VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIP -T HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00p.m. ~6:00p.-m.. MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1983. NO. 10

March 21,1983 The House met at 3:00 P.l-1. Mr.Speaker in the Chair. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Tape No. 421 Order,please! ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the ah-1 Opposition. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a couple of questions to the hon. the Premier in conncection with the restructuring of the processing sector of the fishing industry which comes under provincial jurisdiction. The adrninistration,especially the Premier, have been advocating that they would like to run an open and a frank administration, put everything up front.

In ~he offshore oil,they go around the Province holding discussions and getting input from people and dialogue from communities that may or may not become service communities for the offshore and so forth and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, in connection with our most basic industry,that same dialogue and that same openness and that same up front is not there, it is missing, it is lacking. So I would like to ask the hon. the Premier why decisions in connection with the restructuring of the processing sector of the fishing industry, why their decisions are being taken behind closed doors in Ottawa and here in St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform the Leader of the Opposition that it is not a restructuring of the processing sector of the Newfoundland fishery that is at stake here.It is a restructuring of some of the operations of companies whose operations are based upon the offhsore fishery,which is a different thing completely.If 962

March 21,1983 Tape No. 421 ah-2 PREM:IER PECKFORD: we were talking about matters in terms of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, then we would be talking about a whole range of processing plants in Newfoundland tha~ are not a part of it at all, for example, wany of the small plants at'01.U1d the Province : we would betalking about Janes in Hants Harbour, we would be talking abou·t Eveleigh in Comfort Cove, we would be talking about Boyd Way and his Beothic Fisheries in Valleyfield, we have been talking about a whole range of small plants on New tvorld Island and down on the French Shore, we would be talking a.bout plants over on the West Coast and so on.

So it is not accurate to say , as the Leader of the Opposition has said1that we are talking about a restructuring of the processing s·ector. 963

March 21, 1983 Tape 422 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: We are talking about a restructuring really of the offshore fishery,and one of the components, one of the many components in the offshore fishery is the processing sector. Another component of the offshore fishery is the trawlers, another component of the offshore fishery .is the quotas. So we are ~alking about a restructuring of an offshore fishery, 80 per cent of which is controlled by the federal government. We are not talking about a restructuring of the processing sector. And this is where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) and some of the hon. members on the other side, trying to defend the indefensible, trying to defend ~he fact that the federal government should have the majority power over the fishing industry of Newfoundland, go on to try to then blame things upon the provincial government. Our sole jurisdictional responsibility is with processing plants, but having that kind of power over a processing plant means nothing; if you have no say over the trawlers, if you have no say over the quotas, it becomes meaningless. So what has happened, Mr.

Speaker, is because the federal government has the significant say in this offshore fishery, the federal government a couple of years ago appointed the Kirby Commission. Now, that de facto recognized that the federal government must have the majority of say, otherwise why did they appoint the Kirby Commission in the beginning? And after that Kirby Commission was completed 1 or during the course of its hearings, there arose a number of financial problems with some of the companies who prosecute the offshore fishery, and the federal government stepped in to say, 'We will look 964

March 21, 1983 Tape 422 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: after some of these companies until we are able to deal with it.' The Kirby report came out and now th .e federal government initiated through Mr. Kirby again, hiring Price Waterhouse Limited and a number of other companies, I think McLeod, Young, Weir, to look at trying to do something with some of these offshore companies who were in trouble and to see whether you could restructure the offshore fishery.

So this whole business was initiated by the federal government exercising the responsibility that they have - which we do not agree with, by the way; we agree they have too much power over the fishery of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and more of 'it should be shared with us. But at the present moment they do have the majority of the say and 1 therefore, they are exercising their power, they are exercising their authority, they are exercising their jurisdiction. So they initiated the study. They have initiated the restructuring.

And they asked all the other participants in the East coast fishery, the Newfoundland fishery, to get involved on their terms. On their terms they initiated it. So, Mr. Speaker, we have been 965

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 423 MJ - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: trying to deal with the situation under the terms and condition set down by the federal government 1 since they had more say over it than we did. And a couple of weeks ago,after the Price Waterhouse people finished their study and presented it to the federal Cabinet Committee that was struck to deal with this problem -the Cabinet Committee is Chaired by Mr. Don Johnson and has other members including the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Grey, including the Deputy Prime Ministe~ Mr. MacEachen, including the former Fisheries Minister, Mr.

LeBlanc, including 'the present Fisheries Minister, Mr. De Bane, and including Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, Mr. Rompkey,and Mr. Lalonde, the Minister of Finance, is also a member of that committee - and they met with the companies, they met with Price Waterhouse and received their report upon the financial state of these companies,and they met with the banks and the union and met with the other provinces, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

All these people, organizations or groups were asked to submit- to whom?-to the federal government their position on a restructed offshore fishery. We did not wishto,. as the Government of Newfoundland, because we have $60 million or $70 million outstanding now because they were talking about Newfoundland more than any other province; we wished to hear what everybody else had to say in the same way the federal government wanted to hear what e.verybody else had to say and after that we would be willing to sit down with the federal Cabinet Committee.

We asked the federal government at that time could we be observers at those meeting so that we would not have to duplicate this process of meeting with all those groups. The federal government turned that down and so last Wednesday, I think it was, we initiated the same process that the federal government had. So we sat down down- 966

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 423 MJ - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: stairs here and met with the companie~ Price Waterhouse, the banks and the union,all separately,and heard what they told the federal government a week before. This morning, Mr . Speaker, I spoke to the Chairman of the federal Cabinet Committee, Mr . Johnson, on the phone and indicated that we now wish 1as the Government of Newfoundland, to sit down with the Government of canada and review the situation as it stands right now.

Review the submissions by Price t'laterhouse, review the submissions that were presented by the union, by the companies and by the banks and see whether we can work out a plan which is acceptable to both governments and hopefully before this week \ 967

MArch 21, 1983 Tape 424 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: is out we will have a time and place where both governments can get together on the idea of a restructured offshore fishery over which the federal government has the majority of control. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER {Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Oppositic MR. NEARY: The question still remains unanswered. The question I put to the hen. gentleman was this; why are these discussions being held behind closed doors?

Why are the communities that are involved - and here we are talking about a way of life, a tradition, and a culture that is built around the fishery that stands to be wiped out why are these communities,like Ferrneuse, Burin, Ramea, Gaultois, Grand Bank, St. Lawrence, and Harbour Breton, why are these communities not brought into the confidence of the hon. gentlemc Why is there not dialogue, why is there not debate in the Province because of the seriousness of the situation?

In the case of oil, every community in Newfoundland is allowed input by various committees travelling around the Province and so forth, so why is this being done behind closed doors? And I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. gentleman say that the provincial government i~ only now started to develop plans. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) has been in Ottawa a number of times, the Premier -has been in Ottawa a number of times and met with Mr. De Bane and other ministers in Ottawa to discuss these matters.

Now is the han. gentleman saying - let me put it in a positive way; does the provincial government have a position at the moment on the restructuring of the offshore fishery? Does it have a position? Does the provincial government have a positio: If they do, would the Premier outline that position for the House and for the people of this Province? 968

March 21, 1983 Tape 424 PK - 2 MR . SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon . Premier . PREMIER PECKFORD: f.1r . Speaker, number one, the reason why there is not public hearings is because it is a federally initiated process , and that federally initiated process has not involved public hearings . Now that is the long and short of it, Mr . Speaker, it was initiated by the federal government.

Both the Kirby Task Fo rce, and more particu larly the restructuring plan that is now being talked about 1is a federally initiated process, so much so they asked us to attend in the same role as the union was being given,and we refused it . Now we have, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr . Morgan) and other people - I was in Burin myself several weeks ago - 969

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 425 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: we are aware and are in constant contact with the committees and so on that are involved in Burin, Grand Bank, Gaultois, Harbour Breton and Fermeuse. And we have met with them from time to time. They can get to meet with us, The only time they can meet with some of the federal people is when they are down here on something else and they are shovelled in through one door and out through another door to say hello and shake hands to a federal minister. There is no kind of process.

But the reason why .there is not the openness that this government prides itself on, Mr. Speaker, is primarily because the process is initiated by the federal government and the federal government has most of the say over this problem. That is the long and short of it. Now I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) does not want to hear that. He wants to be able to try to hoodwink the people of Newfoundland into believing that the Province has more say over the fishery than the federal government,but that is not so.

We gave away that jurisdiction a long time ago and it belongs to the federal government,who have to exercise it.

Now · last week, the answer to th .e next part of the Leader of the Opposition's question, last week we received submissions from th .e companies, we received a s·ubmission from the union, we. received a submission from the banks,and we know the submission from the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of Prince Edward Island. s·ince last Wednesday,we have met on several occasions-,as late as a couple of hours ago for three or four hours, to examine all of this information and to decide what the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is going - ·- to be.

We have initiated communication with the 970

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 425 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Chairman of the Federal Cabinet Committee to say to the federal government, 'We will be in a position later this week to indicate to you what our position is on this whole question that you have initiated by the end of the week, and we would wish to have a meeting with your Cabinet Committee to discuss what the position of the Government of Newfoundland is going to be.' MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell): of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the hon. Leader Mr.

Speaker, since when did the hon. gentleman keep quiet when it comes to federally initiated studies and the like? In this particular instance the hon. gentleman has been conspicuous by his silence, because I suspect a conspiracy here, Mr. Speaker - MR. ROBERTS: MR. NEARY: A conspiracy of silence. - a conspiracy of silence on the part of the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we are told now by the hon. gentleman that they only started last Wednesday to develop a plan for restructuring in the industry, The problem has been there, Mr.

Speaker, anywhere from eight months to a year and it was only last Wednesday that the Province started to develop a plan of attack, Mr. Speaker. This is outrageous .. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman keeps referring to jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. gentleman a question in connection with that. 971

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 426 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, is all the talk that we hear in the streets from Burin, and from Grand Bank, and Fermeuse, and Ramea and Gaultois, and Harbour Breton, is the talk correct that the provincial government have abrogated authority to the federal government in the one area of the fisheries which comes under jurisdiction of the provincial government, and that is the processing sector. Have they given up their rights to the federal government in this regard? MR. HODDER: That is what they are doing. MR. NEARY: so long - MR. TOBIN: MR.

NEARY: And if not,why has it taken Go back to St. Lawrence. - why did it take right up to last Wednesday before the provincial government recognized that the processing sector came under provincial jurisdiction? MR. HODDER: They are even keeping you guys in the dark. You are being kept in the dark too. MR. SPEAKER (Russell-): The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I find it very, very amusing that the Leader, or inter~ leader, or temporary leader of the Liberal Party of this Province would talk about this government abrogating its responsibility to the federal government of Canada when they are the very people suggesting somehow or another that they are on the side of Newfoundland for having more power 1 when day after day in this House and throughout this Province for the last five or six or seven or eight or ten years,we have seen the Liberal Party of Newfoundland want to give away more to the federal government than this government here wants to give away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ 972

March 21, 1983 Tape No . 426 NM - PREMIER PECKFORD: Oh, sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) gets up and talks about us giving away or abrogating our responsibility over the processing sector of the fishery, when he gets up day after day and defends the federal government for having all its power over the fishery. The federal government has more power over the fishery in Newfoundland than it has over the Province of Quebec. What is that, Mr. Speaker? Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition that question :How come the people in Quebec have more say over their fishery than the people of Newfoundland?

We have been arguing for the last four or five years for more say over the fishery. It is no good to have control over giving a licence to a fish plant if you do not have control over the fish that is supposed to go into that fish plant. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: A bunch of white elephants, that is the kind of power we have. The real power comes to where is the fish going to go? And who has the power to decide Where the fish is going to go? The trawlers, Who has the power over licencing the trawlers? It is the federal government. Who has the power over setting the ~otas?

It is the federal government. You can have a fish plant in every settlement in Newfoundland 1but unless the federal government tells you you can take that fish and bring it into Burin, or bring it into Harbour Breton, it is no good to have a fish plant, Mr. Speaker, no good at all to have a fish plant. That is number one. Number two, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should realize that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgan), myself, and others for the last six or eight months have been the people who have been seeing these delegations from the communities which are being affected right now with closures and so on. 973

March 21, 1983 Tape 427 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: It was Yours truly, here, Mr. Speaker, who went to Burin and argued with the federal government to tell - because they had the pow~r to tell them - to tell Fishery Products not to decide to close Burin until the whole restructuring was done. Who was it, Mr. Speaker? It was this government who said tell Fishery Products not to decide on any plant closures until the full restruc­ turing was done. Perhaps it would not be Burin, perhaps there would be no closures, perhaps it would be another place~ Wait .until the full restructuring was done. Mr.

Speaker, we have not abrogated our responsibility. We want more responsibility, not less. We want more say over the fishery, not less. That is what we are arguing for, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: We would not be in the mess now, Mr. Speaker, if this Province had more say over the fishery. We would not be in the mess we are now, that is the whole point. So·the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) cannot have his cake and eat it too; when it is convenient for him to try to say, 'Okay, the Province should have more say,' Eo suddenly suggest that we should, and then most days of the week say that we should not have any more than we have right now - he cannot have it both ways. MR. NEARY: Time will tell. PREMIER PECKFORD: Time will tell. Exactly! And we will see, Mr. Speaker, where the Liberal Party and those eig~t lost souls will sit when the position of the Government of Newfoundland is known. Watch them worm th.en, Mr. Speaker! Watch them worm then when we come out with our position on the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 974

March 21, 1983 Tape 427 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) not to speak too courageously and dig a hole for himself today or tomorrow. The reason, Mr. Speaker, we have been taking our time on this matter is like on most things, we do not argue until we have our homework done. SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have our homework done and that homework, Mr. Speaker, involves this, making sure we have every piece of data from Price Waterhouse and feed back into that computer the necessary data we want.

We want to know exactly where the unionsits, we want to know exactly where the companies sit, we want to know exactly where the federal government sits, because it is aboutthe fish that have been tradition­ ally caught by Newfoundlanders since 1497 that we are talking about. SOME HON . MEMBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: We are not going to make up our minds until we know where everybody else stands and then we will make up our minds. Then we will have all the information. But, Mr.

Speaker, I will challenge the Opposition that when our position is known they will not worm like they are doing on the offshore, not worm like they do on hydro transmission, not worm 975

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 428 HJ - l PREMIER PECKFORD: like they do on DREE agreements and the Shoe Cove Satellite Station and a whole bunch of other things. We will see again whether the Liberal Opposition has the courage of their convictions to take a stand against their cocfreres in Ottawa for the betterment of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR: NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hen. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, obviously I have touched a very sensitive nerve with the hen. gentleman.

When the hen. gentleman starts acting silly and getting personal and ranting and raving, I know I have touched a nerve, Mr. Speaker. The hen. gentleman can get as personal ·as he wants but he is not going to intimidate the Opposition. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the message that is coming out now is it was only last Wednesday that the provinci< government started to plan for restructuring. Now, what about public debate? Forget the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, but once the Province develops its plans, will there be public debate 01 will the decisions be made behind closed doors?

Will there be a conspiracy between the Province and Ottawa? What about further processing that th~ Premier used to tell us about? That comes under provincial jurisdiction. Whataboutholding units so that fish can be distributed to the plants and they not all be seasonal operations? What about producing the finished product in Newfoundland rather than have further 976

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 428 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: processing in Boston when there are two big fish companies in Newfoundland? Why has the han. gentleman been so quiet on these things of late, Mr. Speaker? MR. HODDER: He has been noisy on other matters but quiet on this issue. MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a lot of the preble with Newfoundland plants is that - MR. HODDER: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) has been quiet as well. It is very strange that the Minister of Fisheries should be quiet about restructuring MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: A lot"of the problems, Mr.

Speak are because the plants are seasonal operations. That item comes under provincial jurisdiction, the question of distribution of the fish to the plants holding the fish for processing other than in the glut season. Right now we are in the glut period on the Southwest Coast in the middle of the Winter fishery and the fish plants are going crazy trying to process the fish. Mr. Speaker, that comes under provincial jurisdiction. Why could we not have holding units to process the fish at a later date? Let me ask the han. gentleman this, Mr. Speaker.

So far I have not gotten a straight answer from the han. gentleman but I am going to ask the han. gentleman another question. On page 18 of the Budget the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) talks about minimizing effects of plant rationalization. Now could the.hon. gentleman- MR. HODDER: That is the plant rationalizatic that is going on up there right now. 977

March 21, 1983 Tape No . 428 MJ - 3 MR . S. NEARY : That is right . MR. J. MORGAN: Op where? MR. J. HODDER : In Ottawa . MR. MORGAN: In Ottawa you mean? MR. HODDER: Yes, and you knew about it. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Orde.r, please 1 MR. NEARY: On the weekend, Mr. Speaker, I took the Budget· and I went through it item by item. 978

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 429 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: and word by word. Now could the han. the Premier tell this House and tell the people of this Province - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! MR. NEARY: - Prof ·essor Montgomery will deal with the han. gentle~an and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) in due course. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. HODDER: MR. SPEAKER: MR. HODDER: MR. NEARY: finance. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! And the Board of Trade. Order, please! And the Medical Association. He is an expert on international Oh, oh. Order, please! Mr.

Speaker, they will have to put stronger than the Minister of Fisheries up against Professor Montgomery. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair, I think, today has allowed quite a bit of leeway in answering and asking questions. QUestion Period is drawing to an end and I would ask the han. Leader of the Opposition ('Mr. Nea.ry)_ to be more specific with his question. MR. NEARY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, th .ank you. I would like to ask the han. the Premier where in the budget is there fiscal provision to deliver on that promise that was made on page 18, on minimizing the effects of plant rationalization?

Where in the budget is there provision to deliver on that promise? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. 979

_ .. March 21, 1983 Tape No. 429 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, :I find this really, really odd. If, for example, we carne into the House today, which we might do in the next week or two-and said anything at this point in tirne,before the process that we are involved in about restructuring the offshore fishery was completed, if we said anything, even hinte< before we had all our homework done and before everybody else had all their homework done, we would be accused of being confrontationists, anti-Ottawa separatists. SOME HON. r.1EMBERS : Hear, hear.

PREMIER PECKFORD: We would be classed as being separatists. Here goes the Premier again, here goes the government again attacking Ottawa every day,that is all they can do is attack Ottawa. Now that is the approach they would take. Now when we do not do that, I get the distinct impression from the hon. member for Port au Port (~. Hodder),who talked about way up there in Ottawa, the very man who accuses me of being somehow separatist and confrontationist with Ottawa, that there is some mischievousdeal b~ing cooked up in Ottawa.

Well,let me inform the han. member, since he is newly come to the Province , they have been cooking up things· against Newfoundland for years and the han. member knows it. SOME H.ON. MEMBERS: PREMIER PECKFORD: against us for years. Hear, hear.

They have been cooking up things The hon. member over there can - squirm and worm now all he likes He goes along and supports them,and wh.en it comes next week or the week after on this restructuring and we take a stand and Ottawa takes a stand we will hear the parrots over here being called by the head of the Liberal Party o.f Canada, "Get in line, get against the Government of Newfoundland. Call them separatists, call them against Canada, call them bad Canadians." That is what th.ey will come up with, Mr. Speaker 980

March 21 , 1983 Tape No . 429 so - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD : Now, all of a sudden, they come into the House today to start off their Question Period talking about how Ottawa is contriving against Ne\-lfoundland . When did they suddenly wake up , Mr . Speaker? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh ! PREMI ·ER PECKFORD: When did they suddenly wake up? This has been onqoing for a long while. But , Mr . Speaker, .·.t" 981 .,

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 430 NM - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: we want our homework done so that when we take a position we can defend it in the streets and in tne hills and in the valleys, and in the coves and in the harbours of Newfoundland. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ PREMIER PECKFORD: - let the Opposition not put words or put devious motives out befo~e they know whe~e we stand. MR. HODDER: You know more than you are sa : PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, we have them on the go now. They will not even let me answer. Come on, Mr. Speaker, let them come on with it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER PECKFORD: Do they want an answer, Mr. Speaker, or do they not? Last Wednesday - we have been working on this for six months - we got the final figures - MR. HODDER: .WhY do you not debate it? PREMIER PECKFORD: Because we have not organized our position yet. Because we only got the figures last Wednesd < And we got the union's position last Wednesday, we got the companies' position last Wednesday, and we still do not have the federal government's.

And when that resource happens to be a resource that we . are more involved in that anybody else, we want to know everybody else's position first, because we are the ones who are going to be impacted the greatest. That is the whole point. MR. HODDER: fis .hermen' s position - PREMIER PECKFORD: Why do not the Newfoundland All of a sudden the member fo1 Port au Port, because he had heat over the weekend, Mr. Speaker , the hon. member for Port au Port gQt some heat over the weekend 982

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 430 NM- PREMIER PECKFORD: and now he is back in town, now he came back to St. John's, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of heat on because the people of his area know, as all of Newfoundland now knows, the federal government, and Mr. Tobin, and ~r. Rompkey, and Mr. Baker, and Mr. Simmons, have all been asleep for the last two years over something that affects Newfoundland. That is the reason. And now who does he turn to? SOME HO~. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

PREMIER PECKFORD: He turns to the only place he has got left, the people who hardly got any control over the fishery, the poor Ne"t-rfm.mdland Government, the very government that he attacks for having any more jurisdiction over anything. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, , hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. Leader of the Opposit afinal supplementary. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that we are headed again for failure. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: The han. gentleman has had one failure after another, one disaster after another, and 1 Mr.

Speaker, it looks to me like we are headed for another failure. Now the han. gentleman made a statement that they have to know the views of the other parties first. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, the reason the han. gentleman said that was that he wants to get the views of the other parties first so he can play his little political games, so he can blame things on the other parties. Mr. Speaker, the processing sector comes under provincial jurisdiction, and now, Mr. Speaker, much to our dismay we are finding out there are no plans, no debate, no financial 983

.. March 21, 1983 Tape No. 430 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: provision to take care of the restructuring; Mr. Spea.ker ., and we are amazed at the quietness in this regard· of the hen. the Premier and the hen. Mini .ster of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). When it comes to federal/provincial relations, or federal/provincial matters MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please~ The hen. President of the Council, a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: I realize the hen. gentieman is very embarrassed as a result of this Question Period¥ but he is not all.owed to make speeches in defence of himself. This is the Question Period, and he should pose his question. 984

March 21, 1983 Tape 431 PK - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The time for the Question Period is running very short. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition has any question he should ask it right nowjotherwis the time period will be up. gR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will put my question to the hon. gentleman again. Will tl ~ere be dialogue ~ill there be debate, will there be consultation with the communities affected before any plan is implemented?

And will the han. gentleman assure these communities now in this House that every fish plant that is presently closed will be reopened before the dialogue takes place? SOME HON. MEMBERS : PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. SPEAKER: PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. SPEAKER : PREMIER ?ECKFORD: Ch, oh! Oh, oh, oh - Order, please! - see the man run! The hon. Premier. See the man run. As if we had the final say over it, Mr. Speaker, as if we had the final say over it. Mr.

Speaker, we can open every single fish plant, sa~'~our licence is there,' we can say every fish plant in Newfoundland is going to be opened, you have your licence, but nobody goes to work because they have no fish and have no trawlers - that is federal. Every fish plant in New­ foundland can have its processing licence today. What does it mean, Mr. Speaker? Nothing! Zero! You have to have trawlers and you have to have fish to put in those trawlers to bring into those plants.

I really find this strange. ~~- Speaker, let me just say this that I have a sneaking suspicion that when our position will become clear over the next few days-and we have spent six months on it and we ~ave already had input from every place; we have had input from Gaultois, we have had input from Harbour 985

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 431 PK - 2 PRE!-1IER PECKFORD : Breton, we have had input from Grand Bank, we have had input from Burin, we have had input from Fermeuse; a lot more input than the federal government has had, by the way, Mr. Speaker, but I have a sneaking suspicion - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: - if I can have the attention of the hon. member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) - that when we come out against the federal government we are confrontationists, and now when we try to get our homework done it is a conspiracy How do you think that, Mr. Speaker?

That is the kind of way they worm over there. I have a sneaking suspicion that when our position is finally known on this whole question of restructuring, the offshore fishery particularly, that there is going to be an awful lot of public debate around this Province. We will see. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : expired. MR. NEARY: the fish plants! SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. TOBIN: MR. HODDER: MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hear, hear! Order, please! The time for Question Period has You know what our position is - open Oh, oh! Yes, with or without fish! You had fish before. Order, please! Order, please!

Before we continue, I would like to welcome to the galleries today a delegation from the Gaultois Council led by Mayor Wayne Baggs from the district of Fortune- Hermitage. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 986

March 21,1983 Tape No. 432 ah-1 ANSWERS TO QUESTIO NS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVE N MR.SPEAKER {Russe ll): MR.OTTENHEIMER: The han. Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked by the han. Leader of the Opposition on March 8th, the total provincial share of the estimated cost of the budget for the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ran g is $6.4 million, The breakdown of the budget over the three year period~ 1982/83 $2.9 million: 1983/84 $1.9 million; 1984/85 $1.4 million. The payment of the three commissioners appointed by the Province are paid according to the following formula.

The vice-chairman, either $55,000 per annum or $650 per sitting day, and the two other commissioners either $50,000 per annum or $650 per sitting day, each commissioner to elect one or the other of these forms of payment. The han. member asked what law firm or law firms are representi~g the Province at the Royal Commission. The Province has not appointed any law firm to the Royal Commission. Any legal representatio~ · to be made by the provincial government will be undertaken by solicitors of the Department of Justice. Mr. Leonard Martin 1Q.c. 1and Mr.

David Orsborne ,have been appointed solicitors to the commission by the federal government. MR. NEARY: Or by the commission? MR.OTTENHEIMER: No, they have been appointed by the federal government. They are solicitors of the commission appointed by the federal government. The rate of pay negotiated with them by the federal government is as follows: for Mr. Leonard Martin,Q.c., $125 per hour,not to exceed a ten hour day. That is $1,250 per day. Mr. David Orsborne,$90 per hour not to exceeq $900 per day. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 987

- March 21,1983 Tape No. 432 ah-2 MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! PREMIER PECKFORD: The han. the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I have the answers to a number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. One question was asked seeking some information, Question No. 11, and the information was given The answer to Question No. 28 1the Leader of the Opposition did not understand, he did not understand the question he asked.

He does not know the role of the Newfoundland Light and Power as opposed to the role of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation,so I would suggest to the Leader of the Oppposition that somebody brief him on understanding the difference between those two corporations, so I had to explain to him and give him some information.

In answer to Question 33,he talked about the salaries of people in my office and , of course, once again the Leader of the Opposition should not have asked that question because that is available in the budget and in the salary details • so of the three questions that I am answering today, there is only one which I can him informationon and the other two are really erroneously asked. Thank you,Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.SPEAKER: Motion No. 2 1moved by the han. Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins). DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour the Administrator. 988

March 21, 1983 Tape 433 EC - l MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : All rise, please. Addressed to the hon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins): "I,the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending the 31st day of March, l984,by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly." On motion that the estimates together with the message be referred to the Committee of Sur Mr. Speaker left the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): Order, please!

Standing Order 118 (5) states that the Minister introducing and the member answering immediately after speak for fifteen minutes each and then there are ten minute exchanges betweenrnernbers. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Chair that this is not an ordinary Committee of the Whole that we are in at the present time. By mutual agreement in the House, ·we agreed to allow the Interim Supply Bill, rather than debate it in the House, to go into Committee of the Whole,and that the rules in the House apply while we are in Committee of the Wnole, but only on the Interim Supply Bill.

So Your Honour is quoting from the wrong rule. This has to be done by mutual agreement. Last year and the year before, if my memory serves me correctly, we had half hour debates, i.e., we could have up to a half hour, all members do not wish to speak that long. And then you could go back and forth as often as you wished while we were in Interim Supply. That was agreed on by both sides of the House, Mr. Chairman. 989

March 21, 1983 Tape 433 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: Wha .t I want to know is what rules are we operating under now, the rules of the House or ar·e we making a new rule now for Cornmi ttee of the Whole on the Interim Supply Bill? MR.

CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : The rule of the House, as the Chair understands it, the House has been operating under Standing Order 118 (5) which states that "Notwithstanding Standing Order 49, the Minister i~troducing his estimates and the member speaking immediately in reply shall not speak for more than fifteen minutes and every other .member shall not speak for more than ten minutes at a time during Cornmitte .e of Supply, or during the debate in a committee or committees established under Standing Order 117." 990

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 434 MJ - 1 MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : As I understand it, that was the rule that we ope~ated under in the last session that I sat in. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Chairman, in this particular case, if the table is going to make the rules then I would suggest . - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I was not finished explaining to the hon. member. As I understand it, when I sat in the Chqir in Committee last year, this was the rule that we operated under at that time. MR. NEARY: The hon. Leader o,f the Opposition. Did we operate under that rule the year before, Mr. Chairman, do you recall? MR. MARSHALL: MR.

CHAIRMAN: President of the Council. On a p~int of privilege, Mr. Chairm< On a point of privilege, the hon. MR. MARSHALL: You Honour made a ruling. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) got up when this procedure commenced and, in the first place, asked a hypothetical question that Your Honour is not bound to respond to. But Your Honour did respond to him and Your Honour responded to it correctly. Your Honour has made a ruling. Look, it is not Your Honour's ruling.

If the hon. gentleman wants to get up and talk about things, then let him r~fer to Standing Order "'118 (5), which reads, as Your Honour quoted to the Leader of the Opposition, as follows, "Nothwithstanding Standing Order 49, the Minister introducing his estimates and the member speaking immediately in reply shall not speak for more than fifteen minutes and every other member shall not speak for more than ten minutes at a time during Committee of supply," and this is Committee of Supply. The han. gentleman is splitting hairs.

We all know that a person gets up for fifteen minutes, the minister introducing it will 991

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 434 MJ - 2 MR. MARSHALL: speak for fifteen minutes, he can reply for fifteen minutes then ten minutes on and on and on. So he is really splitting hairs because it is quite competent of the hon. member to get up again after ten minutes and again after ten minutes and so forth. The whole point of the matter is, Your Honour. that Your Honour has made a ruling and the hon. qentleman is really in a way challenging the ruling. He may not like the ruling, anybody may not like the ruling, but Your Honour's ruling is ruling and is based on the Standing Orders that have been adopted. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Chairman - MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : to that point of privilege. MR. NEARY: MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition - is that a point of privilege? That is what the hon. member stood on. Do you wish to speak on that point of privilege? MR. NEARY: It is certainly not a point of privilege. MR. MARSHALL: It is a point of information. MR. NEARY: It is a point of information? The hon. gentleman got up on a point of privilege and now he is abusing the Chair. But let me say this, Mr. Chairman, if the government side wants to force us to debate under these rules, sobeit, there is nothing we can do about it.

But I can tell the han. gentleman that the procedure has not always been that way. On the Interim Supply Bill only now, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about. We have agreed to allow the House to go into Committee of the Whole - on this side of the House, we have agreed - but we have agreed with the stipulation that we would debate the same as we did every other year. There was a time,: I am not sure if it was last year or the year before, when we debated under the rules of the House. 992

March 21, 1983 DR. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: Tape No. 434 MJ - 3 Are you sure it was in this House? Yes, in this House. As far as we are concerned, we will have to go back to the House to finish the debate on Interim Supply.. To debate the principle of the Interim Supply Bill, Mr. Chairman, You Honour will have to go back to the Chair to debate the principle of it and he cannot deny us that right in this House. MR. MARSHALL: MR. NEARY: The custom has always been there. The custom is there by mutual agreement, Mr. Chairman, but the government are now changing the ground rules. They are restricting the debate.

I mean, if that is what ~hey want to do, fine, but we want the right to go back to debate the principle of this when the House is in session. MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman. The hon. President of the Council. The only rights the hon. gentleman has, Mr. Chairman, are the rights that are in the Standing Orders. Now we deal with Supply in a certain way, and it is set down in the Standing Orders.

We will deal with Supply and then when it comes into the House we will deal with it in accordance with Standing Orders and in accordance with the custom, and the custom is that when it is referred back to the House, then the bill ·is read a first, second and third time. 993

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 435 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: That is the procedure that we will go by ·, Mr. Chairman. MR. NEARY: All right, that is fine. As long as we understand we can have the debate in the House. MR. MARSHALL: The han. gentleman just does not understand parliamentary rules. He does not care about parliamentary rules. MR. NEARY: I understand. The hon. gentleman is just trying to hoodwink the House. MR. MARSHALL: He just wants to invent rules to suit himself. But this is the way to do it. It is a fair way and it is an appropriate way to deal with supply.

I mean who wants to listen to the han. gentleman for ten minutes, let alone a half an hour . . MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Order, please! The han. We have no objection to that procedure as long as the Chair understands, and the House understands, that first, second and third reading of the bill will take place in the House, .and on second reading our righ·t will be maintained to debate the principle of that bill. MR. MARSHALL: Not so , Mr. Chairman . MR. NEARY: That is so. MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not the way it is. Order, please!

To that point of privilege raised by the han. the President of the Council I rule there is no point of privilege, and the Chairman under­ stands that we are operating under Standinq Order 116 (2) which says we are in Cornrni ttee of Supply and Sta·mding Order 118 (5) gives the times for debate. The han. the Minister of Finane 994

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 435 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : A point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. ' MR. NEARY: The Chair has not addressed the main point that I made, and that is .our right to debate the principle of this bill when the Speaker is in the Chair and the House is back in session. That right is there and it cannot be taken away, Mr. Chairman. we are not now debating the principle of the bill. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chainnan. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the hen. President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: The first point: What the hon. gentleman is doing is asking you as Chairman of Committees to make a hypothetical ruling on a matter that . ., you know, may or may not rise in the House, so it is not competent for the Chairman in the present Committee to give a ruling on it.

But I want to remind the hon. gentleman, so that he does not think we are resting on the matter, so that he knows, and I am not prepared to debate it now, and I do not think Your Honour would wish me to debate it, but the hon. gentleman has brought it up, that the principle is first; second and third readings on a money bill are read simultaneously without debate,after it is reported back to the Committee. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not, I would submit, Your Honour's duty to make a ruling on that at the present time. And the hon. gentleman is not going to run the House.

I mean,that is the way the hon. gentleman used to - MR. NEARY: You know you are wrong 'Bill', you know you are wrong . 995

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 435 NM- 3 MR. MARSHALL: - or the hon. gentleman's former, former leader used to run the House in the halcyon days, never to be realized by the hon. gentleman again,when he was over here on this side of the House. But that is not the way it is done. Democracy has hit Newfoundland, let us get on with the process of democracy, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : DR. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: MR. CHAIRMAN: a point of order first. Hear, hear! Order, please! Mr. Chairman. No, hold on now. Order, please!

There is In some research that we have done on this '- just to explain to that point of order ... it says in our research that the interim supply bill is read three times and not debated during these readings, and is not referred back to the Committee of the Whole. MR. NEARY: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The han. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Chairman, we have already had a mini-debate on this but my clear understanding, and I am sur it is the understanding of the members of this House 1 is that we are now in Committee of Supply debating a resolution, which I will read in just a moment, and at the same time as we debate the resolution we debate the bill,because the bill is attached to the resolution that has been circulated to hon. members. 996

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 436 DR. COLLINS: And the resolution we are debating is: 'Be it resolved by the Kouse of ~ssembly and legislative session convened as follows: That tt :j:_s expedient to introduce a measure to provide for tb.e granting to H.er Majesty· for defraying certain exi;>enses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st day of March, 1984, the sum of $442,974,500 .. ' So that is the resolution we are debating, Mr. Chairman, and, the bill itself has attached to_ it a

schedule . and th .e

schedule names · the heads of expenditure an,d the va .l;"iau$: amounts that are now to be allocated tf tb..e resolution on the bill passes, as ram sure it will, the amounts: to be allocated to these various · heads · of expe:ridi tul;'e, S.D ... 1 And the heads of expenditure relate to the _various departments of government. Mr.

Chairman, :r: should po;i:_nt out that the Interim Supply Bill this year wiLl cove .J< a two month period and it .is for that, I:'OUghly, $442 milli .on, Hon. members of the COTI!Illittee will reme!(lber that last year Interim Supply covered a four month pe~iod and it was for a considerably larger amount,but this yeal;' it will cover a two month. I;>eriod, five I;>ayday periods of the Public Service and up to the 1st da,y of J'llne, . approximately. Mr.

Chairman, the Interim SUpply Bill, normally speaking, covers: what are called housek.e .eping items of expenditure by the various departments: of government, and the reason why Interim Supply is bro~ght in, of course, is that the main estimates:: have not been brought down as yet and we will run out of author.tty to spend on the lst of April, So th.i:s gives- us authori.ty to spend on housekeeping items until the main estimates are finally · approved by the hon,. House. However, Mr. 997

l1arch 21, 1983 Tape No. 436 SD - 2 DR. COLLINS: Chairman, a~ long as the committee and the House is informed of the fact, we can also bring in items that are other than housekeeping expenditures. We can bring in new capital account expenditures, expenditures for capital account projects of a new type as long as the House is informed. And this Interim Supply Bill does contain $18.5 million worth of new capital account projects. This is so that these projects can be gotten underway as quickly as possible for the benefit of the work force of the Province.

And I will just enumerate which they are: There is,improvement and construction, roads- $13.4 million, that is all provincial expenditure and it completes the $20 million of provincial road construction and improvement that was mentioned in the budget. If the hon. members are inquiring as to where,the hon. minister responsible for that department will be glad to comment on their request. The second item is : residential and industrial servicing. This is covered under a DREE agreement and it is 90/10 - 90 per cent federal and 10 per cent provincial.

It is for a total amount of $1.7 million and it relates, at least in part, to water and sewer projects in Labrador. The third item is highways. It is for the TCH and again it is cost shared with the federal government- 75/25. And it is mainly a carry-over,to finish off projects that were carried over from las -t year and 998

MArch 21, 1983 Tape 437 PK- 1 DR. COLLINS: the amount involved is $1.2 million. The fourth item is again covered under a DREE agreement and it is for forest access roads, 90/10. MR. NEARY: Any more money for road work? Do we save that for the end of the month? DR. COLLINS: Well, we will be getting into a new fiscal year. That work will be held up until the main estimates come down if we do not bring in this Interim Supply Bill. But by bringing in the Interim Supply Bill we can get out the tenders and get on with the work. The forest access roads amount to $1 million. The fifth item is for bridges and causeways.

Again it is provincial money, $950,000. The final item is for cottage land developments for $250,000. That again is provincial money. And han. members of the Committee will remember that this is a self-financing project. In other words, we put the money up front to develop these cottage lands, but then the lands are sold and, therefore, the total amount of money returns to the Province. MR. NEARY: Summer cottages? DR. COLLINS: Cottage land development, yes. MR. NEARY: Why are there Summer cottages included in the Interim Supply Bill? DR.

COLL IN S: This is to get on with the work, to supply jobs while we are servicing these projects. And all this money - MR. NEARY: I mean, you have to be joking. DR. COLLINS: - and all this money returns to the Province because it is a self-financing project. It is an extremely worthwhile project from the point of view of encouraging employment, getting people who would otherwise not be employed earning money so that they can support their families, so that they 999

March 21, 1983 Tape 437 PK - 2 DR. COLLINS: buy goods, therefore returning their retail sales tax revenues to the Province and therefore out of this the Province can help to fund the necessary services that t people of this Province require. MR. NEARY: So that the big shots can get in by the sides of the POnds. DR. COLLINS: Now if the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) or members of the Opposition do not like jobs been given, if they do not like the provincial government to acquire revenues, if they ao not like the provincial government to use those revenues to supply needed services , well sobeit.

The people of this side of the House do like people to have jobs, they do like services to be given. So , we are very proud of this programme. And,as I would reiterate,that is a totally self-financing programme. There is no pubsidy given for these cottage lots to the people who acqu~re these lots, they pay for these totally themselves, they return totally the money that is expended up front. This programme was brought in last year, it was highly successful. All the monies that were ex~ended last · year up front returned to the Province, every last nickel, every last cent of it.

It was a very acceptable, a very worthwhile programme. I am only too pleased that we are able to include it this year in the Interim Supply Bill so again we can get on, at the earliest possible moment,with this very worthwhile project. So with those few non­ controversial explanatory remarks, Mr. Chairman, I move the resolution and with it the attached bill. SOME nON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CHAIRMAN (.McNicholas) : The hon.mernber for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: Mr.

Chairman, this is the first time to my knowledge that after the Budget Speech co~es down the Opposition has not had a chance the following day or the next following session to reply to the Budget Speech in the traditional way. 1000

March 21, 1983 - Tape No.438 JV - l MR. HODDER: I believe the rules of the House are set up so that after the Budget Speech, the person who responds to the Budget has unlimited time and it is the right of the Opposition,and it is still our right, the right of the Opposition to take as much of that time to analyze the Budget in detail as they wish.

In this case,in the typical cowardly fashion that the Premier has taken ever since the last election, where he tries to have the House of Assembly sit for the shortest possible period of time, the rules,as far as Committees are concerned ~hich are now ongoing 1 are such that the least scrutinization by those Committees will take glace.

The Budget comes down and the period in which the Opposition has to reply to the Budget has been put aside, I would say, until the Interim Supply Bill has been finished with,which will take us up to Easter 1 and at that time we will have an Easter break and bythe ~ime the Opposition gets bac~ to the Budge Speech the issue will no longer be around,or other issues of concern will take its place. I object,Mr. Chairman, to this type of manipulation of the House of Assembly. We feel that we have every right to speak on the Budget today,but this morning we were informed that we would be on Interim Supply.

I think it would be only courtesy, even though I know the government has to get the Interim Supply B.ill through by a certain time ., but it would have been only courtesy to allow a couple of days for the Opposition to·respond on the Budget. Now, Mr. Chairman, we will be speaking through Interim Supply- maybe it 1 will be a little harde to handle in Coriiriil.ttee- ·af supply with. the short periods of time that we . have to speak, but we will certainly be dealing with the Budget through. this and when the Budget Speech comes again we will certainly take advantage as best we can 1001

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 438 JV - 2 MR. HODDER: to respond to the Minister's budget. But I feel, Mr. Chairman,and I object to the fact, that the government~ again manipulated and manoeuvred as they have done ever since this administration took power. The Premier is afraid of the House of Assembly. MR. NEARY: Right on! MR. HODDER£ I remember when I was first elected, in 1975,. we sat here, sometimes ten o'clock in the morning and usually until eleven o•clock at night. We had a Premier then who was not afraid of the House of Assembly and who 1~elcomed debate. But this Premier runs away.

I have been told by members on the other side that they hope to get us out of here in May. well, not if I can help it Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to refer for a moment to the Question Period of today, and to some of the answers and some of the non-answers that we are receiving from members on the other side of the House. Mr. Chairman there is a silence in this province that is deafening. I have never,after watching this administration from its infancy, never heard so little said on an issue and I talk about the restructuring of the fishery. I do know that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgant has been in Ottawa often,and I do know that he has been talking to the people who are involved in restructuring the fishery. 1002

March 21,1983 Tape No. 439 ah-1 MR.HODDER: I do know that the Premier has been in Ottawa and has been talking to people who are restructuring the fishery. Also, Mr. Chairman, for the past year we have known about the Kirby Commission, and for the past eight months we have had an idea of what is going to happen. But, Mr. Chairman, there has been no comment of recent weeks, of recent months, particularly at this particular time 1when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) sneaks in and out of the House without a comment, the Premier sneaks into the House and sneaks out of the House without a comment.

And today when it was brought up he gave us a bunch of rhetoric, the same old rhetoric which we have heard ever since the Premier c~e to power, about the fish stocks and the cod. But this is a different matter. MR. STAGG: They are the same old questions. MR. HODDER: If the member for Stephenville (Mr. Stagg) would sit down and perhaps get in touch with the people on the Harmon Base who are crying out in the newspapers for his resignation; perhaps he should go back and look after them. But~ Mr. Chairman - MR. STAGG: The hon. gentleman would cen .tainly like to represent Stephenville.

MR.HODDER: I may represent Stephenv~~le yet. Mr. Chairman, there are no comments being made and as everyone knows restructuring - what does restructuring mean? Restructuring means deciding which communities are to die and which communities are to live. And in the budget lo and behold,on page lB,the Minister of Finance (Dr.Collins) talks about minimizing the effects of plant rationalization, plants which come under our jurisdiction. Where in the budget is there a fiscal provision to deliver that promise? There is none. So 1003

March 21,1983 Tape No. 439 ah-2 MR.HODDER: the minister played lip service to plant rationalization to minimize the effects. What the minister means there,if I might put words in his mouth, he means there thatplants will be cut out, communities will be told under this restructuring plan that you no longer have a plant and you have to go on unemployment insurance and then on welfare, That is the minimizing of effects of plant rationalization to which the minister played lip service. But the unkind thing, Mr.

Chairman, is that when you look through the estimates of the budget, when you lo.ok through the departments there is no money there to minimize the effects of plaht rationalization. And what is plant rationalization anyhow? What has the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan) been talking to his counterparts about in Ottawa? What 'did the Premier,when he went to Ottawa, talk about? MR.NEARY: Socializing. MR.HODDER: And then we hear that we have to wait for a Price Waterhouse report before we can do anything. MR.STAGG: They are forecasting the financial part of it too. MR.HODDER: Now, Mr.

Chairman,I suspect that what the government has in mind and what the shrewd Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan) has in mind MR. STAGG: Shrewd? MR.HODDER: Yes, cunning, shrewd, crafty, low. I think at some time these words will come back in this House, the words I say now will come back and I will .. say, 'I told you so.' But what is 1·oo 4

March 21, 1983 •rape 440 EC - 1 MR. HODDER: happen now is the minister knows what is happening with restructuring in Ottawa. He knows what is happening with restructuring. And when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) today said there was a conspiracy of silence - no longer are the unions saying anything, no longer is the federal government saying any­ thing, but most important, no longer are a very vocal Premier and a very vocal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) saying anything. And what they are doing, Mr.

Chairman, if they are going to Ottawa, if they are putting their views to Ottawa - they are telling us in the House they have not got them set out yet because they have to wait for Price Waterhouse. But where is the con~ultation from the people in the communities who are suffering at the present time? MR. STAGG : Who are you talking about there? MR. HODDER: We are talking about restructuring. We are talking about the group in Ottawa with the aid of the minister and the Premier and the Fishermen's Union who are deciding which communities are going to die and which communities are going to live in this Province.

MR . WARREN: MR. STAGG: talking about, MR. NEARY: That is exactly what we are talking about. Right on! _ ~-'!'h:Ls group in Ottawa you are are they of the same political persuasion? We do not know who they are. Ask the Minister of Fisheries or the Premier. MR. HODDER: Yes, ask the Minister of Fisheries or the Premier. MR. STAGG: Of what political persuasion are they : 1005

March 21, 1983 Tape 440 EC - 2 MR. HODDER: Of whatever political persuasion they are, games are being played by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) and by the Premier with them. MR. NEARY: Right on! MR. STAGG: Why do you not go over the fishery agair? MR. HODDER: If the member for Stephenville (Mr. Stagg) could just keep quiet! We were really pleased when he was not in the House last week,because the tenor of the House, the decorum of the House was so much better while he spent last week out - he ran away from Stephenville. He went to the mainland somewhere.

He could not stand the heat - calls for his resignation, former supporters calling for his resignation. I was ashamed. MR. STAGG: You were ashamed. MR. HODDER: Yes, I was ashamed. MR. STAGG: No, you were delighted. MR. HODDER: No, I was ashamed. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what will happen once the deed is done, once the foul deed is done, when the fish companies and the minister and the Premier and the union and everybody have decided, then they will decide how they are going to handle it.

And the minister will come back and he will say, 'Of course, boys, you know, we are going to have a lot of communities closed down here so I am going to get up and I am going to kick up a lot of fuss an~ 1006

Harch 21, 1983 Tape No. 441 MJ - 1 MR. J. HODDER: I will make a lot of noise here in the Province and I will pretend that I had nothing to do with it. If that is not the scenario, why is it then that we are not at the present time debating throughout this Provine~ those communities that .are being closed down, those community action groups that are being closed down? Why are we not talking about the rest~ucturing of the processing sector?

And the minister and the Premier, every time they stand up they say we cannot do anything because the federal government owns the stocks, well , the fact is that there is at this present time, in this Province, lots of fish. And when the fish comes, there are always too many of them, they cannot handle them. We do own the processing sector. We own the fish plants. Under the Constitution they are ours .

And what we are doing by saying to the federal government, 'Oh, we have to have it all,' what we are doing is actually giving up the power that we do have, the power to-restructure and to talk to those companies and to tell them how they should behave in this Province and to encourage them to do secondary processing here rather than in the United States. Mr. Chairman, since I have been here in this House I have seen reports, White Papers, Green Papers, newspapers and everything else come from the minister's office.

There is nothing - I mean, we have seen everything from plans for superports to restructuring of the fishery, they last for a year and then they are gone and the minister is off on another track. Mr. Chairman, the time is corning when the minister and the Premier will be exposed on the fishery, because I predict that once we hear what the Ottawa/Morgan/Peckford/Union Group has served up to this Province, that the minister then will not be able to come out and say, 'Ah, wait until you see our proposal.' Where is the proposal? Why is it that no one in this 1007

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 441 MJ - 2 MR . J. HODDER: Province has seen it? Why is it that no one in this Province has read it? no one in this Province has heard of it? happen, Mr. Chairman? Why is it that And what will MR. F. STAGG: How about that? MR. HODDER: Maybe it has not been released. Well, that is exactly riqht, ~- Chairman, it has not been drawn up. .And the Premier says in Question Period today, 'Ah, where will you stand when we qet it~' Why do we not have it? Why are we not debatinq it? Why do we wait unit! the eleventh hour, wh~n the pie is being cut?

And the pie is bein9' cut and every member over there knows it. And there is a member from Grand Bank (Mr. Matthews), and there is a member from Burin, (Mr. Tobin) and there are members who represent all sorts of fishinq districts around there, and they are sittinq in the back benches and they are waiting" for the axe to fall and they do not know that it is the Minister of Fisheri_es (M.t'. Morqan) and the Premier 1008

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 442 MR. HODDER: and some of their close acquaintances who are going to axe the communities. And there are going to be plants 1 perhaps,in Bonavista North, and plants in Burin-Placentia West which will get the axe . Oh,·yes, the minister will then come out, and the Premier NM - 1 will then come out and condemn the terrible federal government, but that is what is happening. MR. STAGG: Are we goina to T•rork together on Piccadilly, by the way, like you said last year. MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I could not work with the hon. member for anything, not even ' for that. MR.

NEARY: He will work with you to get the rent rolled back on the Harmon Corporation. He will help you roll back the rent on the Harmon Corporation. MR. HODDER: Well, I will tell the han. member, things seem to be well in hand with myself and the minister and if we need him we will call him. How is that? MR. DINN: Well, he will have to be in- vestigated. A lot of things have to be investigated. MR. HODDER: I would say that the minister has been a little slow. Things are not happening as quickly as I would like them. We have only got two more weeks. I am glad the member brought that up.

I know that we only have two more weeks for the O?ening of the plant, but so far I have to give the minister full marks, except he is a little bit slow. But I am talking to his officials every day,and I have talked to the Port au Port Development Association and the union, and all of the people who are concerned in the area . MR. STAGG: For the first time in seven years they finallytalked to you. MR. HODDER: I spoke to them. I went to them. And I will say to the minister that our hat is hung on his peg. We are now waiting for him to respond and to do all the things he has to do.

And I know letters have gone out 1009

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 442 NM - 2 MR. HODDER: to various processors and fish buyers and we support him in that. And the Port au Port Development Association have been sending some letters,and I have been making contacts,and we are all working together, and we intend to solve it. So the han. member, you know, if we really feel we need you we will call you. note saying - MR. STAGG: be when you (inaudible)? MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, I just had a But where am I going to He will be down trying to get the rent straightened out at the Harmon Corporation. MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was trying to help the member.

MR. STAGG: You will oe going from door to doc at the Harmon Complex. MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, a few comments in this debate DR. MCNICHOLAS: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: - on interim supply, and primarily based on the headings,,of course,with the supply wanted for the Department of Fisheries, and a few comments in response to the most-recent statements,toaay,during the Question Period, which was more like a speech period than a Question Period, from the Opposition, and from the hon. gentleman who is now going to leave the Assembly. 1010

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 443 SD - 1 MR. MORGAN: The han. gentleman is talking about the restructuring of the large companies,and talking about the processing end of the fishing industry being under the jurisdiction and control and responsibility of the Newfoundland Government.- Now, Mr.

Chairman, the han. gentleman who just spoke surely in his own thinking must acknowledge that last year when the medium sized companies had problems in Newfoundland in the processing sector it was not Ottawa who came and bailed them out, it was not Ottawa who came along and assisted them and got them going again with regard to their operations. Because we felt that we did have a responsibility with our limited resources we have, financial resources, we indeed helped the companies .out to the tune of $24 million - a total of nineteen fish plants in different parts of the Province.

And just last week when the episode involving Piccadill~ in the han. gentleman's own district, when that problem came to light, we also acted, we acted very promptly to the point where right now we have at least three companies interested. And I am now, in fact, late for a meeting. I am going to a meeting shortly and the han. gentleman is not even listening, he is not concerned, I will make sure the fishermen of Piccadilly understand,when I go out there next week to tell them,that the han. gentleman wants to play his little game of politics b~ not listen to the genuine concerns of the people in !,he area. MR.

STAGG: That is why they keep talking t9 me all of the time. MR. MORGAN: I am actually late now in going to meet with at least one company that is expressing a very, very serious · and genuine concern in .:th .e Piccadilly plant. MR. CARTER: Hear, hear. MR. MORGAN: And we have proposals going 1 011

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 443 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: out to other companies and there are other companies interested as well. And that is the kind of prompt, quick action that this government takes. When we have the resources to do it and we have the jurisdiction to act,and responsibility, we carry out our responsibilities. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. MORGAN: • Now, however, when we talk about this group up in Ottawa, who is this group in Ottawa? Well,the group happens to be some of the most influential ministers in Mr. Trudeau's Cabinet. And who are they? Mr.

Lalonde, the Minister of Finance, a very influential man with Mr. Trudeau,obviously; Mr. MacEachen. who is the Deputy Prime Minister of the country; Mr. Gray, wh .o is an influential minister up there; Mr. Don Johnson, who is the Chairman of that Committee, he is the Minister of State for Economic Development; Mr. LeBlanc, an influential man on fisheries, the former Minister of Fisheries for all of Canada; and Mr. De Bane, the present -minister; and Mr. Rompkey, a minister from Newfoundland. . Tha~ is the whole group - seven ministers. And why is that group dealing with the restructuring? It is because Mr.

Trudeau approximately a year and-a-half, or a little more than a. year and-a-half ago, decided to appoint one of the most influential, one of the brightest civil servants in his whole federal government\s civil service, one of the key advisors to him as the Prime Minister of the country, a doctor, Michael Kirby. And Dr. Mjch~el Kirby was asked to look at the problems of the large companies- in Atlantic Canada. It was not ;ust in Newfoundland~ it was Atlantic Canada. And now Dr.

Kirby has made one report and in that report he said publicly, in all Atlantic Canada, 'Now I have been asked by the Prime Minister to deal witQ the big issue of restructuring of three large companies'. 1012

March 21, 1983 Tape 444 PK - 1 MR. MORGAN: He named the three large companies. There are others which ~rill tucked in under the same umbrella, like John Penney and Sons, maybe T. J. Hardy, maybe other smaller companies, but the three big ones are the Lake Group, Fishery Products, and Nickerson 1 s, Nickerson 1 s, both in Nova Scotia and throughout the Atlantic region. Now, Mr.

Chairman, there is no point in the Opposition trying to leave the impression, as said today by the Premier, that because the processing sector of the fishii industry is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, under the provinces, that we can suddenly as a government resolve a financial problem to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.And that is what we are talking about, hundreds of millions of dollars. We are not talking about $18 million, $19 million or $24 million as • we acted upon last year, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

And to try to leave the impression that this government is not consulted, the members on this side of the Legislature who have fish plants in their respective districts that are owned by any of those large companies, ' they have done their homework, indeed so, they have arranged to bring in delegations. I would say over the last three or four months I have met with delegations from every community that has a fish plant under question 1 whether it is going to be open or not. I have met with delegations 'an the average of at least two or three times from each community.

Andit is quite wrong to stand up in the House of Assembly and say to the government, Oh,you only started showing concern about the major problem of those large companies in the last couple of weeks. We know what the views of the people are in Fermeuse. They are presently doing their homework and making a submission to Dr. Kirby. We know what the views are of the people who are living in Gaultois. We know what the views are of the people who are living in 1013

\ March 21 , 1983 Tape 444 P.K - 2 MR. MORGAN: Burin. We know what the views are of the people livin g in Grand Bank . t<1e indeed know what they are from those living in Harbour Breton. And we indeed know what they are of the residents of the ccmnunity of St. Lawrence . No~ there is nobody who can accuse this present minister of ignoring the views of the people livin g in these commun ities . SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR . MORGAN: Because I have gone down to the respective communities and met with them in their own areas; I have had meetings in St. John's on two or three different occasions over the last number of months . So ~,e 1014

March 21, 1983 Tape 445 EC -1 MR. MORGAN: consultation process is indeed a good one. And then the member who last spoke was talking about, 'Oh, you did not get the views of the fisherl!len.' Well, surely we did not get the views of the individual fisherman, no, that is almost impossible, but indeed we did get the views of the people who represent the fishermen. And if the hon. gentleman is trying to tell us that the· fishermen's union are not the official representa­ tives of the fishermen, I think he indeea should talk to Mr. Cashin about that,if that is his view.

We are of the opinion that the union is properly formed, properly organized, have proper bargaining rights and we recognize them complete­ ly and totally. So if the hon. gentleman is saying to us we did not hear the views' of the fishermen, I think it is an insult to the President of the Fishermen's Union, Mr. Cashin and his executive. Indeed it is. MR. ANDREWS : He should apologize to them. MR. MORGAN: And then the hon. gentleman and the Opposition is trying to leave the impression, 'Oh, well, you have no plan on how to handle these plant problems.

You have no plan.' Well, the fact is I think the hon. gentleman today in Question Period and in his comments in this debate now,clearly leaves the impression that there are people up there making decisions and on the verge of making decisions which are not necessarily in the best interests of this Province and he is finally coming to recognize that fact. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. MORGAN: Now, there are a few people up there who do understand and who do recognize,but there are a few who do not understand. And if they are not going to make a decision that is in the best interest of this 1015

March 21, 1983 Tape 445 EC - 2 MR. MORGAN: Province and the fishing industry which is so important to the rural parts of our Province - the hon. gentleman is trying to get us to say, 'Yes, we agree with that group in Ottawa who have been making the decision,' it could be the ministers I mentioned, they are the Cabinet committee appointed to deal with it - and get us to say, 'Yes, we agree with what they are saying up in Ottawa about the restructuring,' so that they can zero in and say, 'Oh, the Newfoundland Government is to blame for all of this.

They are the ones who are agreeing to close X plant or Y plant around the Province.' I am saying, Mr. Chairman, again - I said in debate last week and I want to repeat again, there is nobody in this present Cabinet,with the exception of the Premier, who ~as agonized more than I have as Minister of Fisheries over this major issue. It indeed is a major issue. It is going to affect the £uture of the deep-sea fishery forever and a day in this Province. There is no question in my mind that that is the bottom line.

And we have to make sure, we have to make sure that when we take a final position we should not be suddenly rushed into making a decision because someone in Ottawa says, 'We want a decision right now.' We should not be rushed into making a decision or taking a position. And, as the Premier has said, we want to make sure that we have the views of every party concerned and, Jnore importantly, that we have the views and - not only . 1016

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 446 MJ - 1 MR. J. MORGAN: the views, but we have all of the facts laid on the table, every scrap of information that i~ possibly available to us through Dr. Kirby and his group, through Price Waterhouse, through the other company involved, chartered accountant firms,and from the banks and from the companies, every ~crap of information before us and only then, after we did our homework, as the Premier answered in Question Period, only then should we as a government make a decision affecting the lives of the people in Burin, make a decision about the lives of thos ·e people in St.

Lawrence, or Fermeuse or Gaul to is or Harbour Breton or St. Anthony or elsewhere.And if the hen. ·gentleman is worried- and I think today that they portrayed, the Opposition 1 that the Liberal Party of the Province is indeed worried about a possible very unfair decision coming from Ottawa,made by their Liberal Party in Ottawa, they are very concerned, and if they are concerned do not suddenly try to lay the blame on Premier Peckford and his government, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : MR. MORGAN: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. MORGAN: two minutes. MR. CHAIRMAN: SOME HON • MEMBERS : MR. MORGAN: MR.

MORGAN: Order, please! The hen. memb~rs time has elapsed. By leave, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister have leave? I am going to a meeting in Piccadily, Two minutes leave? Two minutes leave, Mr. Chairman. The hen. the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that if the hen. gentleman is concerned about a possible decision that is not in our best interest being made by his colleagues in Ottawa, do not suddenly try to twist it around and blame it on Mr. Peckford's government here in Newfoundland. Do not do that. I would say to him sincerely 1017

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 446 MJ - 2 MR. J. MORGAN: and to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Neary) in Newfoundland, I say to them very, very sincerely and genuinely sincerely, do not try to twist it around and play politics and blame us, use their influence. They must have an influence, they are the official Liberal Party, the official Opposition. And surely Liberal blood is thicker than water, and if the Liberal Party in Newfoundland has any influence with their colleagues in Ottawa, use that influence. I would say to the han. gentleman, the House Leader on the Opposition (Mr. J.

Hodder) side, use your influence to help out some of your MPs who may be taking a very firm position - I will not go any further than that, some of them may be taking a firm position - help them out because they are going to need your help maybe. And I am saying in my conclusion today, in my brief remarks, that we are not going to make a decision or be rushed into making a decision until we are convinced that the decision and the position we take on this major issue is going to be the right decision for the deep-sea fishery and the future of that fishery in our Province. MR. HODDER: MR.

CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : Port au Port. Thanks for the extended time. Mr • . Chairman. The han. the member for MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) asked that we use our influence, the difference between the Minister of Fisheries and we on this side is that we do not know what is coming down. We know and ·suspect that it will mean a great deal of suffering for a great number of communities in this Province. And I would like to ask the minister some questions and I will yield my place if the minister would answer them. 1018

March 21,1983 Tape No. 447 ah-1 MR.HODDER: I would like to ask the minister, has he had any input whatsoever sofar into the restructuring of the fishery? What is his role in the restructuring of the fishery? Has he been consulted? What is he doing when he is in Ottawa talking to the Kirby people and to the group which are involved in the restructuring of the fishery? MR.MORGAN: Could I answer that question before I leave? MR.HODDER: One more before you go.

Also, when you talk about the fact that you have talked to fishermen's committees here and fishermen's committees there, when you talk to those fishermen's groups from the various communities which are-affected, you are talking about their concerns or is it in a framework of restructuring? Have you said to them, 'This is what I expect will happen.' And I am sure the minister must know what will happen. We know he knows what will happen. When you speak to those people are you giving them the ,framework under the new restructuring of the fishery in which they have to make their decisions?

Because that is the important thing. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward): The hon.Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, it is important to get this matter clarified in this debate,because ~hen the Kirby Task Force process was established the process of public hearings was held. And when you look at the reason why the Kirby Task Force was appointed, why was it appointed? It was appointed to deal with the major ·financial problems of the large companies. That was the reason why it came into formation.

So during the process of dealing with that major problem they had public hearings, they held meetings with the organizations and 1019

March 21,1983 Tape No. 447 ah-2 MR.MORGAN: groups in respecti ve communities involved and asked them their opinions. And we did the same thing. Sometimes without even asking for it they came in and told us what their opinions were , delegations coming in for meetings with me and with the Premier, in some cases. So that process was there leading up to a position to be put forward by Mr. Kirby and his group. Mr. Kirby was to put forward the position, the foundation for the restructuring of the large companies. That was his role. Now, Mr.

Chairman, when I appeared before that Cabinet committee in Ottawa about two weeks ago,with the seven federal cabinet ministers­ in fact,there were two more at i_t that day, one from PEI and , I think, one from somewhere else, seven or eight Cabinet ministers of the federal cabinet, when I appeared that day. The question is asked, 'What did you do and what did you discuss?' Well,the han. gentleman should know that when I went to Ott "awa I did what?

Try stop a dec~sion which we knew and heard was going to be made that same day in Otta~v-a which we felt, as the government here,was not in the best interest of this Province. That is why I appeared on behalf of this government before that Cabinet committee in Ottawa, to say, 'Gentleman, please do not make that decision today. Do not make that decision because it is not going to be in the best interest of this Province of Newfoundland that I am speaking for. Do not make it. 'I hear you might make it today. Do not make it.' 'Why, Mr. Morgan? Why?' 'Well, there are obvious reasons why gentlemen.

We have not got all the information we need, the financial informtion from Price Waterhouse. 1020

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 448 JV - 1 MR. MORGAN: We have not got all the . information we need from Dr. Kirby and his group. Dr. t,iicilael Kirby appointed Price Waterhouse, we did not appoint Price Waterhouse. Michael Kirby appointed McLeod Young and Weir. They appointed the Chartered Accountant firm in Toronto,in conjunction with the banks and others. I said 'Gentlemen, do not make that decision,because we want all the information that we do not have today.

We have not got all the information and if we have not got it,we understand you have not got it.' So , because you have not got all the information as to the financial data on the companies, financial data on the individual plants, the financial data with regard . to projections far the future ., the bottom line five years time for individual scenarios,because we have not got that information, Mr.

Chairman,because we have not got it I said, 'Gentlemen, do not make any decision today, give the Newfoundland government, give all parties concerned ample time to do their homework, ample time to·analyze. and assess fully all the information that we need and should have before us.~ That is what we said in Ottawa. That is all we said in Ottawa. In the meantime,we came back from Ottawa and did what? We came back and the Premier arranged with the Minister of Development involved (Mr. Windsor}, the Minister of Finance involved (Dr. Collinsl, the Minister responsible for the Petroleum Di~ectorate (Mr.

Marshalll and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimerl, the Attorney-General, We sat down with all parties, called them in,each individually, all the companies in one meeting, we met with the fishermen's union, another meeting separately, we met with the bank, the senior people of the Bank of Nova Scotia in Toronto,separately, we met with the Price Waterhouse firm which is doing all the work fqr ~r, ~ .rJ~y. All i~div_idua~ f!!~etings. A full day of meetings. 1021

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 448 JV - 2 MR. HODDER: Big deal! MR. MORGAN: Now he says,'big deal'. It is a big deal for the deep-sea fishery. The han. gentleman can make fun if he wants to but it is a big deal. I am trying to tell him the process. The process was that we want to know the views of all these people: the fishermen and plant workers through their Fishermen's Union, the banks as to what their position is on restructuring, the individual companies as to what their positions are, all the companies combined.

So, after getting all the information then we said, 'Gentlemen, we need more informationm we need more financial data'. And the Premier instructed the people who are working for Mr. Kirby to provide that information to us: Here is what we want, gentlemen, we want that information before we make a decision. So, it was only a few days ago, no longer than last Friday or Saturday - today is Monday, Monday or Tuesday of last week that we obtained the information we required.

Now, surely, the han. gentleman did not want us to get the information one day and, like Malcolm Montgomery, read the budge~ over one minute and make a big public statement the next minute after. We did not want to do that, you have to carefully analyze first, you have to analyze and assess the information and, then, you MR. HODDER: A good man, Montgomery. MR. MORGAN: Yes, a good advisor for the liberal party. - have to make your decisiqn accordingly. The Opposition House Leader (Mr.

Hodder), I am sure, is not being responsible, he must recognize that, when he says to Premier Peckford, you must make a decision now. You must make it right now. We want to know 1022

March 21, 1983 Tape no. 449 NM- 1 MR. MORGAN: what it is now. Make it publicly known what it is now. I think the Premier is portraying very, very good responsiblity by saying, "We will get our homework done first. Do all our homework. Analyze and assess all information, then we will make our decision; when our decision is made then we will tell the Federal Cabinet Committee what our decision is and why.

And after that we hope that the federal government will listen to us." We sincerely hope that the gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition side, their colleagues in Ottawa, will indeed listen to what this go'vernment is saying. If they do that, and if we are convinced our decision is right ', I am hoping that they will recognize it is the right decision.

But in case it is not, just in case it is not, just in ~ase it is not the scenario of events, just in case the Federal Caeinet Committee is not going to listen to the Ne .wfoundland Government, is not going to be guided by the Newfoundland Government, is nat going to listen to the recommendations of the Newfoundland Goverment, just in case they do not do that,Well,that is when the o~position party -surely is going to show their influence to all Newfoundlanders and say, "We support that policy :-of the Newfoundland Government and Premier Peckford and his ministers, we support that position on restructuring, we think it is good and we are going to now try to persuade our colleagues in Ottawa to implement the recommendations'~ Who would they go to I wonder to get their influences heard?

The hon. gentleman from the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Robertsl has influence with the Newtoundland 1023

March. 21, 1983 Tape No. 449 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: minister in the Federal CaDinet. He could influence Mr. Rompkey. I am sure of that. The hen. gentleman also has some influence with other ministers in the Federal Cabinet. I think he has influence with Mr. MacEachen, he has some influence with Mr. Johnson, he has some influence with Mr. Lalonde, but not very much. MR. STAGG: Who is that? MR. MORGAN: The hen. former leader of the party - MR. STAGG: The hon. former, former, former. MR. MORGAN: - the Strait of Belle Isle member.

I think he could indeed influence many of his colleagues in Ottawa,that if he sees something that is not good for Newfoundland he could influence them to change their position. And I would like to see him do that. Once he knows what our position is, and all the public is aware what our decision is on the restructuring, that he could influence it. Surely he would not take the position because St. Anthony is dealt with in the restructuring, "I got no worries." Surely he would not do that. The hen. gentleman would not do that, would he? He would show his concern for Burin, would he not?

He would show his concern for St. Lawrence, would he not? I sincerely hope he ;.rould . MR. STAGG: What about Piccadilly? MR. MORGAN: He would not just say, "Well, I do not worry about the rest of the plants, I have my plant looked after. I have St. Anthony open and I got no worries. The Saltfish Corporation is taking ·aver my plant, gentlemen, I do not care. I do not think he would do that. He would not do that. so we can count on his influence in Ottawa. I must say I do not think the present leader - I think the former leader has more influence in Ottawa than the ~present leader. 1024

March 21, 1983 Tape No.450 so - 1 MR. MORGAN: There is no question in my mind about that, no question in my mind at all that the present Leader is not nearly as influential as the gentleman from the Strait of Belle Isle {_Mr. Roberts) in talking to his colleagues in Ottawa. And unfortunately the hon. gentleman from Piccadilly is also getting so linked in with the present situation of the Liberal Party that he is also losing his influence as well. He may not be able to influence his colleague, Mr. Simmons, let alone a minister up there. MR. HODDER: Mr. Tobin is my boy. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Tobin. I find Mr.

Tobin a fine, fine fellow. r get along with Mr. Tobin, he is a good fellow. He understands the problems and he has the ear of the Minister of Fisheries up there right now,as his Parliamentary Assistant,and r am getting along fine with the Minister of Fisheries. I do not want any comments· I interrupt here today to reflect on the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa. Oh,no, I do not want to do that. No way, I am serious.

The gentl-eman is the first minister th .at I have seen in Ottawa who understands the problems of rural Newfoundland,maybe because his · riding is a rural riding in Quebec and he represents rural Quebecers and many of them are unemployed ..., in his- riding I think t.he percentage is 26 per cent unemployment,in Mr. De Bane~s own federal riding. He understands the problems of unemployment. He understands that living in rural Newfoundland you have problems associated with rural parts of the country of Canada. And I do not want, any way today, to leave my comments to be interrrupted some how as an attack on Mr.

De Bane no, no, no. However, Mr. '\ De Bane is only one minister in Ottawa. And I will tell you this major injection of massive funds by the federal government is not going to be suddenly dumped into the fishery of Atlantic Canada - hundreds of -millions Of dollars 1025

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 450 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: dumped in by the federal government and say, 'Here go ahead'. It is going to be a big decision, a very, very major decision. That is the reason why Mr. Trudeau has appointed Mr. MacEachen and Mr. Lalonde and Mr~ Gray and Mr. Johnson and all of these,because it is a very imFortant decision.

And I am saying if these gentlemen, these influential ministers in Ottawa, if they do not understand the ramifications of some of their thoughts and directions that indeed we are going to count on, I am going to say it again, we are going to count on those influential Liberals in Newfoundland who can pursuade their colleagues to change their minds up in Ottawa when required. MR. HODDER: What about the Government of Newfoundland, wh .at are they going to do? What about the Price Waterhouse Report? MR. MORGAN: No, Mr.

Chairman, we will put forward - again I want to stress that - we will put forward what we think is the best decision for Newfoundland. Now, if I was out this afternoon talking about the whole restructuring plans and saying we disagreed with that, we agree with. this·, disagree with that the Opposition House Leader (.Mr. H.oddert would :f:>e the first one to say 1 (Qhf there goes Morgan again negotiating in public and talking about this and talking about that. Now that I am not doing it he is condemning me. It is the same thing I talked to Mr.

Cashin about a few days ago,and be has had some general comments, out the fact is that he is not one of the major players. He is not going to oe asked to put 1026

MArch 21, 1983 Tape 451 PK - 1 MR. MORGAN: any money in, I am sure of that. He should be~ I would say they have a good ·kitty in their union kitty, millions of dollars from the offshore operations and other sources, over-the-side sales, and all of these. They have a good kitty of funds, but I am sure they will not be asked to put money into restructuring. So he is not going to be a major player in that regard, but he is a major player with regard to consultation, and we recognize that. That is the reason we had Mr. Cashin in for an hour or so, the Cabinet Committee of this government here. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Ayl r.:ard) : The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman , I get carried away. SOME HON . MEMBERS: By leave? By leave? MR. MORGAN: By leave; two minutes? I am off to the Piccad~lly meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the minister granted leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS : By leave. MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave. The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, again I want to say, and maybe I say it too many times, but the fact is that this issue - MR. HODDER: The fact is you know about restructuring and you have not said a word. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Chairman, I agree that I know lots of things have been talked about under restructuring. If I do not know it now . after six months work, well what am I doing here? I know. Sure I do. But what I am saying is when we make a decision as to what our position is . and Nhat our decision is, . and sureJ.y -we are entitled to nake that decision without throlring out different 1027

March 21, 1983 Tape 451 PK - 2 MR. MORGAN: directions tc the public as to what we stand for, whether we want Burin reopened, whether we want Grand Bank to stay open, whether we want the Gaultois plant to stay open, whether we want the Fermeuse plant to carry on as a deep-sea plant, whether we want St. Anthony to come out of the Saltfish Corporation and go in with the companies, whether we want Port au Choix to go with the Saltfish Corporation or not, and all of these thing, all different scenarios.

When we take that position, sure the Opposition is entitled to know then, so is all of Newfoundland So will all Newfoundland be entitled to know. And the Premier said today in Question Period they will know, But when they do know I am very, very anxiously looking forward to what position they will take then. M1en they know our position, where will they scream away or squirm away to then? What will they do then? MR. DINN: There will be a silence. MR.

MORGAN: They are complaining we have silence now when we are negotiating and discussing a very important issue and rightly so, but I am saying before I close, that when the decision is made by this government then you are going to hear nothing but silence from the official Opposition in the House of Assembly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : The hon. member for the " Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, much to the dis- appointment of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgan) I am not going to engage in a duel of wits with him~ I want to - ----- do something that may be foreign to the minister, I want to talk about part of the Budget. I know the Budget debate is coming up and we will all have an opportunity to speak in that as well, but I want to talk for a few moments- and I am glad the Finance Minister (Dr. Collins1 is back in his seat 1028

March 21, 1983 Tape 451 PK - 3 MR . ROBERTS: because, of course, my remarks are directed mainly at him. He was the one responsible for the Budget in a very personal way , in the personal way in which the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) is the minister resp~:msible for the Budget document itself. First of all I just want to ask the minister when he speaks, as he no doubt will at some point in this Interim Supply debate - I gather it is going to go on. Am I letting the cat out of the bag if I say 1029

March 21, 1983 Tape 452 EC - 1 MR. ROBERTS: how long it may go onr It may go on until the House rises next week. It could easily go on, I mean, with·the kind of attitude we are seeing opposite and we have not heard yet from such gems as the gentlem~ from Stephenville (Mr. Stagg), a rough diamond indeed, a very rough diamond indeed and, of course, the gentleman from Mount Scio (Mr. Barry), now that the farming season is over, is back with us again. MR. NEARY: St. John's North. st. John's North. MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from St. John's North (Mr.

Carter) - the gentleman from Mount Scio is an estimable gentleman and indeed has more sense in his little finger than the gentleman from St. John's North has in his whole big arm. MR. CARTER: You cannot speak badly of your partner. MR. ROBERTS: I am not speaking badly of my partner, Sir. I only wish that the gentle~en on the other side had enough wit to support the gentleman from Mount Scio who, of course, has been shown by time to have been so very right on a major issue where the Premier was so very wrong. But I just want to say to the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) that he would be interested to know that on Saturday past at a public meeting in this Province, one of his colleagues denied that that colleague knew anything at all about the Budget before it was introduced here in the House on Thursday, before the Speech was read. And I would be grateful if the Minister of Finance would confirm or deny the statement by one of his colleagues, because it goes to the very heart of responsible govern­ ment as to whether or not one of the major policy items in the Budget, one of the major items announced in the 1030

March 21, 1983 Tape 452 EC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Budget, had not been discussed or agreed to by the Cabinet before the minister made his - MR. NEARY : Health? MR. ROBERTS: MR. NEARY: MR. ROBERTS: It was in the health field, yes. Oh! - before the minister made his Budget Speech here i~the House on Thursday past. So perhaps the minister could deal with that and we may or may not have more to say.

But I will tell him that a minister of the Crown, one of his colleagues, a gentleman who to my knowledge has not resigned from the Cabinet, said at a public meeting on Saturday past in this Province that he, a minister, had not been aware of a major development in the Budget which affected his own constituency, before the Speech was made here in the House. I will leave it at that. The minister may perhaps be able to tell us about that. MR. HOUSE: MR. ROBERTS: What was the statement, first? Which statement? MR. HOUSE: What statement are you making? MR.

ROBERTS: The statement I made, I say to the Minister of Health (Mr. House) - he is not the gentleman to whom I am referring, by the way. The statement I made, for the benefit of the Minister of Health, is that one of his qolleagues said publicly at a meeting on Saturday past that he had not been agreed - he, being a minister of the Crown, which leaves out the han. lady from Humber East (Ms Verge} and the han. lady from Gander (Mrs. Newhook) and narrows it down to a number of other members of the Cabinet. And I say to the gentleman from Stephenville (Mr.

Stagg) who is trying so very hard to rise to the eminence of the Cabinet and the han. gentleman from St. John's North (Mr. Carter) who has risen and has fallen and hopes yet 1031

.:.J March 21 , 1983 Tape 452 EC - 3 MR . ROBE~TS: to rise again Phoenix -like from the ashes , that they too m ight want to know about t:hat. MR. BARRETT: He may make it quicker than you think. MR. ROBERTS : I sa y to my ab sent friend who is without the bounds of the House, from St . John 's West, that on the terms in which those gentlemen would get into the Cabinet , I would rather not be there . Yes , I say that without any hesitation at all . 1032

March 21, 1983 Ta pe No. 453 MJ - 1 MR. E. ROBERTS: The difference, Mr. Chairman, is that I have been there and I know exactly why they are working so hard to get where they hope to get. Mr. Chairman, here I am trying to make a few quiet remarks and already every Yahoo on that side is yahooing and yehawing and whoyawing, they have learned nothing. They are like the Bourbons, they learn nothing and they forget nothing and their fate will not be unlike that of Louis~ which was it 1 Louis XVI who hcd his head cut off or was it Louis XVIII I can never keep them straight - and Marie Antoinette.

And, of course, they too, as di-:1 the late Mrs . Antoinette,speak of 'let them eat cake'. Mr. Chairman, I do ~ant to ask the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) if he will address a matter that I consider to be a very serious one because it goes to the heart of the integrity of the document he has presented here in the House. The question I am getting at is the accuracy of his revenue estimates. I will say that the Minister of Finance's record has been such that one is entitled to question the accuracy of his estimates. And I will say again- ~ minister is studiously ignoring me.

That is up to him, of course. 'lbere is no law that says he must either listen or understand, much less answer. But there are very serious questions about the integrity of his Budget Estimates, his revenue estimates. Now, I only have a very few moments and I will come back at it again, I just want to touch on two revenue sources. The Corporate Income Tax, which is one of the major tax sources and one of the major tax yields is estimated in the corning fiscal year, the 1983 - 84, year, by the minister to yield $45 .5 million.

The revised estimates for the current fiscal year, the one ending in ten days is $36 million. That is an increase of about 25 percentage points. Last year the minister in his budget estimated that the corporate income tax would yield $53.9 million,

whereas the year before 1 1033

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 453 MJ - 2 MR . E. ROBERTS: 1981 - 82,it actually yielded $44.8 million . Now, I simply want the minister to tell us on what basis he estimates that the yield from corporate taxes will go up by 25 per cent this year. And if it does not go up by 25 per cent this year then,of cour~e.there is a $9 million hole in the budget, we are $9 million worse off than we expected . That is one . 1034

March 2, 1983 Tape No. 454 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: Eventuall y we will go throug~ them all. But let me turn to another that is far more significant in dollar terms, but where the same interesting story arises. The retail sales tax; I mean, here the story is most interesting, Mr. Chairman. The estimated yield from this tax source this year is $340 million, $340.5 million, according to the information which the minister has given us. The actual final yield last year, we are told, and the year is not over, but all eleven months' actual results I guess were to hand, came to $275.6 million.

The minister is budgeting for a $23.4 per cent increase in retail sales tax yields. I would like him to tell the Committee on what basis he feels that the amount of money that Newfoundlanders a.nd Labradorians will have to spend on items that attract the retail sales tax, the amount they have to spend,is going to go up by 23 or 24 per cent in this year over last year. That is a higher increase than we have seen~± have gone back as far as 1979-1980. The minister has put in these projections. Last year his record was even more lamentable.

He estimated $286 million at the start of the year, then,of course,we had the infamous mini-budget and I will deal with that again later .,. But the minister still has not come clean with this House, or with the people of the Province,and I have more information now · as to ~en the minister actually became aware of the revenue shortfalls. But he estimated $286 million in his budget, the final outturn was $275.6 million and that is after the tax, of course, was wh.omped up by 8 per cent- by one. point, from 11 to 12. And the minister, in other words 1 had a higher tax and his yield was down. 1035

1 March 2, 1983 Tape No. 454 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say how is to raise these three questions to the ninister. Number one, is he aware, and if so what will he say, to the fact that one of his colleagues has publicly said that he was not aware of one of the major administrative decisions in the budget. And the han. roinister said that at a public meeting in this Province on Saturday past. Number two, can the minister explain, if he would please, the basis on which he estimates that our tax yield from corporate tax will be 25 per cent greater this year than was the actual yield last year?

And finally, and most important of all .in dollar terms, can the minister tell us why he estimates that the retail sales tax, with the rate unchanged, will yield $65 million more this year than it did last year. 23 per cent more, and the rate is up 12 points for all of this year. Last year it was 12 points £0k- what? - for about five and a half months as I recall it. So I would ask the minister if he would be kind enough to explain these to us. We are willing to listen. we are willing to be convinced. But I will say to him that the burden is on him. And I will say to him as 1036

March 21,1983 Tape No. 455 ah-1 MR.ROBERTS: well,and he realizes the obvious inference to be drawn, if he cannot show us on what basis these estimates have been derived,and they are higher than any historical ones in the last four or five years would justify, far higher than the economic forecast would justify, then the obvious inference is that the minister is overstating revenue.=.ael:l:eera-eety which , of course, is another way of saying he is deliberately understating the deficit on current account which, of course, is another way of saying he is simply cooking the books.

And on the record this minister has already done that. We are not accusing him of it now. All I want to ask him is,these are questions , let him answer the q;estions and depending on his answer we will see where we will go from there. Thank you , Mr.Chairman. MR.CHAIRMAN (Aylward): The han. Minister of Finance. DR.COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the han. member for Port au Port (Mr.

Hodder) brought up a number of PJints when he spoke and most of them related to the fisheries and I think those points have been adequately answered by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan) so I do not think I have to get into that aspect of things. The only comment I would make there, I think, in the course of his remarks he may have indicated that the debate going on Interim Supply can be again duplicated during the debate on the main estimates and that is so. But, of course, the two debates are within the confines of the seventy­ five hours,so it is up to the Opposition how they want to handle it.

They can either put the main emphasis in debate on Interim Supp~y or they can put it on the main estimates but they do have to go by the rules of the House and the rules under which,we operate does limit the debate for the estimates,whether they be 1037

March 21,1983 Tape No. 455 ah-2 DR.COLLINS: Interim Supply or main supply to a seventy-five hour period. And as han. members of the committee know,a certain number of those hours will be spent in the special committees that are set up to deal with various departments' estimates. In regard to the han. member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.Roberts) the first point he made was in regard to some statement that a minister was purported to have made over the weekend.

Well,possibly I did not read· all the media or did not see all the electronic media, but I must confess that I do not know which statment he is alluding to. I am really in the dark on that and unless he will tell me what the statement is,which he avoided doing- for some .obscure reason of his own, unless he tells me what the statment is I can hardly comment on it. I will be glad to do what I can when I know what the statement is,but I hardly really comment intelligently on some vague reference to some statement that might have been made by someone as yet unknown to me. 1038

March 21, 19 83 Tape No. 456 SD - 1 DR. COLLINS: The points, I suppose, more worthy of comment are his concerns expressed about the revenue estimates. And I do not have any problem in discussing that with him and I can see why he should raise the question , because I think that these questions may be in a number of people's minds. They may look back at the projections that were made in the last fiscal year and,having experienced what ultimately came out, they could legitimately ask , 'What about the projections in this year's budget? So I think it is a legitimate question.

I would answer it in this way, that we have discussed the economic climate that we can expect in this coming fiscal year in great detail with the expert people on whose advice we rely. And we also, of course, reviewed with them in considerable detail what went on last year. And out of these discussions we have come to the conclusion,and we agree with our experts in this regard , we have come to the conclusion that last year is very, very unlikely to be duplicated this year.

Last year the economy in this -country plummeted to a degree that I do not know if it was seen in the Great Depression years in the early 1 3Qs~ it may have been duplicated then but it certainly had not been duplicated since then. There was a total turnaround of an enormous magnitude in th _e economy last year. I ·think the federal government projected that the economy would grow by either 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent last year when in actual fact it went into a negative phase of ab.out roughly 5 per cent. So there was about a 7 per cent change in the projections of the Canadian economy last year.

Now that is a unique reversal of projections. And our advisors tell us -that tnat is mast unlikely to happen again this year, that not only has the economy sort of absorbed to some extent those mast unusual ci.rcumstances,but also 1039

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 456 SD - 2 DR. COLLINS: people who supply us the iBforrnation on which we based our projections have learned from that experience and they are being somewhat more cautious and are researching the facts to a greater degree so that their advice to us can be more accurate.

We in this Province are expecting that the Gross Domestic ~reduct will change from a minus 6 per cent last year - which, again, was not proj'7cted in my last budget, granted 1 :Out 1 as I say, we are not alone in that; we are like the federal government and many other provincial jurisdictions in that regard, we got a very unusual situation there - but, anyway, last year there was a minus 6 per cent growth in our Gross Domestic Product and on the oasis of the advice we have this year we will get a positive, plus 1 per cent growth in our Gross Domestic Product this year.

So we are therefore expecting to find a 7 per cent change in economic activity in the Province this year. And that accounts to a considerable degree £or some of the revenue estim~tes, for some of the increases in th .e revenue estimates. Looking at the particular ones that the hon. member mentioned, the Corporate Income Tax, that, of course, is not something that we project ourselves. We are not responsible for the projection there in terms of iti;i size. 1040

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 457 MJ - 1 DR. J. COLLINS: Han. members know that the federal government collects corporate income tax for the Province, it is a provincial source tax but nevertheless it is collected in the federal hands,and we are reliant on them for these projections. The latest one that we got from them showed that our revenues would increase by that magnitude. It is a sizable increase and I can only presume that they feel that the economy in the Province will track the increasing strenght of the economy in Canada as a whole and therefore we will get these extra revenues.

In additio~hon. members will remember that in the Budget last year there was an increase in corporate income tax placed on large corporations which was effective as of the beginning of the calendar year. - So whether that has any influence or not I am not prepared to say,but I just want to point out that it is the federal government who supplies us with that information.

Now, unlike that, in terms of the retail sales tax we make our own projections on that from the best information we can get 1 and if our economy does go from minus 6 per cent gross up to a positive 1 per cent gross obviously that will have some spinoff beneficial effects in terms of our revenues. The other large element in that is that in November we did have this 1 per cent increase in the rate of retail sales tax and retail sales tax was extended to cover adult clothing, so that in this year we will have an annualization of the revenues that are coming in from those two points

whereas in fiscal 1982-83 we only had the revenues coming in there from ~ovember to March, four and a half months. So we will have four and a half months to compare with twelve months and that to a considerable extent accounts for the rise in the projections in retail sales tax. I think those are the points that are apparent. 1041

Ma rc h 21, 1983 Ta:e.e No. 457 MJ - 2 MR. E. ROBERTS: What about the statement a minister made ~at he did not know what was in the Budget? DR. COLLINS: the House temporarily. Well, I think you were out of I said I cannot comment, I did not know what the statement was. I did not read any such statement or hear any such statement. I mentioned that you had not given the statement or even indicated which minister made it. I cannot comment on that unl .ess I have a bit more information. MR . ROBERT S: If the minister would permit a question? MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : Strait of Belle Isle. MR.

ROBERTS: The hon. the member for the Can the minister assure us - and I do not doubt that this is so but I want to hear it from the horse's mouth and not the other end ~ can the minister therefore assure us that, you know, the Budget, as he presented it in the House, did represent the considered position of ~e Cabinet, which is what I would expect, and that of course all of the ministers were aware of what was in it before it was made public? 1042

March 21, 1983 Tape No. 458 NM - l DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot comment on what horses would .say from whatever end of thei