VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY lJNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1980 NO. 37

May 7, 1980, Tape 1332, Page 1 -- apb The House met at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER(Sirnms): Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I have three statements to make today. I can make them all at once or one at a time, it is up to the hon. members opposite. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read them all at once. MR. SPEAKER: -Agreed. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, for some time the Workers' Compensation Board has been experiencing an ongoing and frustrating problem with admission to hospital for claimants with back ailments, in particular those requiring neurosurgical attention. The Health Sciences Complex is the only hospital in the Province with the capabilities of handling people requiring medical attention in the neurosurgery field. The Complex, however, has been unable to assign a sufficient number of beds to neurosurgery to take care of the number of people awaiting admission.

I am pleased to announce that in an effort to resolve this problem, Government has approved a joint proposal by the General Hospital Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board, whereby an eight-bed unit will be assigne:i for the exclusive use of the Workers' Compensatio~ ~Q~d. The Board has 50 to 60 people continuously on the waiting list for admission to the Health Sciences Complex. In some cases the claimants are waiting for as long as six to eight months and longer. While the claimants are waiting to be admitted, the Board continues to pay full compensation benefits. 3508

May 7, 1980, Tape 1332, Page 2 -- apb MR. DINN: A recent study of the cost factor involved indicates that benefits paid during admission waiting time are in excess of half a million dollars a year. Approximately one year ago a pilot project was carried out whereby the Health Sciences Complex assigned six beds for the exclusive use of the Board. The waiting list was reduced to approximately twenty, which resulted in substantial savings. However, the arrangement was only temporary due to an overall shortage of beds in the Complex which could be assigned for that purpose.

With a view to resolving the problem on a long-term basis the Workers' Compensation Board approached the Health Sciences administration with a proposal that the Board would cover the capital cost of completing a 22 bed wing in the unfinished part of the hospital, in return for whieh the hospital would assign a minimum of eight beds for a twenty year period for the Board's exclusive use. The capital cost of completion of the 22 bed wing is approximately half a million dollars. There were two reasons for approaching the Health Sciences for an arrangement: 3509 1.

As stated earlier, the Complex is the only hospital in the Province with capabilities of handling neurosurgery cases. 2. The Complex is considered a provincial as opposed to regional facility.

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1333 SD - l MR. J. DINN: The Board's Medical Department estimates that with the eight beds available on a permanent basis the number of claimants waiting admissil;ln will be :reduced to approximately ten, resulting in a saving to the Board of at least $250 ,000 a year. The Board will therefore rec:over the initial capital cost outlay over a two-year period. In subsequent years a direct saving of a similiar aJtOunt will be realized.

In addition to the dollar cost of having claimants waiting for admission, there is the additional problem of rehabilitating claimants tc return to the work force after long waiting periods for medical attention. The social upheavals both to individual claimants and their families resulting from long waiting periods must be a prime consideration. It i~ anticipated that this new arrangement will be the solution to a very serious problem. I will go on to the other two statements if the hon. members w!sb. MR. SPEAXER: Aqreed. MR. J. DINN : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to anne~~ the appointment of Mr.

Gordon woodford as CoDIIIissioner of the Wo:dters' Compensation Board following the retirement of Mr. Richard Fagan on January 31, 1980. Mr. Woodford was previously employed by om District Stores for ten years. He also spent four years as Office Supervisor with Newfoundland Brokerage and nine years with Gerald s • . '·"'" Doyle as an independent sales representative. Mr. Woodford also acted as the c:o-ordinating Chairman of traclc and field events for the 1977 Canada SUll!lller Gaides and is ~~ tmmediate past President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Traclc and Field Association.

He has also had a life long association with the Boy Scout Organization in Newfoundland. Mr. Woodford is married to the former Miss . Mary Coleman and is the father of ten children. 3510

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1333 SD - 2 MR. J. DINN: As minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board t fully support Mr. Woodfo~'s appointment to this very responsible pod tion and t feel confident that hb background and experience should allow him to malta an illlportant contribution to ~<= the Board. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to info:tm t.he House that Cabinet, after a qreat aea1 of analysis and ·:·&liberation, has now made a policy decision with respect to WOlken' Compensation coveraqe for inshore fishermen.

Government has decided to introduce leq~l;¢ion durinq this sea•ion of the Bouse to provide compensation coveraqe for inshote fishermen, on essentially the Sillll8 basis aa the system whic:Jl has been used in British Columbia for the past five years. That is, there will be universal covera98 a!lc1 the assessment set by the Compensation Board will be paid by the purc:Jlasers of the fish. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. J. DINN: 'l'ba Wozkers • Colllpensation Act was 3 511

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1334 EL - 1 MR. J. DINN: ammended in 1973 to provide compensation coverage for inshore fishermen on the same basis aa that applied to other industries, i.e., where three or more people are employed. It was envisioned at that time that the owner or master of the boat would be considered the employer under the Act and that the said owner or master would remit the required assessments to the Board as employers do in any other industry covered by compensation. Government was advised by the Board at that time that the system was work~le.

The first problem encountered was that of getting a list or catalogue of boats engaged in the inshore fishing industry. Since neither the Provincial Fisheries Department, the Federal Fisheries Ser­ vice or the Union had any concept of how many boats were fishing, or where, it was impossible to contact all the "employers" for the purpose of applying the Act as amende~. Therefore, while the fishermen were covered under law, the Board had no means of collecting the assessments.

During the ensuing years, numerous meetings were held involving the fish companies, the unions, the Worker's Compensation Board and the Departments of Labour and Manpower and Justice. It appeared that it would be administratively impossible to apply the Act as per the 1973 amendment.

Some of the options considered ware: 1. to repeal the 1973 amendment and revert to the original where boats with only 10 or more crew would be eligible for coverage. 2. to _deem the fish buyers to be the eJIIPloyer for the purpose of the Act and therefore be liable for the assessments as in other industries. 3 • to have the purchaser deduct the a.sessment from the fisherman's earnings and remit to the Board on behalf of the fisherman. During the Fall of 1979 the present Chair­ man of the Board did ertensive research on the application of compensation coverage to inshore fishermen.

This included a detailed analysis of the British Columbia system which had been implemented in that PiOviDce in 1975. 3512 .

~1ay 7, 1980 Tape No. 1335 DW - 1 ~{R. u. DINN: A number of possiale options were presented to government for consideration; one of which government has accepted as beinq the most appro­ priate, keeping in mind the basic concept of Workers' compensation and the ease of administration. It would not be possible at this time to go into all the details associated with this matter.

However, because of the unique nature of the industry as compared to other industries such as manufacturing and construction 1 the administrative procedures will be somewhat different. some general points are: (1) the buyers will be considered employers only for the purpose of paying assessments on the amount of fish pur- chased.

The buyers will not be responsible for safety matters aboard the boat except in such cases where the boat is owned by or under charter to the buyer. ( 2) the captain or owner of the boat will be responsible for safety procedures and will also be responsible for reporting all accidents happening aboard the boat. (3) the buyer will remit the required assessment to the Board on a quarterly or half-yearly basis, based on the amount of fish purchased during the period. (4) coverage will be universal (single fishermen or crew) and compulsory for all fishermen holding a valid fishing license.

If the House agrees to the amendments presented, it is possible that the new system for fishermen could be implemented in late Fall or the beginning of 1981. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The bon. member for Terra Nova. 3513

'!ay 7, 1980 ':ape No. 1335 ;)v: - 2 ~lR. T. L(;SH: :1r. Spea:Cer, ta!dna the staee- ments in the order in wh~ch the minister 9ave them - I elso want to thank t~e minister for givinq me the copies of the state~ents - the first one, Mr.

Speaker, relatina to t~e setting up , or the a:rangement for admission of people with back ailments to th e Health Sciences Complex in terms of providing beds 1 now ;;ertainly we agree with that and . anything that can be done to provide more beds 3o that these people with :hese v~tious ailments are not waiting for an indefinite period of time before they can get the ?roper treatment.

Sut, I am inf~~ed that there is also another problem associated with this and probably the major problem is that the pe ople with these various back ailments have a problem in ~etting the myeloaram, I think it is, or the test ing, the •xamination to determine what exactly is the nature of their problem and what kind of ~reatment will be necessary for that particular ail~ent. And this parti cular solution doas not seem to get at the essence of this oroblem because the 3514

1-Jay 71 1980 Tape No. 1336 · NM - 1 MR. LUSH: situation is,of course,that the Workers' Compensation Board have all of those doctors with the expertise to treat these particular problems but they are also in private practice, so there seems to be some problem for the people to get these myelograms, these tests, to determine just what the problem is and just what treatment is necessary. So it seems as though this particular arrangement has not solved that problem insomuch as that there seems to be some problem for the persons concerned to get an appointment with the doctor in the first case.

And my understanding is that there again is a waiting period for this as much as six to eight months,for people to get in to get this particular examination, this myelogram. So if the minister can direct his attention to that so that these people can get in and get these tests.

Again I say it is a matter of the doctors being very, v~ry busy and it is a matter of priorities, whether the doctors give priority to the people recommended by the Worker~~ - Compensation or whether it is their own private p~tients or whether they jus~ take them in a list anywayJ in regards of how far down a person is, he gets called when the doctor gets to his particular name. So there seems to be a real problem and it looks like this particular arrangement is not going to solve that.

So I would like for the minister to direct his attention to that and see if we cannot solve this problem in some way or another to certainly cut ~own on the waiting time that people are now put through in terms of getting in and getting the proper tests, the proper examination to determine the nature of their problem and the treatment required. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, we commend the government on their efforts to make beds available, no question. On the second matter, Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Mr.

Gordon Woodford as a commissioner of the Workers' Compensation Board, we certainly again agree with this appointment although I do not know Mr. Woodford personally but many of my colleagues do and they have certainly indicated to me that they think it is a wise choice and believe that Mr. Woodford will certainly perform an excellent 3515

May 7, l9SO Tape No . 1336 NM - 2 ,MR. LUSH: job and we w:i:sh him well in this particular appointment. Witn respect to the government's intentions of bringing in t4e Workers' Compensation for coverage for fishermen, naturally we agree with. this. This is a position that we have been advocating and we are deligltt10!d , to find that the government have finally acquiesced to the request of the fishermen, and not only -·-. _ ... that, I am delighted to know that they have gone along with my own personal reCOIIIIIlendation to put in the system as they have done in British Columbia - MR.

FLIGHT: A good Liberal programme. MR. LUSH: - where members on the other side thought that there was no such programme in place. So I am delighted to know that they have gone along with the method used in BC. -MR. F:LIGHT: We finally (inaudible). ·-' ,, MR. LUSH: It is too bad - MR. SPEAKER: (Simms) ,Order, please! , MR. ' FLIGHT: (:t:naudillle) programme. MR. LUSH: It is too bad, Mr. Speal<;er 3516 --·-·- _._, ___ --

May 7,1980 MR. LUSH: Tape No. 1337 AH-1 that we had to have British Columbia take the lead in this matter. We, being the fishing Province that we are1 should have been the ones to take ~is particular lead. But that does not matter, who took the iead in that respect, we are delighted to la1ow that finally fishermen will have universal coverage with respect to Workers' Compensation and we are delighted over this. As the minister indicated , it would be difficult at this point to comment on some of the details associated with it because we have to wait for the amending legislation before we can comment on that.

But we would hope that the minister will not delay in bringing this amending le~islation. We see no reason why that cannot be brought in immediately. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH : There is no reason for dela y, Mr. Speaker. Let the minister and his colleagues put their heads together and let us get that amending legislation into this House as quickly as possible so that fishermen can get immediate coverage. SOME HON.MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Hear, hear! Order, please! I would like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of hen. memembers a delegation from Grand Le Pierre, Terrenceville, English Hr.

East, from the district of Fortune - Hermitage. We trust that their visit will be informative. we also welcome to the gallery a former member and former minister of this hon. House, Mr. Ed Maynard. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. JAMIESON: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Dr.Collins) to whom I would normally direct these kinds of questions,! wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Barry) relating to Come By Chance.

In reading over the exchange of correspondence and documents between Petro-Canada and the Government of Newfoundland which were tabled some weeks ago, I am 3517 --- · ---- ·-

t~a y 7,198 0 Tape No. 1337 AH-2 MR. JAMIESON: puzzled by a reference to the fact that environmental standards are to be - that is any future environmental standards as I read the document-are to be waived with relation to Come By Chance and also there is a reference to the undertaking of certain environmental stud;ies. Now, we never did he.ar or see the environmental study which was undertaken last year and which was given as one of the reasons why the project was being delayed.

Could the minister, if it is within his ministerial competence - I do not talk about his intellectual competence-coula he indicate to me just exactly what the situation is - not on the compensation side because I have some questions on that, but with regard to the waiving of the provision,for instance, not to increase the height of the stack which is one of the things which I saw in the correspondence; secondly, that they would not, as I understand . it, be subject to any noew environmental regulations or anything more stringent than what exists at the present tima, ana thirdly ,the need for further study when , to the best of my knowledge, there have been at least two and perhaps three studies undertaken already? 3518

May 7, 1980 Tape 1338 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (SiiiDDS): The hen. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. L. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get out the correspondence that is filed to check the exact wording, but it is nry understanding that the position put forth by the Leader of the Opposition is not completely correct. It is my understanding that the setting up of a new environmental assessment procedure was waived because that had been carried out extensively.

There had been extensive environmental investigation in the contaxt of the earlier negotiations and the potential problems had 'been identified albeit with respect to another potential purchaser. With respect to air ambience standards it is nry understanding that these will be observed and that the standards as they exist from time to time will be observed.

There was, I understand, soma arrangement or agreement worked out with Petro-Canada whereby they would have some tilDe within which to bring in certain modifications to the plant which might be necessary, or whi.c:l:!. might not be necessary, depending upon the type of crude which Petro-Canada would be supplying to the refinery.

The origi.nal arrangements with respect to the high ·stack and so forth were made in contemplation of the use of a hi.gh sulphur crude being illlported from the Middle East and the same requireDII!nts may not be present with. respect to Petro-Canada, but in any event, there was an arrangelllilnt that would permi.t a p~ing in of the necessary environmental modifications and the indications that - had was that that would be safe in the i.nteri.m.

And whi.le you would not necessari.ly have 100 per cent perfection at the very beginning, wi.thin a very short time the plant would be at an operational standard which would be completely acceptable. MR. D, JAMIESON: Mr, Speaker 1 a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. the Leader of i;n.e upposition. MR. D. JA!«ESON : Do I understand correctly - and I, with respect 1 say that I think I have read it correctl,y 1 but what appears from the minister's answer is that the environmental study that was done was done expressly in relation to First Arabian.

And consequently, now that First Arabian is out of the picture, thAt particular environmental study is 3519

~lay 7, 1980 Tape 1338 EC - 2 MR. D. JAMIESON: for all practical purposes of no value or can be turned over to Petro-Canada and they will be obliged to meet what was concluded in terms of the relationship to First Arabian if the same 3520

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1339 SD - 1 MR. D. JAMIESON: kinds of conditions prevail with regard to the type of crude used. Is that correct? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. L. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct that the study previously carried out would be useless.

The study previously carried out, although done in contemplation of negotiations with First Arabian, was carried out to determine from an objective standpoint what would be necessary in order to ensure a safe operation for the refinery, safe from an environmental point of view, and that would apply to Petro-canada or to First Arabian. I would like to ask the President of the Executive Council (Mr. w. Marshall) to supplement my reply there because he was involved in the final negotiations and I was not there on the final day when this thing was completed. MR. D.

JAMIESON: Perhaps if it will be helpful I wou!d add my supplementary at this point. MR. SPEAKER: MR. D. JAMIESON: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In terms of the First Arabian -- I will call it that - study, I assume it would have led to changes in the Environmental Act. The way I have read the correspondence and the various doc:uments, they are exempt,that is Petro-Canada · is exempt from any future changes in the Environmental Act. I think there may be a savinq clause in there or so~~~ethinq to that effect. Could the President of the COuncil demonstrate to me what the distinction is between the two? MR.

SPE.liXER : MR. W. MARSHALL : The hon. the President of the Council. Wall, Mr. Speaker, the original, as the. hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, study was made on the basis --- -- ---- ··--·· -· of a proposal made by Pirst Arabian COrporation. And their pmposal envisil9id the- use of a crude with very high sulphur content. Before the qovernment would e~ concur with discussinq further with First Arabian 1 which deal as everyone knows haa fallen through, they wanted to be sure with respect, to the environmental hazards. So we engaged a firm, a world renowned firm, down 3521

May 7, 1980 Tape tro. 1339 SD - 2 MR. W. MABSHALL: in the States to de this partieular study and that study WB#I done on the basis of the heavy sulphur crnde that wu envi.saC]ed to be used by First Arabian. In our negotiations with Petro-canad,a it was pointed out by Petro-canada that they would not be using t:hiahigh sulphur crude if, in fact, the refinery comes into opezation. I think we, as I think the bon. Leader of the Opposition would zealize, we always have to say that bec:allSe we dD not wut to qat tscJp!IB up.

But if it does CXIIIla into play I believe that thair original intention was that they might be able to secure a supply of crude fro~~~ Venezuela. That crude would not be u heavy a crude as was envisaged f:tem First Arabian, 3522

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1340 EL - 1 MR. W. MARSHALL: but in any event, they had also indicated that they would dilute the sulphuric content of this particular crude by usinq what is called sweeter crude,which is of less sulphur content. Now, the oriqinal study was done - it was don~ you know, the Government paid for it - it was done by a qroup of experts, and we were quite satisfied with it,on the basis of the very high sulphur content.

That having been done , and being satisfied that in the ev&nt that the Petro-canada plan does come into existence there will be a lover sulphur crude content used, then in that event we vould have considered that the environmental study, as such, would have already been done.

But, at the same time, Petro-canada is quite aware of the fact and accepts the fact that any plan for operation of the refinery would have to meet.o the tests of environmental studies.luld in particular . it would be the governments intention, when and if, and hopefully if, there will be a plan for the operation, then at that tillle • ··will re-enqaqe the firm who did the oriqinal study on First Arabian COrporation to ensure conaia1Sncy, to lllilke sure that the · environ~~ental hazards are to the minimtml that they could possibly be, and 1also, to , euaurethat there would be no real siqnificant or irreparable dUiaqes to the enYirolllllent.

So, hopefully that explains to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why that ~cular -passage w;as in the letter at the time, Sir. MR. D, JAMD:SON: MR. SPEADR (Simms) : Leilder of the Opposition. MR. D. JAMIESON: A final supp1-entary, Hr .Speaker. A final suppleaentary, the hen. the Hr , Speaker, in connection with another clause in the aqree-nt, I think the President of the Privy Council (W. Marshall) is aware that there is considerable concern amonq the fishermen with regard to the limitations aqreed to with regard to Petro-can~. My 3523

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1340 EL- 2 MR. D. JAMIESON: ~ecollection is that it is $1 million ..nd I believe the period is somethinq of the order of fifteen ye;ars which. obviously is or could be ve~.ve~ inadequate and also can only be, as I understand it, under the aqraement, implemented throuqh court action. Has the Gove:rnment-•nd if the hon. minister wants to take this as notice, o~ perhaps some other minister knows about it, I aDI quite content to wait for an answer.

But, is there any supplementary-like source of COlllpe~tion funds over and above this UIOunt which could be- as we have seen in the case, for eXU~Ple, of even the most recent one on -::he South Coast, I have forqotten the name of the ship, tlut, in any event, wow.d in a sirnJle mishap well exceed what it appears that Petro-canada is COIIIIIIitted for. Is there anythinq available on that? MR. SPEJ\KER (Simms): · MR. W. MARSHALL: The hon. the President of the Council. Mr, Speaker, ~ will atqm,pt to answer from my recollection of the aqreement and there III&Y be - we III&Y not be talkinq on the same point.

But it is my understandinq 3524

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1341 DW - 1 t1R. W. !1ARSHALL: from t~e aspect of the a or~~ment to which the hon. Leader refers , that we had provided that Petro-Canada would have to maintain a certain amount which in effect would be by way of an insurance fund for the fishermen but this would not preclude, of course, no matter what amounts have been provided there, this would not preclude the people who had sustained damage taking action against those parties who have caused the damage.

There was no intentior. of this, this was just a little bit by way of extra that we had intended to put in the agreement and I remember that it was discussed at the time of the negotiations.It was never intended at the time that this would be the imitation of the liability. We have tried to make it a fairly handy and reasonable way to resolve any damages but, of course, we cannot provide a formula that is going to encompass every single area by way of insurance. But this can be done, as I say, by the people taking actions against the third parties who may have caused it in the first place. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms): The hen. member for Eagle River. MR. E. HISCOCK: My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Brett). In February of this year the Provincial Government ended up giving a subsidy to Labrador Airways for a trial period of three months, February, !~arch and April, for carrying passengers from st. Anthony to points South on the Labrador coast.

A lot of people were a little bit upset at that time because it was .in the Winter months when basically not that many people were travelling and, therefor~ they saw,reall~ no use of it in the sense of having a clear picture of the movement of people. For example, in February, 161 people moved, in March . 195, and now the report for April· is in and it was telexed to the government todayr 400 people moved in April from St. Anthony to points South and vice versa. 3525

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1341 ow - 2 MR. E. HISCOCK : It is now finished, the subsidy, and so much sc-I do not know if the attitude of the aovernment is so callous but basically it was cut off as of April 31st. and now we have passengers stranded in St. Anthony. Basically, the question I want to ask is does the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Brett) have any intention of continuing this proa~amme because of, particularly,the popular support it got? And we can see the dramatic increase from February to April, 400 people moved in April

whereas in February ther"' were or.l:r 161. One would assume that as it goes on towards the warmer months that it will still increase. So I would like to ask the minister what plans, in the immediate future ,is he going to have for the people who are stranded there~ And, basically, Labrador Airways is askipg that this subsidy be permanent on three trips per week and what is t"he government's reaction to this? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Minister of Transporta- tion and Communications. MR. C. BRETT: Mr.

Speaker, that service was prompted by a group of students who came to see me last year, before Christmas.! think, with a very sad story that every year around Christmastime they had some difficulty in getting home , home to Labrador because they came second in line, the mail coming first. 3526

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1342 NM - 1 MR. BRETT: We tried to make same arrangements to get them home for Christmas but I t."'ink, for some reason or other, it did not work out. I do not know whose fault it was, mostly the students,I think because they never came back to me anyway. But they made a request, I guess, whi9h had been made many times before, that some kind of service . would ~e started from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province and that the gove~ent would subsidize same. So I set the wheels in motion and we did start the service, we subsidized the service.

But we decided to do it on a trial basis for a period of two or three months, with the hope that once the service would start and sort of get moving that there would be enough traffic so that the company would generat ·e enough profit to continue on its own and then there would not be any neoes~ity for a subsidy. And it appears tame that that is exactly what has happened and I am r~ly proud because -the first month there were . 1€!1 passengers and now, the l.ast month, there were 400. And the hon. member tells me that this wil.l climb. Wel.l, that is good.

Because if it continues to climb then there wil _l continue to be ' less need for the subsidy and we cannot, as a government, continue to subsidize every single travel.ling service in this Province, you know, it just does not make sense. AN RON. MEMBER: MR. SPEAKER (Simms): MR. BRETT: (Inaudible) service itself? Order, pl.ease! Well 1we do not subsidize the hon. member if he gets in his car and drives to Cl.arenvil.le or to Grand Bank somewhere. That is not subsidized. And if there is enough traffic on this run so that Mr. Patey, or whomever - SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order, please! 3527

May 7, 1980 MR. BRETT: for taxpayers to subsidize it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Si.lmw l : MR. HISCOCK: MR. SPEAKER: Tape No. 1342 NM - 2 -can make a profit, then there is no need Oh, oh! Order, please! The hon. member for Port au Port - A supplementary. - wishes to yield to the hon. meMber for Eagle River, a supplementary. MR. HISCOCK: I am a little bit amazed that the Minister of Transportation ended up saying that this service was prompted by students, who I may say I ended up bringing in.

And I also have to correct the minister that those students did get home - over one hundred and something people moved in during the month of December: MR. BRETT: (Inaudible) me. MR. HISCOCK: Well,I have to correct you by saying that they did. And I am amazed that the minister does not know a little bit more about what is going on in that part of the country. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: I find that - Hear, hear! Order, please! If the hon. member has a supplementary I would direct him to ask it now. MR. HISCOCK: that - MR. NEARY: MR.

HISCOCK: The question I basically want to ask is Now,be a good boy now. - wehavepeople stuck there and whether in the future this subsidy may be needed . or may not be needed. As of now it is in a trial period and to have this subsidy for the Winter months, I mean,is ludicrous. To have it for a six month period, then maybe Labrador Airways could find out that they could carry it on. But as of now it is in a trial period and I want to know from the minister what the immediate plans are with regard to rectifying this 3528

May 7, 19 80 mape No. 1342 NM - 3 MR. HISCOCK.: problem of getting these people out of St. Anthony and to other parts of the Coast? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): 'l'he hon. Minister of Tr 'ansportatl.on ana Communications. MR. BRE'l'T: Oh. my, Mr. Speaker, have I got to repeat all that again? S~ HON. MEMBERS: Oh., oh.! MR. BRETT: I do not thirik it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, for me to do anything.

Because if, as the hon. member has indicated, in the l~st m9nth there were 400 passengers on tbat service and that is goini;J to increase, well, you know, it stands to reasop that if the number of people who are travelling continues to rise then the service in itself will be profitable, that the person who is operating the service will make money on it, and wh.y should the t~yers subsidize it? Now,as I indicated we did it on a trial basis and as far as I am concerned we proved what we set out to do, we proved that it is v~e. that it is economically viable.

Apd if it is economically viable then why should the government subsidize it? You· know, if the need arises somewhere down the road to subsidize it well we will have another look. at it. But right now if there are 400 people travelling a month., and that is going to climb to 500 or 600, then it is economically viable and we do not ne .ed to subsidize it. It is as simple as that. And if there are people stuck over there then let Mr. Patey put on more trips_, not come .af~er me for more money. MR. HISCOCK: A final supplementary. MR.

SPEAKER: A final supplementary the hon. member for Eagle River, followed by the hen. member for Port au Port, followed by the hen. member for LaPoile. '3529

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1342 NM - 4 MR. HISCOCK: I would like to ask, with the subsidy itself on a trial period, will the minister consider, so that we will have more facts to back it up and give Labrador Airways a chance because it may mean that the Winter months have to be subsidized

whereas the Summer months have to carry over the Winter months, will the minister give consideration to extending the period for another three months? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): and Communications. MR. BRETT: to consider almost anything. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. FLIGHT: MR. BRETT: The hon. Minister of Transportation Mr. Speaker, on those days I am ready Oh, oh! Would you consider resigning? No, I would not consider that. The people of Trinity North would not appreciate it very much if I resigned. I can · assure you that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

BRETT: They gave me a fantastic majority of over 1600 and they would not be very pleased if I resigned. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BRETT: At the moment I would have to say that we are not prepared to consider a subsidy, at this particular time. But I indicated, 3530

May 7,1980 Tape No. 1343 AH-1 MR. BRETT: the second time I got up, if somewhere down the road the necessity arises,then sure,we will consider it. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Port Au Port. MR. HODDER: A question for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). I understand that the ~inister has guaranteed lobster fishermen $1.70 a po~d and I understand as well that there are some range of prices across the Province. Could the minister tell me whether the $1.70 is held across the Province and whether there are various are~s of the Province where fishermen are getting a uniform price for their lobster? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, the Fishing Industry Advisory Board has been monitoring the situation regarding the buyers in the Province, the prices they are paying to fishermen, and also monitoring th~ situation in the wholesale market area, like in Boston, and no buyer throughout the Province to date has paid less than $1.70 per pound. In fact,most of the buyers are paying $1.75 or $1.85 per pound and in some areas of the Province,on the Avalon Peninsula,like, for example,in Chance Cove,Mr.

Smith is paying $2.00 per pound and also Argentia Fisheries is paying $2.00 per pound and I think one other company, Sutton and O'Brien in Fair Haven. But throughout the rest of the Province they are paying around $1.75 to $1.85. The buyers on the Avalon Peninsula area, as I mentioned, they have markets in the local area and that is one reason 'why they can~pay more to the fishermen.

However,the situation in Boston last week ; the beginning of the week, was $2.50 per pound Monday and Tuesday and the middle of the week it went down to $2.40 per pound and at the end of the week it went up to $2.75 per pound,for lobsters in Boston. But suddenly, ... . .. ._ '#hen_ a~ i.n _f_lux of supply of lobsters came. in to Boston. MR. FLIGHT: MR. SPEAKER: MR. HODDER: That is a speech. Order, please! That was my second question . . 3 531

May 7,1980 Tape No. 1343 AH-2 MR. MORGAN: You do not want the information? MR. HODDER: No. No. I said that was my second question. ~~ORGAN: Oh, your second question. I will kill two birds with one stone. The situation in Boston is that it was $2.75 per pound at the end of last week but suddenly there wa .s 173,000 pounds , or around that figure 1 came in from Newfoundland to Boston and down goes the price of lobster.

So the price went down to $2.25 US dollars which still means that the buyers in Newfoundland are now getting around $2.60 per pound,our dollar, in the Boston market which means that they can pay at least $1.70, in fact, anywhere between $1.75 to $1.85 per pound. MR. HODDER: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A supplenentary. The hon. member for J?ort Au Port. MR.

HODDER: My second question to the minister was to be about - I believe actually the Boston market went as high as $2.75 per pound and I was aware that it was down, but what I would like to ask the minister is while he is guaranteeing that the lobster fishermen get $1.70 per pound what is the minister doing to ensure that the fishermen are getting the maximum benefits because the exchange rate is something between fifteen and eighteen cents a pou~d and the Boston market is fluctuating upwards at certain times?

What is the minister doing to ensure that - you know, it is enough to say that $1.75 a pound is the minimum but what is he doing to ensure that the fishermen get the maximum when the/market is high rather than the company getting a windfall profit when the profit is high? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, of course, I think, in the action we took this year we set a precedent,and maybe a dangerous precedent,in getting involved in setting prices as a government . 3532

May 7,1980 Tape No. 1343 AH-3 MR. MORGAN: and you can only go so far in that field and I know that. But I think the limitation that we set was a reasonable one whereby we told the companies we will monitor through our Advisory Board, the Fishing Industry Advisory Board what the market is like in Boston, what prices you are getting as buye~s in the Province.

We control your licenses that you hold and if you are not paying a reasonable price, in this case at least $1.70 per pound,we will have no hesitation but to have the Advisory Board investigate why you are not paying by means of looking at the records, your records and your books etc.

To date we have had no reason to do that, to move in on the companie~However,at the same time we told the companies that we intend to monitor on a continuing basis what is happening in places like Boston and if there is a flu~tuation in price,especialiy upward as in this case, which means profits to the buyers, we will have also to indicate to the com~anies that we feel the prices should be reflected in the prices paid to .the fishermen. Now,in this case,because it is only a few week after opening, less than two weeks in fact, the fluctuation is occuring from day to day in Boston.

It depends on the supply of lobster~ so ~e cannot very well go to a buyer and say one day you pay $1;75 or $2.00.0ur main objective right now is to make sure that no buyer in the Province, as long as the market remains relatively good in Boston 1 and we· think $2.60 per pound, our dollar in Boston,is a fairly good market for lobster, a good price, and we see no reason whatsoever why any buyer should pay any less than $1.70 per pound but in the meantime,we will monitor and if the prices go up in Boston we will talk to the buyers. MR. HODDER: A supplementary Sir. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A final supplementary.

The hon. member for Port Au Port followed by the han. member for LaPoile. Ml!.. HODDER: So if. I understand the minister correctly what he is saying is if the market fluctuates up to $4.00 or .$5.00 3533

May 7,1980 Tape No. 1343 AH-4 MR. HODDER: a pound and becomes something like caviar,that basically $1.70 a pound is all you are really going to ask the - or intend to ask the companies to pay the fishermen. But I would like to put another situation to the minister because this $1.70 a pound sort of bothers me,because I am not sure that we should not be monitoring the market and trying to get the companies to give a fair price to the fishermen, but what I would like to ask the minister, what happens if - 3534

May 7, 1980 Tape 1344 EC - 1 MR. J. HODDER: now there is a projected slump, or some people feel there may be a slump in the Boston market - what can the minister do then to insure that they get the $1.70 a pound if indeed there is a. slump, because this again works on market conditions? ~.R. SPEAKER (Simms) : the hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. J. MORGAN : Well, Mr. Speaker, we a.re basing our information on the last two years average in the places like Boston for the wholesale price of lobster and we see no reason at this time why there should be a major slump in the market for lobster.

Ln fact, our projection from the Advisory Board is that lobster prices will probably increase over the next two or three weeks instead of slumping. '!he situation there, would be, of course, that again, as I . mentioned, the buyers in the Province have been told to pay at least ~1.70, it does not mean they cannot pay that - J;hey are paying now in many areas ~1.85 and shipping in to the Boston market. Last year when the price of lobster in Boston was ~1.95 a J?Ound they were paying ~1.50 here and I felt that last year they should have been paying more than $1.50.

But at least when they are getting $2.25, which means $2,60 and around that range in the Boston market, there is no reason why they cannot pay in this Province around ~1.80 or $1.85 a pound for lobster. That is the position of the Department of Fisheries and the Fishing Industry Advisory Board and the Fishermen's Onion. MR• SPEAKER (SiiliDS): The hon. the member for La.Poile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back home again, Your Honour. SOME HON. MEMBE:RS : oh, oh! My question is for the Minister of Health, Sir. Would the Minister of Health (Mr. w.

Housel indicate, in view of the fact that his colleague, the minister responsible for the Environment (Mrs. H. Newhook) 1 hu indicated that acid rain has been detected in three parts of Newfo~dland and the Minister of the Environment savs it is not as serious as it is in Ontario or Quebec - whatever that Deans, you can interpret that whatever way you want because in Ontario we are told ~;at it 3535 -

May 7' 1980 Tape 1344 EC - 2 MR. S. NEARY: is extremely serious - would ~~e minister indicate what the side effects are of acid rain, if there are any? MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : '!he hon. the Minister of Health. MR. W. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, our department has been holding discussions with the Department of the Environment and at this point in time we do not think that there is a very serious problem. But I do not have any specific details. I can check further with the environmental people. We de not have any details on it in the Department of Health, but I will check further with them.

As far as I can gather from my department - and it is just a few ~s ago we were discussing it - there seems to be no serious effec~ · here in this Province yet. MR. S • NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: for LaPoile. A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hon. the member MR. s. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may have misunderstood my question. I am trying to find out - because acid rain is something new to members of this House and the people of this Province, "'''uld the hon-. gentleman indicate, from a health standpoint, what could happen to a person as a result of acid rain?

What part of your body, if any, does it affect? Coul.d the hon. gentleman tell us what the effects are of acid rain or if there are any? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. MR. W. HOUSE: Mr. Speaker, a couple of years we were talking about the presence of certain chemicals in water 1 in certain fish, I believe, in some parts of Labrador. A lot of people thought that that may have been as a result of acid rain. I do not exactly ~what parts of the body it does affect - I am not a medical doctor, by the way - but I will certainly get the information or try to get the information.

I doUbt if it is available right now, but I will talte the question as notice and report to the hon. member later. MR. S. NEARY : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A final supl?lementary. We have about thirty seconds remaining. 3536

May 7, 1980 Tape 1344 EC - 3 MR. S. NEARY: would the hon. qentl.eman also find out the effects of acid rain on the environment as far as vegetables ~d the lilte are concerned~and on the people consuming veqetabl.es and fish in this Province? Woul.d that have any effect on the human body? Woul.d the hon. qentl.eman qet. that? Or maybe he bas tba infol:JIIIltion at his fingertips n~. MR. SPEAKER '(Silllas) : 'l'he hml. the Minister of Hea.lth. MR. W.

HOOSE: No 1 that was wh4;m I mentioned the first one. ~ere was some in the seconli question there when we - a couple of years ago there was some -rcury content, I thl.M, in the fish and they did nat know if that was being c&QSed by industrial. waste or other kinds of activities and that was being looked at. So the answer to this last question is the same as the second ti!lie, but I will try to get the iDfo:r:mation. MR· S. NEARY: You ap not know right now, MR. W. HOUSE: No, I do 110t know rignt now. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! ~· time for Oral Questions has expired. 3537

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1345 EL - 1 PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the member for St. John's West. MR. 1:1. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to report to the House that the Estimates Committee for the Resource departments of Govern­ ment has exAmined the estimates for Head Xl, Department of Mines and Energy, Head Xli,Department of Forests, Resources and Lands, Head XIII, Department of ---- Tourism, Recreation and Culture, Head XIV, Departlllent of Fisheries, Head XV, Department of Industrial Development, Head XVI, Department of Rural, Agri­ cultural and Northern Development and I am pleased to report that each of these Heads has MR. SPEAKER: been passed without ~ndment. Any further reports? ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 4.

The hon. the member for S tephenv ·ille. SOME BOR, MEMBERS : Bear, hear. MR. F. STAGG: Thank you~ Mr ·. Speaker. Mr • Speaker, there is some question, I suppose, whether the motion that I have on the Order Paper is now relevant in tha~ tbe Royal Comaission that I was calling for on opening day has, in fact,been set up.

But, I do believe that it is in order and is relevant because the wisdom of the setting up of Royal co~ issions is certainly something that all hon. members might like to address themselves to and,also,to give us all an opportunity to put something on the r ec:ord that the ROyal C0111111ission miqht con.ider worthwhile. So, IBY -.otion is as follovs:''WHEl!DS the health of the forests &nd the people of this Province is of concern to the Government; AND

WHEREAS .serious questions have been raised as to the danger to human health of chemical spray pto~rams to control the spruce budworm; AND

WHEREAS sufficient research and public debate has not taken place with regard to the resolution of this critical issue; BB IT THERE­ FORE RESOL~ that this Bon. House supports the establishment by the Government of a Royal Commission to analyse and make recommendations as to the course of 3538

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1345 EL 2 MR. F. STAGG : action to follow in the protection of our forest industry and the health of our people so far as it relates to measures to be taken to control the spruce budwor111." Well, Mr. Speaker, the spruce budworm dil~ is one that has been prevelAnt in this Province now for a number of years. Certainly it is something that has domin•ted a considerable portion of the l970's 1 and all of the emotional and philosophical arguments that can be put forward by the general public and by the political figures have been aired time and time again. The a:rg\llllent might be ll".ade, Mr.

Speaker, that we have heard so much about it that everyone is probably in a state of confusion~ Mr. Speaker, I am trying to wade my way through my bon. friend's refuse here. He is an environmental hazard, throwing newspapers behind me and trying to trip me up but I will do my best to get ~~rough it. In my research in this matter, I found that,while I commenced with the feeling that I had the answers, I was audacious enough to think that I did have the answers to this question, I find that the issue is by no means clear-cut . There are schools of thought there are fanatical schools of thought on this subject.

Some people are so violently opposed to the spruce budwora spraying progriUI that it is probably a consiD!ing interest of theirs and it is something that h.as taken a considerable amount of their extracurricular activities. The spruce budworm dileusa might be likened,in some respecta, to the nuclear war or the nuclear energy protest movement in the United States ·3539

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1346 so - 1 MR. F. STAGG: and certainly thro~~hout the world . as well,. as we have seen in ,• many cases , the demonstrations before nuclear establishments in the United States,~f major importance in Japan, And I was watching an American television station the other day and some commentator in the States was decrying the kind of protest that was going on by the people who were protesting nuclear energy and he called it, "The what if'syndrome".

What if this and what if that and what if and what if until a person takinq some many of these what if·questions can make a disaster appear inevitable. Well, that is a comparison to what we are debatinq. We had the debating in this Province and certainly throughout Canada for some years now; What if we do nothing about the spruce budwo:rm? What happens?

Certainly we are all aware of the enthusiastic and vigorous campaign waged recently by the paper companies in this Province, Bowater Newfoundland Limited and Abitibi Price. the full page ads that they have used quite frequently on this subject and certainly it would appear that they have talceri a responsible position as far as their advertising is concerned. They are not using scare tactics, they are using;what t would consider to her a responsible method of advertising their position, as responsible as any campany can be when they have a particular position and there are others who are opposed to it.

Some weeks ago,whe~ I spoke in the House on the Environmental Assessment Act, I was less than charitable to the Newfoundland Medical Association in their assessment of the spruce budworm problem. I indicated there that it appeared as if their research, at least in one respect, appeared to be superficial. Well, I would have to say that at that stage 'l!f'! own research had been rather superficial and even today I have only scratched the surface of the material that is available.

And I am not, by any means, as convinced --· now that :r was correct in muing that assessment of their position be- cause they did advocate the wisdom of a spray programma last year, they - --------r- ···--- indicated that it would probably be okay, and I will quote from some do<:lDIIents in that regard later on. 35~0

Hay 7, 1980 Tape No. 1346 SD - 2 MR. F. STAGG: Now, Hr. Speaker, the public: of this Pro- vinc:e does not know what to think on this subject. The general public is at the -rcy of the news media and the news makers and the politicians and the would be politicians as far as this is eonc:emed. Now, there is nothing more advantageous to a person who would like to get into politics than to crusade for a river that might be about to be destroyed or to crusade against the destruction of the forest.

These are the sorts -·· ~ of things that aumy of us in our past u politicians might be able to say that 'Yes,I might have gotten on the political bandwagon on that subject.' And I even see a few grins from hon. members opposite. I do if I struc:lt a responsive eord or not. AN HON. MEMBER: I cannot help but grin at you boy. MR. F. STAGG: The hon. member does not grin he leers,but there was an hon. member across the way who was grinning. HR. G. FLIGHT: Listen. (inAudible) MR. F . STAGG: What does the public think on this subject?

I believe that the public is tot"ally confused, certainly when they have to loo.k at the two alternatives. One alternative is to spray and then we eome across the sort of thing that we have in 'l'he National / ____ .. __ ... Geographi.c:. It says, •Are we · breeding super buq?• And there is a picture here, the February 1980 National Geo.cp:aphi,s. of a tobacco ba;lworm . That is the one the Premier quoted from. HR. F. STAGG: It is an excellent article. The 'jatipnj!!l r..eo.,.raphi.c:. is one of the - HR. D. HOLU:TT: r .'JCbe A11_1!1 ___ 9~ .-~e .!i'remier ClJ.lOted ~rom. MR. F.

STAGG: ._Y!~-~~~ !-~ .PX:~~:!-! .is• MR. I.. S'l'IRLING: -· - - -··· _ ~ atever _~ • Premi.~tr __ ~~ 1!~-~s the ~·xt ~y. ~: F. STAGG: The bon. •mbers, Mr . Speaker, are seeming to say that because the Premier quotes fro111 s011ething that that should be it, nobody else should be allowed to quote from it. Well, I do not know,1 maybe- the hon. members are not being that nasty. 3541

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1347 NM - 1 ~!R. HOLLETT: I agree with you. I subscribe to that all the time. I have read it and I recommend (inaudible) to everybody in the House. MR. STAGG: ~JR . RIDEOUT: MR. STAGG: Well, certainly I will have a look at - And take it under advisement. - take that under advisement. I do not know if I have that kind of resources, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, here we have the tobacco budworm - MR. HODDER: (Inaudible) politician. MR. STAGG: - see the monster there, February 1980. That is this year, 1980.

"Ploughingthrough DDT, a tobacco budworm remains unaffected by the white crystals lethal to earlier generations of the pest." There it is. So are we breeding super bug?

And that is the sort of thing that the public, and we as political figures, have to be aware of, that in the insect world their ability to take a poison, something that is lethal to a particular generation of insects can be the food of a generation, by our lights,_ probably only a year or so chronologically, a year or so distant from the time when the, let us sa~ DDT was a poison, it could become food for the insect and their ability to become resistant to the chemicals is certainly phenomenal. So that is one aspect of it, the super bug aspect of it.

The other aspect of it is the one that was brought heme quite readily to me by a businessman, a West Coast businessman not connected with the woods industr~ but generally a well-informed and a good honest opinion you would always get from him, he indicated that unless we do something about the spruce budworm there will be no paper industry in this Province in the foreseeable future. So there are the two schools of thought. And I had,this year,welcomed the news by ·~ he Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. c.

Power) that there be no spray and,I suppose,at that stage I was subscribing more to the super bug theory, or the super bug syndrome. Obviously,there is the other side of the coin,that is pointed 3542

Hay 7, 19 80 Tape No. 134 7 Nl1 - 2 MR. STAGG: out by the Newfoundland Medical Assqciation ~ and this is the report that I mocked earlier, I mocked it really without having read it, so I apologize to the writer, although the name is not there. :L am not sure who wrote it. Anyway the conclusion in the Newfoundland Medical Association's report, the conclusion, "The m·ajor loss of forests,which will arise if the current budworm epidemic continues unchecked,will have major socio-economic consequences, including increased unemploymeht. This is a major threat to the health of the Newfoundland population.

And in light of this, the postulated health hazards from the current short-term spraying programme with Aminocarb - which is another name for !¢a.tacil- in Newfoundland are deemed to be insignificant:' I still dispute that "kind of reasoning, Mr.

Speaker, that because there is a possibility that the forest industry might be harmed or decimated that we will hav& unemployment, then we will have health problems, I find that to be almost nineteenth century in its approach to the problems, and it is the sort of thing that we bad dur;ing the Industrial Revolution where we had child labour and all the rest of · it. so I still do not believe that that is a conclusion that I can subscribe to, but nevertheless it is something that was considered worthwhile enough by the Newfoundland Medical Association to include it in their report.

We have had on the West Coast of this Province a group that has been most 3543

(" May 7, 1980 Tape 1348 EC - l MR. F. STAGG: vociferous and effective, I guess, in their opposition to the spruce budworm. This is the Eco-Watch people of Corner Brook and I am going to read one paragraph from their brief, Now their brief is a most impressive document. It is thirty-five pages long and small type,with copious appendices and is a frightening document, It certainly does not lead one to believe that spraying is without ~~.

Anyway, the second paragraph of their Introduction says, r.lhla paper was developed in part as a response to what many feel has been a failing on the part of government, particularly the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture to present the people and members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland with a complete and unbiased picture of the spruce budworm problem.

While Eco-Watch understands that, based on information made available to meD:lers of government by the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture, there is considerable pressure to spray our .forests, they believe that only the most myopic view can cause government to ignore the very long-term dangers of such a spray progrllllllll! , not only to the forests of Newfoundland but also to such diverse areas as health, fishing, hunting, agriculture and tourism. ' And they go on to say that their report will elucidate on that and back up their findings.

And their report on environmental effects and so on is most impressive, My gosh! ,, I only have five minutes to go.

In my further research, I talked with some people within either the federal or provincial governliiBnt: on this ~ I wu told that not everything in the Eco-Watch brief is entirely accurate, that there is a certain liiiiOunt of editorializing in there and that there is a certain amount of raiding of materials so that SOIIIB of it will be taken out of context~ Wel.l, I take that view in stride as well~ But1 ,-sir 1 I 11111 certainly prepared to accept that not everything in the Eco-Watch brief is correct but neither am I willing to concede that everything in it is wrong.

It is most difficult to be categorical in coming down on the side of one or the other. No¥, the medical report of last year by the Newfoundland Medical Association made some conclusions and recoamendations 3544

/ May 7, 1980 Tape 1348 EC - 2 MR. F. STAGG: and I will just briefly read from that: 'On the basis of results from medium-term oae year post spray monitoring of environmental impact of spraying with matacil, there is no evidence of major disruption of terrestrial eco-systems attributable to spraying. There are, however, several points of potential cancer~ raised in the studies. There were ~e lower rates of production of juvenile birds in sprayed areas relative to unsprayed.' That jumps out at you like a sore thumb. 'There were lower rates of production of juvenile birds in sprayed areas relative to unsprayed.

However, this may be due indirectly to spraying through reduce levels of budworm that would otherwise be used by the birds as food,' and so on. There are a ~umber of reasons why there could have been a lower number of birds ~~ere, but I am not entirely reassured by that. I am suspicious that the reason there were fewer birds there is that the matacil killed them. And if the matacil killed them, is that one of the steps in the food chain that is critical to the whole thing and does it event::ually get itself into the human sphere and so on?

You know, the canary, I believe, was taken down into the mines of England and other places - the coal mines - years ago, and if the canary died it meant there was gas in the mine and the miners had better get out. So the death of songbirds has saved many lives for us before and it could be a fact that tl1e death of these birds may be in that category. The Newfoundland Medical Association on May 15, 1979,concluded that we could spray.

Here is what they said in conclusion: 'In the case of matacil, I am unable to discover any significant v~iations in mortality in those areas which were sprayed, like in New Brunswick, as compared to other parts of Canada. Further, there are no reports suggesting an occupational hazard at present. Therefore, I have to conclude that there is a lack of convincing evidence that matacil represents a serious health hazard. I hope that this information will help to formulate your policy in regard to spruce budworm spraying.' Well, that seems to me to be a relatively small amount of evidence on which to base a decision.

So, Mr. Speaker, since my time is rapidly expiring - I guess I am probably into leave time now. 3545

!1ay 7, 1980 Tape No. 1349 ow - 1 MR. F. STAGG: How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER (Baird): You ha~e two more minutes. MR. F. STAGG : Two more minutes. Well, then I will !!lake my final statements on this matter, and that is to support the position taken by the Minister of Forests, Resources and Lands (Mr. Power) on April l4th. J whereby a Royal Commission was established, the three principals of which were Dr. Cyril Poole of Memorial University's Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook, and his qualifi- cations are very hiqh. Dr. Poole is a rural Newfoundlander and so on.

He was educated here and there and always educated well. There is a Dr. Carroll 1 who was born at Bonavista. He has a similar distinguished academic background and he joined the Public Service of Canada in June 1949, as a Forest Biologist at the Forest Entomology Laboratory, Frederickton, New Brunswick,then transfer!ed to Corner Brook. He did a doctor of philosophy degree at New York State College of Forestry so certainly he would appear to be a man eminently well qualified to give advice in that regard. And Dr. A.T.

Rowe,a former colleague of ours, a colleague of mine, we were elected to this House of Assembly together back in 197l.and he served as Minister of Health from 1972 until 1975 1 and has always distinguished himself as a man with his feet on the ground and a most responsible and excellent citizen of this Province. So these three individuals have been commissioned to bring in a report. And the terms of 'reference of that report are·- if I might read these into the record; Mr. Speaker, and then I will be finished. The terms of reference: (

a) to review the current status of the forest industry and the intensity of forest management wi~hin this Province and identify conditions necessary for the long-term viability of the industry and a sustained 3546

<' Hay 7, 1980 Tape No. 1349 DW - 2 MR. F . STAGG: flow of forest products and services for the economic and social well-being of the Newfoundland people; (

b) to review and assess the current spruce budworm situation and its effect on the forest industry in light of currently practiced management and utilization standards and in light of a practical future level of intensive forest management; (

c) to review and ascertain the impact of available forest protection techniques including chemical sprays on human health and the environment both on the short and long-term; (

d) to make recommendations to government on a course of action which is compatible with scientific forestry, industrial requirements, economic and social well-being of the people and human health and environment safety requirements; (

e) to ensure that a broad public input will be sought to develop an assessment of the wishes of the people of Newfoundland as to how they perceive the management and use "of the forest resources and how they perceive protection of it; (

f) to seek and receive briefs and submissions from various interested groups from both inside and outside the Province. This report is due by December 31st., 1980. Now, Mr. Speaker, just as this government has moved ahead on other matters, strongly and decisively. not the least of which, lately, is the flag debate, the provision of a flag for this Province. certainly ·- may I have a couple of mora minutes to clue this up gentlemen? SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (BAIRD): AN HUN. MEPIBER: - MR. F. STAGG: Yes, go ahead. By leave. By leave. ~e your point.

The point is that once this Royal Commission is received, the report is received, it is my hope that the recommendations made by it will be perceived to be and will be sufficiently valid 1 that a long- term course of action for the forest management will evolve. 3547

:-lay 7, 1980 Tape No. 1349 DW - 3 MR. F. STAGG : Let us hope that they are able to put all of the divergent opinions together and come up with a recommendation or a series of recommendations that govern- ment can follow. And if their recommendations are as good as I think they will be, I am sure that the decisiveness which this government has evidenced on many occasions, not the least of which is the current provision of a provincial flag for this Province,will be carried over and the same / type of decisive philosophy will result from the recom- mendations made by this Royal Commission. So, Mr.

Speaker, these conclude my remarks and I am sure that hon. members will have remarks as well. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! . MR SPE~KER (Baird): The hon. member for Windsor- Buchans. MR. G. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addressing myself to this resolution I have to agree with the hon. member who just spoke that 'the resolution seems to be anti-climatic. It seems to be non-relevant because of things that have taken place since. But one would have to wonder what came first~ the resolution or the decision?

Because if the decision to set up a Royal Commission came first,then, obviously,the hon. member found himself very much at odds with the £orestry pol~cies of this administration. Of course, if the resolution came after the decision, then one can only deduct that the member is currying favour with the administration and taking this means of showing his support and beating the drum for them. neither of which, I am sure, might be totally true. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this government's 3548

/ May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1350 SD - l MR. G. FLIGHT: approach to spraying, and let us really look, let us use this fifteen or twenty minutes to look at the kinds qf decisions that this government have made over the past two or three years and the way that they have reacted to the problem of the budwo:cn in this Province. In 1977, this government had an experimental spray progra11111e using matacil. The pUEpOse of the spray programme as presented by go-rnment at the time was to test the application mechods in very small blocks to determine the effect of matacil on the budworm.

And there was supposed to have been an environmental assessment done both on the short-term and the long-tenn on the effect of that experimental spray programme. That assessment was not completed, or at least was not made public to the people of this Province or to this House 1 before the same government embarked on a massive all- encompassing, all out spray programme. Not having any idea of what the short or long-term effects of matacil were they went ahead in 1978.

They had m~their minds up, 'We are goinq to spray in this Province: And the decision was not made that we will spray for one year, the decision was made that we will spray in this progra~~~~~e. And the proof of that, Mr. Speaker, is that there are 64n drums of matacil in Stephenville today that were surplus to that programme. Now, one has got to admit that the people who are making thedecisionson that side, the Cabinet, are not very qood managers when it oomes to purchasing.

If they were only going to haw a one year spray programne, then certainly they had enough information available to them to buy the supplies of matacil needed, enough for that progr-, and not ha"'le 640 drums of mataci.l 1 that are now creating .m enviroruaental problem in Stephenville, suzplus to their needs.

They also,obviously,made the decision that in future ,pray programmes we would use matacil, having been told by practically every expert in the business that nobody knew the short -- ---- - or long-tenn effects of matacil, that it was not licencK for use in any country in the world, that the Americans refused to use it. But they bought enough matacil. The minister will, no doubt, qet into this duate 3549

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1350 SD - 2 MR. FLIGHT: and I am sure he will tell us, assuming we have a spray programme in the future, how many years supply of matacil is now sitting in Stephenville - 640 drums, or how many drums of matacil were used in the 1978 spray programme? Now, Mr. Speaker, going into this kind of spray programme was bad enough but then came 1979, and we had the appointment of a Royal Commission. And as the resolution says, Mr. Speaker, "Whereas the health of the forest and the people of this Province is of concern to the government we will support a Royal Commission." One can only deduct, Mr.

Speaker, that in 1978, the same people sitting in the front benches, the same Cabinet, with a total disregard for the health of the people of this Province or the health of the forest sprayed with rnatacil. Now it is the same people, it may be a different minister but it is the same Cabinet, individually, the same people, in 1978 they were prepared to spray the forest of this Province with rnatacil, spray the watersheds of this.Province with rnatacil. There were cases where matacil got into communities.

They were prepared to do that without the benefit of a Royal Commission, not knowing whether they were going to poison the wildlife, the fish life or the insect life of the Province, not knowing - and very importantly because the minister made a point of this, that we are not going to spray and endanger the health of the people of our Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, having said that, the day the minister made ~~at statement then he was saying also that his predecessor, the Cabinet six months before, was prepared to spray in this Province and not give two hoots and not be concerned about the health of our people.

One goes with the other, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have one without the other. If it was necessary to have a Royal Commission in 1979, and I believe it was, it was necessary to have a Royal Commission in 1977, before the experimental spray programme took place. It was definitely necessary to have a Royal Commission in 1978, before the matacil spray programme took place. If it was necessary in 1979, then it was obviously necessary in 1978, and the Cabinet, 3550

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1351 EL - 1 MR. G. FLIGHT: and they .re all represented in this House today, the' present Minister of Fisheries (J. Morgan) obviously sprayed and made a decision to spray with a callous disregard and indifference to the health of the people of this Province or to what long-tezm effects spray- i ng with matacil would have. Now, Mr. Speaker, you can cut it any way you like, that is a fact of life. 'lbere was only one other intervening incident took place. The problem with the spray program in 1979,is that an election was called.

In order for a spray program to be effective, you have to spray in what is known as the incubation stage, in the first two or three weeks of June. Somewhere in there is the critical time. You must spray then. It is a known fact, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to keep saying this,because I think that one of the most political decisions ever made in this Province was that particular decision to not spray in 1979. The Government had IDilde their minds up. They had bought the pesticides necess~. They had bought enough for more than one spray program.

And they were on their way with an all-out massive - - spray prograa with no concern for the effect that that spray program would have on the health of the people. But an election intervened and being astute politicians, Mr. Speaker, and having more concern ilbout their abilities to survive politically in this Province than they obviously had with the health of the people in this Province the year before, they decided there would be no spray proqrlllll ;md they had to hit.ve a way out and the way out was the Royal Camaission that we should have had in 1977. NQ111, Mr.

Speaker, the bes~ that could happen in this Province today~ we hear tba words .'plebiscite and referendum so often ------ -- ··-- · --=-'-- ............l..-- - -- ·- ·- these days - but the best that could haPP«a in thia P:mvince today if this decision - if there were a referendum in this Province to spray or not to spray, the best the minister could hope for would be a fifty-fifty split. The very best. I suspect that the people who are ~~t: ·like my constituents by and large, 3551

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1351 EL - 2 .MR. G. FLIGHT: the people who are dependent. on the woods resource of this Province for a living would vote spray, they would vote spray because they would be so concerned about their way of li~e and the economy of their towns. People not dependen~ on the spray program, far removed, people on _the Avalon Peninsula, would vote no and the best you would get is a fifty-fifty situation, MR. F. WHITE: Good •peech. Hear, hear! MR.

G, FLIGHT: And that government was not going to go into an election with a spray_program problea hanging over heads that - - would cost them fifty per cent of the votes in this Province, AN. E!ON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. G. FLIGHT: And, Mr. Speaker , - AN. HON. MEMBER: It sounds reasonable. MR. G. FLIGHT: !t sounds reasonable. And, Mr. Speaker, now we see the real reason for no spra)' program in 1979 . MR. J. HODDER: Hear, hear. MR. G. FLIGHT: And then the minister- and to make matters worse, Mr.

Speaker, the minister, after the election, after it was too late 1authorized oil BT experimentoilll spray progroilllll - $150,000. Now, the fact is, BT is supposed to be the ideal pesticide to spray with. It breaks down, there is no domger to the ecology. It breaks down in a couple of days, 'no residue, no nothing. And the B'l' was supposed to have been an experimenul s~;~ray program. However, the minister went ahead with that sprAy prograa - he had to soften the impAct of no : spray prograa.

Be had to do something to take the heat off becauas sOIIebody was going to ask - olllld so what he said wu 'we ilr8 goinq to have an experimental. aprar progru with ,, - - . M; and it ~Nde ·a lot of people in thU Pzovince ~ -b_~~~ -~ the malllbeJ: fr0111 Step lllnville (F. Staff) said the people who -re air aid of a progru swjd- "- e--...-.J ~ .F"!L- - -- - ---- enly felt relieved in the sense that there would be no spray proqram with 3552

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1351 EL - 3 MR. G. FLIGHT: matilcil. But the minister knows now . he just entered tl).e Chamber - the minister knows that his advice at that time, by his officials, was not to waste the money. It is too late. There will not be time for a second application and you have to have a second applic.lltion. And so they sprayed, they went ahead and spent $150,000 on a useless B'l' experimental spray proqram.

As I, have said in this House before, they might . -.... as well, for wb&t effect it -• going to have on the budworm or for what infonaation we would gla.n froa th&t progrilil, they might as well have sprayed it out over the North Atlantic. The budworm was past the stage that the BT would have any effect and the minister was told that. The minister was told that. He had that. He was told it and he just ignored that information and he went aheAd and sprayed with an experimentAl spray prograa, BT.

Now, we are into 198~ and not only are we going to. go into - we are not going to have a spray progrillll this year, we are going to wait for a Royal Coaaisaion,but we are going to spend $500,000 on a B'l' progrillll. Now, if my 111e1110ry serves me right, the tot4l matacil program was to b&ve cost a couple of million dollars in 1978, of which the paper co.paniea were p&ying one third. Hr. Speaker, this BT spray progrillll brin-;rs up the question as to exactly what j:t is goUg- to serve. Is this the exper .iment&l spray program? Are we spraying so we can f 3553 ------· ----.- -·----- .--···.

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1352 NM - 1 MR. FLIGHT: determine the methods of application, the best method of application to be used or are we spraying to determine the effects of BT on the spruce budworm? And my information is, Mr.

Speaker, that the paper companies - having watched the massive pressure campaign they carried this past two or three months advocating a spray programme, they took the government on, they spent fortunes trying to indoctrinate and the_minister says - they scared the living day lights out of their employees with these full page ads about if we do not have a spray programme there will be no future in the forestry. The biggest pressure campaign ever carried on by industry in this Province was carried on by the paper companies.

And now I am told that the paper companies are not prepared to help pay the cost of that BT programme. AN HON. MEMBER: Are not? MR. FLIGHT: Are not. The minister can stand up now when he gets into debate and tell us whether or not - and what portion of the BT experimental spray programme the paper companies are prepared to fund? No~ we know they are going to help fund the - they would have helped fund the matacil programme, they did help fund the matacil programme in 1977.

The indication was that they were prepared to cost share a matacil programme in 1980, and the indication is that they will cost share a spray programme in 1981 or 1982 and 19831 that is if we use matacil, if we use a pesticide that they see as killing the budworm and extending the life of the tree.

But because the BT programme is simply an experimental programme,! understand that the paper companies, that the minister at this point in time has no assurances from the paper companies that they will help fund that programme and that is not in keeping with the kind of pressure tactics that they used last year when they came out and told us what great managers they were of our forestst and what the forests would mean to Newfoundland, and what the forests meant to their operation, and how far they are prepared to go 3554

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1352 GH-2 MR. FLIGHT: to guarantee a sustainable wood supply. The BT program may well have just as much to do with sustaining a wood supply, it may be the answer, and if those paper companies are sincere, if their only concern is maintaining a healthy forest that can sustain a wood supply for their mills, then why would they not fund the BT program? Where is the sincerity in saying we will help fund a matacil program or a spray program using fenitrothion or _matacil, but we are not interested in funding a program or helping to fund a program that uses BT? The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, I have no question the minister is having talks with the paper companies. The paper cOI!Ipanies may be considering helping fund the program but, at this point in time, the decision is made to spray, the Province is going to spend $500,000, and it is with no commit­ ment from the paper companies as to the amount of funding they are prepared to put into it. That to me, Mr. Speaker, points up the hypocrisy of the kind of a campaign that those paper companies waged in this past two or three months in demandi~g and pressuring for a total spray program. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would suspect.the minister will probably speak next in this debate. I want to ask the minister, one of the issues re the budworm situation is what we do with the 15 million cords of wood that is now dead and dying on the stump in this Province, 15 million cords of wood is now dead and dying. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have gone into and the total emphasis, and the minister knows this came as a result of the Committee, the total emphasis now is on an export market. We are going to start exporting wood out of this Province.

The idea will be to - the public relations job will be to try to tell the people of this Province that we are exporting budworm infested wood when the truth of the matter is we are not exporting budworm infested 100od. The truth of the matter is that the paper companies in Europe do not need budworm infested wood any more than the paper companies in Newfoundland. Although there may be a slight mix, we are exporting perfectly healthy wood, wood that can be used by the three paper companies in this Province, and I want to question the wisdom, Mr.

Speaker, of having the total emphasis of forestry put on an export market in this Province, 3555

' May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1352 GH-3 MR. FLIGHT: because vle are, and I want the minister to address himself to it, we are exporting, by and large, healthy wood, wood that could probably be diverted off to the sawmills to try to shoreup the sawmill industry in this Province. And, Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before talked about L~e terms of reference of the 3556

Hay 7,1980 Tape No. 1353 AH-1 MR. FLIGHT: committee. Now let me say , Mr. Speaker, I think I s~eak for everyone on this side of the House, we will support this resolution. We would have supported this resolution in 1977, and we would have supported it in 1978,and we support it now. Our question is whether it is a case of closing the barn door after the horse has gone. If this commission was required in 1979,it was required a lot more in 1978 1 and if the government of this Province,whose ~~agement of the forest resources in this Province is sincere,they would havehad it in 1978. Do not tell me, Mr.

Speaker, do not try to convince anyone in this Province that this is a result of the new minister coming into the department, that a new minister walks in - and I recognize the minister is doing a good job, he is trying his best, he is trying to relate to the forestry rroblems of this Province and it-1a qo1nq to take hilL awhile before he gets a handle on all aspects of forestry and I respect that, Qut do not tell me or do not try to tell the people of Newfoundland that a new minister walked in and said tc hill! c:abinet and to the Premier,GeDtla~&D."this is the way it is qoiDq to be, no more spraying, we are going to have a Royal Commission." That will not sell.

The minister will blow his credibility if he attempts to foist that kind of theory on the people of Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, what we have seen from forest management in this Province this past three years by that government is dispicable. It shows a total lack of sincerity about the health and the ability of our forests to survive, it shows a total lack of concern for the people working in the paper industries and the logging and the forestry related industries 1it shows a total and complete lack of indifference to the feelings of the people who opposed the spruce budworm.

We could hav~ gotten rid of all this frustration this past three years. All we would have needed was a Royal Commission made up of the caliber of people that the minister has appointed. So, Mr. Speaker, this may be going over the heads of the press of this Province or the general public of this Province 1but it is a fact, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact. 3557

·. May 7,1980 Tape No. 1353 AH-2 MR. FLIGHT: It is a fact, l-tr. Speaker. There is no question, 1-tr. Speaker, that the insincerity of the Department of Forestry in this Province this past three years is, Mr. Speaker, beyond forgiveness. There is no question. The way they have handled that spray programme, the way they tackled the budworm situation and what we are seeing here today , a resolution supporting a Royal Commission three years teo late. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr.

Speaker, as far as the terms of reference of the Royal Commission is concerned I was happy to see that when the Commission was set up the terms of reference were expanded to talk about all aspects of forestry in this Province because it is an undeniable fact, 1-tr. Speaker, if the spruce budworm does not wipe out the forests of this Province ,then the kind of forest management we are seeing will do it for them. It might take them a little longer. The budworm might do it a little quicker than the kind of forest management we are seeing now. We still have, Mr.

Speaker - I hear the minister day after da~ for the five years that I have been here,standing up and talking about the millions of dollars coming in from DREE programmes that are going to be spent to improve the forests. I hear him talking about the new relationship with the companies.I hear him talking &bout the land management tax. And , Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is no difference today. Walk on a site, go in where the wood is being cut and being transported and there is no difference today than there was three or four or five years ago.

The money we are spending and the rhetoric we are hearing from the ministers on what is going on in forestry does not relate to what is actually happening on the site. And so, Mr. Speaker, we dre still seeing a criminal waste of that resource. The harvesting methods are a waste, the harvesting methods are not conducive to regeneration, to natural regeneration, the topsoil is being torn off, washed out into the rivers, windfalls all over the place. There is no 3558

:'lay 7,1980 Tape No. 1353 AH-3 MR. FLIGHT : reforestation, Mr. Speaker. The transportation sy s tem , the floating syst:em , where · we use the ~ive.rs and lakes to get the wood to the mills, t:his is waste. The minister knows there is no di£ferer~e today in the amount of wood being wasted in ·~~ese forests than there was ten years a~o. Mr. Speaker . so I am glad to see, ·Mr. Speaker, that the t:erms of reference of the commission were expande~ to look at all aspects o£ logging in .t .his count1:y and I agree with tbe member for Step.henville (Mr .

Stagg) when he says that when that recommendation comes in and if they recognize, as I SUSFect they will, the dangers to the forests in this Province, the mismanagement practice<! both by the companies and condoned by the mini .ster and his department, the mismanagement of our forest resource condon ed by every minister ~o.•ho sa:t in the !1dnister' s seat this past four or five or six years have not 3559 -.

May 7, 1980 Tape 1354 EC - l MR. G. FLIGHT: changed. Nothing has chanqed. And, Mr. Speaker, I hope when the Royal Commission comes in with its rePOrt that it does indeed cover the broad spec~rum of forest management and it does indeed address itself to what we have to do, quite apart from battling the budworm to maintain a sustainable yield out of our forests for the next fifty or sixty or seventy years. I hope als _o, Mr. Speaker, that wa 1110ve very quickly in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission. 'l'hank you. ' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear 1 hear! MR.

SPEAKER (Butt) : 'l'he hon. the Minister of Lands and Forests. SOME liON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. C. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I do not ltnow really where to start in the education of the good member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. G. Flight). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. C. POWER: There seems to be such a gaping lack of knowledge about what is really taking place in the forests of NewfouncUand. MR. G. FLIGHT~ A new minister but the same mind. KR. C. POWER: Mr. Speaker 1 I suppose maybe first of all I will backtrack a. little bit and congratulate the member for Stephenville (Mr. F.

Stagg), who has shown such foresight in bringing in this private members motion because it does relate so much to so many persona in NewfouncUand. Aqain 1 Mr. Speaker 1 I have to CODRent on solllll of the facts put forth by the member for Windsor - Buch.;ms. Some of it is so inaccurate that it almost goes beyond belief that that 1118111ber could be in this Houae and be in thi.a Province for the last five years and be in politics, and not be mcre aware of what is actually taking place in the Province.

Aqain, as • politician, if you go back to the series and the scenario that is dr.m out by the member 1 saying that in 1977, we had an exper~ntal spray pro<;Jramme 1 in 1978, we had a full-scale spray pro<;JraJIIIIIB, in 1979 , we did not spray because we were aft aid to, because there vas an election in place - if that is carried on, then iD 1980, you should spray. 3560

May 7, 1980 Tape 1354 EC - 2 MR. C. POWER: Every politician knows that if you are going to do something distasteful as a government, you do it the year after you are elected . You do not postpone it for three years and do it the year before an election. And that l.S the practical nature of politics. Now, every auaber on the other side of the House knows that that happens, so therefore, if the member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. G.

Flight) - if that logic follows true, then we should be spraying just about every tree and seedling in Newfoundland this year, continue to do so next year and ,I suppose, in 1983 if we are politically expedient to the point that the member - maybe paranoia leads him to believe that we are, then maybe we will have a Royal Commission in 1983 or l984,just before an election,so we can gain favour with the Newfoundland public, Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we as a govarnJDI!nt, did not announce the Royal Commission for those reasons.

We announced the Royal Commission - and again at least the first part of the memea:' s logic is straightforward I in 1977, we had an experimental progrilllllle which proved to be somewhat effective in combatting the spruce budworm. In l978,we had a large scale spray progrilllliiiB using a chemi.cal insecticide. That also was effective in combatting and containing the spruce budworm for that given year. Aqain, there was still a. large amount of dispute in the Province as to whether we should be using chemical insecticides or not.

In 1979, in order to see if the spruce budvorm would rejuvenate itself when spraying was not taking place, we did not spray. In 1980, we, as a new government begin to realize that spraying is not a simple nature of spraying for one year, that the spruce budvorm problem does not solve itself by putting cb.emicalll out one year. And again, there are a lot of misconceptions in the minds of many people in Newfoundland that spraying kills off all the budworms and if you scray enough of forest and if you put enough chemical on it, you are going to kill off all the budwocns and therefore your problem is solved.

In effect, it is not possible for that to happen. 'lhe dosages that you would have to spray for the budworm - you would have to spray so often that it would then become really a high hazard to all types of animal life incl.uding human life and that could not be done. 3561

May 7, 1980 Tape 1354 EC- 3 MR. C. POWER: Therefore, the most you can do by spraying an ounce and a half of matacil or some other chemical on an acre of forest is to contain the spruce budworm for that given year. All you do is keep the forest alive for one more year. You do not kill the budworm, you do not solve the budworm problem. Anyone who is familiar with the problem, as the member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. G.

Flight) obviously is, the only long-term solution to the SPruce budworm is that hopefully we will get the same type of weather conditions which are usually co1111110n in Newfoundland - and the spruce budworm has been in Newfoundland for some considerable amount of time - but for the last seven or eight years the weather conditions in the Spring have not been just right for getting rid of the spruce budworm, and the opposite has been taking place, that by getting early Springs and remaining fairly warm, the spruce budworm has been allowed to reach epidemic p:r:oportions. Again, Mr.

Speaker, it is important for us , as a government, and for members of the House of Assembly to realize that the budwo:r:m infestation is an extremely severe one, that this year they are talking about an extra half million acres being infested by spruce budworm. We have already lost sixteen mill.ion cords of wood th:r:ough the spruce budworm epidemic.

If you take into account that we in our sawmilling and pulp and paper industry in the P:r:ovince are only using about a million cords a year, and we have lost sixteen million cords, you are talking about ac~ually sixteen years supply of wood of a total inventory of somewhere in the area - economic wood available - of ninety million cords on the Island part of the P:r:ovince. 3562

May 7, 1980 Tape NO. 135 5 SD - 1 MR.. C. POWER: So, Mr. Spa alter, do not let it be 1 because we have annolli!ced a Royal Commisston,then~ assumed by many people that the budworm infestation is that one that is quite serious and one that is causing severe economic havoc with particularly these two large pulp and paper companies. But again, Mr. Spealter, there are many things also that have to be taken into account, you know. The member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. G.

Flight) mentions the fact of whether we should get involved in a refenndum and in a referendum you would probably only get 50 per cent on your side because only the people who actually make a living from the forests would vote in favour of spraying. But many residents of Newfoundland have got to realize that our Province without a forest is not the Province that we now have. Not only the people who work in Corner Brook, in Grand Falls and the .people who are directly related to the logging and woods operation are persons who malta a living fran the forests.

We have many people involved in 'idrldlife, we have many people involved in parks and recreation, we have many people who malte a living either directly Of indirectly fr011. the forest and the forest is a very important part of every Newfoundlander's life. Although you may live in St. John's or live 'in Corner Brook 1itself,and not necessarily work in a mill, the forests still play a very important

part in all. c.£ our lives and it is important to keep that in mind, that it was. not just the commercial aspect of the fozast we · wen talking about wl)en we looked at a PDyal Commission as it relates to chemical insecticides and forest management, it was the many other things that are involved not just the commercial side •.

In announcing the Royal Commission there is an important criteria that takes place that we, as a ~rlllllent .'!fant to consider in 1979 and 1980 that is different, that by baing open and abow-board, by !;Iaing a government that is not interested in the year after an election in deceiving the public into thinking that a one year spray peeqr- is sufficient, realizing, in fact 1 that you haw got to have a long-term spray pzeqramme,and again realizing that most of the information that we haw as a govez:naent relates to short-term 3563

May 71 1980 Tape NO. 1355 SD - 2 MR. C. POWER: effects, information, by t:he way, which could have been used by a Cabinet of 1978 to make a decision for one year which would not have been callous 1 would not haw been uncaring of the Newfoundland public but a decision which would have .been made based upon the short·term information that they had and the facts that a short-term progra11111e would not sewrely handicap or affect either the wildlife in the Province or the health of our people. Again we in Newfoundland are taking a long-term approach to government problems particularly with resource development.

If we are going to spray our forests it has got to be done as long as the budworm is there . at the level that it is now and it is that long-term nature and the subsequent health problems that may ensue that we as a government have got to evaluate before we get involved in a new proqrllllllll! as opposed to just, I suppose, being willing to go out and spray. And another really important condition and an ,attitude of this government, maybe more so than any other gove:nuaent that we have had in Newfoundland since Confederation, is the fact that we do particu1arly appreciate and pay attention to the public input.

In the case of the spray proqr.-s, particularly in 1978 and 1977, where there was so 111uch public.

I agppose 1 controversy about a subject that lots of' persons are not fully vezsed on factually -lots of persons ------ .. have their emotional ~ide where they have chosen to be for or against spraying for emotional reasons but how many persons actually know in the Province the level of infestation 'f How many persons actually know how many people wodt in the sawlllilling part of our indust:ries7 ltow many people in the P:r:Ovince know what effect it will have on the lllills in Grand Falls, eorner Bzeok or Stephenville. if you have a certain level of infestation~ so one of the main goals of the Raya:L Commission is not going to be, Mr.

Speaker, just to go out and go around the Province and pass out, I suppose, their decision to the public of Newfoundland but it is to go out and receive infor~~~ation, advice and opinion; fran the Newfoundland public and on the other hand 1 and equally so 1 3564

May 7, l980 Tape No. 1355 so - 3 MR. C. POWER: to Dlake available to all of the residents of all of Newfoundland the info:r111ation that we have as it relates to the spruce budwoDJ. problem and. of course, the pesticide add the mata.eil, fenitrothion, bhem.ic:als that we have and, of course, the other types for c:cntrolling the forests. Mr.

Speaker, there are so many misconceptions when it comes to the spruce budworm problem. ~ have so many people who axe praainent Newfoundlanders and very well ve:r:sed i,n their own professions who seem to think that simply by forest manaqement cmd by refo:r:estation you can solve the spruce budwonn problem. That, in fact, is not true. In fact the opposite is true, Mr. Spealc!r, that if we as a government,as we are this year planting 1.5 Dlillion seedlings, nezt year­ ' MR. FLIGHT: MR. C.

POWER: Where, where? - that we. have planted all over Newfoundland both on Crow~~ land and on company holdings foz: tha benefit of all Newfoandlanders. MR. FLIGHT: Will you identify the company holdings? MR. C. POWER: They will be plcmted, some on company holdings, some on crown lands. but for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders just not f~ thA benefit Qf the c:oapanies • • MR. FLIGHT: You are not doing ~ on company holdings. MR. C. POWER: The simple fact of it all, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a very active reforestation prcgr-.

Next year we will have close to 6 million seedlings but do not let anyone deceive the public: of Newfoundland into thinkilaq that silllply by reforestinq you do not have to spray 1 ~uld an insect 3565

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1356 DW - 1 MR. C. POWER: approach those trees ten or fifteen or twenty years down the road.

The opposite is, in fact, true, that if there is a certain amount of logic spraying what now would be a virgin forest , a natural forest that has grown on its own without any investments from paper companies or government,that if we then go in as a government or as companies and spend thousands of dol~ars in growing, farming an acre of forest and if fifteen years down the road that piece of forest is attacked by an insect,then there is much more pressure on the companies or government to spray because then you are protecting an investment, dollars that you have put in, dollars that you possibly could have put into some other part of your operation.

So those persons in the Province who like to believe and like to say that simply by better management, simply by re-forestation you can solve all of the forestry problems and,therefore,you do not have to use chemical insecticides, are not really looking at the total forestry picture 1 they are looking at a certain aspect of forestry which has to be improved. I fully agree with the for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) MR. G. FLIGHT: MR. C.

POWER: (inaudible) commission on (inaudible) Well, I am just saying that I fully agree with the member when he says in his speech that he is glad that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission are expanded so that you look not just at forest protection, that you just do not look at spray programme for spruce budworm hut you look a~ all types of insecticides, all types of insects and you also look at the total management of the forest.

Because I admit, as I think most of- maybe my colleague.here, the previous Minister of Forestry and,most other persons in Newfoundland 1 that we in Newfoundland have taken for granted too long the fact that our forest ~s going to be there on its own, that 3566 '

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1356 ow - 2 MR. C. POWER: it does not need man's help and encouragement to grow and be productive, that because sixty or seventy years ago when our pulp and paper opera- tions began there was so much forest in Newfound- land, much, as someone ~entioned at the committee meeting last night 1 as the way persons treated our fishery twenty or thirty years ago. There was so much of it tbere you did not have to develop it, you did not have to conserve it, you did not have to take care of it, that it would always be there.

But ten or twelve years ago many fishermen and people involved in the fishery in Newfoundland began to realize that simply because you have an abundance of a resource at a certain stage in history 1 that if you do not care for it and manage it it will not always be there. The same is true with the forests as the member stat~d in his words earlier 'That we have to get more actively involved in forest management'. Now,God forbid that anyone, Mr.

Speaker, is this Province should say that over the last five years we have not significantly improved the approach of the Newfoundland Government to be indirectly involved in !~r! _~t -_m _~~<lC!ement. MR. G. FLIGHT: ~t is not very obvious. MR. C. POWER: Obvious. It was three weeks that we reclaimed from Bowater Holdings 1.5 million acres of forest land that was given to them,or rights that they had 1 because they were not managing, because they - - -- - - -.--~-==~-·..:....__ were not utilizing, them.

They have now reverted back to the Crown, back to all of the persons of all of Newfoundland for the benefit of Newfoundlanders that w.e in that Land, Manage- ment and Forestation Act are making sure that if lands are leased out or licensed out to the companies that they have to make full use of them. 3567

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1356 DW - 3 11R. C. POWER: Again, Mr. Speaker, when it comes down ~to what do we do now with the 15.9 million cords of forest that have been destroyed or that are dead and dying from the spruce budworm? If you listen to the member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) you would almost be inclined to say that it is better for the Province of Newfou~dland to let it rot on the stump and not export it. M'R. G. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) MR. C. POWER: Well, all I am saying is that we are trying to develop an export market for that damaged wood.

Now, I kno~ as the member has said, that the wood that is going out of this Province now in an export market is healthy wood. It is wood that is going out in the Happy Valley - '· Goose Bay area, in the Lewisporte area and the Bay d' Espoir area. Well 1some out in Bay d' Espoir is also damaged. But it is primarily healthy wood which we are shippi~g out of this .. Province to a pulp and paper mill in Scandinavi~ or some part of Europe which in turn will take pulp and put it into competition with the pulp and paper that is coming out of Corner Brook and Grand Falls. MR. G. FLIGHT: MR. C.

P0WER: ----- -- -.. - Do _y?u think that is a qood idea? No, it is not a good idea -------' but it certainly is a good idea, Mr. Speaker, that if we have sixteen million cords of wood that is dead and dying, if we can get it into a mi~ into the European maEket, if we can get rid of seven or eight million cords of rotting wood which is going to serve no other purpose in Newfoundland othex than to be fertilizer for the most part for the forest 1 then if we can get that into the European market; if we can sell it, it has a value 1 but only a value in that it creates jobs in Newfoundland, Mr.

Speaker, that it makes some of our communities that much more economically viable, that it gives a certain amount of economic stability to communities which now may find themselves in difficult times because of 3568

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1356 DW - 4 MR. C. POWER: a shortage of saw logs or a shortage of pulpwood in their own given area. Now, Mr. Speaker, nob~dy in Newfoundland can deny the fact that that is not something that our government should pursue with the greatest of vigor as we are doing. and as-I think the Happy Valley- Goose Bay Developaan1;.

Corporation are going to Norway this weekend a:rid _!., __::_,_ ______ -- - - --- we have some people from Scandinavia coming to New~g~ndland ___ _ -- --· .----~ -- - .. at the end of May-and as a delegation from Newfoundland will actively try and pursue in Europe some time during the month.of June. If that can create employment in Newfoundland, if it can get rid of a product which is going to rot,then certainly we as a department are doing our 3569

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1357 GH-1 MR. POWER: duty for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders. Again, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the BT spray program for this year, why are we spraying, how much are we spraying, and how much involvement are the paper companies going to have? There is absolutely no question in the minds of anybody in Newfoundland who understands anything about forestry that the paper companies, for a matter of economics, would prefer chemical sprays. They are cheaper to buy, they are easier to apply, and they can prove to be very effective. In the BT program this year we are going to be spraying, Mr.

Speaker, just in excess of 40,000 acres. The total cost of that BT spray program, one part of which is experimental that we want to conclusively prove, and I also admit that last year's spray program was not conclusive, that it did not prove what it was intended to prove, and that there still are many question mar~s, both in the Province of Nova Scotia, where they are spraying 80,000 acres, where they are spraying 40,000 acres with BT in New Brunswick, that there still are many question marks about bacteriological control of insects.

Again, Mr. _Sp~er, in this Province we are spraying 40,000 acres; about 20,000 will be an experiment, and ~20,000 will be primarily to protect a silviculture treated area of our forest, a part of our forest that we have planted, that we have thinned, that we have farmed in the sense of trying to make it be productive and give us a high yield, that we simply, Mr. Speaker, are going to spray that part of the forest this year and one part of that 40,000 acres is going to be an experiment. The amount of commitment that we have: from Grand Falls,Abitibi-Price have agreed to pay their one-third of the cost of $600,000.

The company in Corner Brook has agreed to pay a proportion of the cost, although they have not finalized exactly what that cost would be. They had agreed earlier on to pay one-third of a 15,000 acre program and now that we have extended it to 40,000 acres to cover our silviculture, they are reassessing how much money they are going to put into the program. Simply, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that for the first time in Newfoundland history, the paper 3570

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1357 GH-2 MR. POWER: companies are being forced, by government, to take a serious look, not only at reforestation, but at the protection of our forest from a government point of view and a management point of view. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that last year the two pulp and paper companies, both in Grand Falls and in Corner Brook, had the highest production of newsprint ever. MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) high profits. MR.

POWER: Yes, and extremely high profits as we discussed last night at the Committee meetings, partially due and maybe to a large degree due because of the exchange rates in the Canadian dollar and because they ~ell on the American market primarily. MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) back into the Province? MR. POWER: A large amount of it is being put in. For instance, one of the things that the spruce budworm has done to Newfoundlanders, it has put a great degree of pressure on our inventory.

If you are going to increase production, then I suppose it would be logical to think that you have to increase your raw material supply. That is not necessarily true, Mr.

Speaker, and some of the new TMP machines in Corner Brook and some of the new renovations they are making to the Grand Falls mill actually get a much higher yield, so that if it takes a cord of wood to produce a certain amount of paper, now you can get a much higher percentage of paper from the same cord of wood by using a different process and a different machine, which really means that even though you may increase your tonnage going out of the mill you do not necessarily have to increase your cords of wood coming in. And that is an improvement, Mr.

Speaker, which is going to be ongoing for the next several years'with the new improvements that are being made to the two mills. We are now, as we discussed last night at Committee, getting involved with things like cable logging operations that make wood available to the mills now, which was not accessible or economic some years ago, somewhat experimental but, again, it is getting a certain amount of inventory which economically was lost to the Province which is now getting back in the economic system. 3571

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1357 GH-3 MR. POWER: Again, another very important part, especially for the members for Labrador particularly, the Great Northern Peninsula and Bonavista Peninsula, is that there is large

section of the Province that now has woo0 that is now considered uneconomic, the Great Northern Peninsula wood, some wood on the Bonavista Peninsula. All the wood in Labrador is considered to be uneconomic to the mills in Grand Falls, Stephenville and Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, who is to say that ten years down the road or five years down the roa~with the Canadian exchange rates, that that wood will not be available to those mills, will not be economically able to be used? MR. FLIGHT: Why is it uneconomical for Grand Falls but economical (inaudible).

Why is Labrador wood uneconomical to the mill in Grand Falls or Corner Brook but economical to a mill in Europe? It is black spruce - MR. POWER: MR. FLIGHT: pulp·-MR. POWER: MR. FLIGh"'l': MR. POWER: Okay. -it is the best fiber that is known for Yes. - so why is it uneconomical? Primarily because, if you remember last night at our Estimates Committee when we went through che advantages that the Newfoundland pulp and paper industry has as compared with . dis­ advantages and, in

summary, the advantage that we have is that we have a certain fiber of wood in Newfoundland which happens to be better than the mass produced · and larger yield of wood that they have in the Southern States, particularly, but one of the important considerations that we have - the biggest disadvantage we have in Newfoundland as a pulp and paper industry in competing in world markets is our transportation cost of our finished product.

If you add to that transportation cost of your finished product and also the extremely high transportation cost for raw material, then your ability to compete in world markets is severely reduced. If you take a Scandinavian paper .mill now or a French paper mill, that can bring wood from Labrador with 3572

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1357 GH-4 MR. POWER: a high raw material transp~rtation cost, but with no finished product transportation cost, they can still sell their finished product at the other end and be just as well off. MR. FLIGHT: That defies logic. 3573

May 7, 1980 Tape 1358 IB-1 MR. POWER: It may defy logic, Mr. Speaker, to the member but it certainly does not defy economics to anyone who understands what is happening in the world pulp and paper industry. And that certainly is the economics of it. It is a logic which again works in world economics. It works in Grand Falls and it works in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, in

summary all I can say is that the Royal Commission, we have been extremely fortunate as a Province to get the three persons we have on that Royal Commission. I only hope that all members of ~~s han. House and all citizens of the Province take full advantage of the Royal Commission both by giving their input to the Royal Commission and by receiving as much information as the Royal Commission might have for them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ' SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (BUTT) : The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: ~ell, Mr.

Speaker, as was indicated by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-Bucr~ns (Mr. Flight) we will be supporting this particular resolution. And, Mr. Speaker, I have always been inclined to support committees and royal commissions that have been established to look into some element of the Newfoundland society or the economy provided, of course, that after the study or after the report from the committee or whatever has been presented to government that we see action. That is what is import~,t, Mr. Speaker.

Because a royal commission or a committee was set up and established in one particular area a couple of years ago does not mean that we do not need a royal commission again or a committee to look into the various aspects of that parti~lar area. The point of the matter is that we live in a complex society and a society that is marked by change which necessitates and requires that we do from time to time look into whatever changes may be taking place in a certain industry, what environmental changes there might be.

So from time to time it certainly becomes necessary to have a general look, to have an overall look at some aspects of the economy or the environment or whatever it might be. So in principle I certainly agree with setting up this particularcommission. 3574

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1358 IB-2 MR. LUSH: Indeed we have gone on record in this particular situation of certainly condemning a spray programme. And all of us on this side of the House have spoken rather eloquently to that particular subject and have certainly voiced in a strong way our stand in that matter and a stand that was certainly against spraying the forests. So, Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the resolution and support the establishing and the setting up of a Royal Commission. But, Mr.

Speaker, I caution the government against having a royal commission established,the report of which will be stacked in somebody's office, stacked on some shelves to collect dust,which has happened in the past to so many royal commissions. As I have stated before 1 I certainly am a believer in setting up committees, be they of the royal commission nature or whatever, to look into some particular aspect of the economy or some particular area of the Province.

But the point that is important is that there would be action taken with respect to the recommendatioas of that particular committee or of a particular royal commission, task force, whatever the nature of the committee. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with one of the major industries of this Province, an industry that has contributed immensely to our economy, an industry that has given thousands and thousands ' of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a livelihood and a good livelihood. And, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that over the years we have neglected the forests to the extent that we have.

It is a travesty the way that we have neglected this very important industry, this majur industry, this tremendous natural resource that we have, that we have neglected it to the extent that we have and it is putting us in great ~ trouble today. And if we do not take hold of the thing, if 3575

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1359 so - 1 MR. T. LUSH we do not put a handle on it, if we do not get down to brass tacks, then we are goin9 to find ourselves in deep, deep trouble with respect to this very, very substantia1 and important resource. And, Mr. Speaker, one wonders though whether one . has to establish a Royal COmmission to look into the many areas of ne9lect. ~. I have listened with great attenticrf,and with g~at concern to what the minister was saying and I was delighted 'to hear, for example, that the government ha'YI!I embar:lced upon a reforestation pm9ramme, a manaliJ81118nt prQ9r-.And done wonders,Mr.

Speaker, why this again was not an area that we had gotten into m&ny ,aany, years ilgo, &nd I do not mean to be partisan in this respect, Mr. Speaker, that previous goveEnments have ne9lected the forest and this government just carried on the Slllll8 way. .lind hopefully, it is not too late to correct the situation.

We will probably be depri"led for a little while and prcbably suffer for a little while but the point of the matter is that we have ne9lected our forests and if the minister in his ealiJBmess and enthusiasm can get down to business and see that from hen on in that we do have an effective forest management progri11111118. Granted it might not cure all the ills that beset the forest:ey ric;ht now bat, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that a proper, geed forest management pro9ramme will impreve the situation immensely.

Whether it will eliminate the spruce budwam or other insects that infest our forest, we do not know. them is sc:ae question. The minister says that forest management is not the cure .all, it mic;ht not be, howe'ftr, there are people that would disagree, there are people who believe that an effective forest manaqement progr- is the bast cure. But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker,as lonq 1!8 - are going to elllbark on a fore11t lllllll&98JIIBnt proqr- ~~ - - things will impmve and certainly it will make the forest a9ain, or keep it a viable industry in this Province. Mr.

Speaker, the minister aluded to again all of the work from the point of vi- of reforestation that the go'ftznment was about to Blllbark upon. And it is s~ that we ha'le not started before. We have allowed natun just to take its course, .. Mr. 3576

May 7, 1980 Tape No. 1359 so - 2 MR. T. LUSH: Speake:r, and we have not assisted in any way at all. And we have allowed people to c:11t indisc:riminately- not to elean up, to leave the forest in a mess, we have allowed that to happen. We have allowed it with the companies, we have allowed it with the individual and small cont:ractors and we a.re still ill;low~ng it. MR. FLIGHT: we have abetted it. MR. T. WSH: And it timer M:r. Speake:r, that