VOL. 2 NO. 62 PRELIMINARY UNED ITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1980

November 20, 1980 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simxns) MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: member for LaPoile. Tape 2270 EC - 1 Order, please! Statements by Ministers Oral Questions. • point of order, Mr. Speaker. • point of order, the hon. the MR. NEARY: Or a point of privilege or whatever. I am not sure if the hon. the Premier heard the hon. the Speaker call Ministerial Statements. I mean, what is wrong? Is he sick? Is there something wrong with the hon. gentleman? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That obviously is not a point of order. ORAL QUESTIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Barry) andin his absence, the Premier0 And I apologize, I just got this information. We have almost a disaster in the Bonavista North area because of the high winds last night, and, apparently, in many other areas of the Province. Seven main transmission lines are down, thirty-eight poles in the Wesleyville area alone are out, and the indication is the power will be off for a number of days.

I wonder if the Premier, in the absence of the minister, has a report or can get a report on how widespread this is throughout the Province and what is available in the way of emergency power in the way of generators or anything of that nature that can get emergency power restored at least until this can be done? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

November 20, 1980 Tape 2270 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: tIr. Speaker, I do not have a report on it now but I undertake to immediately have a report on it for the hon. member before the House closes at 6:00 P.M. We will get a full and up-to-date report of every place in the Province including the hon. member's district and the measures being taken to try to alleviate it, and make it available to the hon. member before the House closes at 6:00 P.M. or whatever time the House closes. MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) : The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the hon. the Premier in connection with the Come By Chance oil refinery. Would the hon. the Premier inform the House if he has in his possession,and has had for several days, the report of Petrocan on the actual physical condition of the oil refinery at Come By Chance? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: We are aware of - I do not know if I have the actual report in my hands or it is on my desk. I am aware of the report and I am aware of some of the major findings of the report. We will be discussing that further with the Petro-Canada people over the next week or so.

MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: I am not sure if I understood the hon. gentleman correctly that the report is on the Premier's desk Is that what the hon. gentleman said? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, I did not say that, Mr. Speaker, I said I am not aware if it is on my desk or not or whether it is in the confines of what is normally classified to be my office, but I am aware of the report and aware of some of the findings of the report and that in the next little while we will

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2271 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: be discussing that with the Petro-Canada people. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simxns) : A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: I do not understand the answer, Mr. Speaker. Is the report in the hands of the Premier and the government or is it not? I mean, what kind of a - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please The hon. member is asking the same question. MR. S. NEARY: A report of such magnitude, the Premier would know if he has received it or not And if so, let me ask the hon. gentleman another question.

Will he confirm the declaration that Petrocan has decided that they will in no way have anything to do with the Come By Chance oil refinery as far as operating the refinery is concerned? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, It is a rumour as far as I know, it is a rumour that the hon. member just pass- ed along to me, but I am not aware of the factual validity of the rumour, I do not think it is true - it is a rumour. I am not aware of that being the case, no. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S.

NEARY: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the President of Petrocan is quoted in theTornn'' Globe and Mail today and Mr. John Ridsdel, the PR man for Petrocan is quoted in the Chronicle Herald - Halifax Chronicle Herald - yesterday saying that if Shaeen proceeds with his court case, for instance, that Petrocan will not proceed with the purchase and the President of Petrocan is quoted in the Globe and Mail today as asking that they are interested only in taking over the oil refinery as a desperatioc.rnove, as a salvage operation but not operating it as a refinery?

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2271 SD - 2 MR. S. NEARY: Is the hon. gentleman aware of that? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, I am not aware of that at all. I have not had a chance to read the Globe and Mail or I had not read the chronical Herald. All I can tell the hon. member is that we are in constant contact and communication with Petro-Canada and that these statements that the hon. member just made are unfounded and untrue from the information that I have. MR. S. NEARY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I indicated a final supplementary. The hon. member for St.

Barbe. AN HON. MEMBER: A new question. MR. S. NEARY: A final supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A new question. MR. S. NEARY: A final supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: I indicated a final supplementary. A new question. MR. T. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. T. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yield. Yield. MR. T. BENNETT: If the hon. gentleman would like me to yield,I would if it is okay with the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member - a new question. MR. S. NEARY: Well, it is a new question, yes, Sir.

If the report indicates that Petrocan will not operate the oil refinery as a going concern but merely just buy it and take it over and leave it there, will the Premier inform the House if he will then consider the Shaheen proposal,or his associates' who are prepared to take over the refinery and operate it,having the supply of crude and the markets so we are told' will the

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2271 SD - 3 MR. S. NEARY: hon. gentleman indicate if the government will then consider that proposal? MR. SPEAKER: (Sims) The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: It is purely a hypothetical question to which it is very difficult to give an answer, Mr. Speaker. At that point in time if there are any eventualities which occur which are irregular and are pessimistic in the sense of Petro-Canadas operationof the refinery as a viable refinery, at that time Cabinet and government will make a decision as to what the next move will be.

November 20, 1980 Tape No.2272 EL - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) The hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. In view of the season of the year I understand there is a little procrastinating, I might sggest,in having a second shift in place when it comes to snowclearing and, Mr. Speaker, in view of all the danger to life and limb with people trying to move over the highways, and in view of all the complaints that seem to be coming in from around the Province I am wondering, Mr.

Speaker, what time the second shift might be in place to keep our highways free and, if there is not a second shift available or about to come onstream at this time,what effort is really being made to keep our highways free from snow and provide safety in travel? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: I think, Mr. Speaker, it will probably be sometime up in January before a full second shift will be coming on.And it might sound a bit late,but what happened in the last two or three days certainly was unexpected and might never happen again.And I do not think it would - AN HON.

MEMBER: Were you talking to Almighty God? MR. BRETT: No, I have not been able to get Him on the staff yet.r3ut I do not think it would be sensible to take on two shifts at this point in time an it is conceivable that thei would be sitting around for the next month or so with absolutely nothing to do.

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2272 EL - 2 MR. BRETT: And I think then pro- bably the hon. member would be on my back or the public would, saying, Well, what are you doing with set- eral hundred men on in your depots sitting around playing cards all day long? Normally we do not run into too much in the way of a lot of snow or blizzards until the latter part of December or early January and that is the reason why we will not be taking on the second shift until then.

But we have our staff now coming in at five in the morning, at which time the salt trucks and the sand trucks and the plows are going out and we think this is ample time for the travelling public. You know, we do not really foresee any problem unless of course you run into a blizzard every second day butas I indicated ,1 do not think that is going to happen anywhere. MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. BENNETT: I am curious to know, Mr. Speaker, what does constitue an emergency,?

How well in- formed is the Minister of Transportation(C.Brett) with regards to the weather? Mow well informed can he keep himself and how long does it take to bring on emergency forces to clear the highways of the Province? When I travelled myself, Mr. Speaker, from Corner Brook a week or ten days ago, between Deer Lake and Corner Brook, by the time the salt trucks and snowclearing equipment gets out we do not really need them because the sun is in effect by ten o'clock in the day. We really do not

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2272 EL - 3 MR. BENNETT: need them. We need them at seven o'clock in the morning, six o'clock, seven, eight o'clock when people are going to work and when school buses are on the highways, this is when we need them,and when I travelled between these towns and I witnessed the damage to people's motor vehicles in the ditch and banging around,lives even lost and I am won- dering, Mr. Speaker, can the minister

November 20, 1980 Tape No.2273 OW - 1 MR. T. BENNETT: tell us just how effective can his emergency force be while they are procrastinat- ing and waiting for the second shift to be put in place as a permanent organization for the Winter snowclearing? MR. SPEAKEP.(Simms): The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. C. BRETT: - Mr. Speaker, while I was answering the last question, one of the hon. members mentioned some- thing about the Almighty and I indicated He is not on the staff, so we do not have contact with Him. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BRETT: Just a second now. NEARY: Not yet. MR. C.

BRETT : We have the same method or the same way of finding out what the weather is going to be as everybody else does in Newfoundland and all over Canada: We listen to the forecast, of course, and I do not know if there is any other way that it can be done. MR. T. BENNETT: It is not good enough. MR. C. BRETT: Well, if the hon. member says it is not good enough, I suggest that he might have some ideas. But we do listen to the forecast as closely as we can. For example, if it is mild and we hear that the temperature is going to drop, then we will prepare our salt trucks and our sand trucks and send them out.

But you must remember we are not going to put salt and sand down on bare pavement. You have to wait for the ice to come first before you take it off, and the same thing applies to the snow, you do not send the snow plows Out until the snow is down. I do not know if I have answered the hon. gentleman's question or not, but the only way I know is the forecast. If you have some better ideas may- be you should see some of my staff. MR. T. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2273 DW - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A supplementary, the hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. T. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I an just curious to know if the Department of Trans- portation has substantially less numbers on payroll this year as opposed to last year, and how it compares with years down the road and how much they have, in effect, reduced the number of persons? Last year there was great emphasis placed by rural areas, great emphasis,in effect, that there was terribly run-down, obsolete equipment.

I am wondering if this has been upgraded to accomodate this Winter and if indeed, we have employed extras persons that were released last year and if these people are now onstream and available to go to work at a minute's notice? MR. SPEAKER: . The hon. Minister of Trans- portation. MR. C. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, with respect to staff, the staff complement in the department of highways has been reduced somewhat over the last three or four years.

And I think most people who had anything to do with that de- partment would acknowledge that probably the department was overstaffed in that in many instances there were actually people sitting around in the depots not doing very much. 5:3s

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2274 NM - 1 MR. BRETT: What has happened now is that we have less staff but I think we are more efficient and I think that is what counts. With respect to equipment, I have said that a hundred times in this House and other places in the Provinces yes, a lot of our equipment is old. I wish I had the list here showing what we ordered last year and the cost of it, because it is just frightening what the cost of one of those flyer trucks is, or a grader - $1 million is like that glass of water in St. John's Harbour. AN HON. MEMBER: Get it from Ottava. MR.

BRETT: I wish we could get it from Ottawa. But every year we do have new equipment come in. Last year a lot of equipment that we ordered did not come in, through no fault of ours. It could not be supplied by the manufacturer. So this year we have got a double dose, we have what we ordered this year and the back loq from last year. And in particular we have fourteen new flyer trucks, these are the ones that plough and sand at the same time, so that is quite an addition to the fleet, and if nothing else then we will not do any better job on the Trans-Canada Highway because I think we did an excellent job last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. BRETT: But certainly it would help us probably to make more progress on the other roads because we would be able to move some of the equipment off the TCH and onto the by-roads. PREMIER PECKFORD: Good man. Good man. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. HTSCOCK: My question also is to the Minister of Transportation. I realize that the Minister of Transportation has just said that this Province has a lot of outdated equipment, but can the 5X39

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2274 NM - 2 MR. HISCtJCX: minister inform this House as to what plans and how much equipment is bought this year, and plans for next year's budget of buying extra equipment for this Province? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Minister of Transportations MR. BRETT: The hon. member asked for the amount- was it? - and the list. I am sorry, I cannot give him the exact amount. I would have to get that from the department, that is the amount of money and the same thing would be how many flyers, how many graders, how many dozers.

I do not know exactly but, you know, if the hon. member, if that is important to him then certainly I would take it upon me to find out and get the information for him. MR. 1-IISCOCK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: I think it is very, very important because the minister said himself that their equipment is outdated and cannot do the necessary works you only can work the machines so long.

If that is the case then basically it would have to be replaced and we would like to know how long this would take and how many years it would take to build up the fleet of equipment to clear the roads in this Province. The other question I would like to ask is with regard to the Straits Road. Last year, because of severe storms, over thirty days of school were lost and equipment had to be brought in by the ice breaker. Can the Minister of Transportation inform us now in that area is there enough equipment that this problem will not recur, that over thirty school days were lost because of snow problems? MR.

NEARY: Bring Greg Power back, boy. 6O

November 20, 1980, Tape 2275, Page 1 -- apb MR. SPEAKER(Sirnms): The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: I wish I did have a telephone line to upstairs. If I may, Mr. Speaker, the replace- ment of the equipment, that is a revolving thing. You know, you never really get ahead of it. Every year there are several million dollars spent in replacing old equipment. You will never see the day when all of the equipment on the road is new.

Every year there is so much new and then - you know, eventually down the road, I suppose, we will get rid of the obsolete stuff, because some of what we have, you have to wait for months before you get parts. So, you know, it takes time. But with respect to Southern Labrador, what we need up there, what we needed up there last year was snowblowers, heavier machinery. Because what we had there was like Dinky toys, we just could not get through it. And I cannot guarantee the hon. member that that will not happen again because it can come so bad that no matter what you put there you just cannot get through it.

There were times last Winter up there when eight o'clock in the night we had the roads open and the traffic was moving freely, and by twelve o'clock it was blocked again. I mean, there is nothing you can do about that, you just keep at it. And you can move all the machinery in the world in there and, again, that is the guy upstairs. I just cannot cope with that kind of thing. But I am going to try to get, possibly, a heavier snowblower or some extra equipment in there this year, if at all possible. But I certainly cannot Gfl'1

November 20, 1980, Tape 2275, Page 2 -- apb MR. BRETT: guarantee the hon. member that that road will not be blocked again; I do not know. MR. SPEAKER(Sjrnms): The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question and it is also directed to the Minister of Transportation and it concerns the ferry service to Fogo Island: I wonder if the minister - I am under the impression, first of all, that the ferry operator threatened to take his ferry off the run this year because he had not had a contract for two years; I am wondering if the minister could tell us why it was two years that the contractor did not have a contract, and why we had to be left in that situation? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be specific.

I can only tell the hon. member that negotiations were going on all during that period of time, and, I suppose, both parties could not come to an agreement. But I do not think that at any time the service to Fogo Isi.and suffered because the contract was not signed; I mean, that was something between Mr. Miller and the Department of Transportation. Really, I do not think it had any effect on the people of Fogo Island or the ferry service. It was a matter between the operator and the government, and when we finally reached an agreement, then he signed it and I signed it, and that it all there was to it. 62

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2276 AH-1 MR. TULK: A supplementary,Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): A supplementary. The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I can assure the minister that there was a great deal of anxiety on Fogo Island at the time. And I am wondering - let that be bygone - but I am wondering if the minister would now inform the House if there has been anything new written into that contract to deal with overload situations, the number of trips to improve the whole situation with regards to those kind of things? MR.SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: Again,Mr.

SpeakerI do not have the contract on my desk. I do not know exactly what is written into it. We try to cope with the situation as best we can and I do not know if it is possible to draw up a contract that will take care of every single situation that might arise. I know what the hon. member is talking about. You get a long weekend and you have a line-up over in Carmanville or a line-up in Fogo and it is very uncomfortable for everybody.

If it will make the hon. member feel any better, I acknowledge the fact that that ferry service needs to be improved and I hope that when we get that report that there was so much controversy over, that there will be some good recommendations in that and we can do something not only with the ferry service in Fogo Island but in all the ferry services in the Province. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker I wonder if the minister will assure the House again - I believe that contract, the new one,runs until March 31,1980-I am wondering if the 6I3

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2276 AH-2 MR. TULK: minister will assure the House that he will meet with the councils on Fogo Island, the Fogo Island Improvement Committee and other concerned groups, legitimate concerned groups, about that service and will try to build better conditions into that contract before it expires March 31st of this year? MR. SPEAKER (SIMMS) : The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: If the hon. member is asking me if I will go to Fogo, the answer is no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. FLIGHT: We know that. MR. BRETT: I have been to Fogo on many, many occasions.

Do not let the hon. member worry about it. I was born down there and forgotten more about it than he knows or the hon. member either. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BRETT: As a matter of fact, I am a real hero down there, Mr. Speaker. They do everything but roll out the red carpet. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. BRETT: And the member for the area just acknowledged the fact that I was a hero for down there. But, yes, I would only be too happy to meet with anybody down there. As a matter of fact, I had a request from some group which wanted me to send them a copy of the contract.

I felt that that was not really right and proper and I do not think it is. But I agreed that I would answer any questions that they might have with respect to the contract. I will be happy to meet any groups down there any time to discuss it. MR. TULK: Will you try meeting their requests? MR. BRETT: Inasfar as money will allow. G'Y4

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2276 AH-3 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Last Spring,I think it was, the minister will recall that his department set up an in- house committee to look into the ferry services throughout the Province, the intra ferry services. Questioned in the House,I believe that the minister indicated that when that report was in that he would make it public. Two questions if you will Mr. Speaker: One, is that report in and,if sodoes the minister intend to make that report public? 625

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2277 DW - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sinuns) : The hon. Minister of Trans- portation. MR. C. BRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that com- mittee has been in for months and months and I have no objections to making it public. It was not a very detailed report, it was not a great big volume - that thick I suppose. I certainly have no objections to making it public. I think the hon. member knows what has transpired since that report came in, that CN has been engaged to do a study on the whole system and to make some final recommendations and final pro- posals as to which way we are going to go.

And I am hoping to get a copy of that report early in the new year. If there is money available ,maybe we can make a start next year in doing something with the ferry system. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Windsor- Buchans. MR. G. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Transportation. The minister confirmed to the House yesterday that he would be holding a meeting, I think, on the 25th. with provincial officials and federal officials for the purpose of discussing our long-term transportation plans, as I understood it.

I wonder if the minister would confirm that the purpose of the meeting is to identify the priorities inasfar as he is concerned or the government is concerned with regard to new road construction in the Province, identify the priorities and what roads will be funded, that kind of thing,and identify the roads for which the minister will seek funding from the federal government for: Is that the purpose of the meeting? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Trans- portat ion. 66

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2277 DW - 2 MR. C. BRETT: I suppose the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. We are to meet on the 25th., that is correct, and I do not know if it will be necessary for us to go all over it again and tell them what our priorities are, I think they know that, we have had it up there long enough. It has been up there for months. If they do not then there is no problem,we have no objections going over the whole thing again. But we will be happy to meet them on the 25th. and negotiate further if necessary.

But I will make it very clear then and I will make it very clear now that we are not going to discuss any trade-of fs. They are very much aware of our priorities. But if we have to reiterate them again we will do it. MR. G. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sims): A supplementary, the hon. member for Windsor-Buchans. MR. G. FLIGHT: I wonder if the minister would be specific and advise me or advise the House of whether or not the Buchans-Burgeo road is a priority in this meeting on the 25th.? I want to be sure the minister heard the question, Mr.

Speaker, and I want the ministerts answer-not necessarily the Premiers. Is the Buchans-Surgeo road a priority item for discussion at that particular meetirrT that the minister is about to hold with federal officials

November 20, 1980 Tape 2278 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. the Minister of TransportatiQn and Communications. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Buchans- Burgeo road is not a priority inasfar as providing a second Trans-Canada Highway is concerned. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: I did not ask the minister if it is a - nobody talked about the Buchans-Burgeo road as a second Trans-Canada.

This Province has already committed $1 million to about eight and one-half miles of road built as part of the Buchans-Burgeo road and it was not seen as a second Trans-Canada. The minister knows that all the committees from Buchans and from all over Central Newfoundland have been requesting that the Buchans-Burgeo road be put in place, not necessarily as a second Trans-Canada. If it becomes that, then sobeit. My question simply is, Is the minister intending to seek funding for the Buchans-Burgeo road in the agreements that he is about to discuss with the federal government? MR. MOORES: Yes or no. MR.

FLIGHT: Yes or no. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government has on many occasions indicated that if there is a development with respect to the Tulks deposit and if a request were made for funding, then the government would certainly consider requesting funds from the federal government and, of course, putting our share into it, but it has been suggested that if the hon. member would turn to page twenty-six of this discussion paper published by the Premier on the major bilateral issues, then he would find out where our priorities lie in that case. MR.

FLIGHT: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans.

November 20, 1980 Tape 2278 EC - 2 MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I would want to inform by way of a short

preamble. But the Tulk ore deposit has nothing to do with the Buchans-Burgeo road. That road that gives access to Tulks is already in place. It has nothing to do with it. So the minister should take a look at the map and see what we are talking about when we talk about the Buchans- Burgeo road. MR. T. LUSH: He has got his geography mixed up. MR. FLIGHT: I am asking the minister if he intends to seek funds to complete the Buchans-Burgeo road, to upgrade the present Buchans-Lloyds Lake road and is it his intention to complete the Buchans-Burgeo road?

And is his intention to allocate funds, either provincial or federal? In next years proposal does he intend to discuss it with the federal government? And I want him also while he is up to tell me just how big a priority it is. He has been telling the committee in Buchans it is a priority. Would he identify at just what point - how high a priority it is with his government? MR. MOORES: Is it as big a priority as the (inaudible) MR. SPEAKER (Cirnms): The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question and all I can say is ditto. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Transportation and Communications has admitted that a meeting is going to take place on November 25th, would he inform the House if the committee is now handicapped? Because the Premier knew that this meeting was taking place and the Premier prematurely released his railway report knowing that this committee was going to meet and that the priorities were going to be worked out. Where does the railway now stand in G'9

November 20, 1980 Tape 2278 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: relation to highways, for instance, as a matter of priority? Is the government laying top priority on the railway, on highways, on shipping? I mean, when the order of priorities is worked out and re'

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2279 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: funding is arranged, could the minister indicate what order the priorities would take? What is the minister, for instance, what is he advising his officials to rate as the number one priority-the railway, road transportation, shipping? Could the minister give us some idea what instructions the officials will have in this regard? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, look,the highways and the railway are two distinctly separate issues.

There is no way - I gather that the hon. member for LaPoile is agreeing with the federal government when they are saying to us, "LookNewfoundland, you can have either the Gander Terminal or the railway or the Trans-Canada Highway, but you cannot have it all." Well, now we do not agree with that and the railway is not going to be either on the top or the bottom, because it is a separate issue altogether.

We want our Trans-Canada Highway upgraded, we want the Southern Labrador Highway built, and we want the Trans-Labrador Highway built, and we still want to retain the railway, because we believe - not only believe, we know that we have a right to that under the Terms of Union, the same right as every other Province in Canada. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to put another question? The time for Oral Question has expired. er'1

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2279 NM - 2 PRESENTING PETITIONS: MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Harbour Main- Bell Island. MR. DOYLE: I would like at this time to present a petition on behalf of 100 per cent of the voting population of the community of Harbour Main. MR. S. NEARY: What percentage? MR. DOYLE: 100 per cent. That amounts to just over 300 people in that community, and the prayer of the petition reads as follows.

We, the undersigned, residents of Harbour Main, Conception Bay, in the constituency of Harbour Main-Bell Island, do hereby protest most vigorously the unilateral patriation of our constitution and do also support, without reservation, the stand taken by Premier Peckford regarding same." SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DOYLE: It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, "As a result of the foregoing we do today petition all members of the hon.

House of Assembly to take a similar stand and support our Premier in that great effort." Your Honour, I would obviously like to lend my support too, and associate myself with this particular petition, as it sums up quite well the very important message that the government of our Province have been attempting to get across to the people of Newfoundland ever since the recent constitutional conference in Ottawa. And it is quite apparent, Mr.

Speaker, in reading the prayer of the petition, that the people of Harbour Main do have a very genuine concern for the welfare of our Province in general and they would like to make their feelings known through the members of the House of Assembly whom they ask to unanimously Gr12

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2279 NM - 3 MR. DOYLE: support, and I repeat that phrase, Your Honour, unanimously support, because I feel it is a very important one that the government has taken G13

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2280 EL - 1 MR. DOYLE: on this issue. What is, in effect actually being stated here with the phrase unanimous support is that :egardless of political affiliation the people of that particular community want to see all members of the House of Ass- embly stand up and be counted and support the government's position on this matter which is so very vital to every single community in the Province of Newfoundland.

Your Honour, inasmuch as this is the very first petition to be placed upon the Table of the House regarding this most vital issue, I would like it to be noted that the community of Harbour Main is setting an example that I am sure all other communities will follow. Each community, as a matter of fact, in that particular part of my district is presently cir- culating petitions to that effect and I am told they are meeting with a very good response indeed in the communities of Holyrood and Marysvale and Colliers and Condeption Harbour and Avondale and Lakeview and so on.

So, Your Honour, because every single member of the House of Assembly will be given the opportunity in the next couple of weeks to speak out on this issue, I will keep my remarks relatively short and simply state in closing that this petition is one which I support without reservation and I will caution - or rather I would urge all members of the hon. House to MR. FLIGHT: Caution is the word (inaudible) SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh! MR. DOYLE: - do likewise for the sake of Newfoundland's future. So I ask that this petition be placed upon the Table of the House and 1314

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2280 EL - 2 MR. DOYLE: to which it relates. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. WARREN: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) Mountains. MR. WARREN: referred to the department Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Torngat Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege. MR. WARREN: Yesterday during this storm that -ie had on the Avalon Peninsula and Burin Peninsula, there was a young man by the name of Scott Parsons out in Conception Bay South who did an heroic deed.

He is a bus driver, was driving a bus with several children on it and the power lines and that came down across the bus. He took fast action by asking the children to stand up in the aisles of the bus and by himself taking a broom and lifting the power lines off the bus. By doing so he saved the lives of those children and himself. So I would like for the Speaker of the House to send a letter of commendation to Mr. Parsons on his act of bravery. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: I just wanted - not on that matter, obviously all members of the House are in full agreement with that - I just wanted to point out, if I may Mr. Speaker, and I will only take ten seconds, that in the Gallery today is the Premier for today, Tina Fagan, who has been on a campaign of support for the new CAT- scanner at the Health Sciences Complex. And just a few minutes G"15A.

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2280 EL - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: ago she took over the Chair downstairs and until nightfall or twelve oclock the hands of the government have been put in others than myself and we just hope that the job that she does be- tween now and then still leaves us with some money to- morrow. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Leader of the Opsition. MR.

STIRLING: By whatever means the Premier used, in the same context: I happen to know Tina Fagan and if you had given me any advanced warning of this, if she now has full con- trol,I have absolutely no doubt that the Province is going to be run for the next few hours better than it ever has been run in its history. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the petition so ably presented by my friend and colleague from the great district of Harbour Main-Bell Island (N.

Doyle) and note that in the petition all of the people, 100 per cent of the voting population, regardless of pol- itical stripe, have supported the efforts of the Premier of this Province to secure for us some sort of a future. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that it will be unfortunate, it will be seen, and an unfortunate thing that we will not get (3n16

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2280 EL - 4 MR. DINN: support from all members of the House of Assembly to the petition simply because we know that - AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know? MR. NEARY: Not if you keep talking like that. MR. DINN: For example, our resolution on the constitution has been amended which leaves out local preference, offshore rights - rights to our offshore oil and gas and ownership of our offshore oil and gas, a share in our fisheries, our most important resource next to our people - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sioms): A point of order.

Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the hon. member from Port au Port. 617

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2281 DW - 1 MR.J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I understand that when responding to a petition that the person - AN HON. MEMBER: Supporting. MR. HODDER: - supporting the petition confines his remarks to that particular petition and does not enter tie realm of debate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order! Out of order! MR. SPEAKER(Sirnms) To the point of order, the hon. President of the Council. MR. U.

MARSHALL: I would like to say very quickly, because I do not want to impenge on the hon. members time, he has only got five minutes, but the fact of the matter, the prayer of the petition is that you support - that this House support the Premier in his position on the offshore, and they include exactly the same things that my hon. friend mentioned and exactly the same things the hon. members there opposite that are conspicuous in leaving out of their resolution. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Further to the point of order, the hon. member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: Mr.

Speaker, do points of order use the hon. member's time as it does in Question Period? But,Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member's were confined to the petition, but he was entering the realm of debate. MR. FLIGHT: Most definitely. MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the point of order, the rules are clear for everybody to read, 'Confine yourself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached and the material allegations it contains. There shall be no debate on a petition.' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 6'1S

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2281 DW - 2 MR. J. DINN: :lr. Speaker, I was not wanting to enter into the realm of debate on this petition. Obviously, I will be given an opportunity in the constitution debate, but I would like to thank all of the people from the com- munity of Harbour Main in the great district of Harbour Main-Bell Island, the over 300 people, people who have concern about the issues of this Province who sent in their petition. Although I have to regret that they will not get the unanimous support of this House,they will have the unanimous support of all the people on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! I failed to give a ruling a few moments on a point of privilege raised by the hon. member. Obviously, it was not a point of privilege but the hon. member took the opportunity to make his statement. Any further petitions? ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Motion l,on the amendment. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. L. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, Itoo,welcome the petition from the people in Harbour Main.

It would be very interesting to find out when that petition was started and what the real concern was that caused 100 per cent of the people to sign a petition. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it had anything to do with the most important address a certain individual made in his life, everything that he ever did paled in comoarison to it. This is what he said as we all sat with sated breath, it was all set up, we were all given the big build-up. There was the 6R19

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2281 DW - 3 MR. L. STIRLING: meetingwith the Cabinet and a meeting with the full caucus and then a meeting with the PC Party executive and then the time was asked for - no indication of what it was,but maybe the most important thing that ever happened in that particular individual's lifetime. So we all waited at 7:30 that night and the speech opened, 'Good Evening,Ladies and Gentlemen; This evening I want to speak to you on a matter of vital importance to all of us. I wish to speak to you not as Progressive Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats but as citizens all of the Prov- ince.

The matters I wish to discuss with you are the ones above and beyond the divisions of party politics. These issues bear upon the most vital aspects of life in our Province; the right to educate our children in our own way,and the sanctity of the Labrador boundary.' Now, Mr. Speaker, we sat back and wondered what this was all about. And then he thanked the people for all the support that he received while the constitution was being debated, all the T.V. coverage - the same man who will not allow T.V. in the House of Assembly so that the people can judge for them- selves what happens here in the House of Assembly.

He talked about these other things being important. ' However, it is not about these matters which I wish to talk to you about tonight-the other matters about the great response that he had from his constitutional debate. '20

November 20, 1980, Tape 2282, Page 1 -- apb MR. STIRLING: And then he goes on again talking a bit about the constitution, the same sort of thing he talked about before, and how he thought that these rights were preserved. "Fellow citizens, I tell you tonight if the federal government's constitutional proposal is accepted, we can no longer be confident of our provincial boundary and the right to determine the education of our children'. MR. FLIGHT: Now. MR.

STIRLING: And he goes on to talk about some of the other things that they have been discussing in the constitution and he comes back again; "It would be possible to change our boundary without this Province's consent" - the key point in his speech. "Of equal concern is the threat to our denominational system of education".

And then he went on again: He said, "I have not chosen to speak to you tonight about the failure to recognize our rights in fisheries,O'f shore and hydro, although we will eventually attain these rights", and this kind of thing, "but I speak to you tonight about the potential loss of basic solemn rights". MR. WARREN: That was on T.V. MR. STIRLING: This is across Newfoundland - Labrador coverage. And then he comes back again: "These are now imperilled". The he goes on to say that there are certain things you can debate, "But we have certain rights. They are sacred." Back to the same thing again.

"One of these sacred rights,we thought, was our boundary. Again back to the boundary. Then he goes on, "Never was it believed in our wildest dreams that a boundary confirmed in 1927 by the highest court could possibly be changed by people outside this Province". And then he goes on to the boundary,and he goes on for two ri

November 20, 1980, Tape 2282, Page 2 -- apb MR. STIRLING: more pages and then said, "Another equally sacred right in this Province was our education system". And then he goes on to say, "At the time of Confederation,how important our denominational education system". And then, "Under the new proposal the denominational system of education could be unconstitutional. The he goes on to talk, again in review, about some of the other things that he was concerned about.

And getting towards the conclusion, "We cannot sit idly by as our basic rights, negotiated in 1949, our boundary, our education system, became less than sacred and capable of being changed without the consent of our people, of our Legislature". The same points over and over again, the only two essential points. So then he said to us, "I am going to introduce a resolution into the House of Assembly. I want to introduce a resolution into the House of Assembly and I want it to be unanimous".

Now, when he introduced his resolution into the House of Assembly he did not mention those sacred rights, he mentioned a lot of political argument, a lot of debate. He did not mention, for example, as the Minister for Labour and Manpower - he did not mention the mobility rights, although he thought, I am sure - a minute ago he thought they were included. They were not included. And he got into a long debate. He mentioned, also, going to see the Queen: We would all support him, you know, off to see the Queen.

So we sat down in caucus and we actually spent about three days in this caucus saying that surely nowhere in Newfoundland or in Labrador is there a person who would like to see our basic rights, these sacred rights - the denominational system of education and the boundary - nobody in Newfoundland wants to see these things affected.

November 20, 1980, Tape 2282, Page 3 -- apb MR. STIRLING: So we called Ottawa and they said, "We do not want to make any changes. So what we said we would do is that we would word a resolution which we honestly believed everybody in this Province, in- cluding every one of the people in Harbour Main, would support. And I would ask the member for Harbour Main (Mr. Doyle) if he would take this resolution around to the people who signed that petition and ask them if they would support this resolution. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. STIRLING: Now, just let me read it.

Just let me read this resolution and see if it does not answer the fears that the Premier brought out that night on television. Now, let us put ourselves back in the context of that night on television,and let us suppose that the next day this caucus had said, "Here is a resolution, Mr. Premier, that we are prepared to support unanimously in the House. 'Now, just listen to the wording, 'NHEREAS the Parliament of Canada" - and I too would like to read this into the record for the sake of whatever the Premier read into the record, the other resolution - L

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2283 AH-1 MP.. STIRLING: "WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is now considering a resolution concerning the Constitution of Canad&-there can be no doubt about that. That is a basic statement of fact - 'AND

WHEREAS concerns have been expressed that under the terms of the resolution presented to the Parliament it would be possible to alter without the consent of this House" - or the consent of the people in Harbour Main - "the terms of the constitutional provisions representing the boundaries of this Province and the denominational education system as it presently exists." Now can there be any doubt about that? It says,

Whereas concerns have been expressed ." Now surely that speech that the Premier made in which he talked about those two sacred rights, a dozen times over on a half hour of television, certainly that could beconcerns have been expressed.'There could be no doubt about that. And concerns have now been expressed by the people from Harbour Main about those same two doubts, the boundaries of the Province and the denominational education system as it presently exists.

And'WHEREAS the Government of Canada have stated their policy that such a result is neither intended nor desired by them.' The Prime Minister said it in the House. He sent down a telegram which the Premier, I do not believe, is prepared to accept, but he sent a telegram. So can there be any doubt about that? The Government of Canada said that,'That is not our intention.'So we in our caucus said, 'Well,what can we do about it?' 'What can we do about it to assure every member on the other side and what can we do about it to assure every person who heard the Premier bring up the doubts?

If there are any doubts around, what can we do to make it absolutely certain that we are completely in agreement on this side of the House with every- body in Newfoundland and Labrador? What can we do?' So we

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2283 AH-2 MR. STIRLING: said, 'BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House requires and requests that the Parliament of Canada take such steps as are necessary'-whatever steps as necessary-to amend the said resolution to ensure that the Constitution of Canada contains provisions adequate to ansure that the territorial integrity of Newfoundland and Labrador'- the boundary - 'and the denominational system of education cannot be altered without the authorization of a resolution of this House '- this House of Assembly in Newfoundland. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear: IR. TTARREN: Right on.

Right on. MR. STIRLING: Now was there a person at eight o'clock that night anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador who would not stand up and say, Now the Liberals are doing something. Obviously they are giving credit to the Premier-he has had some doubts. He has raised some doubts -The Liberals are doing something to show that this is above politics.

This is above pure, partisan, political manoeuvrings, that this is something sacred in Newfoundland and we are going to separate the politics from the things that are sacred. 'AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to such amendment' - you know,,I do not know if the people on the other side took a look at this. MR. NEARY: I do not think so. MR. STIRLING: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr.

Marshall), I wonder if he read the significance? 'BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to such amendment being made- in other words if that amendment is not being made, if that amendment does not get made this House supports and endorses the proposal to patriate the Constitution of Canada. In other words we are saying,the Premier took time to say to everybody in Newfoundland the most important thing that I have ever spoken to you about and repeated six or eight times over, 'our sacred rights,' the people in Newfoundland said, 'Maybe he has got something there." The people in the Liberal party G F -; v

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2283 AH-3 MR. STIRLING: said, "Look ,if there is any doubt about it at all, any doubt, let us tell the Government of Ottawa that unless you make that amendment "-in other words, that these two sacred things can only be done with the approval of this House of Assembly, could only be done, and if that is not done we will not support your patriation of the Constitution. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on! SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear IR. UARREN: We do not mind standing up for our rights. MR. STIRLING: Just let me repeat that again. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to made 1"-

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2284 SD - 1 MR. L. STIRLING: such amendment being made'- in other words, subject to being made, if it has not been made then we go on to say, 'supports and endorses the proposal to patriate the Constitution of Canada, MR. WARREN: Right on. MR. L. STIRLING: And be it further resolved that the Speaker of this House be directed to convey this resolution to the Co- Chairman of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons now considering the said resolution and to the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.' MR.J.

CARTER: Why did you not put that in your amendment, the amendment you proposed to the House? MR. L. STIRLING: That is in the amendment. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read it Read it'. YIR. HISCOCK: You cannot read. MR.L. STIRLING: I take it we now have the approval of the member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter),and I know he is a man of principle and when he just said that to me, Why do you not put that in the amendment?',it means that he can support it.

He is an individual, he will stand up and he will not be dictated to because when he said to me, "Why did you not put that in the amendment?',the implication was there that 'I can support it. And I know he will. If there is not one other person in this House that will support this arnendment,I will guarantee you that it will be the member for St. John's North, a man of principle, will support this amendment - MR. ARREN: - Right on, right on. MR. L.

STIRLING: - because he nad not had a chance to take a look at it, because, man that he is, he can see thatwhat could anyone possibly argue against in this" Because we are saying, 'Linless you are prepared to give those endorsements, we are not going to support patriation And I know the man of of principle, the man from St. John's North,will stand up and '1 -; _) ..,.ø

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2284 SD - 2 MR. L. STIRLING: support this amendment because it is entirely acceptable in those areas that we can agree on - MP WARREN: If there is room for him to stop,he will too. MR. L. STIRLING: - that we are taking what we said, which are those two sacred rights and we are saying, Never again in Newfoundland should the fear about religion, the fear about the denominational system of education, never again should religious bigotry and fears be stirred up in this Province' - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. L.

STIRLING: - 'never again should we ever have it.' And on this side we will not tolerate it, on this side we will not allow anyone to play politics with those sacred rights. And we debated it for days and we discussed it and we looked into our souls and in our hearts and said, 'Look, if it comes down to a question , there is not a question anybody can ever have of a person from Newfoundland and Labrador that if there is the slightest doubt, even if it is only a doubt in the mind of the Premier, if there is the slightest doubt, we will not allow that doubt to carry through and cause any problems.

We will stand up, we in the Liberal Party will stand up and say, 'Ottawa, if you are not prepared to make this change, if you are not prepared to say that on this issue - two basic rights - on the boundary and on the system of educations Ottawa, if you are not prepared to say that only the House of Assembly can change that, that this is sacred to this Province, we are saying, Ottawa, even though you are political friends of ours, we are not prepared to support you on patriation of the Constitution. We are not prepared to support you ' - SOME HON. EMBEPS: Hear, hear. -tnat is wnat this resolution says-- :ip.

WARREN: Right on. MR. L. STIRLING: - unless we have this amendment.No. 1'

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2284 SD - 3 MR. J. CARTER: (Inaudible) wishy-washy telegram from the Prime Minister. MR. LUSH: No. MR. L. STIRLING: No, we will not. We will not. And the member for St. John's North(Mr. J. Carter) knows, and I have no doubt that the member for St.John's North will not vote against this amendment. He is a man of principle, he is a man of conscience, he is above all a firm and fine Newfoundlander and he cannot find anything - as he said, 'Why did you not put it in your amendment?', and when he looked at it and said, 'Have the Liberals really done it?' he will support us.

I was really disappointed when I heard the news brief in which the Premier commented on this in which he said, and it was a distortion, of course, he said we excluded this, this and this. We have excluded nothing. What we have tried to do in the spirit in which the Premier put out the challenge that night, what we have tried to do is to say there are some things in Newfoundland that are above politics; there are some other things on which we will have a great deal of disagreement. And let me give you an ex- ample, and the example is on fisheries jurisdiction.

Now, it so happens that the members on that side of the House, essent- ially, 80 per cent of them, represent districts that are not fishing districts. If you happen to look, take a map and look at the fishing districts around the Province of Newfound- land, you will see that they are essentially represented on this side of the House, starting on the Coast of Labrador and es- sentially going around with one or two exceptions. AN HON. MEMBER: The Southwest Coast.

November 20, 1980 Tape 2285 EC - 1 MR. STIRLING: Now, if you ask the people who should know - now, this is where the Premier and I part, because he has the appearance of saying, 'I have decided what is in the best interests of Newfoundland and here it is and do not anybody bother me with any other details. Jim McGrath, you do not know what you are talking about! Joe Clark, you do not know what you are talking about! Trudeau, you do not know what you are talking about! Nova Scotia, you do not know what you are talking about!

Economic Council of Canada, you have a vested interest and do not know what you are talking about! Richard Cashin and the Fishermen's Union, you fellows just have a little vested interest,you just want to keep fishermen employed, so you do not know what you are talking about!' That is his approach. Our approach is a little bit different. Our approach is that the fishermen - strange as this may sound, we really do believe that the fishermen know what is in the best interest of fishermen. We really do believe that fishermen may know what is in their best interest.

We think that they may know better than politicians, better than Liberal politicians or Tory politicians or NDP. So when we listen to the fishermen, when I go out in my district of Bonavista North and say, 'Would you like to have Romeo LeBlanc in charge of the fisheries jurisdiction or would you rather have Jim Morgan take over and handle all the responsibilities?' there is not a single fisherman that I know of who would agree to have Jim Morgan have total control on the fisheries. AN HON. MEMBER: Not even as a dory mate. MR. STIRLING: So that is an area of political disagreement.

As the member for Deer Lake - that great fishing district of Deer Lake - said, he is not looking for total jurisdiction. MR. HOUSE: There is a fishing part of my district. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! t..j

November 20, 1980 Tape 2285 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: There is a discussion, a political difference. There can be some areas on which we have a political difference of opinion and fisheries jurisdiction is one of them. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. STIRLING: It is not coincidental that in that district that the member was just talking about that the fishermen in the district show where they have the greatest support.

But the essential point is that there are some differences of policy, there are differences of political approach and there are differences which can all be classified as political, and on these we will debate and on these we will discuss and on these we will make political arguments. If we are into a general election, the P.C. Party would pay for their advertisements, the Liberal Party would pay for their advertisements and make the points. We are not into a general election, so those political points are now being made by the government using the peopleTs money.

But those are political discussions and what we are saying to you - and it is not too late for you to change your mind - is that if you look at the wording of this Resolution, you should have brought that Resolution in and we would have gladly supported it because they are sacred rights. And we are saying regardless of what we do in politics that in Newfoundland the denominational system of education and the boundary question are two questions that we should fight for - MR. WARREN: Right on MR. STIRLING: - we will take on anybody and fight for - MR. WARREN: Right on MR.

STIRLING: - and that we should be united on it. And you could not get a more definite wording than this wording. You could not get a more definite wording that says,

November 20, 1980 Tape 2285 EC - 3 MR. STIRLING: 'subject to such amendment being made'. In other words, unless they make that amendment, we will not support patriation of the Constitution of Canada. There is no stronger wording we can possibly come up with. We are saying to the Government of Canada that on these issues there is no difference between us. So essentially that is the point that we would ask you to agree on and to support us. Now, if the government cannot support us on this, their issue, what was the purpose in bringing it up in the first place? What was the purpose of the half hour T.V. debate? MR.

WARREN: Right on! MR. STIRLING: What do you think that the people in Harbour Main signed that petition for? MR. HODDER: Because of those two issues. MR. WARREN: Right on! Right on! MR. STIRLING: Why do you think 13C per cent of the people signed that petition? 4), . iA

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2286 NM - 1 MR. BARRY: SOME HON. MEMBERS: AN HON. MEMBER MR. SPEAKER (Butt): Offshore oil. Oh, oh: Why do you think that the people - You are programmed: You are proarammed Order, please MR. STIRLING: - signed that 100 per cent? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. STIRLING: And I would challenge, I would challenge the member for Harbour Main-Bell Island (Mr.

Doyle) to honest: go out and give the people this as a resolution from this House, not a Liberal Party resolution, ask him to go out to the same people who signed the petition with this resolution and said, "Look, if we agreed with this resolution in the House,would that satisfy you?" And I would challenge you to go out to the petitioners and give them that resolution and see if that does not clear up any possible doubt that they may have. Now, the other issue that was mentioned, by the way, by the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr.

Dinn) about the mobility rights, and about the preference legislation, you may have thought, Mr. Minister, that that happened to get into your resolution,but it did not. You did not think that that was important enough to put into your resolution. AN HON. MEMBER: Now. MR. WARREN: MR. DINN: MR. STIRLING: MR. WARREN: us. Right on. I cannot read. Who else does not think - I know you cannot read. Do not tell MR. STIRLING: - who else does not think it? One of the things that this government seems to be intent on is protecting LI iJ

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2286 NM - 2 MR. STIRLING: people against themselves even if they do not want to be protected. For example, the Newfoundland Federation of Labour - snd presumably the Newfoundland Federation of Labour represents the people in labour from all over this Province. You would think that they would represent labour. They represent them from all over this Province. But what did these people say about your local preference, these people who represent labour? They voted it down. They supported the position that as Canadians people have to have the right to travel anywhere in Canada.

Now that is a political issue. In that case the Liberal Party and the Newfoundland Federation of Labour are in agreement. It just happens that with the fishermen we were in agreement on shared jurisdiction,it is a political differenc€ of opinion. And that is not in the area of the sacred rights. So how could we put that into a resolution? Because we could not agree on that. The person who drafted your resolution - MR. WARREN: Cabot Martin, I think. MR. STIRLING: - you have to wonder did he really - and he said it was carefully drafted to get our support.

If it was carefully drafted to get our support,then how come all these political issues were put into it? It makes you wonder what was the real purpose, what did the Premier have in mind when he went on television and brought up those two points that were essential points, the sacred points? MR. FLIGHT: Appealed to the bigots and prejudiced. MR. WARREN: That is right. MR. STIRLING: What was really behind it? MR. WARREN: What happened to the Labrador boundary? MR. STIRLING: I wonder was there any possibility

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2286 NM - 3 MR. STIRLING: that for all his great TV appearance for that whole week, was there any possibility that when he checked with the real people on that occasion that he goes out to South Brook to check his rabbit slips, I wonder did he find out that the - MR. WARREN: And the prices. MR. STIRLING: - I wonder did he find out that the people in South Brook said, "Boy, we are more concerned about the price of food. We are more concerned about getting jobs. We are more concerned about unemployment. We are more concerned about the state of our highways.

We are more concerned about,if there is a snowstorm on the 18th. of November, we are concerned about getting our snow ploughed, but the Minister of Transportation

November 20, 1980, Tape 2287, Page 1 -- apb MR. STIRLING: (Mr. Brett) does not intend to put on the snow clearing operation in full operation until the 15th. of January, sort of regardless of when the snow comes: We then had to pass - I wonder does that qualify as federal or provincial jurisdiction, passing the law to say there will be no snow until January 15, because that is when they get their snow clearing operation - MR. WARREN: A P.C.resolution. MR. FLIGHT: It depends on who is trying to get through them at the time. MR. WARREN: Yes. MR.

STIRLING: No, I think it has to do with phoney budgeting and phoney promises that say, "How much money do we have to spend? In that case, if we have only that much money to spend, we will start the snow clearing January 15th. If they get cut back, then maybe next year the snow clearing will only be from February 15th. to March 15th.' MR. HODDER: They did not put any white lines down in Port au Port this year. MR. HOLLETT: We soon will not have any Winter. MR.

STIRLING: I wonder if it was just possible that when the Premier got his information-collecting body in operation ,that the information that came back to him said, 'Look, people are not buying your anti-Ottawa stand, people do not really want you fighting with Ottawa, they really do not want you fighting with the federal people, we are part of Canada, we do not like the idea that you are part of Rene Lvesque and Lougheed and whatever that group that is ganging up on Ottawa, we really are not very happy with you in that stance'. Because I had a member of the

November 20, 1980, Tape 2287, Page 2 -- aph MR. STIRLING: P.C. Executive from the West Coast say, 'Look, I have been in and I have been talking to the Premier and told him that it is just going all over the heads of the people, going way over their heads.

They are not the least bit concernad about you and Pierre Trudeau fighting about whether or not you are going to bring the constitution home or leave it with the Queen, or, for that matter, they were not the slightest bit concerned about what the constitution was because they had heard it for years.' Was it just possible that they sat down and sort of said, 'What is it that we can hit? What is a nerve that is still alive in the average Newfoundlnder that can frighten them? MR. FLIGHT: Frighten is the word, toc. MR. STIRLING: 'What is it that can dredge up the worst fears about that Frenchman up there in Ottawa?

Trudeau handling Quebec, and doing all the favouritism for Quebec, what is it that we can really get them turned on with with that?' And I do not know where it came from, but there are only two issues they could find. He said, "What about the denominational system of education and the Labrador boundary? What is better to sort of get into the minds of the average Newfoundlander than, 'Boys, there is something that you are going to lose MR. ROBERTS: It reminds me of that great campaign by Frank Moores, 'This land is ours' - remember that? -in 1975. 'The land is ours'- was it? MR.

STIRLING: And three by-elections fought on the issue, Let us fight Quebec. So maybe that was dug out one more time. MR. ROBERTS: And the hon. gentleman over there supports everythino that Mr. Moores did we know, we agree. Too bad his friend from Mount Scio - St. John's North, I am sorry, and St. John's East- 6'37

November 20, 1980, Tape 2287, Page 3 -- apb MR. STIRLING: So what happened? Now, I do not know if there are any politics involved. I do not know if there was anything that sort of said, 'Well, this is one thing that the Liberals will never be able to support. The Liberals will never be abis to take on the federal people on this issue so we are safe on that issue'. He had two concerns: Either he was really concerned about it, concerned about the two sacred rights, or he was picking some political, some deep sense that this fear that Newfoundlanders had could be stirred up all over again.

So let us look at it two ways: Let us just suppose he really was sincere. Now let us give him full credit. Let us suppose the Premier was really sincere and he said, 'Now listen,Newfoundlanders, I want everyone of you to support me.' And his closing remark called for it. By the way, he never did invite me to sit down and look at the resolution that he was bringing in, or look at the concerns, so I could only read back through his report - and I read it through; eight or ten times that he talked about the sacred rights. MR. FLIGHT: It was more than that. MR. STIRLING: So that is why, Mr.

Speaker, we went through the resolution that the Premier had brought in and said, 'Look, it has so much politics in it. Let us take out the politics. And we took out all the political things, and I would have said to the Premier, G'38

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2288 EL - 1 MR. STIRLING: Look, if you want to bring in a resolution on the offshore, bring in a resolution on the offshor& because this House is already on the record supporting the ownership on the offshore. This party is on the record,and I said it at the leadership convention, We own the of fshore so there is no difference on that. Bring in that resolution on the offshore. If you want to dabate how you are 2oina to implement it, well bring that in separate. But let us not confuse the political and the economic issues with the sacred rights.

So we really worked hard because there are people in our caucus-T will tell you a secret from our caucus. MR. TtJLK: No, you are not allowed. You are not allowed. MR. STIRLING: Yes, I am going to tell you a secret. I will speak softly, I will whisper so that the member for St. John's North(J. Carter) - there were some people in our caucus who said, 'They will grab it, they will vote for it right away because it is their issue. And, Stirling, you are going to look like you are being me-too. You have fallen right into the Premier's trap. That is what he wants you to do, is bring in that re- solution.

And finally he has got you both and he is going to be a hero. You have gone in and you have ack- nowledged, you have acknowledged that there might be some concern MR. WARREN: Now, boys, what do you think of that, eh? MR. STIRLING: That was the down side of this, and we insisted and said, 'No. Look, what is the decent 639

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2288 EL - 2 MR. STIRLING: thing to do as Newfoundlanders?' The decent thing to do as Newfoundlanders is forget the political consideration, let us put that to one side and let us deal with the sacred rights and that is why we hammered out an ironclad resolution. If you support this resolution, you suoport this resolution now with ua -as a matter of fact, if you want to you can take it back and call it yours, I do not care. Take it over there on the other side, if you would like to call it yours, we will support your resolution. We will put it in the name of the member for St.

John's East(W.MarShall) and he would be delighted,or the member for St. John's North (J.Carter) or the Premier - MR. WARREN: Yes, why not. MR. STIRLING: - and then we will all be to- gether. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at where we are in Newfoundland right now,because I do not think that that is a- MR. WARREN: We are on the Labrador boundary now. MR.

STIRLING: - serious problem and I think once you vote against it and we get it over with it will be very clear to the people of Newfoundland that it realL' was not a sacred issue that you were concerned about, it was just making politics and creating the fear ecause you did not think that we would support this kind of thing. We will get that over with and we will look at the real situation. The Premier talked yesterday when he was giving all the background about the constit- ution, maybe we should look at what it is-and he talked about that in Quebec, there was a promise made to the people G

November 20, 1983 Tape No. 2288 EL - 3 MR. STIRLING: in Quebec that there would be some constitutional changes and the people in New- foundland want some changes. The people in Newfoundland believe that we own the offshore- you believe it , I believe,on that side of the House and we believe it on this side of the House. MR. WARREN: Right on 100 per cent. MR. STIRLING: We know that we need to make constitutional changes because - MR. NEARY: You know who said it first that we own the offshore? Do you know who said it first? MR. STIRLING: I suppose it was Joey Small- wood. MR.

NEARY: It was Joey Smallwood and the Liberal Party in this Province. MR. WARREN: What? MR. STIRLING: It has netter been any diff- erent. MR. WARREN: What? I thought it was Brian Peckford. MR. STIRLING: It was Joey Smallwood's pos- ition when he was Provincial Government. It was Frank Moores' position, it was Brian Peckford's position and it is Len Stirling's position. It is everybody's position in Newfoundland and Labrador that we own the offshore. MR. WARREN: Right on. MR. STIRLING: It has never been any diff- erent.

Now, what are some of the reasons that Newfoundland would want to have some changes in the constitution? What S41

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2288 EL - 4 MR. STIRLING: are some of the reasons that we would want to have the Constitution changed? Right now it cannot be changed. It would be interesting if somebody were to go back through all the Hansards and find out how the member for St.

John's East (W.Marshall) and the member for Mount Scio (L.Barry) were talking before when it suited their purposes to be making a point on the offshore- 'Oh,you do not need anything done unanimously; unilateral is alright, it was done before, there is no problem there It would be interesting to go back and check Hansard and find some of those statements. The truth of the matter is we now have a constitution over in England that we cannot change and we have been trying to change for a hundred years. We cannot change it unless we get unanimous agreement - MR. CAP.TFR: Poppycock. You are wrong. MR.

WARREN: He was over to England on the flag, see, so he must know. MR. STIRLING: - and the Premier took an hour and fifteen minutes to tell us about all the agonizing trials and how it broke down. • F , '

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2289 DW - 1 MR. L. STIRLING: It broke down for this reason, for that reason; there have been about at least four or five different approaches, different attempts, a different formula agreed to about changing it. But always somebody says 'No'. Somebody always says 'No' ;we cannot get unanimous agreement. So one thing I believe that is unanimous in Canada, unanimous in the House of Assembly, unanimous in Harbour Main if they are given the full story, is that everybody agrees that the consti- tution should be back in Canada. On that there is no doubt.

Now the second thing is that if you have a constitution - now what is a constitution? bet Us look at the constitution of the Liberal Party or a union or the Red Cross or the Status of Women or any other group that comes together as a body, they have either articles of association or a constitution. And there are times, from time to time,when you want to change the constitution. When you want to change the constitu- tion, you have to have some method of changing it.

Now normally in, say, a Red Cross group or a union you set right out in the constitution, 'That this constitution can only be changed at an annual meeting by a two-thirds majority' or some other formula. That is what is called the amending formula. There is a constitution and there is an amending formula. It says who can vote, who can change the constitu- tion and under what circumstances. Now we have all agreed there is no debate about bringing the constitution back to Canada. And the next step is how do we change the consti- tution?

For one thing we could all take the position of the Province of Newfoundland and say, 'Unless we get everything we want we will not agree to jtr and we carry on for another 100 years without any changes. And the Minister of Trans- ('

i) November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2289 DW - 2 MR. L. STIRLING: portation (Mr. Brett) can get up and shake his head and say, 'I do not know what we are going to do about the roads . Seventy-five per cent of the roads in Newfoundland are now ready to deteriorate and will be in a state of total collapse in the next few years unless we get some money.' Transportation, the road system in the Province,is completely now under our jurisdiction, completely. The Trans-Canada Highway, completely under our jurisdiction.

But we have had to find political ways, we have had to go to the Province and say, 'Look, forget the constitution- go to the federal government and say, 'Will you help us out on the Trans-Canada?' - and the Province said - back to the Liberal Party days said, 'Will you help Us out,Ottawa,on the Trans-Canada Highway?' And they said,'Yes,what do you want, do you want 5 per cent, 10 per cent, something like that?' And the negotiators at that time, the Liberal Party who negotiated with Ottawa and sat down and hammered it out, they did not attack them, they did not call them every traitor in the world, they did not call them all kinds of things and run a propaganda and an advertising campaign against them, they negotiated.

They came out with 90 per cent of the Trans-Canada Highway being paid for by Ottawa. And that is something But that is something in the constitution that we do not want to keep, we want to let Ottawa share - they could not do it under the constitution only by a political settlement, we want to talk in terms of more involvement with any number of issues and the only way you are going to do that is change the constitution. So step one, bring the constitution back to Canada; step two, agree on an amending formula. And for the last number of years they have not been able to agree on an amending formula.

So the govern- ment of Canada said, 'Look, listen,we believe you in the G44

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2289 DW - 3 provinces, we believe you, we really do believe that you want to do something about it, so lat us take two years' - the Premier was talking about maybe a meeting in January or Feb- ruary at which he could solve all these problems if he could only get that meeting. So the Prime Minister of Canada said, 'Look, you can have two years, two full years to work out an amending formula. Let us sit down and we can spend two years trying to hammer out an amending formula'. And then what? Well, what he said was, 'Look, at the end of two years you provinces and the federal government cannot work it out - ()45

November 20, 1980 Tape 2290 EC - 1 MR.

STIRLING: because the Prime Minister may not even be around at the end of that two year period - that if you cannot work it out at the end of two years we cannot have a constitution that just then dies because you cannot work out an agreement to amend it or who can vote on it, then here is what is going to happer' -what he says in his formula is that here is what is going to happen: There is going to be the Legislatures from the West grouped together; there is going to be the next population size, Ontario, the next one Quebec and the next one the Atlantic area, and let us see if you can do it with a majority of the Legislatures, let us see if even that can agree.

And then he said, 'Well, now, there is a possibility even there you cannot get agreement.so then let us go to a national referendum to establish an amending formula.' Well, what could be more reasonable?

There are many issues which were in your first Resolution that instead of saying, 'Do not bring the Constitution back,' you should be saying, 'Let us get the Constitution back and in that two year period let us get working on all of those things.' We will support you on the offshore, we will support you in two or three other things that you have in there, but there are some political things in there that we are going to have some disagreement on.' So it would seem, Mr.

Speaker, that what we are saying on this side of the House is let us separate out these scred issues and get those put beyond the Parliament of Canada. Let us get these under the control of the House of Assembly. Let us all agree on that. Then let us bring back the Constitution, bring it back to Canada. And then let us set up a series of constitutional meetings, meetings that we will support you on certain things that you would like to have as benefits for Canada, some other ones we will suggest,and we will debate some others and we will disagree on some others. S.- I S 4

November 20, 1980 Tape 2290 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: But let us set up a series of constitutional meetings once the Constitution is back in Canada, agree on an amending formula - if you do not like this existing one,then you have two years to change it. Change the amending formula if you do not like it. Thousands have tried a better one and have not come up with one, but let us try it in the two years. Let us get on with some changes. Let us bring in some of the things that you are talking about. We cannot do it as long as you are fighting about it, fighting over in England.

Let us bring it back, let us make those changes. Let us agree to a new amending formula, you have two years to do it. If you cannot agree then there is one imposed. Now, what else can we do? What else of a positive nature can we do? It seems that there is not a lot of consistency on the government side. A year ago there was a difference between the Government of Newfoundland and the - let us say it was not clear on this question of ownership, a difference between what Prime Minister Trudeau was prepared to say and what the Government of Newfoundland was prepared to say. In this case, Mr.

Trudeau shrugged and said, 'Well, take it to court.' 'No, we do not like court.' Now, in this set of circumstances it seems as though when we are in a situation where we are talking about the Constitution, the government has taken the position that we are going to take the federal government to court, we are going to try to prevent them because we think it is illegal. And maybe what we should do is suspend this whole discussion and suspend the advertising and suspend all the debate, because the government say they are going to go to court.

The government says, 'It is a simple thing, it is illegal - we are going to go to court and prove that you are wrong.' So maybe we should suggest, Well, look, let us back off on it. If you are going to use that route, G'47

November 20, 1980 Tape 2290 EC - 3 MR. STIRLING: settle it in court and then we will see whether or not when the Constitution comes home there are other things for us to debate. But what are some of the other things we can do in addition to going to court? There is a committee sitting right now, a committee hearing briefs, a committee that is prepared to look at wording, look at changes, look at amendments. Has this Province made a presentation to that committee? Have they asked for time to go to that committee? Maybe we should have a joint committee of the House. t) -*

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2291 AH-1 MR. STIRLING: Let us see on these things, these things that we can agree on, the sacred rights. Do not forget, we never dug them up. This is not our cause. This is not our resolution. The person who put the finger on those sacred rights was the Premier - it was the most important thing that ever happened in Newfoundland.

He took the TV time and he said, Those are the two sacred rights." And now on this side we are agreeing and we are putting into a resolution, we are putting this in the form of a resolution that cannot be - if the resolution does not go through, if they do not make the changes, what we are saying in here is that we will not support patriation of the Constitu€ion. MR. PATTERSON: Will you resign? SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? What? MR. STIRLING: Of course, if this House will give unanimous support to this resolution - let us just go one step at a time. I have no doubt - MR. PATTERSON: Will the hon. member permit me? MR.

STIRLING: Of course. MR. PATTERSON: I was interested in your remarks. Now that you have already conceded to us that you are supporting 50 per cent of the resolution - there are five points in it; now you are supporting two: Would you support the other three? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. PATTERSON: In this resolution we have Fisheries, we have jurisdictional control and you people are singling out the boundary and education. MR. SPEAKER (BUTT) : Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr.

Speaker, the member normally asks a very serious question and that is why I have always given up the floor to him before. I would like to ask the member to takea look and go back to what the Premier said, and we look down through the whole thing and we pick out the political questions on which we have to have political debate, and separate them from the sacred rights, which is all 6r49

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2291 AH-2 MR. STIRLING: that the Premier talked about that night on television, and we have picked out those rights that are above politics and those are the two things that we put in our amendment. And then, Mr. Speaker, let us get back to what it is that we can do about it. We have a Committee sitting. There are people from all over this great Dominion of Canada who are making presentations. Some of them are very strong presentations and others are relatively minor, but the Committee is hearing everybody.

Because if we start to put all this in proper context , if we start to put it all together, what is it that we are really talking about in Canada? Because, Mr.Speaker, it was not only the Prime Minister of Canada who made some promises to Quebec. Every Newfoundlander made promises to Quebec. Every Newfoundlander said there will be a new constitution, that there will be a fair and a new CAnada and Newfoundland wants to get its fair share of this new Canada. MR. WARREN: Right on. MR.

STIRLING: Newfoundland has said,as the Western provinces have said, "The present constitution is not satisfactory." Everybody said it. There was a long Summer in which something was trying to be done about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, in this Province the vast majority of the people want to be Canadians. They are proud of being Canadians. They are proud of being Newfoundlanders. MR. HODDER: Canada has treated them good.

M.STIRLING: There are no doubts in anyone's mind on these two sacred rights,though,that every Newfouridlander and every Labradorian stands together, that we want to have unanimous support from this House. Now, Mr.Speaker, I am going to sit down in a minute or two. I think my time is just about up. And if the Premier,wherever, he is, and it is too bad that he thinks that this is such an important matter and he has not been in the House - I did him the courtesy of U

November 20,1980 Tape No. 2291 AH-3 MR. STIRLING: listening to ever word he had to say but he does not consider this important enough to be in the House to discuss and debate this very important resolution,by his definition the most important thing that has happened in his lifetime, by his definition, these two sacred rights. Now in a couple of minutes,when I sit down if we are serious in this House about removing or ever again making any suggestion that there are things that we can take out of the political realm, that we can say that there are some thinas that you cannot, some things that are too sacred ,ii

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2292 SD - 1 MR. L. STIRLING: to play politics with and if these two issues that the Premier brought up on television, these two issues-one, the boundary and the second issue, our denominational system of education -and we have taken a stand, a very clear and decisive stand, you can remove the other things, the political things, and we will debate those later if you wish to debate them, but, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the members of our caucus and if you are in agreement to support this we will not debate it any more.

The Premier has made his opening remarks, I have made my opening remarks; if you agree,we will now allow this to go an immediate vote and this will be the end of the subject. You can bring in other resolutions dealing with the political matters and we can debate those on which we have no agreement. But let us take this issue and let us get it resolved immediately - those two sacred issues - because we are running out of time.

If we do not pass this immediately we will have run out of time and we will debate on past the deadline, Let these two sacred things be dealt with immediately, have no more debate on them - MR. HOLLETT: Like true Newfoundlanders. MR. L. STIRLING: - put them through in the tradition that the Premier kicked off this debate - MR. WARREN: Like fighting Newfoundlanders. MR. L. STIRLING: - yes, Newfoundland is counting on you - MR.WARREN: That is right. MR. HODDER: Then they bring in another resolution. MR. L. STIRLING: - then bring in another resolution that we can debate - MR. L. STIRLING: SOME HON.

ME CCME' LI(1T Mt'MtDC Show your intestinal fortitude. - political thing Hear, hear. Right on. Oh, oh.

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2292 SD - 2 MR. L. STIRLING: - let us get on with the political kinds of debate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. L. STIRLING: But the two sacred issues that you have identified, let us vote for that unanimously, let us agree on what we can agree - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. L. STIRLING: - even my colleague from Placentia (Mr. W. Patterson) said, !Look, you have already agreed on two out of the five.

Let us agree on the, let us take the two and agree on them, bring in your other resolution to deal with the other matters and we will debate those because they are political questions7 so let us do the two, let us get that out of the way, there can be no difference amongst us on thatdand then we will have no further debate, let us get that off and we will go on to the other resolution. MR. HQDDER: For the sake of Newfoundland. MR. L. STIRLING: Mr.

Speaker, we are very concerned on this side; we would like to have this subject put beyond political debate and we would urge the members on the other side to let politics stand aside and to stand up and as one person we will unanimously support the resolution that brings in these two sacred rights, the great concerns that the Premier have developed throughout the Province, Let every Newfoundlander and Labradorian know that in this House of Assembly on those two we are not playing politics and that we are all in total agreement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : The hon.

House Leader. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. W. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the matter before the House, I would like to, since this is the first occasion that I have had an opportunity to speak since the House reconvened other than on points of order from time

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2292 MB - 3 MR. W. MARSHALL: to time, to extend my con- gratulations to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) for his election to the head of his party and as Leader of the Opposition,of course. To be elected as the head of any political party is a signal honour and I certainly would like to extend to him my congratulations and best wishes for his time in office as Leader of the Opposition. Now, Mr.

Speaker, having said that,I have now to address myself to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman because the way in which I will address myself to my remarks will not be really in the same terms and the same temper as the first words to which I referred. He refers, Mr. Speaker,to all - let us say he wants to segregate the sacred rights. He wants to identify these two rights as being vital.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues on the other side of the House that perhaps he might like to go out and tell the young Newfoundlanders in this Province who we have been attempting to get jobs for and have been very successful through our local preference policies,that the local preference policy is not a sacred right that they have. Perhaps he may wish, Mr. Speaker1 to tell the people in Newfoundland that the con- firmation of our offshore rights are not sacred rights. Shared jurisdiction in the fishery - MR. WARREN: Not sacred rights. MR. W.

MARSHALL: our right to transmit power - MR. WARREN: That is not sacred. MR. W. MARSHALL: That is not sacred, no. The rhon gentleman opposite - SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! MR. W. MARSHALL: his Leader made that quite clear. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday there was an editorial in the Evening Telegram which I thought was well taken and it was G54

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2292 MB - 4 MR. N. MARSHALL: entitled 'Province or Politics' and the question was whether or not this House could unanimously endorse the resolution that was brought in by the Premier to put aside political matters and put their Province first. I think the editorial writer of the Evening Telegram today has his answer because the response given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to be grained and motivated by political considerations. In this particular resolution that we brought before this House, Mr. Speaker, it was drafted very carefully. G5

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2293 NM - 1 It was worded with temperate language. It was deliberately worded with language that we thought everybody could support. We realize the hon. gentlemen there opposite are members of a party which forms the Government of Canada, so there was no attempt to put inflamatory words in this resolution, in the hopes that all of the House, including themselves, could support it, and support it as Newfoundlanders, unanimously as Newfoundlanders.

Very sadly we see that that is not to be the case, and we have our answer in this particular amendment which has been posed, which,as was noted by the hon. the member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) in his question to the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago, ignores basic rights, sacred rights, vital rights to Newfoundland. It makes no mention, Mr. Speaker, of the fishery, no mention of offshore. It ignores the hydro situation.

It ignores the jeopardy to the preference policy which has been adopted in this Province by this provincial government and is cast in jeopardy by this resolution, and it certainly ignores the fact that amendments can be made to the constitution without the consent of this Province. Now if the hon. gentleman does not think they are important, if he does not think they are sacred, I think the hon. gentleman had better think again. SOME HON.MEMBEPS: Here, here MR. MARSHALL: On this particular resolution let us make it quite clear as to why we cannot support the amendment.

This amendment first of all says, "That the House requires and requests the Parliament of Canada to take such steps as are necessary to amend the resolution, to ensure that the Constitution of Canada contains provisions adequate to ensure that the territorial integrity of Newfoundland and Labrador, 656

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2293 EL - 2 MR. MARSHALL: and the denominational system of education cannot be altered without authori- zation of a resolution of this House." Now, Mr. Speaker, our re- solution encompasses much more than this. This a- mentment,as the hon. member for St. Johns North (J.Carter) in- dicated,is mealymouthed, it is weak.

We do not say to the Federal Government or any government, we leave it to you to engrain protection for the people of this Province and we will go along with you if you pro- mise to do it.' We want to see that amendment, we want to see the amendment on the Table of this House and we want it recognized that we are a party to this agreement and we have the right to assent to this amendment.

If they want to really pro- tect the integrity of the boundary and if they really want to protect their educational system all they need do is leave the constitution in those respects as it pre- sently is, that is all ,because we have this guarantee, we have had this guarantee since 1491 But the most ob- jectional part of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, which I think bespeaks it all for the opposition, is where it says "Subject to such amendment being made, this House supports and endorses the proposal to patriate the constitution of Canada." In other words, Mr.

Speaker, everything is okay if these two items are put in, we will support the patriation of the constitution we are not concerned with anything else, we are satisfied. AN HON. NENBER: Read it. - MR. MARSHALL: They are satisfied then, Mr. Speaker, I ask them: Are they satisfied to give Quebec

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2293 EL - 3 MR. MARSHALL: and Ontario a veto in the constitution? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : - Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: Are they satisfied, because that is what the constitution does? The hon. Leader of the Opposition says if we cannot agree in two years then this one is imposed.

Well, you can jolly well be sure they will not agree in two years because the Federal Government have taken the opportunity to attempt to give to Quebec and Ontario a veto first off which Quebec and Ontario are not going to give up too lightly, so that is what we are going to be saddled with. So they are satisfied, Mr. Speaker, they are satisfied to patriate the resolution, taking away our rights with respect to the amendment to the constitution. A constitution is nothing, it is an empty document unless it protects minorities: This Province is a minority, it is a geographical minority. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: near, hear! MR. MARSHALL: The Federal Governnient took steps, and we agree with the Federal Government taking steps,to protect the French minority in .J I_i

November 20, 1980, Tape 2294, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: Canada, although there is debate as to whether they are doing it properly or not. We have no objection with that, but what about the geographical minorities, Mr. Speaker? What about the minority of Newfoundland and Labrador? I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a paper that was filed in the House of Commons by Mr. Guy Favreau in 1966 which thdicated,and specifically said,that the Constitution of Canada with respect to federal/provincial relationships cannot be changed without consultation with and the agreement of all of the Provinces.

This particular principle was recognized, has been recognized time and time again, but sadly,today, it is being swept under the table. Newfoundland, after this resolution comes into effect, or if it does, is going to be an unequal province in Confederation, and let there be no doubt about that. Newfoundland will no longer have the right to veto, it will no longer have the same rights as Quebec and Ontario, and I do not think that that is - surely that is not acceptable to any Newfoundlander, be he Tory, Liberal, NDP or whatever he may be. So they say they are satisfied, Mr. Speaker.

Are they satisfied, then, to see the 1,000 jobs that were provided for young Newfoundlariders this year, are they satisfied to see those disappear? Because that is what will happen. There are mobility rights in this constitution, Mr. Speaker, and those mobility rights are aimed directly at the preference policies of this government. Every Canadian has a right to work. This is the way in any part of Canada. Now, it is rather unusual that it be brought up at this particular time. We have suffered in this Province for years where you could not get work. Newfoundlanders could not get work in Quebec

November 20, 1980, Tape 2294, Page 2 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: without work permits. There were no mobility rights talked about at that particular time,; we did not hear them talked about, we did not hear them enforced. But we have a local preference policy now, we have a chance for young Newfoundlanders to gain experience in a new industry,and what do we see? We see an amendment striking right at the heart of this policy by the federal government and I ask Newfoundlanders, whether they are Liberal, Tory or NDP, whether, really, they can support this.

I want to emphasize, because there is a lot being said about this preference policy, Mr. Speaker, that we are not trying to ezect any barrier or any wall around Newfoundland, that is not the purpose of it. Last year - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER(Baird): •Order, please MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, last year there were thousands of Newfoundlanders who went to the rest of Canada to work, and there were thousands of Canadians who came in here, and they were not obstructed. All we are trying to do with this local preference policy, Mr.

Speaker, is to give the young Newfoundlanders in this Province a chance to get employment. And I can give you, Mr. Speaker, an example of how that works: SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please The member has the right to be heard in silence. MR. MARSHALL: I remember, Mr. Speaker, and I can recount this to the House - I will not mention the name of the company - but I can remember one of the drilling companies, a little over a year ago, which was drilling in this Province. And they came and they took out the crying

November 20, 1980, Tape 2294, Page 3 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: towel and they said, 'Oh, no, we cannot use your preference policies. We are drilling in deeper waters than have ever been drilled in before; what happens if there is a blowout? What happens with the fishery? After all, we have to have experienced people.' And they really were bearing in hard on this. So if you get a representation like that you do not take it lightly, you look at it. We looked at it and examined it and we said to them, 'Very sorry, the preference policies are in effect and you are going to hire young Newfoundlanders'.

Now, subsequently that particular rig left - it was a dry hole, there was no find - and it is over in the North Sea, or somewhere else, I do not know where it is flow, but not too long ago, about a month or two months ago, these same people I was talking to, the executives of the corporation, and I said, 'How did the Newfoundlanders make out?' And they looked at me as if I had ten heads and they said, 'They made out great, why? why would you ask such an unusual question?' They said, 'As a matter of fact, a certain number of them are still on the rig in the North Sea and they are working'. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are trying to do. We are just trying to get young Newfoundlanders the right to have the experience. Every young person going for a job knows what it is like when they apply for a job. MR. WARREN: It is a (inaudible). MR. SPEAKER(Baird): Order, please: MR. MARSHALL: The first question that is asked is, 'What experience have you?' And they are shut out because they have no experience. And I repeat, it is not this administration's intention to try to erect a barrier U -

November 20, 1980, Tape 2294, Page 4 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: around Newfoundland, but to give young Newfoundlanders their rightful chance to work and to gain a living from the resources which we have here. And we are determined we are going to do it, Mr. Speaker, but this particular amendment that is before - that the hon. gentlemen do not think important, they are satisfied with it, this particular amendment will have the effect of 6\i2

November 20,1980 Tape 2295 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: striking down, of striking down forever and a day, our ability to be able to do it. MR. NEARY: A red herring. MR. MARSHALL: It is some red herring! It is a red herring, all right, because red usually connotes when somebody is in debit, and we are very much in debit on the work force and our rights to employment in this Province. MR. NEARY. Who gets the $2 an hour for every hour they work? MR. MARSHALL: And now, Mr. Speaker - so the Leader of the Opposition is satisfied. He is also satisfied with the situation with respect to our offshore rights.

Now, we do not speak about gaining our offshore rights, we say that we want our offshore rights confirmed. This particular pro'Dosal does not touch upon these rights, and for the life of me I cannot see, myself, how any red-blooded Newfoundlander in this particular context of our times can support a government which is prepared to lead in changes to the Constitution which suit itself, but at the same time are taking away from us our very basic rights. What is the answer we get? The same answer as the Leader of the Opposition gave us a moment ago - take it to court. Why should we take it to court?

We are in a country. They talk about confrontation. If there is a political will, and there should be a political will to do it, all it requires is the agreement of the federal government. We had it before, about nine months ago. That is all it requires; the same thing that was done in the 1930s with respect to resources, by agreement. It is absolutely and completely essential to this Province that we obtain it. As I say, I find it very difficult to see how anyone can fail to support a measure which urges the federal government to see that our offshore rights are confirmed. (Ft

November 20, 1980 Tape 2295 EC - 2 MR. MARSHALL: I could go on on the other. What about the denial? What about the continued denial of our rights for the transmission of electrical power? What about that? They are satisfied with that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (BAIRD): Order, please MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentlemen are perhaps satisfied with it because we have the morass that we have right now because this was the hon. gentleman's type of thinking in the 1960s when that particular contract was signed. Well, we are not satisfied with that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR.

MARSHALL: There is a right, and a real right, in the Constitution of Canada,and we have a right as Canadians. Surely, we have the right as Canadians in this nation, the same rights as other people, the right to transmit our power, to market our resources, not to be tenants in our own land, to give young people employment.

Now, if the hon. gentlemen there opposite are satisfied with this, perhaps they had better call public meetings throughout the Island and explain to the numbers of unemployed young people around as to how and why they are satisfied to leave the status quo as it is and not take a dramatic action or an action when the opportunity has been presented before them. Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has misread, by the way, I want to point out, this Resolution, because he can only see things, I suppose, if they are right before him.

But the Pesolution that we asked for their support, 'We support the patriation of the Constitution, but strenuously object to the present intent of the federal government to unilaterally request the Government of Canada to first cause the British North America Act to be altered.' Now, that includes a myriad of things. The hon. gentleman said mobility rights were not covered. Mobility rights are covered

November 20, 1980 Tape 2295 EC - 3 MR. MARSHALL: in that very thing. This is the very reason why we do not want them to change the Constitution as it is presently proposed, because it will shoot down the preference policy and other things, but particularly that preference policy which is so necessary to provide jobs for the young people of this Province. So they are satisfied, they are very self-satisfied with their situation.

As far as I am concerned, I regard - and I really mean this - I regard this amendment to this Resolution as being nothing more, if it were viewed in history in years to come and we passed their amendment - what would be happening would be that people would say the Legislature of this Province sold out the people of Newfoundland, and we are not prepared - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. MARSHALL: - we are not prephred to sell out the people of this Province. So that is why we are not supporting their amendment. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to address myself, because I only have a few more minutes, to a few remarks that are made from time to time when we take these positions, because I would like

November 20, 180, Tape 2296, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: to explain why we take these positions. And, you know, they are very, very practical, they are bread and butter. They involve employment, they involve the generation of wealth from our resources to be able to sustain some reasonable degree of social level in this Province that we have never been able to attain before. And all we are asking is that we get a chance to be equal with other Canadians.

But when we make these statements, we get certain replies and the replies usually go along the line, and they have been creeping in from time to time, and I will hear the hee haws when it is said, that we are anti-confederates, that we are against Canada. You know, since when has it become anti-Canadian or separatist just to assert your rights within Confederation and to ask for equality? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. MARSHALL: If that is so, Mr. Speaker, there are many people in Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia and everywhere who are anti-Canadian. And I find that rather distasteful.

I think the hon. member for Burgeo - Bay dEspoir (Mr. Andrews), yesterday, when he was speaking in a debate - and he made a real good speech as he always does - alluded to this and he said that he does not particularly appreciate these kinds of comments because, really, what they do, they smack of allegations of disloyalty to your country, or to treason or what have you. And I think the level of debate, and their level - if they cannot reply in substance, Mr. Speaker, they should not try to raise - they talk about red herrings - try to raise - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER(Baird): Order, pleaSe! MR.

MARSHALL: - these rights. 68

November 20, 1980, Tape 2296, Page 2 -- apb MR. STIRLING: You ought to check your own Hansard before you say that. MR. MARSHALL: I find, Mr. Speaker, as I say, that most distasteful. Now, the hon. gentlemen there opposite, make no wonder, if that is the attitude of people who really want to go cap in hand - of course, they had plenty of practice at going cap in hand; they went cap in hand and they dumped the whole proceeds of the collection plate and the whole works in the laps of Ottawa in times before. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now Now: MR. SPEAKER(Baird): Order, please: MR.

MARSHALL: And what we are trying to do is conserve it for the people in the future. MR. BUTT: That is right. MR. MARSHALL: I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to make an observation as well about certain statements that are made throughout Canada from time to time by representatives of this Province, on the Liberal side of the House, and in particular with the hon. William Rompkey, and some of his statements that he makes. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. STIRLING: Oh, now, that is outside. MR. MARSHALL: This is not outside. Mr. Rompkey SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. MARSHALL: No, it is very, very relevant. MR.

STIRLING: It is not fair. MR. BARRETT: Disassociate yourself with Rompkey. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. MARSHALL: I suppose I know Mr. Rompkey certainly longer than most people in this House, I went to school with him. He was a year or two behind me in school. -_)

November 20, 1980, Tape 2296, Page 3 -- apb MR. BARRETT: shame! He is a lot longer than that behind you now. MR. MARSHALL: As a matter of fact, I am very aggrieved by his statements, from time to time, I cannot understand it, and I can only think of the old adage, 'Those whom the Gods will destroy, they will first make mad'. Because that is the type of statement that the hon. gentleman is making.

When the hon. gentleman goes around and starts talking to the rest of Canada about how disgraceful it is for the provincial government to be asserting the rights of Newfoundland, when look at all the money that we got over a period of time. He said that in British Columbia not too long ago. Well, I have news for Mr. Rompkey. I do not think anybody in Canada adopts that type of concept of citizenship, because what he is saying is, in order to gain full citizenship in Canada you first have to pay a price. And I do not believe that. I know that is not accepted by the people of Canada. I find it embarrassing, Mr.

Speaker, that these statements are made. I think that our representatives outside of this Province, really, they should be standing with us. And when allegations are made about treasonous anti-confederates and all the rest of it, all I will say is I fail to conceive how these gentlemen can be acting in the best interests of the people of this Province. How, possibly, can they be acting in the best interests of this Province when they flank the Prime Minister with great glee when he turns down our request for a rightful confirmation of the offshore?

How can they be acting in the best interests of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, when they co-operate and they espouse a policy that has been set forth in this resolution, which is inherent in this resolution about mobility rights, when they know that that is aimed at the Peckford preference policy which has t-. (Th

November 20, 1980, Tape 2296, Page 4 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: supplied so many jobs for the young people of this Province? How can they be acting in the best interests of U

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2297 lB-i MR. MARSHALL: this Province, Mr. Speaker, when they sit back, mutely back while we continue to be denied our vested right as Canadian citizens to transport power through other provinces of Canada? We well know, Mr. Speaker, that if Newfoundland were between Quebec and Ontario and Quebec it was that had the resourceyou would have to take the children off the roads in Newfoundland for the sake of the construction equipment that would be going through to run the lines through7 there would be no question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

MARSHALL: And neither should there be any questionAnd there should not be any question, Mr. Speaker, for the people of this Province. But very, very sadly by supporting measures like this when they have it in their hands, those five Liberal members - five Liberal members in the House of Commons voting against the government1l remind you, Mr. Speaker, amounts to ten votes. They have a particular weight that they can exercise and I say they have a particular responsibility if they want to act in the best interests of Newfound landers. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: So, Mr.

Speaker, we are not going to support this amendment to the resolution. The amendment of the resolution is posed for political purposes to try to get the hon. gentlemen there opposite to escape the necessity of facing the grim realities of this Province, of facing the fact that we have to have local preferences to provide for jobs in this new industry, that we have the right to our offshore, that we have to have shared jurisdiction in the fisheries, that we have to have all the other rights that we have asked for from time to time. So they are trying to hide from this, Mr.

Speaker, but we are not going to allow them. What we are going to do, we are going to vote against the amendment for the reasons I have given and we are going to invite the hon. gentlemen to reconsider this temperate notion GO

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2297 IB-2 MR. MARSHALL: as opposed to the other motion that would paint us, as I say, for generations as having sold out Newfoundland. And I would ask the hon. gentlemen, in sober reflection,perhaps,over the evening.to consider the terms, to consider the consequences , to consider the reasons why we bring this in and to do what they possibly can to urge their fellow colleagues in Ottawa to stand up and be counted for the people of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (STEMS): Order, please! Pursuant to Standing Order 31 (

h) it being five o'clock I now can inform the House that I have received notice of two motions for debate at five-thirty when a motion to adjourn will be deemed to be before the House. Notice is given by the hon. member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) arising out of a question asked the hon. Minister of Transportation (Mr. Brett) and the subject matter is the Straits Road. And notice, as weligiven by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) arising out of a question asked the hon. the Premier (Mr. Peckford) and the subject matter is the Come By Chance oil refinery. The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. ROBERTS: Originally my colleagues asked me to speak following - we did not know it would be the gentleman for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall), but whoever was to speak for the government in this matter. And I think I am not breaching any oath of secrecy, or any undertakings when I say that the reason I was asked to do that was so that I could discharge the traditional function of he who gets to speak after the government state their position, and that is to reply to anything that might have been said of any importance or any note. I would be happy to do that.

The only trouble was the gentleman 61

November 20, 1980 Tape No. 2297 IB-3 MR. ROBERTS: for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) said nothing of any importance. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. ROBERTS: I made some notes and I could quibble or quarrel but to do that, Sir, would be to engage in th