,,. Volume XL -$111..,;:; •.~ t'G · s L • r i;;"~ \.. (/: ~~~ ·~. • ~ ~ ' ' ' . .,.,.o'· - '·( ·(t 1§1 t.rl/f'et~NIXA..,_ (. { ~ . ' S>'f' . , .. c"' ··,_ l. I ""' ,., ' ~ "'{ .,,..,~ ~~ ~ tj ,,l :r: \' _,... ~·i-1 ~:t.t ":.:" ~~n :~~~ "' .. A Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH .GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NE\VFOUNDLAND First Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Monday, 29 April 1985 Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 2

The House met at 3:00 P.M. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. John's East Extern. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of privilege arising out of the weekend issue of The Evening Telegram surrounding a press conference I had respecting the death of Alonzo Corcoran. The reporter who covered the press conference obviously got a very clear message from it. Her account was fairly accurate. She went on in another

section of the front page to indicate that I had called a press conference to blame bureaucrats for my being dropped from Cabinet. That is most unkind, unfair, inaccurate, and I am not sure what else, Mr. Speaker. I made no such statement. I went out of ~y way during that press conference to separate myself and the Premier, whose privilege and prerogative it is to make or break Cabinets, to indicate that there was in no way any connection between the two issues contrary to some rumours which have been prevalent coming to me through phone calls, questions to me by reporters.

I do not know how those rumours started. They are insidious, they are -unfounded. I really do not know, Mr. Speaker, what the motive is behind them. I want to clear two points, Sir. First of all, I called the press conference out of desperation to clear my name. Any

interpretation placed on the account of that press conference indicating that the Director of LSI April 29, 1985 Corrections, Mr. Frank Simms, whose name was mentioned, had responsibility directly for the death of that boy is unfounded and false. I at no time said that, indicated that or believed that. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that the gentleman was out of the Province when the tragedy took place. What I did clarify was the fact of some reports and so on, and I was simply confirming and giving credence to what the judge had said in the enquiry. I take nothing back on those things.

I did not say, Mr. Speaker, as quoted, that I would kick that gentleman out. I did not use any such term. I said that I had planned, if I stayed in the department, to make sure that the gentleman was not in charge of that programme. That is what I said and only that. I think it is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. I cleared the point in terms of my views on being dropped from the Cabinet. I thought that matter was settled. I wish it was settled.

The Premier had indicated to me and publicly to reporters that my administration of that department had nothing whatsoever ~o do with his decision to exclude me from the Cabinet. I do not know if he wants to add anything to that, but certainly, I would appreciate anything that anyone can add to remove this cloud from my head. I administered that department competently, there is plenty evidence to indicate that. I have no responsibility for the death of that boy, I did everything I could and, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a bit unfortunate that a reporter could be so irresponsible. I am asking through this hon.

House today that that reporter make a complete retrac ·tion of her R-51

interpretation. I do not know if it is in her mind, if she dreamt it or whatever else, but it is most unfair and unkind to report falsely on what anybody says. It is a slap in the face to the public service of this Province that a minister would, in fact be so naive or be so devious as to suggest that bureaucrats could have caused his demise or his exclusion from the Cabinet. · We all know, Mr. Speaker, that Premiers make Cabinets, that Premiers drop people from Cabinets, and no matter who he might talk to, the ultimate and final decision is his and his alone. I accept that, I have accepted it publicly.

I do not know in my wildest dreams how any reporter can suggest that bureaucrats had anything to do with it. I want to disassociate myself with it and I am asking the reporter to make a retraction, an unqualified retraction on the front page with the same prominence that she gave when that statement was made. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I am going to take this matter under advisement to see if there is a prima facie case and will report back to the House later. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, consulted the 000 President of the I have already official Opposition L52 April 29, 1985 about this, but unfortunately the hon. the member fo'=' Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) was not here at the time. I move that the hon. the member for Terra Nova (Mr. Greening) take the Chair of this hon. House as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): It is moved and seconded that that hon. the member for Terra Nova take the Chair of this House as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. Those in favour, 'Aye'. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'. Carried.

Oral Questions MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he intends to make a statement to clear the air concerning the newspaper reports and comments that have been made with respect to the absence of the member for St. John's East Extern (Mr. Hickey) from the Cabinet. I would like to say that from my experience in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have seen no incompetence or negligence on the part of the hon. member. I think that he has had a long and honourable career in this House, "'! R52

and I think that it is unfortunate that, there should be any hint that the reason for his absence from Cabinet would be connected with this unfortunate incident at the Whitbourne Boys' Home. There is, Mr. Speaker, we all know, a concept of ministerial responsibility; however, I think the first item that must be dealt with is clarification, a clearing of the air, and only the Premier can do this with respect to whether the absence of the member for St. John's East Extern has anything to do with the incident at the Boys' Home. I, in fact, do not believe that that is the case. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, on the day that I announced the Cabinet I indicated at that press conference obviously the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. intelligence is not all on that press conference how I felt about the Barry) that good - clearly hon. the member for St. John's East Extern (Mr. Hickey). I indicated the long service that he had provided to this hon. House and also to the Cabinet. At no time did I indicate that it had anything to do with competency or incompetency or the like.

He has performed his duties well in the various responsibilities that he held while a member of Cabinet as Minister of Social Services and in other portfolios. So the matter was clear right from day one from myself, Mr. Speaker, so I can only reiterate what I said on that day last week when I announced the Cabinet. MR. BARRY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. L53 April 29, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.

BARRY: the In light of the report which has come from the judicial enquiry and the comments of the judge in that enquiry, and in light of certain statements by the former minister of that department with respect to the appropriateness of having certain individuals in that department in charge of the Whitbourne Boys' Home, does the Premier intend to have any investigation carried out with respect to the effectiveness of the existing bureaucratic structure in the Department of Social Services? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, once again I think the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Brett) has indicated publicly on a number of occasions over the last number of days that the report is presently under study by the government and that we will be making a full statement as to government' s position on the report as soon as we can. We will be making a statement on the report whether in fact anything should be done or nothing should be done or whatever. After we have fully assessed the report, the minister then will be taking appropriate .steps and we will be informing this hon. House accordingly. MR.

BARRY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. the R53 . i I •

MR. BARRY: Would the Premier indicate that he regards a response to this report as a matter of some urgency so that it would, we suggest, be appropriate to have a quicker response than sometimes occurs with respect to the normal process , of having reports filed and then a response from the department? We now have a situation where there is a cloud hanging over the head of the former minister, there is a cloud hanging over the head of officials in that department, and I would submit to the Premier that it is something that should require direction from him that the Minister of Social Services (Mr.

Brett) move with every haste to prepare a report to Cabinet and to have a ministerial response to that report. · Would the Premier give an undertaking to this House that all due haste will be involved in that review of the report? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, that has been done. The day that the report came out the Minister of Social Services and I were in communication and it has been done with all haste. . Obviously, I just assumed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) recognized that we also recognize that it is a very important matter and it is being expedited with all due haste, as quickly as is possible. So in the next few days we will be able to do that. From the day that the report was released the minister has been on top of it. I have been talking to him and we will be moving as fast as is humanly possible on it. It will not be handled in the normal process of government. L54 April 29, 1985 MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. .. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: My question is to the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn).

Could the new Minister of Education report to this House the status of negotiations with the NTA? Could he also report what contingency plan does the government have in case services are withdrawn by teachers in the Province, whether it will be work to rule or the dropping of extra-curricular activities? Could the minister inform us what contingency plans the government has to make sure that the students will not lose a full year as a result of poor labour relations between the government and the NTA? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr.

Speaker, on the second part first, I do not think it would be appropriate to try to answer a hypothetical question, which the second

part certainly was, at this stage • On the first part, we are assessing the proposals right now that both sides have brought forth in recent weeks and very shortly I am sure we will be saying much more about that. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: ~ R54

Could the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn) inform the House if the government is going back to the negotiating table with the NTA? Also, there is a feeling in this Province because of the involvement of the teachers the NTA union, in the election that there is a vindictiveness on the part of this government, a wish to punish the teachers because of the ·high political profile they ended up taking in the election. As a result of the lockout in 1982 the government saved approximately $25 million on the deficit.

Seeing our deficit is now $70 million, because of the high profile the teachers had in the election, is there any vindictiveness on government's part? Will the Minister of Education ensure the NTA that he wilk fight on their behalf? Will he make sure that the government itself will not use the teachers, and not only the teachers but particularly the students, and make sure that in trying to get at the teachers themselves, the government will not end up punishing the students to balance the books of this government? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hen. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr.

Speaker, the hen. member should realize that there is no vindictiveness on behalf of either the minister or the government, there never was. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HEARN: And certainly if we are going to be · assessing the present situation, we are fully aware, maybe much more fully aware than the member, of the atmosphere as L55 April 29, 1985 it exists out there. I have been very, very close to the situation during the past three years, and certainly before that, as a teacher myself.

Consequently we are assessing the situation very, very carefully and hope that in the near future we will be making very positive moves. MR. HISCOCK: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A final supplementary, the hen. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the students in this Province there is a great feeling of anxiety because of the maintenance strikes throughout the Province and on the Avalon Peninsula. The students themselves are extremely concerned about being close now to the end of the academic year.

Can the minister state to this House and state to this Province unequivocally that there will be no NTA strike this year? Will the government itself do everything it can, everything in its power to make sure that negotiations are renewed in good faith, and that the students themselves will be reassured that they will not end up losing a year as a result of the bad political climate in this Province? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas)·: The hen. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the hen. gentleman mentioned the political climate in the Province. Hopefully there is a very good political climate.

At least the people of Newfoundland thought they had created a good political climate by putting thirty-six of us back over here. R55

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. HEARN: However, I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that once again we will be assessing the situation as it relates not only to the teaching negotiations, but also the relationship with school boards, the disputes that are presently ongoing, etc. We realize that the people who are most concerned at this stage are the students in the schools. We are very concerned about that, especially this time of year.

And whatever has to be done in due time will be done hopefully without any adverse affect to the people concerned, and not only the students, because we are also very concerned about the teachers, the parents who are very anxious at this time, and certainly ourselves. We want to put a package together that hopefully will make everybody happy even, including the gentleman for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health (Dr.

Twomey) and it concerns a couple of newspaper articles which mentions Dr. Morgantaler seeking permission to operate in the Province. Can the minister tell the House, Mr. Speaker, if he has received an application from Dr. Morgan taler and, if he has, what has been his response to it? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. L56 April 29, 1985 DR. TWOMEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. At forty-five minutes to noon on Friday, April 26 of this year, I received a letter over the signature of Dr. Morgantaler.

To summariz~ the letter, he requested that I and my department give him permission to establish a free­ standing abortion clinic on the Island of Newfoundland. Number two, that this free-standing abortion clinic would have in place an abortion committee, which according to the law of Canada must be at least prepositioned. And last, he asked me that the services of the physician who will perform the abortions in that clinic be covered by MCP.

He made a few other statements, including that I might send a commission or a delegation to view the abortions done in any of these free-standing clinics in the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec. He asked for my approval. I gave considerable thought, as you would, to his request. I discussed it with senior members of the Department of Health; I also had members of the Department of Health discuss it with the Department of Justice. I have penned my letter to Dr. Morgantaler and I have told him that I have not approved his request.

I have not approved his request because I feel that Sections 251 and 252 of the Criminal Code of Canada covered the requirements of the law of Canada. MR. W. CARTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas}: A supplementary, the hon. member for Twillingate. R56

MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice ( Ms Verge) • In light of statements made by one of the key people involved in the Morgan taler support groups, and I quote, "We intend to set up in the Province of Newfoundland whether or not we get permission•, if that group, Mr. Speaker, decides to take that route, will the Minister of Justice give the House an undertaking that Sections 251 and 252 of the Criminal Code will be enforced to the letter? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, of dealing questions. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: I have no intentions with hypothetical The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. the Speaker, Minister my question is for of Fisheries. Over the weekend I was fortunate enough to be in Port de Grave to talk with a number of people there concerning an extremely serious situation that has arisen over the last number of months.

It concerns the entire crab industry in the Por~ de Grave area where over the last number of months there has been a series of foreclosures on the crab boats to the point now where there is a serious question whether there are enough boats left to be able to prosecute the fishery accurately and whether or ·not there will be enough supply for the plant itself. I understand the minister has had some meetings this morning L57 April 29, 1985 on the issue itself. I wonder if he can apprise the House of what the situation is at this point? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to tell the House that I met just before the House began the session this afternoon with a delegation from Port de Grave and the MHA for that district. I have had my officials in the department working on the problem, particularly as it relates to repossessions of loans that are under bank guarantee.

I am very pleased to be able to tell the hon. gentleman and the House that we have reached a temporary solution with the bank concerned in that the repossession that was due at twelve o'clock tomorrow night has been delayed at my request to give us time to hopefully put together a solution that will be more permanent. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. CN Marine has made numerous cuts in service to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to allegedly reduce the cost of CN Marine.

Many of these changes are unfair and discriminatory and show a complete lack of understanding of the people affected. Originally CN Marine proposed dropping Ramea, Gaultois, Hermitage, English Harbour West, Belleoram, Pool's Cove and Little Bay East from their coastal service. Now CN Marine has decided against not dropping Ramea and Gaultois but has not reinstated Hermitage, R57

which is vitally important also to the people who live in MacCallum, Franchois and Grey River. Has the minister made any representative to his federal counterpart in Ottawa and what were the results? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, some time ago we made an arrangement with the federal government whereby we would be actively involved in decisions and perhaps have an opportunity to discuss decisions that had an adverse effect on this Province relative to not only CN Marine but also TerraTransport and other federal transport matters that occur in this Province.

I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that had we not intervened in that process some time ago the cutbacks envisaged would have been much more severe than they are today. In relation to the ones most recently announced, we have, through our officials and through committee and between the a working Transport Department Canada of Transportation, voiced our concerns and subsequently a number of the ports were put back on the

schedule and hopefully over the next number of weeks we may be successful in re-establishing the Hermitage run. If that is possible, everything that we can do to influence that decision will be done. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fogo •• MR. TULK: LSB April 29, 1985 Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). I want first of all to wish him well in his new portfolio, and this is my first opportunity to do so. My question to him is concerning Mr.

Fraser's statement, the federa~ Minister of Fisheries, that he intends to meet his provincial colleagues in the near future to develop a strategy for the restoration of the Canadian Atlantic salmon resource. Bas the federal minister contacted the provincial minister? Just what positions can we expect from the provincial minister, if indeed he has been contacted about that conference or convention, whatever it is? What positions can we expect from him on behalf of the provincial government? Mr.

Speaker, I ask him that question because this year we have a proposal from the federal minister to buy back the licences of part-time commercial fishermen in the Province. I would also like to ask him, perhaps as part of his answer, does he agree with that proposal? If so, perhaps he could explain to the House why he does. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries.- MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the hon. gentleman for his kind words. I look forward to shadow-boxing with him over the next little while. I thank him very sincerely for his remarks.

We have been in contact with the federal minister and it is my understanding that there is a meeting scheduled in Ottawa on May 22 between the federal minister and his Atlantic counterparts to discuss in more detail the Salmon Policy Management Plan that he RSB

announced a few days ago. With regard to the other part of the question, how do I feel about the management plan that was proposed by the federal minister, Mr. Speaker, just let me say that I suppose if I had my own way and were able to influence things the way that I want them, I would try to bring about some changes in the plan as it was announced. But having said that, I think we must also remember, Mr. Speaker, that the salmon resource in Atlantic Canada faces some very serious problems and some very hard and difficult decisions have to be made.

While we might not like and agree with all of the proposals that are contained · in the management plan for 1985, we are of the opinion that something had to be done. Our first concern as a department, of course, and as a government will be to try to minimize any effect on full-time fishermen, people who are earning their living in a full-time manner from the fishery.

The latest initiative affects people of a part-time nature and there has been a generous buy-back plan announced and, while we would like to discuss it before it becomes final if that is possible, we must realize also that the first concern ·of the Fishermen's Union and the Department of Fisheries provincially is with full-time fishermen. We will have to address their concerns first and then try to be as fair . as we can to those people who were earning part of their living from the salmon fishery.

So that in a very cursory way, not having had a chance to be on top of this very long, is sort of the way we feel about it right now. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. L59 April 29, 1985 MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the minister had indicated that he agrees and he does not agree, and there are certain changes, he says, that he would like to bring about in that salmon management plan. I wonder if, as part of the supplementary answer, he could tell us what changes he would like to bring about in that plan?

I would also like to ask him is he aware of the fact that the United States has also asked canada to stop catching some of the fish that they say is United States fish which we are now intercepting before they reach certain rivers? I would like to ask him is he going to agree with the federal minister that that may have to be the case as well and what effect that will have on the Newfoundland commercial salmon fishery as well as the Newfoundland sports fishery? What representation will he be making to the federal minister in that regard? First of all, Mr.

Speaker, could we have the changes that he would like to see in this management plan? explain how it United States year' s salmon Then he could relates to the request? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously if you look at the situation in Newfoundland, Newfoundland came out of this management plan announcement in a much stronger position than did other Atlantic provinces. And that is as it should be because most of the catch that is caught in Newfoundland can legitimately be said to be salmon returning to R59

Newfoundland rivers to spawn. When I indicate that perhaps there might be some grounds for some changes, there are certain part-time fishermen who derive a fair amount of their part-time income from salmon fishing. There may be other who are perhaps over the age of retirement or just getting the salmon to eat or something of that nature who would not be as seriously affected by this buy-back programme as are some other people • So there are perhaps some variations within the management plan that we could discuss and I intend to do that.

On the matter of the OS proposal, I am aware that the United States government have made representation to the Government of Canada. Their basic premise is that the Fall salmon fishery in Newfoundland is a concern of theirs because a lot of those salmon migrate back to OS rivers. That is still in the discussion stage, as I understand it, between the Canadian government and the American government. No decision has been taken that I am aware of, but again it is a matter that I will ensure will be on the agenda when we meet with Mr. Fraser and the rest of our Atlantic colleagues on 22 May. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Dr. McNicholas): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TOLK: Mr. Speaker, the federal minister, Mr. Fraser, in his statement seems to be totally concerned about conservation. Yet his department, this year in the salmon sports fishery, will be allowing fishermen to catch as many fish as they want up to the point where they decide to keep two. It seem L60 April 29, 1985 to me that the minister coming from outport Newfoundland, and the minister probably being a salmon fisherman himself, I do not know, probably knows as well as I do that - MR. BARRY: He is not a very good one. MR.

TOLK: Well, he may or may not be probably knows as well as anybody else that once you play out a salmon and once you bring it ashore it is very little likelihood of its survival, yet the minister is allowing people to go in and catch as many fish as they want until the fishermen decide which two to keep. Does the minister agree with that concept of the federal Fisheries Minister? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all just because the hon. gentleman says something that is true does not necessarily make it true.

And the fact of the matter is that, yes, I have fished salmon legally and I enjoy it. The expert advice does not go along with what the hon. gentleman is saying nor does my own experience go along with what he is saying. The fact of the matter is that there is a very low mortality rate on salmon that are played with a rod compared to the salmon that are caught in the commercial nets. So the hon. gentleman is wrong in his premise, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know what else can be said about it. Like I said, not because he says something is true it is a fact. MR. TULK: R60

Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I recognize that if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) catches a salmon he catches them legally. My final supplementary to the minister is this. Last year we saw a reduction in the salmon fishing season for commercial fishermen, there was a voluntary buy-back, and this year there is a mandatory buy-back from part-time fishermen, yet the federal Fisheries Minister (Mr. Fraser) is allowing a two week extension - I think the minister will agree that that is probably going to be the case - on the sports salmon fishery.

Nobody is certain yet whether it is going to be one week at the beginning and one at the end, or two at the end, or two at the beginning. Mr. Speaker, we on this side are not against conservation, but it seems to me that what we are leaning towards here is a total ban on the commercial salmon fishery for fishermen and yet we are allowing the sports fishery to blossom. Does the minister agree with that statement and, if so, what will he do about it? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: No, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not agree with that statement.

I think the evidence has been such, over the last few years anyway, that both levels of government, in all of the provinces and in Ottawa, are very concerned and are trying to make every effort to ensure that there is a resource there, that it is protected and that it will have an opportunity L61 April 29, 1985 to grow and prosper so it can be expanded.

The facts do not indicate the premise of the hon. gentleman's Recreational question. salmon fishing has some pluses to it as well as some minuses, that is an area we will be discussing, but certainly his premise that the commercial salmon fishery seems to be up for grabs at the mercy of the recreational fishery is not so and the facts just do not bear it out. MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Development (Mr.

Barrett) but he has wandered off somewhere, I think, so in his place I will put the question to the hon. the Premier. This question relates to the E.P.A. situation in Gander and the E.P.A. move from Gander. At the present time there are a number of rumblings about the situation not being as it should be and so on, and because of this I would ask the Premier if he would please table in this House copies of all agreements between the Province and Eastern Provincial Airways relating to any moneys or guarantees given by the Government of the Province to Eastern Provincial Airways. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No problem, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the hon. member is aware that all of the guarantees and agreements between E.P.A. and the R61

Government of Newfoundland have expired and for some time ago, so there are no existing agreements that the hon. member could get his hands on which he could use as a lever against E.P.A. in the moves that they have made at Gander. This whole matter was assessed when the move occurred and all of the agreements and guarantees financial levers - and so on, and other guarantees that were in place, or agreements between the Government of Newfoundland and E.P.A. have expired. There was one non-binding legal agreement where the Chairman then, I guess, the Chief Executive Officer or President of E.P.A., Mr.

Steele, I think had written the Minister of Transportation in the Fall of that previous year and indicated that they would do nothing until we had been consulted and they would show us the studies which proved that they had to move from Gander to Halifax. That agreement was broken by E.P.A. and the President and C.E.O. because they did not consult with us and never did provide us with the studies which we requested and which they had promised in writing to give us. Over the next while we will have to get together those agreements. There is no problem with tabling them.

There were a whole series of agreements going back to the Smallwood administration and through the Moores administration, all of which have expired as of now. MR. BAK .ER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: The hon. the Premier stated that there is nothing now current and L62 April 29, 1985 so on between E.P.A. or C.P. Air and the provincial government relating to loan guarantees and so on.

My supplementary question is, Sir, what amounts of money were actually repaid to the Newfoundland Government in light of any loans or moneys that had been given to E.P.A. in the past by these previous administrations? What were actually paid back provincial government and what circumstances? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: amounts to the under This has been checked out through Justice and so on, and all the agreement were kept and the money paid back.

But I will hav~ to get the information for the hon. gentleman as to the exact amount under each agreement and under each guarantee. I will get that information over the next while or see that the information is provided to the hon. member. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Eleventh Annual Report of The Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the year ending 31 March 1984. Notices of Motion R62

MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of interim supply to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, wAn Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977", and, Mr.

Speaker, I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, nAn Act To Amend The Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Act, 1973". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Petitions MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition signed by approximately 561 people from various parts of the Province. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is pretty consistent. It is protesting the high cost of hydro rates in the Province. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to support this petition.

At the same time I want to congratulate the New Lab group - the ladies from Flatrock - for the initiatives taken by them in the L63 April 29, 1985 past few months on behalf of people in the Province who are obviously, Mr. Speaker, hurting very badly from the high cost of electricity rates. I, Mr. Speaker, am not satisfied that the government has done all it can to correct this situation. I think the solution offered, for example, by the Minister responsible ·for Energy (Mr.

Dinn) that the electr±ci ty rates be spread over a twelve month period or at least over a longer period is not worthy of the gentleman involved. In my view is not much better than an insult to the intelligence of the Newfoundland people who are hurting so badly because of the high cost of electricity rates. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious, I think every member of this House and certainly every Newfoundlander that owns a home or is responsible for a house realizes very well that something must be done to put an end to the escalating cost of electricity in this Province. It is getting to a point now, Mr.

Speaker - and I came up against this in an election campaign which just ended - where young couples have to make a decision whether they will pay the light bill this month or buy food in sufficient quantities for their family. I think that is a very serious matter. Young families today, Mr. Speaker, are unable to buy the things that they need for their children and themselves because of the high cost of electricity, or at least one of the reasons being the very high cost of power rates in this Province. I think the government has been derelict in its responsible.

I think more could have been done and should have been done. And I R63

repeat the solution offered by the gentleman opposite, I believe it was the Minister of Energy (Mr. Dinn) or it might have been the minister at that time, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) , to spread the electricity rates over an extended period is simply a case of trying to blindfold the devil in the dark. It is taking the old ostrich approach - sticking their heads in the sand while the people of Newfoundland are sweating it out trying to make ends meet and get enough food for their tables with which to feed their families.

Meanwhile, the power company rates have been escalating to a point where in many cases it boils down to a decision whether the families involved will pay the light bill - and they dare not because if they do not pay it their lights are cut off - or whether they will be able to buy sufficient food for their families. Mr. Speaker, I support this petition, Sir. I support it wholeheartedly. I think something must be done. I repeat the action taken to date by the present government is certainly not adequate.

In fact, to suggest that it is all right to pay these rates, but over a longer period, in my view, is insulting and does nothing at all to help alleviate what in this Province has become a very serious and a very critical problem. Mr. Speaker, I again support the petition and beg leave to present it and have it referred to the department to which it relates. AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! A point of order L64 April 29, 1985 has been raised. MR. J. CARTER: Is the prayer of the petition applicable to this House? MR. W. CARTER: The prayer of the pet! tion, Mr ,.

Speaker, is very simple. •we, the undersigned, people of the community of Baine Harbour, do protest the increase in electricity rates and give our support to the committee acting in this regard.• MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, that matter is now being taken care of. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, . I am sure that all members in this House can support that petition. We will be interested in hearing from the minister responsible for electricity, whichever minister that might be. Is it Mines and Energy (Mr. Dinn) or is it still the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Marshall)?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is really immaterial. MR. BARRY: There has shuffles, find out. been so many Cabinet it is pretty hard to We know that the member for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) is all powerful. We assume that he has still been kept on this onerous task. We think it is about time we had a full-time minister involved with the matter of electricity. I think that the consumers in this Province are concerned enough. I think we have seen enough hardship caused over the past Winter and indeed in R64

previous years by the ever escalating cost of electricity that we do want to make sure that the minister from St. John • s East is not overburdened with the heavy burdens that he has been carrying. We would like to hear whether he feels he still has the energy and the enthusiasm to give this particular aspect of his non-portfolio the attention which it deserves. We, Mr.

Speaker, on this side of the Bouse, agree with government on one point and that is that in the long term the only way we are going to see stable cost power is by having an intertie or an interconnection from the Labrador portion of the Province to the Island. We are pleased to see the statement by government that there apparently is a new initiative forthcoming for negotiations with the Government of Quebec. We would ask the Premier and we would ask the minister not to wait too long. We understand that there is a deadline. The clock is ticking.

There is a deadline on when we have to take another decision in this Province as to our next source of electricity. Holyrood is going to be at capacity pretty soon. cat Arm, the Upper Salmon, Bay d'Espoir and other hydro sites will be going flat out and will not be able to meet the need.

I would hope that we will within the time we have to make that decision, · see some negotiated arrangement so that we can foresee by 1990 Labrador power being available, not just in Labrador, but in other parts of the Province where it will be necessary to have hydro electric power if we are going to keep our electricity rates down. In the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, the ladies from Flatrock, the New Lab L65 April 29, 1985 Action Committee and others, I believe in the course of the debate over the last several months made it clear that there are very serious concerns with respect to a lack of confidence in the Public Utilities Board. There was a commitment to have a consumer representative for that board. I have not seen anything in the course of the election. I might have missed it. • But I do not believe there has been -any action taken on that front yet.

We would ask the minister when will we see the consumer representative being appointed to the Public Utilities Board? We would like to ask the minister whether they have again given any thought to possibly have an enquiry into all aspects of the generation and distribution of electricity, an enquiry that would involve members of the general public. We would support such an enquiry.

We think it would go a long way to assuring the general public, the ordinary man and woman in Newfoundland, that everything that can possibly be done, will be done in order to make sure, until we get power from Labrador, that the costs to the consumer in this Provinces are kept down. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can say, first of all, that the government is just as concerned as any other citizen in this Province and the hon. gentlemen there opposite, with respect to the cost of electricity rates in this Province.

I say it is very easy to get up in this Bouse and present a petition and just heap criticism but I did not hear any realistic solutions eminating from the other side. R65

. This minister has had just as much trouble really as his predecessor has in trying to wrestle and keep electrical rates down but the only difference is that I kept at it and I will continue to keep at it. Hopefully, we can come up with some solution. Now, Mr. Speaker, on the high electricity rates in this Province, there are several points to be made. The high electricity rates, first of all, are not electricity rates as such. They relate to the high cost of oil. Unfortunately this Winter it was very, very difficult because we had the very low run off as a result of the mild Summer last year.

There was not as much hydro power as before. We had that aggravated by the type of Winter that we have gone through. As far as the solution is concerned - PREMIER PECKFORD: Are we subsidizing rates now? MR. MARSHALL: As the Premier points out, we are subsidizing rates. That is a solution that some people proposed from time to time - more money should be put in. But we are already subsidizing in this Province to the tune of $25 million a year for electricity rates through the power distribution district. So the fact of the matter is the money has to come from somewhere when you pay for electricity.

It either comes from taxes, or it has to come from the consumer. We have struck a balance whereby $25 million from the general revenue of this Province goes towards electrical rates and with the state of the economy in this Province this is as much as we can L66 April 29, 1985 afford. It comes from the pocket of the people anyway. So wherever it comes from it must come from the pockets of the people. Because of the aggravated Winter last year, we took a measure which we thought would ease the immediate burden and spread the cost over a period of time.

We believe that was a good decision despite what the hen. gentlemen there opposite say, with respect to a short-term solution, although it is certainly not a long-term solution • With respect to the long-term solution, this has already been identified and realized.

If hen. gentlemen there opposite wish to stand up and really respond to this in an appropriate manner, in a direct manner, and really in an intellectually honest manner, what they would be required to do when they got up and spoke would be to realize that the long-term solution has to be through hydro generation because what the rates up is electricity generation the oil that is used it. is putting not the but it is to generate We are working on that, as the Throne Speech indicated. There is a glimmer of light, anyway, that we are exploring. We hope to bring this about.

I mean to me it is a matter of great concern to everyone. I think we have to muse over the past few years that the reason why the people of this Province find themselves in the position today, and particularly over this Winter when the cost of electricity was aggravated by the weather conditions and other factors that I have mentioned, is that had we been able to get and to secure, and had we not given away the Upper Churchill way, way R66

..1 back, we would have been able to enjoy electricity rates - PREMIER PECKFORD: If we had a deal on water like we had on oil we would not be in this situation today. MR. MARSHALL: If we had a deal on water like we have got on oil, but the hon. gentlemen there opposite better not hold their breath because we are going to investigate that as well. But the fact of the matter is, with respect to the way in which the whole hydro policy of this Province has been handled over the years we would today be enjoying electrical rates incommensurately less than what we have had to pay today.

What we are trying to do is to secure those rights so that we can assure to the people of this Province at least a stable rate of electricity which does not have to depend upon the vagaries of the oil market. So that is the response making to the petition. that the hon. gentlemen I am I say there opposite are not alone in their concern with respect to the matter but as far as the government is concerned as opposed to the hon. gentlemen there opposite, instead of heaping criticism what we are trying to do is to determine a solution. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Menihek. MR.

FENWICK: I rise to present a petition is similar to the one that previously been presented. prayer is slightly different. that has The It says, citizens Labrador, nwe, the concerned of Newfoundland and do hereby petition the L67 April 29, 1985 Premier, cabinet and members of the House of Assembly to reduce the high electricity rates presently being charged and to eliminate the demand rate charged by the Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited.n I would like to speak to it for a few minutes.

The way I read the prayer is it is asking for action on the part of the provincial government in order to do something to lower the electricity rates. At the risk of alienating everybody I know and hold dear to me for the rest of my life I have to say, to a certain degree, I agree with the last speaker, the minister who is responsible for electricity, that it is not just a case of subsidizing the rates.

It is not just a case of just saying that the money should be put behind people who have high electricity rates because, in essence, all we are doing is we are taxing others or borrowing the money and it is really just transferring the problem from one group of individuals with high electricity rates to another. I would, however, like to portion a bit more blame on the present administration and previous PC administrations back "to the middle 1970s for not having pursued any kind of constructive programme in order to get Labrador power onstream.

It seems to me that what we have had is the whole Labrador power situation turned into a political football. We have had an almost irresponsible insistence in the past that Quebec Hydro rip up the power contract that it signed back in the 1960s and then start afresh. I think it is refreshing to see in the Throne Speech that a slightly different tack is being taken now. The contract must be admitted. It is R67

there. It has stood the test of time. We are not in a position, where we should have been about eight or ten years ago, to negotiate with the Province of Quebec in order to get things done. I think there is a significant amount of blame there. The people who are paying these high electricity rates should ~ow that we are now paying for the political football that has been kicked around for the last six or seven years by this administration.

That is a sterile approach to take at this point so I want to go on to some of the more positive aspects that I think should be emphasized in achieving what is being asked for in this petition. I think there are a number of things that can been done in the short-term by this administration. I think it was accurately pointed out it is not the cost of electricity that is the problem. It is the cost of oil because the electricity that is really nailing us is made by oil.

Therefore, we should try to reduce the amount of electricity consumed so as to turn off most of the oil-generated electricity we have which this Winter has been the main source of the problem. I think we have a number of available sources that we can turn to, more specifically wood. We have a tremendous amount of hardwood in this Province that can be used to heat homes and if we could find some meaningful programme to encourage people to switch to wood usage I think that would help.

I think we need something like the old federal programme (COSP) - the Canadian Oil Substitution Programme - and the CHIP programme, but in this case directed towards reducing the consumption of electricity. I L68 April 29, 1985 think we should look seriously at encouraging people to reinsulate homes that are currently burning electricity in order to be in a position to burn less electricity in the future because I think that that is where our major problem lies.

At the same time there are a lot of very small scale hydro electric possibilities and other ways of generating electricity in this Province that could be accessed where private individuals could put sources on line if they could sell the electricity to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or to Newfoundland Light and Power, either one. Currently, as I understand it in this Province, that would be illegal. There is no law demanding that the power utility buy this electricity as there is in -the United States and as there is in Prince Edward Island.

Finally, the last thing I would like to support being put forward by this group is the request that we have an enquiry into what has been done. I, along with many other people, have heard rUltlours about mismanagement in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We have heard rUltlours about contracts for buying oil at very high rates. I and a lot of other people would like to have some answers to that. So I think that the petition is well worth supporting and I think there are a number of things the provincial government should do.

I would like to see them make some positive moves other than a subsidy programme which I think would be wrong. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. R68

MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The han. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I support petition presented by the for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) the member but I was rather surprised when the member said that he agreed with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) and stated that basically you cannot transfer the bill from one group in society to other groups, that the bill needs to be paid. The end result, Mr. Speaker, - and coming from the NDP I am rather surprised - the end result is that there are people in our society who cannot afford to pay bills. There are people on social assistance.

There is also the working poor. Those are the groups of people in society that need government help in subsidization. I was reading the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation report: Eighty million dollars worth of sales last year. The profit going to this Province is unbelievable. Maybe that is one of the ways that we can subsidize the working poor and subsidize those who need help until we finally have more water so that we do not have to have oil-generated power. A~ I said, if we spread it over the society as a whole, a couple of cents on each of the spirits and beer in this Province could be a solution, Mr. Speaker.

There are groups in society that do need help and, as I said, I was ·a bit surprised by the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) saying that you should not transfer the bill to another. You should, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason why government is there in the first place, to help those who need help. L69 April 29, 1985 The other thing I would point out, Mr.

Speaker, long before this became a critical problem on the Island part of Province with fuel adjustments added on, Labrador and other rural areas of our Province have been paying the highest kinds of electricity rates all along because of diesel powered generating plants that are using diesel fuel to generate electricity. Of course, what the government, which sets the rules for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, says is the more electricity you consume under diesel power the higher your bill is. · So people in Ramea, Fogo, St. Brendan's, on the South Coast, and along all of the Labrador Coast, Mr.

Speaker, have been paying extremely high electricity rates in the past · and they doublely pay because now, with this fuel adjustment that is being charged on Holyrood, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro ended up saying you are not only paying for the increase of electricity, what you are actually paying now, Mr. Speaker, is the extra cost of oil. They have now added that onto the diesel fuel also in Labrador so they are not only paying twice, as the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) said, they are now paying three times the amount tha·t needs to be paid. That has to be addressed, Mr. Speaker.

We should have one rate of electricity in this Province. Now that I am talking on electricity and supporting the petition, I agree, and I think everybody agrees, there should be an enquiry into the cost of electricity and into how Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is run. There should be a consumer on the Public Utili ties Board and I cannot think or recommend anybody better for the position R69

than the former member of the House of Assembly for LaPoile, Mr. Neary. I recommend him for that position. Getting back to Labrador, Mr. Speaker, we still have in this Province communities like Norman Bay and Pinsent Arm that are without electricity. We can blame it on the Upper Churchill contract or we can blame Mr. Moores for nationalizing Churchill Falls in the first place, but the fact remains these communi ties do not have electricity or the other basic amenities of life.

Students still have to study by oil lamp, women still have to wash clothes on a scrubbing board, they have no refrigerators to keep frozen foods and all of that contributes for them to the high cost of living. That does not seem to daunt the Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall). Maybe it is due to the fact that the Minister of Energy comes from a background that is not used to the working poor, not used to having to struggle for a living, wondering where the next pay cheque is coming from.

Maybe that is why he does not identify with the problems here and maybe that is why the solution was to spread the electricity bill over twelve months - like Marie Antoinette saying, 'Let them eat cake.' Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. I have to say that Norman Bay and Pinsent Arm do need electricity. There should be one rate for electricity in this Province and, as for subsidization, I would say to the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) as well as to the Minister of Energy, yes, we subsidize it for $25 million now, but there are still other people out there who require subsidizing, Mr. Speaker.

L70 April 29, 1985 As well, it was not good enough for the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Brett), as he did in the election, to tell the social workers to tell people to sign over their child tax credit to the department. Mr. Speaker, we should not go back into the past, we must look to the future. The Smallwood years are over, the Moores years are over and we are now into the post-Atlantic Accord era.

We would hope the Minister of Energy will enter into that era and make sure that some of the wealth trickles down to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the near future, that they do not have to wait until the year 1990 or 2000. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would be very surprised at what this hon. gentleman is used to. One can become acclimatized to anything, and listening to speeches such as the hon. gentleman just made in supporting this petition would try anyone's patience. Mr.

Speaker, it is all very well for the hon. gentleman there opposite and the hon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) to talk about simplistic solutions to this problem. There are no simplistic solutions to this problem. Whether the hon. gentleman likes it or not, the root of the problem can be traced to that particular contract because, having given away the Upper Churchill resources R70

'-' to the Province of Quebec, it has become incommensurately difficult for us to negotiate with Quebec on any other basis. It has become virtually impossible. And, while the han. gentleman might like to see the Upper Churchill contract disappear, as I am sure all Newfoundlanders would, and its effect, I am afraid it will not, and anyone carrying on any negotiations whatsoever with the Province of Quebec in relation to this would fully and completely realize it.

It is too bad that we did not attack that problem at the time in the same way that we have attacked the offshore problem, because we would have had a much more ready means to have a resolution of the situation at the present time. MR. HISCOCK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the hon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, two petitions have been presented and residents of this Province are asking for solutions, they are not asking for history lessons, they are not asking to go back into the past. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Bear, hear! MR.

HISCOCK: I would hope when the minister addresses the prayer of the petition he will support it. We can talk about nationalization of the Upper Churchill by Mr. Moores or whatever, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province are finding it extremely difficult to meet their electricity bills and they do not want a lecture on history, they L71 April 29, 1985 want solutions, Mr. Speaker. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, there is no point of order. MR.

MARSHALL: Whether the hon. gentleman likes it or not, history, what happened in the past, has an effect on the present. Now, although the hon. the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) proposed very simplistic solutions, he was much more sensible, I would submit, than the bon. gentleman from Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock). It is very easy to make such simplistic statements as 'We are now in a position to negotiate with Quebec and we ought to have done so ages ago. ' The hon. gentleman should know, again from history, from what has transpired, that, unfortunately, before now Quebec did not want to negotiate.

All Quebec wanted was a regurgitation of the Upper Churchill contract, which we could not, would not, and will never agree with. Bis simplistic solutions about switching to wood and the chip process, 1 if the hon. gentleman would consider the efforts made by this government in this area they have been considerable. We have the Gander hospital, we have Newfoundland Hardwoods in Clarenville and we have other projects underway which are utilizing the chip programme, and certainly we will do all that we can within our resources to try to support that particular programme.

The same applies to the reinsulation of houses. The small hydro projects, I do not know where those small hydro projects are. We are told that R71

the projects, on the Newfoundland anyway, be tapped for an purpose have already most of Island of that can environmental been tapped. The thing that we have to do in order to get hydro power with its dependable, constant price, is to attempt to get access to the Lower and Upper Churchill. And I say to the bon. gentleman, it is easy to talk about mismanagement in Hydro, but you cannot conduct inquiries on every single rumour. I mean, if we conducted an inqUiry on ' every single rumour that we hear, the entire budget would be diverted to the expenses of inquiries.

With respect to Hydro, we have made it subject to the Public Utilities Board, we have indicated that we are going to appoint a consumer representative on the Public Utili ties Board, we have provided access to the Newfoundland Federation of Municipalities to be effective in their representations to this board, to be able to dissect and analyze all of the management of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So you just cannot get up and make statements that there are rumours of mismanagement.

If anyone can present concrete facts that there has been mismanagement in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, except, you know, for political statements made by the hon. gentleman, if you are not playing politics, if anyone can show that there has been direct mismanagement by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, this government and this minister would be very interested to hear about it and we would certainly look into it. So, as I say, with respect to this petition and the other, Mr. Speaker, we are just as concerned about hydro rates as anyone in L72 April 29, 1985 this Province. The solution is not simple.

We are bound, really, by the mistakes of history, because what happened in the past affects us in the present. We are trying to unravel the present situation respecting hydro power in this Province. It is going to be harder than the offshore agreement because we have to unravel mistakes that have already been made, but I have no doubt that we will in the long run be successful in that and we will make every effort to see to see if it can be brought about. MR. GIL BE RT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicho las): The bon. the member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. the House of Assembly assembled, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of sixty people in the community of McCallum. The prayer of the petition reads as follows: "We, the undersigned people of McCallum, protest a proposed

schedule by CN for the South Coast. If this proposal goes into effect it will be devastating to our community as far as transportation is concerned. We have no ferry service here and our main link to the road is by CN boat to Hermitage. The fact is, Hermitage is our only link. For the community of McCallum, all our doctor and dental services are in Hermitage, which is twelve miles from McCallum, about one hour on the CN boat. Harbour Breton, which is the port that we would have to disembark at, is about thirty miles, three hours travelling, from McCallum. It R72

does not make sense to us for CN to pass Hermitage with passengers who will need to get off at Hermitage. If a person has to see a doctor in Hermitage, he will have to go to Harbour Breton by CN boat, travel back to Hermitage by taxi costing approximately $50, and then go back to Harbour Breton by taxi, costing another $50 plus a motel bill before catching the boat back. Our doctor for this community is in Hermitage and anyone here has to be referred by the doctor before seeing another. Therefore we think, in fact we request that you should change your proposed

schedule to include Hermitage as a port of call.w Mr. Speaker, I think this is a petition about roads, really, and I think all the people in Newfoundland are entitled, constitutionally, to roads. CN Marine provides this service on the South Coast of Newfoundland for the communities of McCallum, Francois and Grey River. Two years ago CN tried to implement the same

schedule but the then government in Ottawa saw the suffering that was going to be caused to the people of those communities had the thing been put in force. MR. TULK: Was that a Liberal government? MR. GILBERT: I believe it was, yes. With that in mind, they had some moves made to get the

schedule changed and it was made acceptable to the people concerned. And in view of the human suffering and the economic loss that is going to be suffered by the people in the affected communi ties, I support this petition and ask that the petition be placed on the table of the House and referred to the L73 April 29, 1985 department concerned. Thank you. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in support of this petition on behalf of the people in the community of McCallum. I should point out, Mr.

Speaker, this is not the only community nor is it only the South Coast that is going to suffer because of the CN cutbacks. We have the same problem in Labrador where CN cutbacks are planned. What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that we are seeing the federal Minister of Transportation (Mr. Mazankowski) reinstating railway routes, VIA Rail routes, in mainland Canada. I was just out to Alberta there last weekend, Mr. Speaker, they are reinstating a branch line up through Jasper. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that we have not seen reinstatement of some of these runs by CN boats that are being cut back?

Is it possibly because we have a government that has been bending over backwards to avoid putting any pressure on the Government of Canada? Is it because members opposite have had their silence purchased as a condition of getting the Atlantic Accord, Mr. Speaker? In addition to the condition that they not have oil and gas refined in Newfoundland and Labrador, was another condition that they be silent as people in our rural communities have their transportation services cut back by the actions of that federal government? I ask members R73

opposite to get up on their feet and support this petition. I ask the member for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell), who should know all about CN cutbacks, to get up and support that petition put forward by the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert). Let us not see fighting for the sake of fighting, but some good, firm representation through the Government of Canada transmitted by ~~mbers opposite and by the Premier. What has happened? Has the telex machine on the eighth floor broken down completely since the federal election? Mr.

Speaker, it is a squeaky wheel that gets the grease and we need a little more squeaking from members opposite. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point and I want to refer to the rules ·of order beca-use I am not sure whether it is correct or not for me to rise at this time. I understand in the rules of order that the speakers on a petition are limited to -two, one allegedly from each side of the House. I am just wondering, is that a limitation or anything in this case? MR.

BARRY: A hypothetical Speaker. MR. FENWICK: question, Mr. No, because if you rule that I am on this side of the House, then in L74 April 29, 1985 this case if I rise to speak I could be ruled out of order as not being from the other side of the House. I just want to know how that rule should be interpreted. MR. BARRY: on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: on a point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we would object to any declaratory statements being obtained from the Chair by the member for Menihek (Mr.

Fenwick) • we do not believe that that is the way that matters such as the entitlement of the member to speak on a petition should be established. - The member should get up and start speaking if he wants to speak on a petition. And if there are procedural difficulties, these can be dealt with either within Committees of this House or in discussions by members behind the Chair. I think it has been made clear, Mr.

Speaker, that we in the official Opposition bend over backwards to permit the member for Menihek to get his two cents worth in in the course of debate, but we will object to any statements being given by Your Honour on hypothetical questions from the member for Menihek. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, Standing Orders do indicate there is one speaker from side on a petition. MR. FENWICK: our that each That is quite clear. But the question is what happens if I were to rise to speak as the third one, as I am now? Well I will speak now and then someone can raise a R74

... point of order and we can get a ruling on it. PREMIER PECKFORD: We can do it by leave. MR. FENWICK: The confusion exists, I think primarily because we have not done this too often. We are not use to having a third party in the House. I would prefer to have a ruling one way or the other but if not I would be glad to speak to the petition. If somebody wants to rule me out of order they can go ahead and do that. Besides I am tired of having the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) supporting me and acting as though he is my keeper in various matters.

He has done it before, he has done it in debates and so on, and I wish he would keep his patronizing remarks away from these comments. I can look after myself. Admittedly it is somewhat Byzantine, the rules of the House, but I would prefer to do it on my own. I, too, would like to things about the initiative or the say a few lack of lack of resistance on the part of our government in terms of these kinds of cutbacks. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I am not quite clear what the member is speaking on. Are you speaking on the petition? MR. FENWICK: Yes.

I would like to suggest that we have had a very disquieting situation occur here in the last six or eight months since I have been involved with the House and that is that we have continued to get these cutbacks again and L75 April 29, 1985 again, as the ones that we have in McCallum, as we have seen consistently, for example, in Labrador West with our television station, and yet we are getting almost nothing in terms of resistance from this provincial government.

If there was a Liberal government or an NDP government in Ottawa, I am sure we would hear continuous and vociferous comments coming forward as a result of all of this. But what we are getting is just passive acceptance of all of these cuts. I am wondering when the government on the other side will actually take its responsibility to the people seriously and stop pandering to the Mulroney government in Ottawa and take a 1i ttle bit of initiative in terms of resistings these cuts.

It has happened in terms of the television station in Labrador West, which has now been effectively shut down except for a little bit of local feeding, it is the same kind of cut that occurred with CN, and I think it is about time that our government stood up and started resisting these cuts. Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: This petition is from my own constituency and, surprisingly enough, it is about electricity as well.

It is signed by 1, 226 people from the town of Wabush and I will read the prayer of the petition: "Whereas Wabush Mines, the electrical utility in the Town of Wabush is negotiating with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro concerning a possible takeover of the power utility~ and

whereas the Food Prices Review Committee show R75

that food prices are at least 20 per cent higher in Labrador West than on the Island; and

whereas the cost of transportation, especially air travel, further pushes up the cost of living; and

whereas Labrador West is one of the few communities in the Province that benefits from Churchill Falls power - and I can tell you that it does - and

whereas moderate electricity rates is one of th~- few Northern benefits remaining to residents of Wabush; and

whereas electrical rates will increase drastically if Hydro takes over the utility, judging by their mismanagement in the past, therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Provincial Government to instruct its power utility not to take over the power distribution in Wabush and ~o use its best efforts to encourage the Public Utilities Commission to force Wabush Mines to upgrade its present distribution network." Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the petition I would like to say it is a very real concern in my district.

As you may know, and as I will inform the House and the people of the Province, at present Wabush Mines operates the power utility in the Town of Wabush, as the Iron ore Company of Canada operates it in Labrador City. We are extremely fortunate in . being able to use Churchill Falls power and, as a result, our electricity rates are much lower than they are in the rest of the Province, for which the people of Western Labrador are extremely grateful.

But in the past number of months there have been attempts on the part of Wabush Mines to pass over its responsibilities to operate the electrical utility to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. L76. April 29, 1985 They are indicating to the people of Labrador West and to all and sundry that they wish to absolve themselves of their responsibility with the power utility. We wish to resist that, because we have seen what has happened in the last six months or eight months on the Island portion of the Province, and, of course, we have seen the situation that has been allowed to develop on the coast of Labrador.

The fortunate thing that we have in Labrador West is that the large local in Wabush has been able to negotiate with its · einployer, who is also the power utility, to keep the power utility rates down to a reasonable level. As I said before, the cost of living in Labrador West, as in most of Labrador, is extremely high, much higher than it is in a lot of other areas in the Province.

The low rate on hydro electricity is one of the very few benefits that is left to the people of Labrador West in order to compensate for these extra costs, and they ask that this petition be tabled here, that it be sent to the appropriate minister and that we get enough support in order to keep this from happening. Orders of the Day MR. MARSHALL: Address in Reply. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Address in Reply. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off my few remarks in the Address R76

in Reply by first thanking the constituents of Mount Scio-Bell Island for putting me back as a member of this hon. Bouse. I have taken on certain new portions of the area, Mr. Speaker, in the newly defined riding. The riding now takes in Bell Island as well as the full communities of Portugal Cove and St. Philips where originally there were only a portion of those communi ties. As well, I bad passed over to me by the member for Conception Bay South (Mr. Butt) - and I thank him - St. Thomas/Paradise. MR. BUTT: They are good people. MR. BARRY: Yes, they are good people.

They showed they have a lot of good sense during the recent election, and I thank them. They were prepared to vote for me even though my wife, who was my campaign manager, told me that at times people figured she was running the Holy Ghost, because I think they did a calculation and they figured that because of the demands of being around the Province generally I had spent ten hours campaigning in the district, ipcluding time in transportation. I want to assure my constituents that I will be spending more time than that in the riding over the next several years. Mr.

Speaker, there are certain very real and acute issues relating to the district of Mount Scio-Bell Island, particularly the Bell Island portion. On the mainland portion of the district the needs are not as obvious, are not as unique, are not as different from those which prevail in many parts of the Avalon Peninsula area. We have the unduly high level of unemployment L77 April 29, 1985 within the district of Mount Scio-Bell Island as in other districts. We have people in Portugal Cove, St. Philips, St. Thomas and Paradise needing better access to jobs.

I get many telephone calls from constituents, particularly those who feel that they are not getting a fair break in terms of construction work that may be taking place in the area, and they feel that there is not a sufficient number of residents of the communi ties being employed on the jobs that take place. I will be speaking with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) from time to time on this type of problem, and I am sure that we will get a good hearing from the minister. I know that a former philosophy of his has been changed since the election; I notice a much more moderate approach by him.

I do not think I heard him say at all while the election was ongoing that if you voted Liberal you would not get your roads paved. MR. DAWE: I never said that. I never said that before or after the election. MR. BARRY: Oh, very good. I will be very happy to hear the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) explain how he has been misinterpreted and maligned. I am very glad to see the statesmanlike approach that is being taken by him. I hope that this continues and prevails throughout the next several years of the last term of office of members opposite, because it is good to go out on a statesmanlike basis.

I would hope that we will see the same statesmanlike approach being taken by the Premier as we now see indicated by the Minister of Transportation. Apparently the leopard - R77

MR. DAWE: I got my crowd on my own, I did not have to go to Bingo. MR. BARRY: Bingo? I do not think I went to Bingo. MR. DAWE: You did! You absolutely did!. MR. BARRY: Oh, I am sorry! I have to cor~~ct that, Mr. Speaker. I had the very real pleasure of being able to meet several hundred people on a very quick bombing run through St. Andrew's, in the Codroy Valley, as we were moving from St. George's. I believe we had meetings on the Port au Port Peninsula that morning, then we went to the Town of Stephenville Crossing, in the district of St.

G~orge's, and then we went down to the Codroy Valley on our way down to Burgee where we had an enormously successful rally for the member for Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert), who is now left. But in the course of that trip from .Stephenville Crossing to Burgee I did take the opportunity of dropping in at a Bingo game in St. Andrew' s and had a c·hance to shake the hands of several hundred people, Mr. Speaker, who would have otherwise taken several days to meet, they were all congregated together waiting for their bingo.

The minister is correct, we did not dare interrupt the Bingo game, we knew that we would do that at our peril. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the residents of the Codroy Valley show much more class than the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) , and they would never pound on their bingo tables and ask the Leader of the Opposition to L78 April 29," 1985 leave. They were very hospitable, they showed me every courtesy, but from my few years of political experience I knew there was one short way of losing every vote in that hall and that was to stay one minute after the drum started to turn.

So I got out of their very quickly, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the drum started to turn. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that we have this statesmanlike approach and I am sure that the Minister .of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) and other ministers are going to be sensitive to the needs of constitutents of Mount Scio-Bell Island and other districts on this side of the House. We point out that there are real needs in these areas, and I would like to mention the unique needs of Bell Island. We have a situation there, and again it is an area that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) will have to take an interest in.

Before the election, in fact, I received a letter signed by Mr. George Parsons on behalf of the Bell Is land Commuter' s Committee. The heading of the letter is, 'Bell Islanders want a fair shake', and they point out, Mr. Speaker, that Bell Island is in somewhat ' of a unique position, I would say even more unique than the people of Fogo Island, because at . least there, I would say, the largest percentage of the people on Fogo Island are working on Fogo Island. We know how crucial a proper ferry service is for the people of Fogo Island.

Well, I would say it is even more crucial for the people of Bell Island where we have such a large number of commuters working in St. John's or in the St. John's Metropolitan area. Mr. Speaker, there are very serious problems created when the ice comes in the tickle and there R78

is a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not an individual from Bell Island is going to get to work that day. And, in fact, there is an unhealthy situation starting to prevail where employers apparently are becoming reluctant to hire people from Bell Island because they are concerned about the possible irregularity of attendance at work. Now what a large number of people do from Bell Island is put up in these temporary hostels which government sets up out at Torbay when the ice is in. If the ferry cannot get across, there are people who will stay at the hostel, the rec centre. But, Mr.

Speaker, the real answer in terms of giving people living on Bell Island a fair chance to make sure they have permanent employment, to make sure that they do not lose their jobs because of irregularity of attendance, to make sure they are not discriminated against in hiring because employers are concerned as to whether or not they will be in regular attendance at their job, the real answer, Mr. Speaker, is better ferry facilities, a ferry with better icebreaking capability. We see a fine new ferry going out to Fogo Island. Is it .out there yet? MR. TULK: No, not yet. MR.

BARRY: They are afraid to bring her out until the ice goes because they do not want to test the icebreaker in the ice, they want to wait and test her in open water. MR. TULK: He wants to go down for a trip. MR. BARRY: I am sure we will both get an invitation when they christen the L79 April 29, 1985 motor vessel Beaton Tulk. I am sure we will get an invitation to go down on the M. V. Beaton Tulk. I cannot think of a better name, the man who delivered that icebreaker. And obviously the people of Fogo showed they understand that it was the member because they put him back with a fine majority this time around.

Now, we need the same type of ferry service, Mr. Speaker, for Bell Island and I cannot think of a better place to have it built than down in Marys town. I am sure the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) will be on his feet supporting us in our fight to get better ferry services for Bell Island. There is also, Mr. Speaker, the point made that when the ice is in there are air services provided, generally by helicopter, but these are fairly expensive. It was $20.00 per trip this past Winter for residents and that gets expensive for the three mile flight back and forth from Portugal Cove, on a daily basis.

One answer, Mr. Speaker, of course, is to see that more jobs are being provided on Bell Island itself. Now, I was delighted to see the beginnings of a co-operative movement on Bell Island this year. That is the real way that people are going to see progress and improvement, by the community getting together and getting a grass-roots movement to do what has to be done to see jobs created.

I was very interested, and I am sure it was only a coincidence that it happened during the course of the election campaign and the member of the Conservative Party running as my opponent in the election was the one to make the announcement, but I was very pleased to see that in response to a letter I wrote on behalf of the rural development R79

association, which was tring to get a fish processing license for Bell Island, we had a statement from the then Minister of Fisheries that this fish processing license would be provided for Bell Island. I do not see the minister here now, he is out in the corridor having a chat, but I would like to, and I will have the opportunity, I am sure, of receiving assurance that the member for Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr.

Rideout), the new Minister of Fisheries, is going to follow through with that eelection promise of a fish processing license for Bell Island, that promise that coincidentally came in the middle of an election and that coincidentally was given to my opponent to release.

I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries is going to make sure that that f.ish processing license is there on Bell Island, available to that plant to make sure that we do have additional jobs created on the Island itself for the men and women there who have shown through sheer determination, sheer will power, sheer pluck, that they will make a living without being r~settled, without being relocated. They are there to stay on Bell Island. During the election, Mr.

Speaker, I happened to be over there on a Sunday when they had a hockey tournament and they had a group of fifteen or sixteen young men come down from Peterborough, Ontario, I think it was, and they had been up there for a goodly number of years - they went away just after the mine closed. I said, 'Well, you have been there now a good number of years, you must be all settled away and just want to come back to Bell Island for a visit, you have no intention of coming back permanently. ' They would have LSO April 29, 1985 none of that, no Sir!

As soon as there are jobs available back in Newfoundland these people are back, and they made it quite clear to me. MR. POWER: I did some campaigning on Bell Island MR. BARRY: The Minister for Career Development and Advanced Studies (Mr. --Power) did some campaigning on Bell Island. Well, I want to thank the minister. I want to thank the minister for all the assistance that he gave me. I know that he was not campaigning against me. We go back too far to have the minister campaigning against me on Bell Island. MR. TOBIN: Did you campaign in Ferryland? MR.

BARRY: Unfortunately I did not get a chance to campaign in Ferryland but I will the next time. Mr. Speaker, moving from my district of Mount Scio-Bell Island to the Province generally we all know that we have a very serious ·unemployment problem. Now, we have, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fishing industry, an attempt by government, I believe, to move on as though the problem oF the fishing industry had been dealt with.

We heard in the Throne Speech words to the effect, 'Now that we have the offshore Accord and everything alright with offshore oil, and now that we have the restructuring of the fishing industry, and the implication that now everything is alright with the fishing industry, now, the government says, we can move on to Labrador hydro'. R80

[Mr. Speaker, Greening takes the Chair.] MR. BARRY: Before I go any further, I want to congratulate Your Honour and welcome you. I am sure that you are going to make a very fine Deputy Speaker and we wish you all the best in the course of your career there. MR. TULK: He is going to find it hard work. MR. BARRY: But, Mr. Speaker, we do not think that the members opposite, the government, the Premier should move on so quickly, as though it were only Labrador hydro power that remains to be dealt with as a problem. Let us not pass over the fishing industry that quickly, please!

We still have very seriou~ problems in the fishing industry. The Liberal Party put forth a policy, an all-fish-plants-open policy for this Province, and during the election I wrote Mr. Vic Young, the President of Fishery Products, Chairman of Fishery Products International. Now, I know it was only coincidence, but I did not get a response from him until after the election. I know he is a busy man, it just a coincidence, but anyhow I got a response back from one of his assistants. I asked specifically what was planned with respect to the various fish plants, the plants at Fermeuse, Charleston, St.

Lawrence, and there were others, but they have only responded with respect to these three. Now, I know the minister of Career Development (Mr. Power) is delighted to know that Fishery Products International intends to operate the Fermeuse plant if a buyer has not been found before L81 April 29, 1985 the season starts in 1985. I have a letter here from Fishery Products International saying that their shareholders have agreed that it would be appropriate for Fishery Products International to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that Fermeuse operates in 1985.

They have received three serious proposals for the purchase of that plant, Mr. Speaker, but because of the fast approaching inshore groundfish season it may not be possible to have a sale concluded and the corporation is making the commitment to keep that plant operating. Well, I am happy to see that. Now, the same thing is true with respect to St. Lawrence. I am sure the member for Grand Bank (Mr. Matthews) will be glad to hear this, that Fishery Products International states that it intends to operate St.

Lawrence as an inshore plant for twelve weeks in 1985, and that it is expecting to hear that it is open for at least twelve weeks. We all want to see it open longer than that. Mr. Speaker, we are informed as well that the Corporation is going to be meeting with the town to consider an application by an independent operator which we would hope would see a longer period of operation and, Mr. Speaker, we know that this will relieve the anxiety of the people of St. Lawrence to a certain extent. Now, Mr. Speaker with respect to the plant at Charleston I do not have the same degree of assurance.

I am disappointed the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) is not in his seat but I am sure he is somewhere in the building - maybe he is having his chat with the Premier now. R81

MR. TOLK: The Premier is probably trying to punish him. MR. BARRY: No, no, I would hope not. MR. CALLAN: I just saw his car leave the lot. He is gone now. MR.

BARRY: The member has had to move out but I will have to speak with the member, because while the corporation mentions that several parties have expressed serious interest and the corporation remains somewhat optimistic that a sale to an independent operator can be completed prior to the beginning of the 1985 inshore season, what the corporation says here is, 'Should a sale not be concluded prior to this season, it is our intention to pursue a new selling effort well in advance of the 1985 season.' MR. TULK: I think he means is 1986, really. MR.

BARRY: It may be, b~cause they do not have much time in advance of the '85 season, even in Charleston. MR. TULK: So it must be 1986. MR. BARRY: What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is we do not have the commitment there for Charleston, that if they do not sell it that they will go in and operate it. We will have to get clarification. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) might take a note and let us know, and let the people of Charleston know, what is planned for that plant in the event that a purchaser is not found in time to L82 April 29, 1985 see the plant operating during the 1985 season. MR.

TULK: He does not even know where it is. MR. BARRY: So I mention these three items, these three communities, but there are many others where we have uncertainty. We have a problem at Gaultois, where although there is a commitment that-· the plant will be kept open, it is going to be kept open now on a part-time basis. And the mayor and other people in the community have indicated that it seems that the average wage of people working in the plant at Gaultois will be something less than $7, 000. Some say it will be even less than $5,000, during the course of the year •.

Now, just to say that the plant is going to be open for six months does not help very much if it is a sporadic, part-time operation during those six months, as it obviously will be, if this is all the money people are going to make. People cannot survive on that type of income. I think the poverty level right now in Newfoundland is $16,800 for a family of four. Fish plant workers earning between $5,000 and $7,000 are going to be well below that poverty level. Even if there are two in the family working, they are going to be below the poverty level. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough.

I mention these points just to establish that there is a lot of work to be done in terms of developing proper policies for our fishing industry, in terms of ensuring that maximum employment is obtained from the fishing industry. R82

The member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) raised the matter of the part-time salmon licences. Now, we all know that we want to see permanent jobs, good-paying jobs supplied for our full-time fishermen, whether they be salmon fishermen, lobster fishermen, or fish fishermen. But, Mr.

Speaker, those people who are going to lose the advantage of a part-time salmon licence, while they are being offered compensation, when it comes to looking at the requirement of a permanent job, and in some cases these individuals use the part-time salmon licence to supplement an income which is based upon, to a certain extent, working in the woods, doing some logging and, Mr. Speaker, it may also involve for a period certain construction work, what we are now seeing is the removal for 24,000 Newfoundlanders this very signific~nt portion of their income and we have a lifestyle that will therefore be changed. Mr.

Speaker, will they then be able to make a living for their families from these other areas in which they have been employed? If this money from salmon is now gone, will they be able to survive by working in the woods or by working in the construction industry on a seasonal basis? Mr.

Speaker, this type of change in our fisheries policy is being made in the background of threatened changes to the Unemployment Insurance Programme, and we have seen the certain hint, the certain indication that there is going to be an increase in the number of stamps that are going to be required before a person becomes entitled to unemployment insurance. Now, we are going to have to wait until we see the L83 April 29, 1985 federal budget, but we hope that members opposite will be looking at what the Government of Canada is proposing. And if they have any indications, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the planned policy for unemployment insurance, I hope that they are going to fight with every ounce of energy they have to make sure that there are not cutbacks and that it is not made more difficult for people to qualify until there are jobs provided. Because if people are cut off the unemployment insurance programme, and if the jobs are not there, then all that is happening is they are going to be tossed in the lap of the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Brett). Mr. Speaker, there is still an unhealthy emphasis on offshore oil and gas in the Throne Speech.

As I mentioned, one message that came through from this election is that the men and women of this Province want to see their government concentrate on all sectors of the economy. We cannot afford to lose one job in any sector, whether it be agricultural, forestry, mining, fishing, or wherever. All our traditional renewable resource industries must be developed in particular. We must nurture them. We must nudge them along. We must assist them as much as we can. All too often we have seen over the past several years members opposite throw up their hands and say we cannot do anything until we get an oil agreement.

Now there is an oil agreement and our farmers and our loggers and our fishermen and our miners and our people in municipalities are looking for their water and sewer services, people requiring hospitalization are waiting for hospital beds and students in overcrowded classrooms are going to be looking to R83

government. The excuse is not going to be there any longer that we are waiting for our oil agreement. Government is going to have to produce. The excuse is not going to be there any longer that we cannot get along with the government in Ottawa because it is a government of a different political stripe. No more excuses, Mr. Speaker. The time has come for action from members opposite. The electorate of this Province is going to be looking with great interest now.

Now that a mandate to create jobs has been given, people are going to be looking with great interest to see how well the members opposite fulfill that mandate. The new Minister for Labour and Manpower (Mr. Blanchard) while we have high expectations of him in his portfolio - MR. DAWE: It is no longer Labour and Manpower, it is Labour. MR. BARRY: Where is Manpower? Charles Power? SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Is it now Mr. Speaker, it is like watching one of these shell games in terms of moving.

You put the pea under the three shells and then you move the shells and you have to try and guess where the pea is. It is the same way now trying to figure. out where is the responsibility. The Premier figures that if he can keep moving the responsibility for Manpower around under the shell of each department fast enough that we will not be able to point our finger and hold a minister responsible. We now know where the finger must be pointed. Mr.

L84 April 29, 1985 Speaker, I can understand wh~ this change had to be made but it is going to be interesting to see the extent to which the Minister responsible for Career Development (Mr. Power) is going to be able to tie in his theoretical and philosophical recommendations for higher education with the very practical and real needs of day-to-day society in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the minister made it a point when Q~s department was first created of clarifying with the university that he was not just going to be a manpower training minister.

The minister is going to have to take responsibility for both aspects of the ministry. We know he will make a very sincere effort to do that, but the government, all members opposite, Mr. Speaker, will have a responsibility to maintain an emphasis upon the need for creating enough jobs to keep up with the ever increasing labour force in this Province. I see still in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, too much emphasis, an unhealthy emphasis upon the offshore as the panacea, as the solution to all the unemployment problems of this Province. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker.

We are disappointed that we have not seen policies put forth with respect to development, with respect to agriculture, with respect to forestry, Mr. Speaker, with respect to our renewable resource industries generally, and with respect to secondary processing that would show the people of this Province that there is a real commitment, now that the election is over, to create jobs. The mandate has been given, a mandate to create jobs, and I must say that the government receiving that mandate has failed miserably in living up to the expectations R84

created by this document. It has a nice glossy cover - a fine looking piece of art work. It must have been done by the same companies that were doing the advertising during the election. Mr. Speaker, it is not a bad effort for a cover but the cover is the best part of it, because · the contents are very, very empty. There is a lot of reliance on the offshore. What are we going to get from the offshore? Mr. Speaker, we still have not been told what is going to come. I am sorry if we are keeping the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) awake, barely.

We know that as the days go on it is going to be harder and harder to do that. For all members on all sides of this House, one of the greatest challenges is going to be whether they can keep the member for St. John' s North awake duri~g the course of debate. Mr. Speaker, we still have not been told what we can expect from offshore oil and gas. That is a very carefully kept secret. The number of jobs, where these jobs are going to be, when these jobs are going to be and what kinds of jobs there are going to be, all of this has been hidden. The clock is ticking and it is coming on to May 15.

On May 15 Mobil is going to file an Environmental Impact Statement. It is not really a new one. I think they are pretending it is going to be a new one, but it is really going to be an updated one. We are going to be very interested in seeing the numbers that will be set out there with respect to jobs. We know that there are some 60,000 men and women unemployed. Are there going to be 60,000 created, whether it be from the construction of concrete platforms, which would be L85 April 29, 1985 temporary jobs, or otherwise? Somehow, Mr.

Speaker, I doubt that we are going to see numbers revealed in that report that are going to solve our unemployment problem. Now what else is being proposed on the unemployment front? We have a Royal Commission on Unemployment, Mr. Speaker, which we were proposing to disband. Had we formed the government, we would have had the new ideas, we would have had the new approaches, we would have had the new energy, and enthusiasm, and imagination, and we would not need a Royal Commission on Unemployment.

However, the royal commission is there now and if members opposite are still admitting they still do not have any ideas with respect to how to deal with unemployment, then I suppose we are going to have to cooperate with that royal commission as best we can. It is going to be spending $1 million of taxpayers' money and members of this House on all sides will, therefore, have to do the best they can to assist that royal commission in its work. I will do that and the official Opposition will do what it can to assist this royal commission in its work. Many of the new members here have excellent ideas.

Many of them received ideas from their constituents during the election as to what might be done in order to deal with the problem of unemployment and they are going to be delighted to make that information available to the royal commission from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a good working session during this Session of the House. One of the things that concerns me and has concerned me for a number of years R85

in the course of debate has to do with when we get down to considering the estimates. In the past couple of years, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing that the estimates committees are not receiving coverage by the press. Now, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is a waste of time for members, whether they be Opposition members or government members, to sit down in a committee in public, open session and go through the estimates of any department if the press is not there. We can do it by letter, we can do it by correspondence, Mr.

Speaker, but the whole purpose of having the debate on the estimates is to give the men and women of this Province an opportunity to know what has been going on in each department of government since the last accounting was provided. The Opposition House Leader (Mr. Tulk) will be getting together with the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) to discuss whether there is any way, and we will ask the press just what can be done, to help them in their scheduling. They have their financial limitations, they have their own problems in terms of the numbers of reporters they have and so on.

If the reporters are not there, Mr. Speaker, maybe we can only have Ol}e estimate committee going at any particular time. Maybe that is the only way that we can see proper debate on the estimates. Because if you have two or three committees going at the same time, if the press does not have the people power to cover those committees, then it is a waste of time when coverage is not being provided by the media. So, Mr. Speaker, after the budget, or in the days leading up to delivery of the budget, which we L86 April 29, 1985 hope will be conrl.,ng dqwn in the not too distant future - the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) does not seem too energetic or too active yet; he is pretty laid back there. He does not seem to be toiling under any great burden. He does not seem to be getting into that twitchy state of agitation which Ministers of Finance usually get into in the week or so before they have their budget finalized. MR. TULK: He has gone past twitching. MR. BARRY: Yes, maybe he is in a catatonic state right now. Maybe that fourth revision to his deficit got him completely numbed. He is totally numbed and we can say whatever we want to say and we a~e not going to get any rises out of him whatsoever.

In the days leading up to the budget being brought down, we will have to give some consideration, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can make sure there is an opportunity for the general public of this Pr9vince to remain aware of what is going on when the estimates are being debated. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the whole process becomes a bit meaningless. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I realize I have a few more minutes but there are members on this side of the House who are very keen and eager to participate in this debate and I had my opportunity on opening day as well, so I am not going to take all of my time today although I think it has just about expired. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we will give every minister opposite an opportunity to show that he or she will be bringing in good policies, good R86

recommendations, good programmes for the people of this Province. We will support, we will not oppose for the sake of opposing, we will not obstruct, but, Mr. Speaker, we will vigorously oppose any policies, programmes, strategies that are brought down by members opposite that are going to be harmful to the people of this Province. We look forward to good debate, Mr. Speaker, and again we wish you all the best in fulfilling your duties. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. minister, I would like to say I have looked into the question of breach of privilege that was raised by the hon. the member for St. John's East Extern (Mr. Hickey). As we all know, it is a very serious matter to raise a point of privilege and it is a very serious matter to deal with. The role of the Speaker is purely to determine if a prima facie case has been established. I have looked into various precedents in this matter and I find that the hon. member took the opportunity of clarifying his position and that no prima facie_case exists. The hon. the Minister of Career Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say, even before I make my opening comments, all the last session of the Legislature we heard that foolish nonsense over there about some kind of strange struggle for L87 April 29, 1985 leadership and the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) is back at it again this session. Let him be firmly convinced that this election, if nothing else, established who is the real leader in this Province, who is going to be the Premier, who is going to lead the government. There is no question that there are no concerns about the leadership over here.

If they have a problem then they should solve their problem with leadership, but it is certainly not on this side of the House. MR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: I wonder Ferry land if (Mr. the member Power) would for tell us whether he would not admit that his chances for the leadership have been vastly improved because of the electoral situation in Grand Falls, and now, next to the member for Mount Pearl, that he would have to follow probably second in line in the putative leadership hierarchy? MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, I must rule there is no point of order. The hon. the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies. MR. POWER: Just let me say to that point of order, although you have already ruled on it, my job opportunities are greater because of the situation in Grand Falls because I am an expert on by-elections and controverted elections, so my job opportunities may be increased but my leadership is certainly not. R87

MR. TULK: We know 'that but do you? MR. POWER: Every time someone on this side of the House stands to speak, the member fo~ Fogo (Mr. Tulk) questions leadership and I had hoped that this term in the House of Assembly is going to be a little bit different from last, but obviously it is not going to be all that different. But I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I, like other members who have already spoken, congratulate you on being appointed Speaker. It is certainly a very significant position for you to hold and I, as others in the House, express great faith in your ability to do that.

I would like also, of course, to congratulate all members of the House of Assembly who have been elected. I have been here now just about ten years. Sometime later on this year my tenth anniversary of being a member of the House of Assembly will be here. I know how difficult it is to get elected and to stay elected. MR. TULK: What date is that so we can send you a card? MR. POWER: On September 16, 197,5 I was first elected. MS. VERGE: Are you having a party? MR. POWER: Yes, in Ferry land we have a party for almost anything and there will certainly be a party for that.

In congratulating members, I also particularly want to congratulate the two new members, one from Humber Valley (Mr. Woodford) , who L88 April 29, 1985 moved the Address in Reply and did such an excellent job, and the member for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell), who I thought did such an excellent job. He spoke more sense in ten minutes than the last member for LaPoile did in several sessions of the Legislature. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

POWER: I have LaPoile to (Mr. say the member Mitchell) is a substantial improvement. for very I would like also at this time, Mr • Speaker , to take another minute to congratulate all the new members of Cabinet who have been appointed recently. I am sure the others will forgive me if I congratulate particularly a long-standing political ally of mine from Renews, one of my very first supporters when I ran in 1975, who is now the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn). MR. TOLK: That was his supporting you. MR.

POWER: first mistake, Well, he was a supporter of mine long before that and certainly during the election in 1975 he was a very strong supporter of mine. I notice during this election he has the highest majority, I think, of any member elected to the House of Assembly, which just goes to show that I taught.him very well! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. POWER: Having campaigned for him in the district of St. Mary's - The Capes ·this time 'round. Sometime when, I guess, the universe unfolds as R88

it should and I am in the twilight of my career, twenty years or so from now, maybe the member for St. Mary's - The Capes (Mr. Hearn) can come down and campaign ,in Ferryland for a little bit. I want to congratulate, of course, the Deputy Speaker, the member for Terra Nova (Mr. Greening), whose appointment was announced today. Again, Sir, we express great faith in your abilities to do the job very well. Mr. Speaker, I guess before I go on to my comments about the Throne Speech, and in particular about some of the comments made by · the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) , I also think it would be opportune at this time - and I thought earlier today maybe one of the members of the Opposition might have done it - to rise and express condolences to the Murray family. Miles Murray, who died recently, was the member for Ferry land for fourteen years. He was a district court judge, he was a war veteran. I think there is a procedure, Mr.

Speaker, in the House that usually somebody from the Opposition rises and, with some kind of concurrence then, the Speaker can !;!end a letter of condolence, in this case, to the Murray family and I am sure there would be unanimous consent to send it to the family of such a fine, distinguished representative of the district of Ferryland and in recognition of the other things he represented in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. POWER: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say about the Throne Speech that the Throne Speech is about jobs, it is about job creation, it is about L89 April 29, 1985 solving the most difficult problem that we have in this Province, which is unemployment, not just that of young people but maybe particularly so for them, but certainly for all persons in this Province who are unemployed. That is what the Throne Speech talks about, it is what "the Throne Speech describes, but it is what seems to have again bypassed the members in the Opposition. If I listen to the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) , he talks about the old times, old agreement~ and old ways. What we have in this Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, is a way to try and straighten out a very historic, traditional problem that we ~ave had in Newfoundland, certainly since my time in politics and long before that. MR. TULK: And we heard it in t~e last Throne Speech, and the one before that, and the one .before that. MR. POWER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this Throne Speech, like many Throne Speeches, is a continuation. They are not a beginning and an end unto themselves. A Throne Speech is a pattern and a plan of attack that a government has.

The plan of attack does not change every year. You do not change your strategies just because you have an election or are going to have one. You do not change your kind of attack every year or so. You have more than a one year plan. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in our case we have that. The Throne Speech that we have here today, albeit it has a fair amount of history in it, but the history is in the beginning. The reassessment or re-evaluation of some of the things that we have R89

put in place over the last few years makes up the latter part of the Throne Speech, when it talks about things like the Department of Career Development, when it talks about job opportunities and when it talks about education. That could not be done in the latter stages of a Throne Speech unless, first of all, we had laid down some kind of a firm footing upon which to build. And, Mr. Speaker, that firm footing is there in very, very obvious terms. It is there· on the very first page when we talk about the Atlantic Accord. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

POWER: The Atlantic Accord, which some persons on the opposite side did not own up to that it actually existed or happened until after the election, but after the election, I noticed in the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Barry) comments the other day, that he mentioned bringing in amendments to the Atlantic Accord that we signed. So the Atlantic Accord is there. Mr. Speaker, what is in that Atlantic Accord gives us a 'firm footing, a firm foundation upon which to build new industry in Newfoundland.

Now anyone who knows Newfoundland knows the problems that we have in the fishery, the problems that we have had in forestry, which have been overcome to a large degree, the tourism industry, the mining industry and what we have here, the Atlantic Accord, is a firm foundation based in history on which we can build a very sound future in those industries. When you look Accord, you can at the talk L90 April 29, 1985 Atlantic about the joint management that we have. Now what does joint management mean to a place like Newfoundland? Why could we not have joint management before?

Why could we never get from the Federal Liberal Government any kind of a concurrence or an agreement that we were capable of running that resource and that we were capable of having input? We just could not get it because I think in the back of their minds they had an oldtime Canadian attitude that some people in Newfoundland really were not capable of doing a certain job. MR. CALLAN: Do you believe that? MR. BARRY: Do you believe A New Direction for Canada? MR.

POWER: I did not know what else to believe for many years in trying to deal with the Federal Liberal Government on the issues in my own department in dealing with it from a provincial ministerial point of view. I did not know what to believe. I could not figure it out as I think any reasonable, logical, sane, sensible, person should be able to figure out any problem. I could not ascertain why the Federal Liberal Government treated us as they did.

I could not understand it, except in the back of some people 's minds they were afraid to give us control of this big natural resource because they were afraid through some kind of strange way we would waste it away, we would destroy it, we would not use its full benefit for Canadians. MR. HISCOCK: What about the Act? National Training R90

MR. POWER: I will mention later on in my comments on Career Development some of the things we are doing because that is the kind of thing that was implemented in training acts and in many ways which almost makes ones believe that somebody thought up there that we were not capable of doing certain things. The Atlantic Accord has joint management, equal say on a board to run that offshore, to give us control of that resource, and revenue as if it were on land. Why would not, why could not, why was it never possible for us to get revenue rights exactly as if that resource were on land from the Federal Liberal Party?

Why would they not give it to us? Now the Provincial Liberal Party is saying we will amend that to give you more strength and more clout and more power to collect revenue. I am saying that the resource that we have out there is now controlable for us, taxable by us because we as a Provincial Conservative Party had an agreement with a Federal Conservative Party. The equalization phase-out: A very important firm footing based in history and without it we -could not be able to do the things we wish to do in the Throne Speech that goes into the year ahead. The future aspects you could not do.

If we had signed an Atlantic Accord that did not have a phaseout of equalization