming when they are going to have to, when the fish is caught, the fish must be bled, gutted and washed and iced at sea.

That is one part of the Province, but the day is going to come when we are going to see that kind of a regulation-or hopefully not a regulation, hopefully on a volunteer basis by all the fishermen, through their union, r

November 22, 1982 Tape 2558 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: in workinci with government, see the day when that kind of a process is carried out throughout the Province for the sake of quality. Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard talk about the Kirby Task Force. I just have one question on it to pose to the House of Assembly and to pose to all Newfoundlanders When the Kirby Task Force was appointed, was it appointed because everything was fine in the fishing industry? Was it appointed because there were no problems in the fishing industry?

Was it appointed just for the sake of doing a study to look at what could be done down the road a number of years from now? Mr. Speaker, it was appointed - MR. TULK: Was this a royal commission? MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked again a stupid question. Obviously he does not know what is going on in the Province. The royal commission report, its recommendations, practically all the recommendations of the Inshore Royal Commission under this government's jurisdiction has been acted upon to date, practically all of them. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

MORGAN: But the federal government again refused to deal with them. Maybe theyare awaiting the Kirby Task Force. I am not going to. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) keeps on saying I am attacking Ottawa again. Nobody is attackinq Ottawa. We are merely putting forward policies which we think are the right policies for the fishing industry of our Province. It is as simple as that. r 'r

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2559 MJ - 1 MR.J._MORGAN: And we are hoping that Mr. Kirby and his task force would indeed understand these problems as presented because th're is a very definite role,other than the Newfoundland vennt's with regards to improvements in the fishing industy. I do not think anybody - the Opposition Leader (Mr. S. Neary) cm try - can accuse us of not co-operating with the Kirby Task Fore and its work. We co-operated fully, extensiveiy,bocause we cit that the Task Force is indeed an important stud', which we feel and hope will bring in certain recommendations. But why was it appointed?

It was because there were financial difficulties in the fishing industry, severe finanial difficulties. At the time they appointed, one or two l.rqe companies were on the verge of bankruptcy. It was mad know they were on the verge of bankruptcy. For exampl, the Newfoundland Government :iad to find an amount of approximately, in this case, 5 million. We found $5 million to put into an investment in the fishing industry to help the Lake Group survive, and in this case we worked i.t out with the federal government.

I recall numerous meeting ,and finally the last meeting resulted in a number of the departments of government from Newfoundland - Finance, Fisheries and Development - sitting down in a board room in Toronto with the bankers, the companies, the federal authoritier,and we finally worked out a deal where we could save thit company. But it was only a temporary measure, a very temporary measure. The problems that were there when Mr. Kirby ws appointed are still there.

Now, the Opposition in theL loyalty to the Liberal Party can make believe that we ae bdicatinq our responsibilities etc.,and the federal government has to step in the processing end of the fishing industry and take control and do things there. Nobody, 'iot even the federal leup] to date has indicated r

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2559 McI - 2 MR. J. MORGAN: that. They have indicated that they want to work in co-operation and we believe them because after all it is the most important industry in Atlantic Canada- not just in Newfoundland, in Atlantic S Canada. And surely with such an important resource industry in Atlantic Canada, the federal government is not going to ignore it. Now when the Lake Group was assisted, it resulted in the reopening of a number plants, as members of the House of Assembly are quite aware, some in their own respective districts.

We said then in discussions with the Kirby Task Force that the Lake Group was not the only company that was having financial difficulties,but the other companies, Nickersons of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia at that time was one all one big company, then there was the other one Fishery Products. S

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2560 SD - 1 MR. MORGAN: Of course, we thought with the input of funds from the Canadian Development Corporation in the amount of approximate1y $34 million, taking a 40 per cent interest in the company, that that would help Fishery Products' financial difficulties which they had at that time. So these same problems that were the reasons for the appointment of the Kirby Task Force are still out there, they still have not been resolved.

And suddenly some of the media leave the impression - I do not know whether it is intentionally, hopefully it is not; mayb it is because of the lack of having the facts - but th'y leave the impression that suddenly there is a new problem in the fishing industry, that it all came up this Fall. Well, the problem we had in the fishing industry with the small and medium sized companies, that problem is resolved, it in no longer there. Most all the medium sized companies are today, I would say, as I mentioned at the beginning of the debate, on a reasonably firm footing for the future.

Out the problems of the large companies have still not been touched, are still there. So there is no point in trying to leave the impression that this is a new problem, something thit just came to light. It is a problem that was, as I said earlier, addressed extensively by the Kirby Task Force. Now surely the Opposition is not going to complain about the fact that we cannot find approximately $100 million to $150 million for the processing sector of the fishing industry. Well, we cannot find it. You cannot get blood from a turnip, is the ol.d fisherman would say, so what is the alternative? MR.

NEARY: What are you going to do? MR. MORGAN: If we cannot find the monies - and we found so far $29 million, and so far the federal government has not put in any money with the exception of $13 million and a government guarantee in the Lake Group - I am convinced that common sense will prevail in Ottawa - r-'rp

November 22, 1982 Tape No. 2560 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: common scnsc with the Kirby Task Force, common sense with the ministers - and they will recognize the need for this kind of restructuring. And how can a Province with 500,000 people, with limited revenue - and we do not have the revenue base, the resourco baso or otherwise - get that revenue at the present time? 110w can we afford to find, and where could we find - goodness gracious, if we had the oil and gas revenues coming in I say we could find it. I say if we were getting a fair deal from Ottawa and had that development going we could possibly find it.

At the present time, because we cannot find the money the Opposition wants to g]ory in the idea, 'Oh, they cannot find the money, they cannot find the money md they got to go to look to Ottawa for assistance'. Well, are we not as good Canadians in Newfoundland as they are in other parts of the country? Surely we must be just as good Canadians, you know, working in Trepasuey and Marystown and Burin, Harbour Breton and St. Lawrence and Twillinqate and Bonavista and Charleston and Tizzard's Harbour and Morton's harbour, Bridgeport, any place along the cosat.

Surely these Newfoundlanders working in these plants are just as important and need jobs to carry on wilh their occupation in this industry, just as important

r) November 22, 1982, Tape 2561, Page 1 -- apb MR. MORGAN: as other Canadians. So all we are saying is the task force was appointed to address that major problem. MR. NEARY: No, it was not. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, it was appointed because there were financial difficulties in the large companies. They did not address the other companies. Let me give you a prime example, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: How do you know?

MR._MORGAN: Plants were closing down in the following places last Spring, in Newfoundland: They were closing down in Charleston, they were closing down in Dildo, they were closing down in Gooseberry Cove, Tizzard's Harbour, Bridgeport, Morton's Harbour, Black Tickle, Williams Harbour, Triton Seafoods in Triton. All these plants were going to close. Now, why were they going to close? Because they were part of a large company and that large company found itself in financial difficulty. And they came looking for money. Where did they come? They came to both governments.

One government said, I am sorry, we do not believe that you should be assisted, you have overexpanded in some areas of Atlantic Canada and we are not going to put any money up. Our choice is let your company go into receivership or bankruptcy. MR. TULK: Do you agree with that? MR._MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, that would have meant jobs lost in all of these plants along the Northeast coast of the Province.

Now I am asking a very straight- forward question to the members of the House of Assembly: Can we as Newfoundlanders, as leaders in this House of Assembly,afford to see all of these people, thousands of them, lose their jobs and go on unemployment insurance for - what? - ten months or twelve months and then go where? To the social assistance roles. We could not afford to do that, Mr. Speaker. But in this case one government took the C

November 22, 1982, Tape 2561, Pago 2 -- apb MR. MORGAN: attiLude yes, we can afford it, let the chips fall where they may, and let those plants close. Now, that was part of a large company. So we decided to look at it in a very serious way and we did. We had chartered accountants look at it, we had lawyers look at it extensively and very thoroughly. Then we decided that we could not afford to let these plants close. So what happened? We called in Mr. Kirby's Task Force, we sat down in two long meetings, we said, Here is the major problem, will you assist or will you not assist?

The federal government chose not to assist, they chose not to assist the people living in Triton, not to assist those living in Charleston and Dildo, and Gooseberry Cove and Tizzard's Harbour and Bridgeport and Morton's Harbour and Black Tickle and Williams Harbour. I said then and I say now that surely the people living in these locations around our Province should have been recognized as good Canadian citizens who want to do a job in the processing plants and to help keep a major part of our fishing industry alive, a

November 22, 1982 Tape 2562 PK - 1 a MR. MORGAN: but they were rejected at the time. And I today am a worried man because I am worried about the fact that the same kind of attijude may again prevail in Ottawa. MR. TULK: Not a bad idea (1nirRihle). MR. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman thinks this is funny. I am not worried for me,I have a job. MR. TULK: No,I do not No,I do not: MR. MORGAN: But those on the Northeast Coast who will lose those jobs in those plants will have no job. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on without being inteirupted. The Fact is I am worried because the last meeting I had with Mr.

Kirby and his Task Force,and with the bankcrs,and with the companies senior officials and owners, the Nickerson family, the Lake Group senior people, Fisheries Products senior people, that was months ago after having a series of about thirteen, fourteen meetings in Board Rooms in Toronto and Montreal, Ottawa, and here , and Halifax. Why were these meetings being held? To try to find a way to restructure the fishing industry, to save the major companies.

Beeduse unless there is going to be- there has to be, there must be- unless there is we are going to see some very, very serious reprecussions, there is going to have to be a restructuring of the debt to equity ratio in these companies. Their debts are just too large, they cannot carry it. The high interest rates hurt them substantially in the last "ear and a half, hurt them to the point where they brought them to the brink of hankruptcy. At least we know that of one company last year, we had to come in and save it and keep it going.

So unless that question is going to be addressed,the whole purpose of the Kirby Task Forceall the work it did over the past number of months, it will mean that the fishing industry will still be left in a very, very serious financial problem r

November 22, 1982 Tape 2562 PK - 2 MR. MORGAN: with the large companies. And why would we not welcome - I do not think any member here would not welcome - I do not care where the funds come from right now; if someone walked into my office tomorrow morning , Mr. Speaker, and said, 'I am from Tokyo',arid he spoke with an accent, and said he had Li $100 million to invest in the fishinj industry in Newfoundland, we would welcome him in. The Foreign Investment Review Industry might not do it. They would have their scurtiny and regulations to the point where they would probably discourage any investment of that nature.

Then , Mr. Speaker, if someooe came from West Germany and said, !We have x millions of dollars to invest in the fishing industry, would we say no? No, Mr. Speaker, we would not s.iy no. We would welcome them with open arms to invest their money. Again the Foreign Investment Review Agency would be discouraging that kind of investment. Mr. Speaker, I thought I had unlimited time in closing this debate, Mr. Speaker.. Maybe I am wrong. MR. TULK: MR. CARTER: SOME HON. MEMBERS MR. NEARY: give it to me. we know the time is gone You are wronq. Unlimited time. By leave,! By leave! Nonot by leave! You would not Mr.

Speal.er, the fact is that Ll

November 22,1982 Tape No. 2563 ah-1 MR. MORGAN: for us to blame the companies, the companies to blame the government, for uu to blame the federal government and the federal government to blame us. We know that the federal government has fallen down on controlling the indiscriminate fihing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks whereby last week there were fifty- eight foreign vessels fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand I3anks ju:;t outside the 200