Volume 4 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY~SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 4th. Session VERBATIM REPORT FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1976 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE M. JAMES RUSSELL Number 55

J\Ule 20, 1975 The House met at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Tape No. 2528 STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS: NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Fisheries. HON. J. C. CROSBIE1 Minister of Fisheries: Mr. S~eaker, I would like to inform the House that I have today sent a telegram to the honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of State of Fisheries in the Government of Canada,and a copy to the honourable Mr.

Jamieson, Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion requesting the Government of Canada to implement a programme of special financial assistance to alleviate the financial suffering of fishermen along the area from Sandy Cov~, St. Barbe North, around the tip of the Great Northern Peninsula through Green Bay and Notre Dame Bay to Fogo Island and including the Stra~t Shore of Bonavista North, who because of severe ice conditions have be unable to prosecute the fishery to date this year.

The text of the Telex is as follows, "At the present time ice is still close to the shore extending from ten to twenty miles offshore from Sandy Cove, St. Barbe North, arolllld the tip of the Great Northern Peninsula and down through Green Bay, Notre Dame Bay to Fogo Island and including the Strait Shore of Bonavista North. The ice has prevented fishing in this general area with the exception of sporadic lobster fishing at the bottom of Notre Dame Bay and on th~ Strait Shore and has prevented fishing since early May.

There has been a considerable loss of such gear as lobster pot s and salmon nets but the exact losses cannot yet be ascertained lllltil the ice moves off. The result of these very severe ice conditions is tha t the fishermen along the affected area have been llllable to prosecute the fishery despite the fact that Unemployment Insurance benefits eXpired May 15. Thus the fishermen of this area are faced with the same situation as applied in the severe ice conditions of last year.

I feel that an emergency situation now exists and urgently request that you implement a special financial assistance progralllllle to compensate the fishermen for this lost time. "7 3.::: '1 I ' ,.; '·,·

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2528 NM - 2 The assistance programme should be made retroactive to the date fishermen last received U.I.C. payments and brought forward to the point when ice conditions improved so as to permit fishing activities to begin again on a commercial scale. I am in receipt of many requests from fishermen in communities asking me to impress upon you the seriousness of their financial situation and undestand from statements of federal ~embers that you can do nothing without a request from the province.

We would appreciate it~mediate action since fishermen may have no choice but to abandon the fishery altogether or to seek Social Assistance unless U.I.C. benefits or other financial assistance is extended to the time when the ice conditions improve." That is the end of the message. Now, Mr. Speaker, the position with respect to gear is as I have told the House on several occasions, that until the ice moves off and you have an exact picture of what gear is being lost you cannot deal with that problem.

That will have to be dealt with later, I would also like to point out to the House that there is no need, it is incorrect to state that we have to request the Government of Canada to do anything in connection with extending the time period for Unemployment Insurance benefits from May 15 until the ice goes or for a financial assistance programme. The Government of Canada can do that without any request from the Province.

With respect to the gear situation,of course, I think there we ~ill meet with them when the time comes and see whether both governments consider any special progrannne is needed in view of the reported losses. But just to allay any doubt in anyone's mind that we do have to make such a request, I am formally now making this request of the honourable Mr. LeBlanc so that federal members in particular will have thier opinions observed and this message has gone off to the Government of Canada and we hope that they will make a quick decision on what to do.

They did exactly that, they took that procedure last year and they could do it again this year if they so wish. So it is really a matter for them to decide. But we pointed out that this should be done and why. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Fogo. 7355

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2528 NM - 3 CAPT. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this is in accord with a telegram we sent,or I sent in accord with the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. LeBlanc on May 18th . and the reply we got back from Mr. LeBlanc at that particular time was that unless the area was declared a disaster area and a special request had been made by the province there was nothing that the federal goveroment could do or would be willing to do without that request. Now I am very happy to see that the Minister of Fisheries now has made that request. 7356

June 20, 197S Tape 2S29 (morning) Ill-1 I must knock him on the knuckles for this. I think he is a bit late in m,ik:lng this request. Thjs reouest should have heen made, in my opinion, weeks earlier. However, better late than never. It r.ertainly confirms what we have done and I am sure the fishermen along the areas wh:I ch the min:! ster refers to in this telegram will be more than oleased now that the official reouest has gone out from the Minister of Fisheries or from the Government of Newfoundland requesting such assistance. "1F. CROSRIE: Mr.

Speaker, I will point out again that there is no reouirement of any law that the federal government must wait for any re~uest from the Province to undertake such a programme. To the contrary, Unel'lployment Insurance 1s a matter within their responsjbility and they have not had to wait for a request from the Province. nut we are making this request now and it is too had, of course, that they clid not ljsten to the honourable gentleman from Fogo when he SPn t a request. We trust that they will listen now to our request which should nnt be necessary to senrl in the first olace. rAPT.

WINSOR: Yes, but you are at best dealing witr only Unemployment Insurance here. PRESENTING PETITIONS: MP. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Trinity North. MF. IlFETT: ~Ir. Speav:er, T heg leave to present a petition on behalf of the res 1 den ts of neep Bight and /\deyto,•n. The prayer of the petitjon, · We, the undersigned resi<lents of the area Adeytown to neep Right :In the district of ~rinity North humbly petition the members of the provincial legislature to give prompt anrl full attention to our request to have the area referred to above paved at the first opportunity.

The distance involved is only approximately three to four miles. The Acleytown-Deep Eight area is a fairly rapidly growing Jocation and the use of our autoTTtobiles is vital to our everydav needs. ''Weare having this petition passed over to our mewber. We are reque.sting him to prese.nt it to the legislatjve assembly at the earliest opportunity. '' This has been signed by approximately 130 voters of the area. These two communities are very near the 7357

June 20, 1975 Tape 2529 (morning) In-7. Trans-Canada Highway. There are four or five communities there from Northwest Rrook into Deep Right, a sort of a scenic area. The sad part about it, Sir, is that this should have been paved in 1965 when the Trans-Canada went through because they are so near the highway. Unfortunately it did not happen and apparently it has never heen placed very high in the priority list since. It is true that these small communities are growing because they are close to the Come By Chance complex and instead of fading out,as some small communities are, they are building up.

In view of this, Sir, I have no hesitation in recommending that this petition he adhered to as soon as possible. I ask that 1t be placed on the table of the House and referred to the department to which it relates. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for St. Barbe North. 'MR. F. ROWE: Sir, I would like to supJ)ort the petition prese .nted by the honourable the member for pav:lng of the area around the communities of Deep Bight and Adeytown. 132 voters are involved, Sir, so obviously many more people are involved. That is a beautiful and scenic part of the Province.

With this particular area paved, obviously more tourists would be attracted to the area. Sir, the member mentioned that it should have been paved in 1965. Well, that may well be.The only reaction I could have to that would be, why has it not been paved since 1972? But, Sir, we wholeheartedly support the petition of the 132 voters in Deep Bight and Adeytown for the pavement of the road in their collll1lunities. MR. SPEAKER : Are there any other petitions? The honourable Member for Ronavista South. MR. MORGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to present a petition from 148 residents of the community of Summerville in my district of Ronavista South. The prayer of their petition is that the road from Summerville in the direction of King's Cove.that as many miles as possihle of that main road he paved this Summer. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am very proud to say that this year the first hit of pavement on the road from Southern Bay to

June 20, lQ75 Tape 252~ (morning) Ill-3 llonavista,serv:fng n:f.neteen communities, that this year :Is the first year that any pavement has heen seen on that shore. 'Rut, the fact that the road from Summerville to 1359

June 20, 1975. Tape 2530 RH - 1 King's Cove is eighteen miles and it is a bus route where all the children from Swmnerville are bused daily to King's Cove to school there. The fact that the present paving programme in only calling for two or three miles in that

section of the main road - we are doing the paving of five miles in the Amherst Cove-Newmans Cove area, the lower end of the Shore. But in hetween Suimnerville and King's Cove we are only paving approximately three miles. This petition is asking that as many miles as possible be paved. Of course, in supporting the petition 1 have to support it in a qualified way because we cannot pave roads unless they are reconstructed. Last year a reconstruction contract was let but unfortlDlately the contractor did not get in the area to start work lDltil rather late in the season.

Therefore, the reconstruction work was not carried out to a point where paving can be carried out this year. So, I am hoping that this year weather-wise will be a good construction year. The contractor is now working in the area and we can continue on with the reconstruction and next year, God willing, that the road from Summerville to King's Cove will be paved. So, I support the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I move it be tabled and presented to the department to which it relatas. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for St. Barbe North. MR. F.

ROWE: We have no hesitation in supporting the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South, Sir, calling for the pavement of the eighteen miles of road between SUD111erville and King's Cove. It has been signed by, I understand, approximately 450 citizens in the area. In view of the fact - how many? MR. K>RGAN: 148. MR. ROWE: 148, I am sorry, 148 citizens in the area. In view of the fact, Sir, that is a school bus route, obviously the importance and the need for the paving of this road is necessitated hecause of that fact. If I understand correctly, Sir, three miles 7360

June 20, 1975. Tape 2530 RH - 2 have been promised for this year. I sincerely hope that the member gets his wish and that the eighteen miles will be paved after the upgrading and ~econstruction, taking into consideration, Sir, the fact that there are many other parts of the Province that need to be paved. Obviously, the government has to spread what money it has available for reconstruction, upgrading and pavement, spread it equally and fairly all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, Sir, we have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the petition. MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other petitions?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WRICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. HON, L. BARRY: This is the answer to oral questions, Mr. Spl!f(ker, previously - this is the appropriate time, I assume? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. MR. BARRY: The honourable Member for Hermitage asked the question in connection with the decision of the Newfoundland Hydro to go to a central billing system in those areas of the Province where it, on behalf of the power distribution district, directly retails power to the consume~. That is correct. The corporation will be proceeding to a central billing system.

This step is being taken to increase the efficiency of the corporation and to decrease the cost of providing the service to the consumers of our Province. It is not yet known whether there will be any employees affected by this decision. The corporation is in the process now of analysing the situation to try and determine,or to try and insure that there will not be any adverse effects on employees with respect to having to consider certain employees surplus or redundant. If there will be any employees who will be affected all attempts will he made to find alternate positions for them ~nth the corporation.

But this is a step that must be taken to insure that the cost of providing service to the consumer is reduced as low as possible and that the efficiency of the corporation is improved 7361

June 20, 1975. Tape 2530 RH - 3 as much as possible. MR . SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health, RON. R. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is an answer to an oral questio n asked by the honourable Member for Bonavista North on Tuesday. It concerns the policy of the Departments of Health and Social Services also in supplying things like dentures -3 6 ') I ,_

June 20, 1975 Tape 2531 (Morning) PK - 1 to people in need. The answer is, Mr. Speaker, that there is a policy whereby if a doctor certifies that a person who cannot pay for them himself is in need of dentures and that it could create a health hazard to him for him to be without them,then the Department of Social Services as e matter of policy will provide the epnropriete denture. I think the same thing is eo in the case of eyegleeeee. But there hae to be a real medical need and certified by a medical doctor that the need exists, and then the Department of Social Services will step into the picture.

ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fogo. CAPT. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Hon. the Premier. ls the Premier considering setting up a special and an i111D1ediate committee or board or some source of information to deal with the closing of the U.S. Base at Goose Bay? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier. HON. F. D. MOORES (PREMIER): The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs to check with the present Task Force end see exactly what state of readiness, if you like, and also how much work has been done from that particular group.

I have also asked,quite separately from that,the Minister of Industrial Development and the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations to start themselves forming up from a different angle exactly what can be done on a speeded-up basis to make sure that the various personnel who will be affected will be given first priority and hopefully jobs through the Lower Churchill development and any other sort of development in the area to see if we cannot make the transition as easy as possible. ORDERS OF THE DAY A bill, "An Act To Alllend The Conveyancing Act", read a second time. (llill No. 92). MR. SPEAKER: The Hon.

Minister of Justice. HON. T. A. HICKMAN: (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly small amendment to .the Conveyancing Act but it does fall 7363

June 20, 1975 Tape 2531 (Morning) PK - 2 very definitely into the field of law reform. If I may give a very short background comment on this bill, the position right now is, or at one time was,that in England and in Newfoundland the co11D11on law of landlord and tenant has developed in such a way that equity will not relief against forfeiture in the event of a breach of, by a tenant, of a covenant in the lease not to assign 1sublet or other­ wise part with possession of the premises without the written consent of the landlord.

This deficiency in law which works obvious hardship and injustice was relieved in England by various amendments to the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and the various Landlord and Tenants Act by simply providing that the landlord could not charge any fine or penalty if he consented to the leasehold assignment, nor could he unreasonably withhold his consent. This Statutory provision in England has been incorporated in Statutory Condition 3 of all leases for residential tenancies in Newfoundland by virtue of Section (7) Subsection (1) of the Landlord and Tenant, Residential Tenancy Act.

Unfortunately this excellent provision is not incorporated in the general conveyancing or landlord and tenant law.

And this position in law as it now stands has caused a great deal of difficulty from time to time particularly to practitioners in law where you have a perfectly reasonable request by a tenant for the consent of a landlord to the assiglllllent of a lease and where the landlord unreasonably withholds such consent and for without any reason, or alternatively tries to demand of the tenant or extort from the tenant a fee or a sum of money which would be, you know, as consideration for his agreeing to consenting to such an assignment of a commerical land lease,and here we are referring to commerical land leases.

This reform,as I say,in the law was carried out in England and the implications of such reform are not that wide ranging and they have received a great deal of consideration and study in England over the last ninety years since they have been incorporated into the English law. And this bill before us, Mr. Speaker, simply provides that in the event of a request in the corrnnerical lease of the 7364

.Tune 2(), 1975 Tape 2532 (morning) IB-1 landlord to consent to an assignment of the lease t.hat we will insert the following words which really spe11k for themselves. ''Without. the consent in writing of the lessor which con.sent shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably be withheld or charge<l for unless the landlord has actually incurred expense in respect of the grant of the consent." This protects the lessees or commercial properties and at the same t:lme does not prevent a landlord from receiving his or her just compensation but it takes away the right to hold up their consent where there has been a perfectly legitimate renuest for an assignment to a very reputable le.ssee and the request has come from the tenant.

I move second reading. On motion, a hill, "An Act To Amend The Conveyancing Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently hy leave. Motion second reading of a hill, "An Act Respecting The Awar<ling Of An Increase Of Pensions To Or In Respect Of Certain Employees Of The r.overnment Of Newfoundland, Certain Teachers And Certain •'.embers Of The House Of Assemhly." MP. SPEAKER: The honourahle Minister of Finance. tm. EART.F.: Mr.

Speaker, th1.s is a comparatively short act but it is a very important one hecause it gives the authority to the House to the budget announcement whereby the pensions of all public servants working for this government were to be increased or had been increased to a minimum of $1,200 per annum. All pensions paid directly hv the r.overnment. including those pensions increased to ~1,200 shall be increased by twelve per cent per annum. It also states that persons receiving a pension now of $8, 333will he held to a maximum of $1,000 increase per annum.

In other words, that is the cut off stage hecause anyhody having a pension of over $8,333 would automatically on the twelve per cent increase get more than $1,nnn. So, it stops at $1,000 for budgetary reasons. Obviously there are many people in the public service who would 1n t.ime qualify for a pension greater than $8,333 yearly. There had to he a cut off point somewhere. These people will 7365

June 20, 1975 Tape 2532 (morning) IB- 2 be entitled in fut;ure to a raise in their pens .ions of $1,000 per annum. I might say that since this action was taken by government, I have received more letters of thanks and appreciation than for any other action that I have been associated with for this govermnent. It is a very popular move throughout the service and people are· extremely grateful, It is unfortunate that in years gone by so many pensi~ers,who ate now pensioners who were working on a very, very low sala ,ry in days when aalarles were low were only entitled to pitifully small pensions.

While the 111inimum here now of $1,200 per annum is perhaps less than should be desired, it does give them a certain floor

whereas before the.re were many pensions below that level. Hopefully in years to come this can be increased. But at pt:esent this is a very good step in the dght directio:n and I have much pleasure in moving this bill. MR . SPF.AKER: The honourable Member for St. Hatbe North. MR.F . ROWE: }!tr. Spealcer, we endorse in principle this bill for an increase of pensions to certain employees of the Govemtnel').t of Newfoundland snd certain teachers and certa1n members of the House of Assembly.

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2533 NM - 1 Sir, one could hardly knock any increase, however small or however large.

I guess one can still question the degree of the increase, whether it is sufficient or not,and I am glad to hear the minister state that he has received a great many letter of thanks which indicates that there is a group or there are groups of people within the teaching profession or in the Civil Service who are pleased over this particular increase and Sir, although $1,200 may seem like a very small amount, we can still be thankful that we do have the Canada Pension Plan and we do have the Old Age Pension which would supplement the pension referred to in this particular bill.

Obviously, Sir, there is still room for improvement on all fronts, with respect to teachers and with respect to the Civil Service and with respect to members of the Ho_use of Assembly. But obviously this is all determined upon the ability of the Province to pay in spite of the fact that there are obviously contributions msde by the pensioners during their working years. But, Sir, we support in principle this particular bill and there is really not much to be said about that, Sir, unless my colleague has something to add where I have left off, 'MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Fisheries. MR.

CROSBI E: I would like just to speak briefly on this bill, Mr. Speaker, because every year since the present government has been in office there has been an increase introduced in the budget for Civil Service, teacher pensioners, and other pensioners who receive their pensions from the Government of Newfoundland. And this year's increase was so that everybody would have a minimum pension of at least $1,200, as the Minister has said, or twelve per cent.

And there were, when we came into office many, many pensions from people who were ex­ postmasters and ex-postmistresses and this kind of job before Confederation where the pension W8S only $100 or $150 a year, $200, or $250. This means that a lot of those people now are going to receive a pension which is greater than the salary they got when they were 7367

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2533 NM - 2 doing those part-time jobs. And the twelve per cent increase, of course .is to help present pensioners with respect to the cost of living. Well this is the third increase, if not the fourth, it is certainly the third increase in the pensions paid to our pensioners by this government since 1972 and I think it is an illustration of the fact that we are trying to look after people who are unorganized and not in any position to put a great deal of pressure on or to secure increases through any organized means of their own.

So I would like to congratulate the minister and simply point that out.

And this together with the fact that this year the government has institued another change so that anyone who served in World War 11 or World War I ·• well, World War II in particular ,and the Armed Forces, who were overseas in the Forestry Service or in the Merchant Navy, that their time counts for pensionable service whether or not they were in the Civil Service or a teacher before they went overseas is another tremendous advance and advantage for our pensioners who go on pension in the future and a tremendous step forward, So I think it is only fair to say, Mr.

Speaker, that in the feld of pensions and looking·after our own pensioners this government has made a tremendous step forward for pensioners and for those who will be going on pension in the future.

The members of the House of Assembly mentioned in this Act, unless there is any suspicious minds, are past ll'embers of the Rouse of Assembly who are now receiving pensions, who are therefor over sixty years of age, or whatever the age is,and who are now out on pension and they of course deserve the same treatment and as any other pensioner and the twelve per cent increase applies to their pensions as well as the other persons' pensions. It has no benefit of course for us who are not pensioned but it is for those who are out on pension. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Meooer for Fogo. CAPT. WINSOR: Mr.

Speaker, as nry colleague stated, we certainly agree and co111111end the government for taking this action. But this is just 7368

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2533 NM - 3 another one of the many aetions which the government are taking this year, along with many other I suppose to come. This seelll$ to be the right year to do those things. And even though we may be heading into an election year we certainly give the government credit for talcing this step. But the one question J: WQuld like to ask the minister when be speaks in the closing of the debate; how does this effect the Federal Civil S.eTVants?

Some of the Federal Civil Servants who iylve served overseas and who came back and worked with the federal government for a short period of time, would they be eligible for this pension and consideration as well? Perhaps when the minister and the !'Tend.er 7369

June 20, 1975. Tape 2534 RH -- 1 get through their conversation there, .,the minister may be able to take note and respond. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable minister speaks now, he closes the debate. l-4R. EARLE: I am sorry, I was distracted there for a moment. The question was about the federal employee. This, Mr. Speaker, is a very complicated issue at the present time. There is some dissatis­ faction expressed by people who transferred to federal employment at the time of Confederation.

It is very complicated by the fact that those who transferred at that time were given the option of leaving their pension which they had acquired under the provincial scheme , or letting it go in with the federal scheme accepting the full federal pension. Some did and some did not. I think there are a sum total of 310 various employees who elected to have their pensions remain with the Provincial Government. Unfortunately, another complication of this was that the Federal Government did not recognize war service.

Naturally these people feel now that because of the action which our government has taken in acknowledging war service that they should be entitled also to receive war service. This is an ongoing question which we are having a great deal of difficulty with. I have had many letters on it. There has to be a lot more discussion before I can give an accurate answer as to what the final decision will be on that. But as of the moment these transferred pensioners who elected to leave their pensions with us are not credited with war service.

The mechanics of it is that where they go to work with the federal public service we transfer their pension payments to the federal service. The federal service combines that with their pension and pays them. '"73-0 f i

June 20, 1975. Tape 2534 RH - 2 The Fedeal Government as of yet does not acknowledge their war service. We think they should. But this is something which has to be thrashed out. On motion second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Awarding Of An Increase Of Pensions To Or In Respect Of Certain F.znployees Of The Government Of Newfoundland, Certain Teachers And Certain Members Of The House Of Assembly," read a second time, ordered referred to a C0111mittee of the Whole House presently by leave. On motion second reading of a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Community Councils Act, 1972." (Bill No. 90) MR.

CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of this bill. The purpose of the bill is simply to give co11111Unity councils the right to pass regulations controlling the licensing and registration of dogs in their own co11111unity, prescribing the form of license and so on. This is a function, of course, that every municipality should have within its own municipal area. The purpose of the amendment is to give co11111unity councils that right. I do not think they have had that power before. MR. SPEAKER(Stagg): The honourable Member for St. Barbe North. MR. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, this particular bill relating to the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not quite as controversial as bill (65) that we spoke to last night. Sir, there is obviously a need to give the local govern111ents or councils the jurisdiction over the licensing of dogs because this problem does exist throughout the Province. As a matter of fact there were a number of communities last summer that I can remember that were virtually taken over by dogs. So, Sir, it appears to be a reasonably sensible act, non-controversial, not earth-shattering but very important to 7371

June 20, 1975 Tape 2535 (morning) IR-1 the local people in various areas where livestock and sheep and this sort of a thing, even farming areas, vegetables are destroyed by roaming dogs and it is a very serious problem to certain communities in the Province. I am happy to see the government bring in this particular amendment and it has our support, Sir. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Community Councils Act, 1972," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave.

On motion second reading of a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Local Government Act, 1972." (Bill No. 91) MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, these are just minor amendments to the Local Government Act. One is to provide or make clear that municipalities have the right to pass regulations fort.he control of dogs within the municipalities the same as we just did 1n connection with the community councils. Another part of the amendment is just clarifying the method of appointment. of a Board of Assessors in a municipality and when they are asked to determine compensation for property taken.

There is to be a Board of Assessors consisting of a chairman and two other assessors. The counc:11 are to appoint one assessor, the owner of the land or property to appoint an assessor and then the both of them, of course, to agree on a chairman. Failing their agreeinp, on a chairman, then the Supreme Court,or judge of the Supreme Court can appoint the chairman. I therefore move second reading of the bill. ~. F. ROWE: Sir, we can dispense with the dogs very quickly but I would like to ask a question with respect to - I do not know if it is quite in order.

It might be a little bit outside of the board butt.his bill deals with an amendment this bill would also amend the principal act, to change the manner of appointment of a Board of Assessors. Sir, okay,that is fine,but would the minister care to indicate to the House, Sir, you know, the difficulty that we have in various areas oft.he Province with respect to assessing property for purposes of taxation presumably. Now, I understand that, you know, there is a big problem even "7 3 7 ,., I , I I..

June 20, 1975 Tape 2535 (morning) IB-2 within the capital city of St. John's where we do have,presumably, a capahle staff at t he council at City Hall. They certainly have the physical plant down there , hut they do have their difficulties in assessing property for taxation purposes. If the capital city has difficulties, presumably the other major towns and cities and certainly the various commun:1 ties throughout the Province would have the same difficulty.

What is the government doing to assist local governments to try to get a reasonable and sensible and fairly streamlined and smooth - running assessing syste m? Maybe it is a little bit outside this particular amendment, Sir, but I ask it for one obvious reason. Resides the imposition of local taxes now for water and what have you by local governments, we are going to have and we have had the imposition of school taxes. In order for that to work - MR. CROSBIE: Are we going to go through All this again? MR • F. J!OWF.: I know, Mr.Speaker.

I am not going to get - the minister, I am not going to launch out on school tax authorities. But, obviously, Sir , if the system is not working properly at the local government level as far as assessment is conc~rned, there are likely to be difficulties with respect to the collection of school taxes. Qne is sort of related to the other. If we can smoothen out the assessment procedure for local governments and tie school taxes into them._ho~1ever desirable, hut tie them into them, obviously we would have a smoother working arrangement et less cost as far as collection is concerned.

So, when the minister speaks in r.losing on the bill, I would appreciate it if he would give some indication of the difficulty encountered in assessing and what the government is doing in trying to rectify the situation and improve it so that the actual collection and administrative procedures will be less costly to the Province and consequently local governments would get more money, more value for the money that is collected. 7373

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2536 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): If the minister speaks he closes the debate. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, what this amendment of course is dealing with is a Board of Assessors not to assess real property within the community for tax purposes .,but if the council expropriates property in the town or injuriously affects property to assess what compensation the owner should get or what damages he should get fro injurious affectation.

Now on the point the honourable gentleman raises about assessment of course is entirely different but it is quite a problem to get sufficient trained assessors for the assessment of real estate within the municipalities. The Department of Municipal Affairs has his own assessment section. They do the original assessments in the towns that are going to, for the first time, impose a property tax and they try to train people in the municipality who can carry on the revisions of the assessments when that comes up every several years as the act requires. So it is a difficult question.

There is always a shortage of assessors and the City of St. John's has the same problem and of course it will be even 1110re so if the City of St. John's changes to a capital value tax rather than a rental tax basis. So Municipal Affairs is doing all it can to assist municipalities and training assessors and in getting more assessors for its own assessment division. It is a difficult problem that will_be with us I imagine for a long time to come yet. I move second reading.

On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Local Government Act, 1972," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. On motion that the House go into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. A bill, "An Act Respecting The Awarding Of An Increase Of Pensions Or In Respect Of Certain Employees Of The Government Of Newfoundland, Certain Teachers and Certain Members Of the House Of Assembly." MR. CROSBIE: Clause (1), there is an amendment to claus~ (1),

June 20, 1975 Tape No . 25 36 NM - 2 subsection (o), "Contribution" in the first line should be "Contributory," "The Me!llbers Of The House Of Asse11lhly Contributory Pension Plan Act." MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the a~dment carry? On motion claus .e 1 as amended carried. MR. CROSBIE: In clause 2 (2), the third line, .the word "to'' should go in after the word "Act' so it reads, "of

Section l of this Act to or in respect of." On motion clause 2 as amended carried, On motion clauses 3 through 6 carried. Motion that the committee report having passed the bill- with some amen.dment, carried, Ab-ill, "An Act Further To Amend The Comnmity Councils A.ct• 1972," On motion clauses 1 and 2 carried. Motion that the co11111ittee report having passed the bill without amendment. A bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Local Government Act, 1972. 11 On motion clauses 1 and 2 carried. MR. CROSBIE: Clause 3 (6) Mr. Chairm,an, (6) last last line, two words, "it or" should go in before ''him", ''it appears to it or him to be desirable." 737 5

June 20, 1975 Tape 2537 (Morning) PK - l MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry? ------- On motion Clause (3) as amended carried. On motion Clauses (4) and (5) carried. Motion that the Committee report having passed the bill with some amendment, carried. A bill, "An Act To Amend The Conveyancing Act." On motion Clause (1) carried. 'MR. CROSBIE: Clause (2) there is an amendment in the third line, the word "clause'' should be "sub-paragraph" t:o read, "by deleting from sub-paragraph(v)." MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry? On motion Clause (2) as amended carried.

Motion that the Committee report having passed the bill with sone amendment, carried. I move that the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. On motion that the Committee rise and report having passed certain bills with and without amendment and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair. MR. STAGG: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and directed me to report having passed bill No. 90 without amendment, and having passed bills No. 89, 91, and 92 with some amendments and ask leave to sit again. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that they have considered the matters to them referred and report having passed Bill No. 90 without amendment, and bills No. 89, 91 and 92 with amendment and ask leave to sit again. On motion report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time now by leave. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Community Councils Act, 1972", (Bill No. 90), read a third time, ordered passed and third be as on the Order Paper. On motion the following bills were passed ,,,ith some amendments.

On motion amendments read a first and se.:ond time, carried. 7376

June 20, 1975 Tape 2537 (Morning) PK - 2 A bill, "An Act Respecting The Awarding Of An Increase Of Pensions To Or In Respect Of Certain Employees Of The Government Of Newfoundland, Certain Teachers And Certain Members Of The Rouse Of Assembly'', (Bill No. 89), read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. A M.11, "An Act Further To Amend The Local Government Act, 1972", (Bill No. 91), read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. A bill, "An Act To Amend The Conveyancing Act", (Bill No • 92), read a third.time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. MR.

CROSBIE: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Minister of Kines and Energy adjourned the debate last day. MR. BARllY Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on this, I will not be too long however. But as a member representing a fishing district,I think I could do no leas than comment on the Report, the very fine Report of the Select Committee on the Inshore Fishery. I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in seeing the concerns that were raised by the fishermen, the issues that were raised that the fishermen indicated that they were concerned about.

And on page 7 of the Report there was a record kept of the nuITTber of times that the main issues were raised. And by far the greatest concern is the issue of declining catches, and that, 737"7

June 20, i<l75. Tape 2538 RH - l of course, I think was obvious to any of us here in the Province, not only the fishermen, but most people in the Province are very concerned about the fact that catches have been declining over recent years. I note that the reasons that fishermen indicate that that they believe cause the~e declining catches are, first, trawler operations, the absence of a two hundred mile limit, gill net use, offshore caplin catches and insufficient patrol and enforcement of existing limits.

So, I would like first to direct my comments to the issue of declining catches and specifically to certain remarks attributed to the honourable Mr. MacEachen following the ICNAF meetings which closed yesterday - or closing today? MR. CROSBIE: Closed yesterday. MR. BARRY: Closed yesterday. Now, l'lr. 11acEachen is quoted as saying today that unilateral action never works. He is quoted as saying that Canada would become involved, that Canada would becaae involved in difficult confrontations with other nations, Mr. Speaker, if unilateral action was taken.

I would like just very briefly to address myself to the international law aspect of this, just very briefly, because this is an area where we see international matters, international activity, international negotiations having a very real impact on people in this Province, namely on our inshore fishermen. Now, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to do a little bit of international law while I was at law school and from what I recall of it there were three ways traditionally that international law is made. One is by custom, and that for a long period of time, for centuries, Mr.

Speaker, was the only way it was made. Another way is by treaty between one or t\10 nations or a group of nations. Another way,which is becoming more predominant,is by the gathering together of many nations or all nations in international conferences and the drawing up of conventions or international rules at these conferences. Now, Mr. Speaker, the last two, treaty and international conference, implies a certain amount of agreement hetween nations. 7.37H

June 20, 1975. Tape 2538 Even in this case, I think, there has been significant agreement or consensus developed over the past year with respect to the need RR - 2 for a two hundred mile limit to protect the fishing reserves, the fishing stocks off our Continental Shelf. But, Mr. Speaker, the first method of making international law, the method that was in use for centuries as the primary method whereby international law evolved, was that of custom. In other words, the manner in which nations behave,and we had, Mr.

Speaker, in international law new rules of international law evolved when nations decided to set out on a particular course of action that was not necessarily the traditional way of acting. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting is that the development of international law by custom often involves unilateral action. It has in the past and it still does,and that when a nation reaches the point where it believes that it is imperative and necessary for international law to change,and it cannot get international agreement, then there is still a place, Mr. Speaker, for unilateral action in international law.

When sufficient nations accept that unilateral action of one country or a number of countries, when considerable or significant acceptance of that as a matter of fact develops. Then 7379

June 20, 1975 Tape 2539 (morning) you have a new rule of international law. The federal government engaged in unilateral action when they exten~ed the fishing limits from the three mile territorial sea to twelve miles. MR. RICKMAN: An even more significant one \·as when they exerted jurisdiction in the Arctic Waters. MR. RARRY: Exactly. Even more significantly when they exerted jurisdiction over Arctic watrrs. These were unilateral acts but these are acts which by now have been accepted by other nations, by many other nations.And this is another point) it does not have Ill-1 to be by all nations, },r.

Speaker, by a significant number, sufficient to show a consensus. These acts have been accepted, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the taking of unilateral action to protect our fisheries would very quickly be accepted, if not by all nations then by a considerable majority of nations. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the time has arrived for the Canadian Government to act and to act decisively. If this does result in confrontation, Mr. Speaker, then so he it. Now, what about confrontation? Well, if Mr.

MacEachen, if the nepartment of External Affairs does not feel that Canada is strong enough to protect itself in the event of taking unilateral action, if the Department of Fxternal Affairs is afraid that Canada will be bullied by other nations, other large nations who will not he prepared to accept Canada's stance in this area, then I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the flnited Nations is there and I submit that Mr.

MacEachen and the federal government should consider if they are afraid that they will be pushed around, that Canada will be bullied, I would submit that they look to the United Nations for protection, that they look for the protection of the United Nations. Now, I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, whether that would be neces!'lary. We see already in the l!n:I tea su,tes,which is not what ynu w0uld call an insiJmificant countr)' in tenns of strength or pnwer, already you see there significant accPnt,mce, l'r. Speaker, in the Senate, in the I-louse of Reoresentatives, <'f thP concept of 73:30

.Tune 2n, 1975 Tape 253° (morning) rn-2 the Tln1 ted States tav1 nr, unilateral action. We have seen little Jcelancl that has heen engagecl in a course of unilateral action for some time now. We see South /lmerican countries such as Peru that has been taking ,mi lateral action. Now, Mr. Speaker, these countries have not heen attackecl.

War has not been declared on the.m. 'l'he.y have not been pushecl around, I submit that Cann cl a would not be pushed around, Canada would not he attackecl if it decided that unilateral action was the way to go, Peni has been claiming a 200 mile limit for, I think, since some time in the 1Q401 s, and they have heen arresting American tuna boats, for example, and fishinP, hoats,going out there and capturinP, them and hr1ngfop, them in, suhmitt.inp; them to very heavy fines 1mcl RO on. l am not saying that we would have to be as aggressive as Peru or that we wonld have t.o go as far as they have gone.

But WE' can go - there is a happy medium that can be reached that would protect our fishing stocks. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention another basic principle of international law. That is that regardless of whether there is a specific rule of international law that says that a country can do this or clo that, there is one hasic assumption on which all international law is founded. That is that any nation is entitled to do that which is necessary for its survival. Any nation is f'ntitled to take the action necessary to protect its own existence, l ts own survival. I would suhrnit, '-'r.

Speaker, that although the fishery may not have too much importance in central Canacla,that T can t~ll the Department of External Affairs, the federal government, that it is a matter of survival for us hP.re in this Province. It ts a matter of survival fort.he other Atlantic Provinces and I would suhmit also probably for British Columbia, that we continue to have a strong, viable fishery. This, Yr.

Speaker, if it has not r.eachecl the stage where it is a matter of survival, this is another reason why I submit that C.anarla 's unilateral action wo11ld r,ipirlly gain acceptance by other nations, hecause they realize th,it 7381

June 20, 1975. Tape 2540 RH - 1 Canada,with an inunense Coastline on hoth Coasts,w:f.th a very important fishing industry,has no choice but to ta~e unilateral action if it cannot by any other means gain protection of this very basic resource. Now, Mr. LeBlanc is quoted in the paper today as making a very significant statement. He is quoted as saying that he is aware that some countries have deliberately violated international fishing agreements. Canada is aware that certain nations that have entered into agreements with Canada have violated those.

Now, I ask what action has the Federal Government taken in recognition of this fact? What has the Federal Government done about it? I am not aware of anything. I notice that it is only in the last few days while the ICNAF conference was on they had even deemed it necessary to mention this and press publicly. I think that this is ridiculous. If Canada believes that it cannot afford to take unilateral action, that it must resort to treaties or agreements , and then in the same breath says that well, the agreements we already have are being ignored by other nations, Mr.

Speaker, it does not make sense to me then to continue to rely on the same method of agreement that has been carried out in the past. If nothing else, Mr. Speaker, better surveillance, better enforcement of the agreements that we now have is long overdue.

Another fact that is brought out hy the Minister of Fisheries,and I heard an American expert confirming it the other day, and that is even with respect to the existing agreements setting certain quotas they are meaningless,even if there was not these deliberate violations,they are meaningless because all they are counting is the catch that they actually keep and process. They are not counting what the American expert indicated was probably half their total catch that they are throwing over the side. What is it they call it - the by-catch, the by-catch.

This American expert,who seemed to know what he was talking about.said that in his opinion as much again was heing thrmm away as ~,all being l<ept, that thev are onlv 7382

June 20, 1975. Tape 2540 recording half the catch and the quotas are being set on the basis of what is being reported as cod. MR. MURPHY: Why would it be thrown away then? RH - 2 MR. BARRY: It is being thrown away because you may have a factory ship that is set up to process cod and if it gets flounder or another species is not interested in processing it or may be not capable of processing it, so it is over the side with it. MR. NEARY: All of them. MR. BARRY: Small fish and so on.

If you look at it in what this expert referred to as bio-111oss terms, the total amount of fish whether by weight or volume caught , only one-half is being reported. So the quotas are meaningless. They are based on the wrong information. So, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this problem of declining catches, a problem which is of very great concern to our inshore fishermen as indicated by this Select Co11111ittee Report, it is time for the Federal Government to act and to act decisely, not to be afraid of some country engaging in a confrontation with it.

If, as I said, it is afraid of being bullied, then appeal for the protection of the United Nations. The other item that I would like to refer to with respect to this declining catch is the issue of gill nets, the monofiliment nylon or other synthethic material gill net, that is lost and according to some fishermen continues to catch fish, continues to fill up and then the fish decompose and then it fills up again. It is what they call ghost nets in certain places around the Province, a very evocative phrase, I think, the ghost net.

You can picture all these nets out there looking around the beach, just continuing to catch fish. Now, there is some dispute as to whether this is what actually happens. Some fishermen say that these nets very quickly , after one catch or two catches become fouled and entangled and so on, that they do not continue to catch. But this appears to me to be 7383

June 20, 1975 Tape No, 2541 NM - 1 an area where research should give the answer very quickly and I think it is another indication of the abysmal failure of the federal government to live up to its responsibilities to have the proper and adequate research carried out, so that we can make decisions. How can we make decisions if we do not have the basic data on which to base them? And the federal research not only in this area but in other areas has been abysmal. Terrible! ShockingJ Shameful! Mr. Speaker, there are many other points I could advert to in the report but there will be other speakers in the debate.

I would like to say that I am glad to s(,e the reference to the concern of the Placentia Bay fishermen for the interference with tankers in Placentia Bay, the dangers that are caused the inshore fishermen in crossing the routes of these tankers, the need for navigational aids being supplied to the fishermen.

And I would like to say how much I appreciate,and I know the fishermen appreciate it, the fact that the honourable Minister of Fisheries, one of the first steps he took on undertaking his new portfolio was to go out and meet with the fishermen of Placentia Bay, to discuss this problem and to give them certain commitments with respect to government support for the supplying of navigational aids and also for researching any legal case they may have with respect to interference by the refinery operations. One other final point, Mr.

Speaker, that I think we have to be concerned about and this deals with the point that the fishermen are very concerned obviously about the problems in marketing and the lov prices that they are receiving and I think the Select Committee very properly pointed out the need for adequate quality control, I think there is a statement here in the report that in many cases it is not that markets for fish generally has declined but that markets for Newfoundland fish has declined and they attribute this to some deterioration in the quality of our fi s h over the years and I think this is an area again where very positive action can and must be taken. 7384

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2541 NM - 2 Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like, as I am sure all members will express my appreciation for the hard work that went into this report and to say that I know our government will give it very, very serious consideration. MR. MURPHY: Very good "Leo". MR. SPEAKER (STAGG): The Member for St. Barbe North. MR. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations and sincere thanks to the Select Committee on the Inshore Fisheries and I do that, Sir, for a special reaeon because at one stage of the game during proceedings of the hearings that were being held I was misunderstood and criticized,but possibly misunderstood, for a statement I had made with respect to the Select Committee. I think the general

interpretation of the statement that I had made was that the Select Committee hearing procedures were a waste of time and 1110ney on the part of this administration. Sir, that was not the message or the

interpretation I certainly meant to leave with this House of Assembly or the committee members or the fishermen or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador . Sir, one only has to look through this Committee Report and see that there is a great deal of data and information and statistics and policy recommendations affecting as well the federal domain and then action recommendations following that.

But, Sir, the statistics and the data contained in this report is a monumental achievement in itself, It is one of these cases, Sir, where there is not one single thing new, not a single thing new in this Select Committee Report, a piece of data new that we all did not have some idea of, or some knowledge of, Certainly the fishermen knew about it and anybody representing fishing districts and anybody concerned with the fisheries of Newfoundland knew the sorts of things that is contained in this Report.

But it is refreshing, Sir, and it is good to see it documented black on white,because at least when you got this data and this information, these recommendations -, ,.. n r I .J.J.J

June 20, 1975 Tape 2542 (morning) Ill-1 in hlack and white, hopefully there will he some action on the part of the various authorities to try to rectify the problems that are facing the fisheries today. So, Sir, what I did say was this,and I will repeat it, that the setting up of a Select Committee on the fisheries could be looked at aa good public relations, getting government, getting government members, officials to meet with the fishermen in their own areas. It is a pity that the areas were limited, Sir, but time was of the essense. But the point is this, Sir.

If you look at the various high levels of negotiations ?and conventions,and conferences that have been held,and hearings that have been held,we all have the same answer, the same result , weather you are talking about the Law of the Sea Conference or ICNAF or this select,our own little provincial Select Committee, whether you are talking about these three levels, there is one common denominator, Sir. There are two common denominators really. The problems are the same. The problems are the same.

The same problems that have been brought forth by this Cammi ttee Report are the same types of problem  as relate to Canada,as you would have brought up at the Law of the Sea Conference or with ICNAF. Now, there might be different mechanism , different authorities that you would have to deal with in rectifying the problem but the problems are the same whether you are in Geneva or whether you are in Scotland or whether you are here in Newfoundland. Unfortunately, Sir - and I think we are in total agreement on this - unfortunately the results have been the same. What are the results?

The results have been very little activity on the part of either international, national, Canadian national or provincial domains, very little action in these three domains to protect one of our vital and most valuable natural resources, and that of course is the resource as contained in the Continental Shelf off our coast. So, Sir, this is what I meant when I had a certain skeptical view , and it might have been interpreted as a certain negative view . towards the action of the, and the whole concept of a Select Committee . Very valuable information and recommendations we have gotten, good 7386

June 20, 1975 Tape 2542 (morning) IB-2 relations, good liaison with the fishermen and the people involved, hut, Sir, my skepticism - certainly one that was not cynicism - but my skepticism was that the results would be the same as the results that we have gotten from the Law of the Sea Conference and the ICNAF situation. Sir, the provincial government that sits here today and the Liberal Opposition that sits here today see eye to eye on the problems that exist and what actions should be taken in order to resolve these problems.

Sir, any attempt - every now and then, Sir, this present administration takes advantage of a situation to criticize and condemn the federal g.overnment. It is a part of their overall strategy, Sir, in running up to the next provincial election - slap the federal government whenever they get a chance and this also involves the fisheries. But, Sir, the honourable member did not go overboard today, the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy, but he took a half-hearted slap at the federal boys in Ottawa and criticized them for the lack of action. Sir, this problem has existed with us for a great number of years.

I might remind honourable gentlemen opposite that in criticizing a federal government we have to criticize two parties, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party becauae we did have a Diefenbaker era when we did have this same problem. It probably did not have the publicity. It did not have the publicity then that it has now because our natural resources, Sir, whether terrestrial or aquatic,' 7387

June 20, 1975 Tape 2543 (Morning) PK - 1 were considered, were taken for granted by, I think, a lot of people. The average red-blooded Newfoundlander took our terrestrial and our aquatic resources for granted. They existed. The forests exist, the minerals exist, the fresh water exists, the resources of the sea, the crustaceans and the other fish existed and there was an abunadance thereof.

And consequently then we had, of course, this environmental, no, well the emphasis on in control of the environment and control and ownership and the conservation of our natural resources whether they be on the land or in the sea. And it is at this point in time that so 111Uch consideration is being given to this particular problem. So, Sir, I can only say that the present administration and the present Liberal Opposition in this House of Assembly see eye to eye on going after Ottawa with the greatest of strength and the grace of unity to try to get them to take unilateral actim.

Now I realize that MacEachen is not incorrect when he says that this could involve serious confrontation if Canada acts, takes unilateral action. I do not think that MacEachen says that it is not possible, as the minister indicated. It is not possible to take unilateral action, it is impossible - the minister did not say that. He says that innaediate action, immediate unilateral action would probably cause serious confrontations with other nations of the world. Well, Sir, I am almost attempted to say be danged - AN HON. MEMBER: MR. F. ROWE: first. MR. CROSBIE: Hear! Hear! - with serious confrantations.

Let us try it out It is time it happened. MR. F. ROWE: If we are going to - let us see if the risk is involved. MR. CROSBIE: Lay on there, boy! Lay on! MR!_ F. ROWE: I must be going right up the garden path on this one, Sir , to get the approval of the Minister of Fisheries. I must be going right up the garden path and I expect to get clobbered this afternoon. MR. ROBERTS~ 1-ffi. F. ROWE: By your own leader. By my own leader. By the federal government or my O'-m leader when the minister nods his approval in such an enthusastic manner. 7 3 0 t.( ' CJ ~.,

June 20, 1975 Tape 2543 (Morning) PK - 2 MR. COLLINS : Come over here and sit down: MR. R. ROWE: But, Sir, - no,we are in total agreement! There is no difference between this side and that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, on the problem and on the solution to the problem. We are as outspoken and as interested in getting the federal government to act on this issue as is the present administration. What we do not do for obvious reasons is try to get a bit of political mileage out of it because we will be attacking our own party, you know, our own international party, our own federal party,

whereas the boys opposite, the honourable boys opposite, Sir, can lash away at the federal ~overnment because they are Liberal. I would love, Sir, to see the lashing away if the Hon. Mr. Stanfield was the Leader of the government. I wonder what the honourable minister and honourable gentlemen opposite will be saying at this stage of the game? But, Sir, we are united in spirit, in actions, and in sincerity in trying to get the federal government to move more quickly and firmly in gaining ownership and control over the Continental Shelf of Canada. Not just Newfoundland, it is of Canada.

Ang, Sir, I would go so far as to say , what do we mean by confrontation~ S0111ebody in Russia is going to get upset, someone in Japan is going to get upset, somebody in China is going to get upset? If that is confrontation let them get upset! MR. COLLINS: They are upset anyway. MR. F. ROWE: They are upset anyway. If they are going to come over with a fleet of bombers, Sir, 7389

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2544 NM - 1 - that is a very big "if" - if confrontation means war, I would suggest as the minister related too, there is such a thing as the United Nations,and I cannot quite see the Third World War starting as a result of us taking \lllilateral action over the Continental Shelf. MR, MURPHY: The Battle of Plum Point. MR. ROWE: The Battle of Plum Point the honourable Member from St. John's Centre was so familiar with the Straits of Belle Isle suggests.

I think a famous quote, Sir, to Captain Josh O'Driscoll - I should not bring it up,I suppose- when he was talking to the P.M. on an open line television programme once when Captain O'Driscoll asking for an armed forces base in Newfoundland, the Prime Minister replied that he d~d not think that in the Third World War the army would be landing on the shores of Come By Chance. MR. BARRY: Ironically, you know, that is a very strategic place now. MR.ROWE: I say that for a reason,obviously,and the minister is obviously thinking along the same lines, We have, Sir, the Stephenville Air Base.

We have the Gander Air Base, We have, well we will call it Torbay Airport. We have the Argentia area and now we are going to presumably have the Goose Bay complex within a year or, yes within a year, MR.BARRY: Call up China and see if they would not be interested in them, MR, ROWE: Right. I am suggesting, Sir, that as far as surveillance is concerned that we got sitting on our very shores the basis of operation for proper surveillance.

It is inexcusable that any govermaent, federal or provincial, Liberal or P.C., can suggest and admit that there are known violations of agreements,and for people to suggest,as did Mr. Carter, I believe, Mr. Carter described as ridiculous and impossible Canada's demand that member nations in the International Convention of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, ICNAF, reduce their fishing effort outside Canada's twelve mile limit to forty per cent. Mr. Carter, the Federal Member for St.

John's West has said that it is ridiculous and impossible for Canada to control, set up controls in order to reduce by forty per cent the catch by member nations of ICNAF outside the twelve mile limit.

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2544 NM - 2 I say, Sir, that statement is in itself ridiculous. It is possible, We do have an armed force here in Canada. We do have an armed force. We have aircraft and we have naval ahips. We got a base in Halifax. We could have a base anywhere in Newfoundland, in any one of the bays. ,as a base of operation for naval ships for purposes of surveillance, We are going to have Goose. We got Argentia, We got ftcphenville.

I suggest, Sir, that the federal govemwient can set in a proper surveillance system in order to control foreign countries from depleting our fish stocks according to the ICNAF suggestion of reduction by forty per cent outside the twelve mile limit, I do not think that suggestion is impossible, That is not the moat desirable solution. But control and surveillance by the extent of forty per cent outside the twelve mile limit, for whatever area that includes, is better than nothing.

And I suggest that one of the first piorities of the present administration should be to get in contact with Ottawa, particularly in view of yesterday's tragic announcement which,by the way,is not quite so tragic after all if you look into it. There is a heavy loss of jota. There is a very heavy loss of jobs. That is very tragic. But what can be done with these facilities may turn out to be in the best interest of this province in the long run, because there are going to be a certain number of facilities left. 7391

June 20, 1975 Tape 2545 (morning) IB-1 There are airstrips all over the place. Now, let us get on our boots, let us get up to Ottawa and let us bang into those stunned bureaucrats up there , because it is obvious that we have them - any Minister of External Affairs who is unaware of an agreement of the Americana to pull out within a year from a major installataion up in Goose Bay, who is unaware of that because some clot is sitting up there on a desk or in a desk and does not make the minister aware of that si~uation should be sent to Goose Bay as the next mayor, I suppose. MR. PECKFORD: Sent to Saudi Arabia. MR.

F. ROWE: Or sent to Saudi Arabia or sent somewhere, put in an open dory and sent out in the Straits of Belle Isle or something. I am getting carded away with that particular point. But, everybody knew, Sir, the provincial govern111ent knew, the Liberal Opposition knew, the federal government knew that the lease was going to terminate in June, And every man and woman and child in the area knew, I suppose. So it is not the great shock that people are suggesting.

You know, honourable members opposite can try to get some political advantage out of it, but instead of getting political advantage out of it, let us go after Ottawa now and say,"Look! Rere is a base. Here is the great, hundred mile Lake Melville. Here is Argentta. Here is, you know, other bases throughout the Province.

Let us set up a proper naval and aircraft surveillance system so that we can at least take care of the situation that came out of the ICNAF Conference, forty per cent reduction.' 1 And besides that, Sir, let us all unite together, all Newfoundlanders together and go after Ottawa for unilateral action on the imposition of the 200 mile limit and/or the extension of the Continental Shelf,whichever is greater , and find out what kind of a confrontation we are going to get.

If we are going to get a squeak from Russia, we will squeak back, If we get a bomb from Russia - I do not know if we can give a born), back. but I think that is a little bit outside of the realm of possibility. There is no war. There is no war. MR. COLLINS: We can set the water bombers on them. '-IP, r. !'(NE: We can drop St. 7392

June 20, 1975 Tape 2545 (morning) IB-2 Pierre alkie on them if necessary. Rut, there is not going to be a war, Sir, over this. There is not going to be - I do not think we are going to have gunboat diplomacy over this. I think it will be just a case of Canada taking a very strong stand. I think, Sir, Canada is a little hit sensitive about its position in the world, the peace nation of the world. MR. PECK FORD: A myth. MR. F. ROWE: The - oh no, no myth. It is the - Canada is the peace nation of the world.

It is the negotiator of the world, the arbitrator - you know, when you get confrontations between nations, usually Canada is somewhere in between. They are not sitting on the fence now,hut the buffer. I think Canada is very sensitive of its important buffer role,or peace role in this world. They would want to he the last nation in this world to he accused of gunboat diplomacy,for instance. But, unilateral action is not punboat diplomacy. Unilateral action, Sir, is preserving the rightful heritage of this nation. That is pofnt number one.

But unilateral action is not only preserving the nation of Canada's rights to these offshore mineral and oil, gas, fisheries -the biological aspect of it-rights. It is also really protecting the world because if we do have over fishing on - and the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy mentioned that the quota system that is being used, the formula that is being used, you know, the catch,not counting what is being dumped overboard, is ridiculous.

This is evidence that the imposition of a 200 mile limit and proper surveillance and control by aircraft and naval vessels is not only in the best interests of Canada and Newfoundland but also in the best nations' 7393

Jtme 20, 1975 Tape No. 2546 NM - 1 of the globe because if you read any of the authorities on pollution and conservation and environment as far as the sea is concerned, this globe is in danger as far as pollution is concerned and as far as overfishing or lack of conservation. So, Sir, it is as simple as that. I would like to go on record as congratulating the Committee for doing an excellent job, an excellent job.

However, I would like to go on record as also suggesting that the Report of this Committee will suffer the same fate possibly, have the same hazards, have the same difficulties as more major attempts to solve this problem, namely the Law of the Sea Conference and ICNAJo" and the Newfoundland Fishermen Food and Allied Workers Association, the industry, the Minister of Fisheries, the provincial government, the federal government. You know, we all got the same problems, we are all going to have the same problems with these problems.

I say the time has come for all political eliments in Newfoundland to impress upon Ottawa the importance of establishing this 200 mile limit without hesitation and let us take confrontation on the cheek and fight back. Because, Sir, it is significant that the honourable Minister of Justice and the honourable Minister of Fisheries when they spoke a few weeks ago on this, and I noted this down, no quotes, but they both endorsed, they both endorse the actions of the federal government to this date. Now why would both ministers actually endorse the federal government on actions to that date?

Because both ministersi,being responsible men~recognized and realized the difficulties with respect to old and existing treaties between nations. They have been at the Law of the Sea Conference , and I am no expert on it, but they have seen the problems. They have talked with the people with whom they have to deal and some of them I would suggest are quite unreasonable. But they did agree and endorse the actions of the federal government to date. Now I would suggest that we should all disagree with the actions 739 /j.

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2546 NM - 2 of the federal government if they do not indicate that they are willing to take =ilateral action or- the establishment of the 200 mile limit, not only to preserve the welfare of the nation and this province but in fact that of the globe as a whole. Now, Sir, I think I have practically said everything that I wanted to say - 200 mile limit, confrontation, violation, right!

I do not know if the honourable Minister of Fisheries was in the Rouse at the time but I would like to re-emphasize that with the Stephenville situation and the Argentia situation and now with the pending Goose Bay situation and with our multitude of harbours and bays in this province there is no reason why the whole East Coast cannot be properly, a proper surveillance could not be set up and controls set up by bases of operation established in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We got a magnificent opport\lllity at our doorsteps, particularly with the Goose Bay situation that can be converted from a tragic situation into one that could help the nation as a whole, You know,obviously more will be done but I think consideration should be given to Goose, Argentia and Stephenville being used as bases of operation in our various bays. And let us get on with the job. Let us impress upon the federal government the need for this unilateral action and let us test out the nations of the world and see what kind of confrontations we are going to get.

If we are going to get verbal confrontations, great, so what? Carry on. If we are going to get nuclear confrontations obviously the - 7395

June 20, 1975 Tape 2547 (Morning) PK - 1 Mi.. CROSBIE: You would have to think twice. MR. F. ROWE: Yes. We would give it serious consideration. you know, before going out there. Sir. So we are all together on this, Sir, There is no political advantage to be gained by either side, and I sincerely hope that the present administration will not avail themselves of this opportunity to get a few more cracks at the boys up in Ottawa because we, you know. they should have taken a few cracks at poor old Dief when he was in charge.

And they better not crack too hard, Sir, because it is conceivable, it is unlikely, but it is conceivable, I suppose it is possible, improbable, but possible that in the next federal election the Progressive Conservatives under this great Lougheed could sneak into power, sweep her, as the Hon. Member from Burgeo suggests, Sir - MR. EVANS: Fishery problems would be solved overnight. MR. F. ROWE: - and if this problem has not been resolved by then, Sir, I am wondering what kind of slapping this administration will be doing then.

Of course, Sir, that would be highly improbable as well because at that stage of the game they may not be the administration. MR. EVANS: Fat chance! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. F. ROWE: So, Sir, ending on that jovial note I juat wiah to say that it is a good report. We are altogether oa that and I aa sincere in suggesting that we should get together boots and all and banner away at the federal government in a responsible manner and try to get them to impose that 200 mile limit without any further delay. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bonavista South. MR. J. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, I an surprised that so far in this debate the actual meat of the report itself has not been dealt with - and I am referring to the recommendations - and maybe I am not the right member of the House to stand and comment at all on the report, being a member of the conanittee who drew up the report, so I cannot comment on whether it is a good report or a bad report. But I will 739b

June 20, 1975 Tape 2547 (Morning) PK - 2 have to, I feel compelled to make a number of comments with regards to the recommendations and with regards to the problems that we encountered while gathering information around the Province. When I say compelled, I feel compelled because my district is depending primarily on the fishing industry.

And I would not be doing my duty to my district if I did not say a few words:and maybe not too passionate a speech but a few words to elaborate the points made in the report . and to comment on what I feel was the role of the members of the committee, the Select COIIDllittee of the House of Assembly who drew up that report. Mr. Speaker, the report has now being tabled in the House of Assembly, It has been tabled after extensive work over a short period of time.

And I am going to begin my few remarks by saying that I feel that my obligation has just begun despite the fact that the rules of the House, I think, point out quite clearly that when a Select Committee of the House is appointed to make a report, once that report is made that Committee is no longer standing. But I feel that my obligation to the fishermen that I saw around the Province, my main obligation as a member of this House of Assembly, as a member of that Committee is to do everything possible in my power to make sure that the recommendations of that report are carried out.

And in doing so it means that I am going to have to put whatever pressure I can on this government, the government of which I am a member as a backbencher,because I feel that the efforts of a backbencher or any member of this Legislature in dealing with the federal government is going to be very ineffective. The federal jurisdiction is the question that I will deal with at the end of my speech. 7397

June 20, 1975 Tape 2548 (morning) IB-1 But, Mr. Speaker, in travelling around the Province we started off in St. John's and went out to Carbonear and Placentia, Harbour Breton, Marystown, Port aux Basques, Plum Point, Port au Choix, Forteau on the Labrador Coast, Ronavista, Twillingate, Wesleyville, Fogo. I cannot forget the faces of these fishermen. It might sound like a rather passionate type speech I am going to make today, but I cannot forget these fishermen that I saw at these meetings.

I am sure when the chairman of our Committee, when he speaks in this debate will relay my feelings as well because his feelings are basically the same as mine, I am sure of that, in fact, all members of the Committee.Because the mood of the fishermen was one when we met them and first talked to them, and they saw us coming out as politicians, was one of complete frustration. They were frustrated, did not know where to tum to, did not know what to do.

They were humble men, humble men who maybe over the past number of years should have been more militant, militant in trying to get something done to overcome a crisis in the industry they were trying to make a livelihood from. At the first few meetings it seemed that the fishermen were very hesitant in coming forward and giving us their views. Maybe not only hesitant but also they were sort of indicating, well, what is the use. We have told these stories before. We have seen report after report being made on the fisheries over and over and over.

I read a report which was made in 1953, a very, very thick report on the fisheries. Another one was made in 1965, a very comprehensive report on the fisheries. The fishermen saw these reports and they saw that no action was taken. So it was not the fact that they were hesitant in being humble, shy type individuals in not coming forward mak1ng their views known to us as a committee of the House of Assembly, but they were of the opinion it was useless. But, after two or three meetings, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure every member of the Committee, the Member for Bay de Verde and the Member for Harbour Grace and Port de Grave who is in the House today, they saw what I saw. They 7398

June 20, 1975 Tape 2548 (morning) saw the fishermen suddenly begin to bu:lld up hope, that these fellows were not a Government committee, they were not a Royal IB-2 Commis,ion. They saw us as members of the Newfoundland Legislature and they began to build up the hope, "If anytlling can be done for us, these are the people who can do something for us. They are the people who represent the people of the Province.

They are the people who represent us, not a Government committee, not a partisan committee but a Commit tee of all the parties in the House of Assembly. 11 As the chairman opened each meeting he stressed this point to them.of what we were and what we hoped and wanted to do. After two or three meetings the fishennen started to spill out their guts to us, to give us all their problems, talked openly to us­ they are our .problems.

Each meeting after the first two or three they looked forward in these comm1J11ities to our Committee coming into their areas to give them the opportunity to have a say, have a say in what they think should be done for the fisheries. We heard comments like, "We are counting on you fallows. You are our last hope. If you fellows do not do anything for us, we II might as well lie down and forget it. Comments like that coming from the fishermen at our meetings~ I recall one meeting which I think hit home to us all more so than others. It was in Port aux Basques.

It was on a sort of a rainy afternoon and the hall where the meeting was held was filled and people kept coming to the doors to come in and they could not get in. Every chair was filled and standing room was filled. Here was a group of humble, hard working, husky type fishermen who came in there and sat first of all quietly and listened and then very quietly came forward and gave us the views of 7399

June 20, 1975. Tape 2549 RR - 1 men of desperation, men of desperation. They were pleading with us, "For God's sake do something for us. This is our only way of livelihood. We have nothing else to look forward to, nothing to count on. Do not let us down - these kind of co111nents. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, after we got the mood of the fishermen, after we saw them, how genuinely, sincerely they were in counting on us, I think the role of our Co11111ittee is far from over. Each and every member of the Committee must be a watchdog.

I believe in those recomnendations in this report and every member of the Conmittee believes in them the same as I do. Things can be done to help these fishermen, to help the fishing industry. It is useless to take this report and table it in this House and in six months time it is still tabled somewhere,and in six months time the reconmendations made not acted on. Mr. Speaker, here is one member of the House of Assembly, as a member of that Committee, who is not going to tolerate inaction on this report. I am not going to tolerate inaction £ran my own government.

I am going to be continuously, if I have to be, outspoken in the House of Assembly, and outspoken outside the House of Assembly. I know the fishermen are counting on us. I would not have the nerve to go back to Port aux Basques,whether it be two years or three years~or to go to Carbonear or Bonavista or Wesleyville or Fogo or Tw:f.llingate or Forteau on the Labrador Coast, I would not have the nerve to go back there and have a fisherman ask me, ''Were you not one of the fellows who came in here in 1975 begging us for information on the fisheries and asking what we wanted done as fishermen?

Were you not one of these men?" And I would have to say, "Yes." I would not have the nerve to do it, Mr. Speaker, without saying to them, "Look, here is what was done as a result of our report and of our work:' None of us went through hardship like they did. We did go through hardship in travelling on the Labrador and the Northwest Coast. None of us, we were not getting paid for doing it. We were 7 ,~ 00

.June 20, 1975. Tape 2549 RH - 2 doing a job we all believed in, doing a job for the fishermen, to help the fishermen of this Province and to help the fishing industry. All of us, I am sure I speak for all of us, are not going to tolerate anything but action on this report. Now, so the report is made, the recoumendations are made and now we need action. There is no point in any member of this Assembly standing up and saying that. "Oh, we must demand this from the Federal Government, we must demand that of the Federal Government." That was known prior to our report. Sure, we all know that. Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of recommendations in this report that do not need any federal involvement at all. I want to deal with these first because I feel that the onus is on the Provincial Government to take action and action immediately on the recommendations that are strictly under the domain at the provincial level of government. Mr. Speaker, some of the recommendations might look like minor recommendations, unimportant recommendations. They were not mentioned by any speaker, I do not think, to date.

Like, for example, the very simple little request made by a CODIDlittee who heard the views of the fishermen, a simple little request like this one, and the honourable Member from Harbour Grace will know what I am talking about because he was ouite adamant on this one himself, "To 8Jllend existing regulations to insure that fishermen are given priority in the sale by tender of all boats repossessed by the Fisheries Loan Board." Meeting after meeting we heard stories of fishermen who had their boats repossessed and he saw some businessmen in their community end up with their boat using it for pleasure, a pieasure craft.

A man who spent his lifetime putting all his earnings in savings into a boat and finally he found himself in a bad situation, a bad year and he ended up losing his boat. The boat was repossessed. Under 7401

June 20, 1975 Tape 2550 (morning) rn-1 the present regulations of the Loan Board if the boat is more than five years old, tenders are called and that boat does n,1t have to go back into the fishing industry. The regulations state if it is repossessed and tendered within a five year period, that boat must be still used in the fishery. Many boats more than five years old in the Province are repossessed.

Fishermen, many fishermen who see these advertisements in the paper about a boat that is repossessed and now tenders being called for it, they make bids for these boats but because they have not got the funds or the financing that a businessman in the same community has or a merchant or even a travelling tourist - it has happened as well - can come in and bid on that boat and get it because he has more financial means and the fishermen see a boat that was prosecuting the fishery last year now being used as a pleasure craft. That is one little regulation that can be changed overnight by the provincial government.

To tie into the same kind of a regulation the recommendation points out as well, the part of the same recommendation 1 to require that any vessels in the future, any vessels constructed by provincial institutions such as,for example, the Fisheries College and the vocational training schools under any training scheme~whether it be Canada Manpower or under the Fisheries programme provincially or what, no matter what they may be, that these boats he first of all designed for effective use in the fishery and,number two, to be sold to fishermen on a priority basis.

During our Committee meetings we had a situation, I think it was out in Upper Island Cove,! think it was, a situation where a man was trying to get a boat from the College of Fisheries and he lost that boat by bid because one of the instructors, one of the instructors at that school outbid him and took the boat for what purpose we do not know. It was not for fishing. But a fisherman who wanted a boat because he was not given priority on his bid - the other man had bid a few dollars more than he did who happened to he an instructor at the same school that built the boat, got the boat.

That kind of thing can be prevented ln the future hy means of 7 ~ 0 ,, : '-r . ( .•

June 20, 1975 Tape 2550 (morning) changing a simple little regu~ation. These might seem like minor recommendations but they are important to the fishermen. So, if they are important to the fishermen they are important to this Report. M"r. Speaker, one of the recommendations that was not mentioned by the other speakers today here, one which we heard continuously over and over and ov~r at meetings, one of the major complaints was the cost of gear.

IB-2 In the Report the recommendation states that in the future that government take immediate steps - we are talking in this case about provincial government, at least I am. I am sure the Report does not specify provincial or federal but in this case the provincial government can take the action, take immediate steps for the wholesale purchase at cost from the manufacturers of all major pieces of fishing gear provided of course that the retail distribution of such gear will be accomplished through a collective agency of the fishermen themselves.

In other words what we are saying there is that, let the government go out and purchase the gear at cost from the manufacturers and get rid of the profiteering that is now going on by some of the suppliers of gear. I am convinced - maybe there are members in this House of Assembly who are not convinced - I am convinced that profiteering is going on in the supply of fishing gear in this Province. A report was made, we refer to that report in our Report made by a group of professors at the university, I think, our university. llaybe I can find the report and refer to it.

That report to me was, and I repeat, I repeat it twice, a lot of hogwash. The report did not have extensive research. The report did not do a deep enough study to determine if there is profiteering in the supply of fishing gear, if the supply of fishing gear to the fishermen in this Province - if the prices are boosted up simply for the sake of profits going into the supplier. 740J

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2551 NM - 1 The report I am referring to is a study of gear prices and gear bank feasibility by Messrs. Hanson, Poynter and Sexty of the university here in St. John's, Memorial University,and our Report also says, our study here says that the Committee does not agree with the depth of the study nor with all the conclusions contained therein of this report with regards to the price of fishing gear.

I personally think that, like I said, the report was not, there was not enough research work done and I am convinced as a member of the Legislature, as a member of the Committee, that there is outright profiteering in the supply of fishing gear and it must be stopped in future because the fishermen are being ripped off, number one,and number two,the government is being ripped off. When I say the govermnent is being ripped off I will explain how and why. MR. CROSBIE: Give us some proof on where the profiteering was. MR.

MORGAN: For example,the supply of gear to John Leckie - and I documented these cases last year when I tried to get an investigation under The Combines Investigation Act of Canada. The cases I had shown and documented were this. The supply from the manufacture 0f the gear to John Leckie had gone up by ten per cent

whereas the same gear supplied to the fishermen had gone up sixty-five per cent. I think these were the figures at that time. So the cost of the gear of ~r. Leckie or John Leckie and Son Limited,the supply of gear locally in Newfoundland, the largest supplier anyway, the fishermen of Bonavista Bay buy their supplies from him, The cost to him has not gone up more t~an tenner ~ent but the cost to the fishermen has increased by sixty-five per cent and the question mark in my mind is 1 why?

So I have requested the federal government to look at the matter through The Combines Investigation Act, mainly to look at the lack of competition and if there was a conspiracy to fix these prices, not only a conspiracy to fix prices but also to eliminate competition because the same Bupplier bought out a number of local suppliers. He bought out one supplier the ye<1r before last who was supplying gear to the fishermen of Bonavista Bay.

J une 20, 1975 Tape No. 2551 NN - 2 So there i s pro f i tee r ing in my view with regards to the supply of fishing gear and I said the fishermen are being ripped off and the government are being ripped off because in the second case whenever the governme.nt increase their subsidy on fishing gear the price of the gear went up accordingly. So the question mark was.why~ Hr . Speaker, I now adjourn the debate until this afternoon . HR. SPEAKER: I t has be~ noted the honourable Member for Bonavista South has adjourned the debate , and 1 do now leave the Chair until three o'clock this afternoon . 7 40~,

June 20, 1975 The House resumed at 3:00 P.H. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape 2552 (Afternoon) PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before we proceed I would just like to say that under The Parliamentary Connnissioner (Ombudsman) Act the Speaker or the Clerk has to swear in the gentleman who has that position, and I would just like to inform all members of the Legislature that I today have sworn in Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle as the Ombudsman. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. CROSBIE: With the consent of the House the Minister of Municipal Affairs would just like to make a statement, HR. SPEAKER: By leave, agreed?

Agreed. The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. MR. PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to pass along to the Opposition and table in the House formally and have circulated to the Opposition the press release and a copy of the projects that will be undertaken by the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing this year.In line with my press release this morning to the media, it is indicating, of course, as usual,that this is the largest programme ever undertaken by a provincial government in this field. So I hereby table it for the benefit of the Opposition members. MR. MURPHY: MR. PECKFORD: MR.

MURPHY: MR. PECICFORD: MR. MURPHY: MR. PECKFORD: How much money is involved. Only $28 million. How any c0111111Unities? Oh,eighty-five to ninety. How many people? Thousands! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please~ When we adjourned for lunch at one of the clock the Hon. Member for Bonavista South was speaking to the motion re the Select Committee, and I recognize the Hon. Member for Bonavista South. MR. MORGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . 7~0b

Jur, ,, 2t), 1975 Tape 2552 (Morning) PK - 2 Mr. Speaker, prior to breaking for lunch I was speaking on the recommendations mainly affecting the provincial government, and I outlined in coming to these recommendations our travels around the Province and the views of the fishermen. And I am again going to stress the importance that this report is mainly the accumulation of ideas and viewpoints put forward by the fishermen.

And, I think, it is the first time in the history of this Province where reports and recommendations regarding policy on the fishing industry have ever been made by means of accU11111lating the ideas of the fishermen. So this report is not really the viewpoints of the aembers of the Committee, it is the viewpoints and ideas of the fishermen taking

part in the industry around the Province. Now I stressed this morning that as members of this Committee our obligation did not end by means of talbling this report in the House of Assembly. Our obligatior is now,more so than ever before,because our obligation now to the fishermen that we heard from is to !Dllke sure the recommendations are acted on by both governments.

And I stress the importance of not laying emphasis on the federal government only, and saying that the federal government must do this and do that~but I stress as a backbencher in my own government there must be action t aken from the provincial level. And I was on one specific recommendation dealing with the purchase of fishing gear, wholesale purchase of fishing gear by the government from the manufacturer to eliminate what I termed this morning as profiteering on the part of the local suppliers in this Province. I did not elaborate too much on the recommendation but I will now.

The recommendation that we are taiing about is to not to go out and buy the gear and to be responsible for this gear being distributed to the fishermen arounn the Province, but just to have a depot say, for example, in St. John's or it could be in Bonavista or it could be out in Gander, at some central point so the fishermen could come and pick up the gear from that depot and look after the distribution of the gear themselves. 7407

June 20, 1975 Tape 2553 (afternoon) IB-1 but that would eliminate what is now taking place in the Province where we have little or no competition supply of fishing gear. We have one major supplier, and because of the lack of competition the prices have been increasing over the years, and as the government subsidy increases on one hand, the price of gear to the fishermen increases on the other. This means that, as I said this morning, that the companies concerned are ripping off the fishermen on one hand and also the government on the other. This must be stopped.

Our firm recommendation is that in the future government purchase the gear at wholesale from the manufacturers of the fishing gear, the major pieces of gear, like gill nets, etc. or salmon nets or the webs of these nets and the major pieces of gear used by the fishermen, and that the fishermen themselves by means of organizing local committees,or the union could be involved in helping to organize these union committees or fishermen committees around the Province, and they would be involved in the distribution of the gear to the fishermep in the outports, and not the government involved in that end, just the purchase and have the r,ear available when the fishermen want it.

Now, that is a very important recommendation in my view, and it is a recommendation that can be acted on by this government, end not to depend on the federal government. So, I want to see that recommendation acted on immediately to prevent any further rip-off of the fishermen and indeed rip-off of the taxpayers of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, one more important recommendation that can be also acted on by the provincial government,because it means really a saving to the government, and it is a saving but it is also a saving to the fishermen because it involves gill nets.

Every meeting we attended around the Province there was some question mark by the fjsherrnen as to the use of gill nets. In most areas they were opposed to the use of gill nets. In most areas of the Province they called them the curse of the fishery hecause they felt that they were being detrimental to tl,e fishery, espedalJy the fact that they are used without heing re.,ulatecl. For example, f:ishermen are using too many gill nets rer hoat an<l they cannot 7408

June 2(), 1975 Tape 2553 (afternoon) IB-2 at tend to them, number one, and number two, because of the number of nets lost each year that these nets are continuously out fishing. They are fishing there - 1 t is 1:nown a1 ghost fishing - and the fishermen want that stopped. So, the recommendation - we did not come in with a recommendation saying abolish the use of the g111 net in the Province because we firmly felt that we had no authority to do that,because in some areas of the Province the gill net is used extensively and only.

If we abolish the use of the gill net, then the fishermen in many areas of the Province would no longer have a means of obtaining a livelihood. So, what we did say in our report is that the use of gill nets should be left in the hands of the fishermen by means of area councils. If, for example, in Bonavista Bay the fishermen do not want to use gill nets, they form an area council, make their views known to governments, plural, provincial and federal,and the gill nets would be banned in that area.

If they wanted to use gill nets, for example, over in the Fogo-Twillingate area and the Notre Dame Bay area, they could do the same thing there and express their views according to government. I was of the opinion as a member of the Committee - although I did not get the full support of the Committee on this issue - I was of the opinion that we should abolish all subsidies in the future "" gi 11 nets. /i.bo lish them! No more subsidies on gill nets~ Why should we, as a government, subsidize the detriment of the fisheries?

If the fishermen felt the gill nets were being detrimental to the fisheries, why should we in the future continue to subsidize that detriment? I was of the opinion,and still am­ that we should abolish completely all future subsidies, but because the Committee did not, all the members of the committee could not agree with that, there was a compromise. The compromise is that the subsidy on gill nets not be abolished immediately completely but be phased out over a reasonable period of time. In other words, maybe in four or five years timP there will no longer be any suhs:ldy available for gill nets in this Province.

This would mean that if a fisherman wants to use gill nets, be is going to have to pay the total cost himself. 7409

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2554 NM - 1 And if any area of the province wants not to use gill nets they can form the area co1.mcils and make their views known and have regulations drawn up by the federal and provincial governuents and prevent the use of same. But on the other hand we are recommending that subsidies be increased and also be brought into effect on gear th.at now does not have subsidies.

For example , ring nets and purse seines and to be increased on trawls,and the reason why we are saying that is because the longliner when it was initially built, it was designed to use trawls, not to use gill nets, It was a trawler, to use hand lines, a longliner. That is the reason it is called a longliner, to use a trawl hand type catching of fish, not gill nets. So we are recommending that the subsidies be increased on the trawls and also be brought into effect on gear like ring nets and purse seines where they now do not exist. Now that is a strictly provincial jurisdiction.

There is no reason why the provincial government cannot bring into effect these two recommendations immediately. So so far we have three recommendations, Mr, Speaker, that can be acted on by this government. Number one was the purchase of gear , and number two regarding the use of gill nets and a subsidy on gill nets.

Number four is maybe a minor recommendation bl~t important to the fishermen-which can be acted on by the Provincial Minister of Fisheries end this government i111111ediately-and that is to have loans made available to fishermen from the Loan Board for the purpose of buying fishing gear to help the fishermen become more diversified. In our travels we came across situations where fishermen had lots of gill nets, lots of salmon nets, lots of lobster traps but they did not have any gear to fish a species of fish that w~s teeming in the waters around our harbour, like.for example-mackeral and herring.

Many of our meetings were like that where fishermen said, "Look there is lots of herring e:round, lots of mackeral, but we got no way of catching it, So our recommendation is that luaus bf• mad£ available from 74.i.O

June 20, 1975 Tape No. 2554 NM - 2 the Loan Board of the provincial government for the purpose of helping the fishermen purchase gear,to become more diversified,and also to pay for the cost of modifying their boats. Because if you are going to use purse seines and ring nets, the longliner type boat has got to be modified and of course modification is costing money. So we are recommending that loans be made available from the provincial government for the purpose of making these modifications to the existing boats. So, Mr.

Speaker, we are elso recommending,which is something the fishennen want done!and that is we are recommending that the provincial government take action immediately to retrieve the lost gill nets around the province, and while that might not sound like a very important recommendation but believe me the fishermen in certain areas of the province think it is ve-cy, very important.

They feel that the fish is not getting to the inshore grotmds mainly because of the gill nets that are lost in the offshore grotmds or midwater grotmds and are catching the fish before they even get into the inshore grounds - to no one's benefit, And they want these lost gill nets, known by the fishermen - they call them · ghost nets - they want them retrieved and we are recommend:l.ng that this be done. So all these recommendations so far,and a few more to come,can be acted on by this gcvernment.

For example,we are also recommending that the Saltfish Corporation,by means of an agreement with the provincial government -there is no need to go to the federal goverrunent at all, We now see action of this nature on the Northwest Coast of the Province where the Saltfish Corporation has entered into an agreement with the provincial government and they are arranging to collect the fish from the fishermen along the North West Coast, the species that they cannot find markets for, for example,like herring and mackeral and these kind of species, pickled products, pickled fish - and we are recommending that the provincial government in an agreement with the Saltfish Corporation arrange for that kind of an operation to be expanded not only to include the Northwest Coast but also the Northeast Coast and other areas 7411

J1.me 20, 197 5 Tape No. 2554 NM - 3 of the province. And of course we are also recommedni .ng that the ~altfish Corpo rat ion expand thei r drying facilities and their acco1111110dationa to salt fish which we ncn: do not have in llUUlY areas of the province. And, Mr. Speaker, another recommendation and I will finish on the 7412

June 20, 1975. Tape 2555 RH - 1 provincial level - we recommended also that the Provincial Government increase the number of fieldmen they have in the provincial Depart­ ment of Fisheries. We came across situations where fishermen were not aware , they had no understanding, there were no communications between them and the Provincial Govermnent. They did not know what progrBll'llles were available. Of course, on the other hand, in many cases they did not know what was available either from the federal level.

But at,least in our recommendation we are overcoming the problem with regards to the Provincial rovermnent. We are recommending that the provincial Department of Fisheries, that they make more fieldmen available around the Province so there can be commtmications between the provincial Department of Fisheries and the fishermen so they know what programmes are available and what assistance is available for them. Now, these recommendations deal strictly with the Provincial Government. I have no hesitation in saying that I want action from this government on these recommendations. There is no need to procrastinate.

There is no need to drag it out until next Fall or next Spring. We can get action now. I, as a member of the Committee, am looking forward to getting action on these what seem like minor recommendations but they are very major and important to the fishermen whose ideas we accepted in our travels around the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, so much for the provincial Government and what ean he done. I am confident that the Minister of Fisheries is quite sympathetic to the problems of the industry at this time and I 11111 confident that he will take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations of this report.

If he does not do that he is going to not only let down members of the Committee, he is going to let down the fishermen of this Province. So, I have every confidence he will carry out these recommendations in the very near future. Now, so much for the provincial level of government. 7413

June 20, 1975. Tape 2555 RH - 2 Mr. Speaker, I think the most crucial issue ever to come forward in this Province is now upon us. When I pick up the morning paper, today even, and when I see statements made by the Federal Minister of External Affairs and I quote statements along these lines 1and I quote him, "There will be serious confrontation if Canada acts," a quote frau the honourable Allan MacEachen, Minister of External Affairs. Not only the honourable Mr.

MacEachen but what really surprised me today and really let me down - because I ha~ every faith and every confidence in the honourable Romeo LaBlanc, a Maritimer who has now been accepted in the ranks of the higher level of government in the Federal Cabinet. Although a junior member I had every confidence that he was going to be a fighter for the fishermen, that he would demand and keep on demanding that the Federal Cabinet do and take action and do something about the problem of depletion of our stocks - but today's quotation, "Unilateral action never works," Romeo LeBlanc.

"Unilateral action never works," the honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Federal Minister of Fisheries. Mr. MacEachen again, "We think to take unilateral action would be against Canada's best interests." Mr. Speaker, these kinds of statements caning at this time from the federal ministers are something that we are going to have to face in this Province in a manner we never faced any issue before. So we see the honourable Member from St.

John's West going around the Province with a petition asking people to sign, sign, sign, sign - The Confederation Building, the different town councils, the government here have supported it. It is all over the Province. Everybody is signing, man, woman and child. We want unilateral action. Mr • Speaker , it means nothing. It is a useless effort. It is as useless as trying to get a petition to get every Newfoundlander to go to the moon next year. It means nothing.

As long as we· have got men like :that in power in Ottawa who has got no concern for the fisheries - if they had any concern for the fisheries, now that we saw today, for example, ICNAF 7414

June 20, 1975. Tape 2555 RR - 3 is closing •. ICNAF meetin ~s in Scotland are closing afte r we had a delegati on over there for the last ten days! Mr. LeBlanc did not ~o over there. ~r. MacEachen did not go over the r e . Our Minister of Fisheries went over there,but unfortunately he went there as an obse r ver because he had no authority t o go there as an official. Re had no authority to go there and make representation 7415

June 20, 1975 Tape 2556 (Afternoon) PK - 1 on behalf of our government, on behalf of our Province. He had no official position to go there. Naturally he would love to get up and fight on behalf of the fishermen of this Province, but he could not do it. He had no authority to do it. And we see statements of that nature now when ICNAF is a flop, it is a failure, statements of that nature c0111ing out of Ottawa and saying, "We think to take unilateral action would be against Canada's best interest :' What is the use of going around the Province with petitions! WQat is the use of talking with the fisheries here!

What were the use of our efforts of nine members of this Assembly going around the Province at Fogo, Twillingate, Forteau on the Labrador Coast, Plum Point, Port aux Basques, Harbour Breton, Marystown, Placentia! 'What was the use, Mr. Speakert I -y sound a bit passionate but I cannot help it, But what is the use! We travel and see those fishermen in desperation. We see them. But these men in Ottawa do nbt see them. They do not know what it means to a 111an in Port aux Basques to have his livelihood taken away from him 1or a man in Bonavista, because it is not in the best of Canada to take unilateral action.

Well my question, Mr. Speaker, is,what does it mean to Newfoundland? 'What does it mean to Newfoundland? Mr. Speaker, what it means to Newfoundland is something that can emotionally change the views of all Newfoundlanders. Because what it means, Mr. Speaker, if we do not get unilateral action this year, if we have the so-called people in power in Ottawa ignoring us,that we are not going to have a rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have a rural Newfoundland. What do we want as politicians? What do we want as Newfoundlanders? Do we want our way of life in rural Newfoundland to remain as it is?

Do you want the fishery to survive? Or do we want to sit idly by and go around with nice little petitions, nicely drafted up and sign, sign, sign and off to Ottawa begging Ottawa to take action, take action? And Mr. ?!acEachen very calmly says, "Oh, no~ It is not to the best interest of Canada". 7416

June 2/J, 1975 Tape 2556 (Afternoon) PK - 2 Well, Mr. Speaker, in 1970 it was to the best interest of Canada. In 1970, Mr. Speaker, you know what Canada did? Canada as a nation in 1970 took unilateral action in the right to interefere with international shipping for pollution control purposes out to 100 miles from its Arctic coast. Now that was to despite strong protests from the U.S.A. our next- door neighbour, a very strong nation. MR. SPEAKER: I would just like to inform the honourable member that he has five minutes left to speak. MR. CROSBIE: MR. MORGAN: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MORGAN: Except by leave.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Except by leave, of course. I might ~et leave of the House. ' Mr. Speaker, here we are seeing the country of Canada in 1970 taking unilateral action then, here we are with - with what? 19,000 fishermen, with the lives and the survival of hundreds of small communities at stake around the Province and we cannot get action from Canada. But we can get action in 1970 - for what purpose? To protect the polar bear! They took unilateral action in 1970 for pollution control purposes.

And the big issue then in the House of Commons, and I read some of the speeches - up get the M.P's from Quebec, up get the M.P's from Ontario: what was the big concern? Oh they had a big beautiful sexy issue. The sexy issue was, let us save the polar bear in our Arctic. Sure we will support unilateral action. Naturally we will support unilateral action. We want the right for Canada to control pollution along the Arctic coast and action was taken - action was taken in 1970. The reason why?

Because the men in cabinet at the time, in the federal cabinet, they had the support of the M.P's, the politicians from Ontario and Quebec. 7417

June 20, 1975 Tape 2557 (afternoon) Does Mr. Carter have support of the M.P. 's in Ontario and Quebec, Liberal or Progressive Conservative? Maybe more-ly from the Progressive Conservatives, just more-ly. There is no strength there, especially from the Liberal side of the Rouse of Commons because tbe issue is not a sexy, political issue for them. Little Newfoundland and the East part of Canada. So they got a few communities along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland hurting because of the lack of the fish stocks. The fishery is dying in Newfoundland. So, big deal!

It was more important to them in 1970 to take unilateral action to save the polar bear than it is now in 1975 to take action to save the Newfoundland fishery, And we talk about sending petitions to Ottawa: And we talk about our govemme.nt here demanding action! It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker. It does not make sense. Now, Mr. Speaker, in our report- the report said that we fully supported ICNAF's proposal or the proposal put forward by IB-1 the Canadian delegation going to ICNAF in negotiations, international negotiations in regards to our fishery. That was rather - the report says fully support.

It really - that one part of the report is wrong because it did not have the full support of the Committee because here is one man who did not support it. I did not support the position put forward by Mr. F.tchegary when he met with our Committee and outlined to us ~in confidence at the time ~it was strictly in confidence and it remained in confidence, he outlined to us the position that the Canadian delegation was going to put forward at ICNAF asking for reduction in catching effort by foreign nations. I did not agree with it. I said so then.

I could not say so publicly then but I am saying so now because the idea, the suggestion was ridiculous. It was stupid! It is being laughed at by the foreign nations. For example, how could Canada go over to ICNAF and demand a reduction in the catching effort by foreign nations if she did not even ~now what the catching effort now is of the foreign nations. C,mada has no idea what the catching effort is of Russia. Canada has no idea what the catching effort is of Spain and Portugal, In 7418

June 20, 1975 Tape 2557 (afternoon) IB-2 fact Spain and Portugal themselves have no idea what their own catching effort is. They have no registration system. They have no licensing system. They have no inventory system. So, how could Canada go over and demand that Russia reduce next year's catching effort by means of reducing the number of boats prosecuting the fishery, reduce the number of men in the fishery , and asking Spain and Portugal and West Germany and Poland and these other countries the same thing? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the honourable gentleman wishes to continue, and I am assuming he does for a few more minutes, I will have to obtain leave of the Rouse. Does the honourable member have leave to continue? Agreed. MR. MORGAN: longer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be too much The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the idea was ridiculous based on these- I mentioned number one reason,because Canada had no idea when she went over there what the catching effort now is of the foreign nations, and number two, Mr.

Speaker, that the past performance of Canada in carrying out surveillance is really laughable, and it is laughed at by the foreign nations. For example, in our meetings we held in Port aux Basques and we heard fishermen tell us their sad story, every fisherman wr.o came before us who was using fixed gear in the waters along Port aux Basques where we now have a legal, official, regulated twelve mile limit, every fisherman who came before our Committee told us that they could not keep the foreigners outside the twelve mile limit. The main reason why was there were no patrols in that area .

They had one little patrol vessel. I think it was the Cape Freels they saw once every