VOL. 2 NO. 55 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 10:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1983

November 10, 1983 Tape 2925 EC - 1 The House met at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SIMNS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: Mr. Soeaker, as the minister responsible for the 400th Anniversary celebrations, I want to report to this House now in sort of a concluding manner as a result of the celebrations period being officially concluded.

I think that now that the major events of the Anniversary celebrations are over, it might be appropriate to examine some of the benefits that have been gained by our Province this year - MR. NEARY: You are trying to justify the rioney you have spent. MR. SIMMS: - contrary to the one critic that we have had in this Province during the entire year.

Province-wide, hundreds of individuals, organizations and communities embarked upon many projects investigating their own heritage and culture, and I think that this perhaps is the most valuable legacy of our 4 00th Anniversary - an awareness on a community as well as a provincial level,of the history and development of the past 400 years. Across the Province, historical pageants were performed, local histories compiled and written, and the federal/provincial funding enabled every resident of this Province to take advantage of this unique opportunity to research his or her own heritage and culture. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: H2ar, hear 6252

November 10, 1983 Tape 2925 EC - 2 MR. SIMMS: Cultural and artistic benefits, however, have not been the only legacy. One of the obvious impacts of the celebrations which my colleague, the Minister for Tourism has stated, has been on the tourism industry which, as my colleagues are no doubt aware, has improved significantly over the last year as a result of the 400th Anniversary stimulation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SIMMS: There is no doubt that the promotional tours mounted by the Department of Development, as well as their advertising campaign attracted wide attention to our special celebrations.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have newspaper clippings here from every major newspaper across the country, promoting the 400th Anniversary celebrations. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SIMMS: As an example, Mr. Speaker, during the period April to August, automobile traffic alone to the Province increased 5.4 per cent over last year, giving rise to an increased expenditure by tourists of some $20.3 million. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SIMMS: That, Mr.

Speaker, is a favourable return, in my opinion, considering the cost to my department to organize these celebrations was not $1 million, as our most famous critic in the Province often states, usually without the facts, as normal, losing all his credibility. MR. NEARY: How much was it then? How much? MR. SIMMS: It cost this department $400,000 including the cost of the Royal Visit. So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this has been a tremendous return. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

November 10, 1983 Tape 2925 EC - 3 MR. SIMMS: The official opening of the celebrations in June by His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales gave a great deal of impetus to our festivities and provided a high level of international media coverage which has been sustained throughout the Summer. MR. NEARY: They were coming anyway. MR. SIMMS: They were not coming anyway, Mr. Speaker. As usual, the Leader of the Opposition is out of touch, out of whack and out of everything e1se SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Russell) Order, please Order, please MR.

SIMMS: Visitors from England, including members of the Gilbert family, the Lord Mayor of Plymouth and other officials from the county of Devon, provided another highlight in August, and it was gratifying that so many other distinguished visitors came to Newfoundland at that time. His Excellency the Governor General of Canada 62 Jr- 4 a

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2926 MJ - 1 MR. SIMMS: also honoured the Province by a visit during which he attended the traditional music festival and the St. John's Regatta, as well as the opening of Mrs. Gilbert's exhibition of paintings in Corner Brook. Many Newfoundland artists, Mr. Speaker, have benefited from the 400th Anniversary by way of grants enabling them to develop ideas and programmes which would not otherwise have been possible.

Visual work by Newfoundland artists is currently on tour to the smaller communities around the Province, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Crafts Development Association is assembling a collection of crafts for future tours. As far as the preforming arts are concerned, funds were made available to the many artists in the Province to pursue their own specific interests. Many touring shows were made possible through federal/provincial funding and these tours covered such areas of the Province as Coastal Labrador, the Strait area, the Southern Shore, the South Coast and the Northern Peninsula.

These tours, particularly those involving schools, are still ongoing. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that two of the major touring events, the Canadian Heritage Festival and the International Traditional Music Festival, were both an enormous success, and enabled many parts of the Province to enjoy unique performances.

Other successful tours have been mounted by the Memorial tJniversity Honours Youth Band and the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Orchestra, which have not only I provided many communities in the Province opportunities to enjoy these performances, but has also given these young musicians a chance to perform in public and to see for themselves other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is quite evident that the 6255

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2926 MJ - 2 MR. SIMMS: economic stimulation to the arts has been significant, and as well, most of the funding made available has remained in our Province. When I look back on this year, Mr. Speaker, and the varied programme of events which has taken place, I can see that the celebrations have been the result of tremendous co-operation on the part of many people. My greatest admiration has been for the 400th Anniversary Celebrations Committee itself, some forty people from the general public, which showed such vision and ingenuity in devising a very unique programme of events.

IDrojects such as the visit to Newfoundland of a flotilla of yachts from Ontario, the launching of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert postage stamp and the displays by the Canadian Forces precision flying and parachute teams have required much advance planning and painstaking attention to detail. I am sure that most people will agree, with one possible exception, that the celebrations have been an enormous success and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking my colleagues in this House of Assembly for their continued support and co-operation-colleagues on both sides of the Hcuse I might add, Mr.

Speaker, with one significant exception as usual - the 400th anniversary Committee for their hard work and vision, the RCMP and the Canadian Forces for their colourful additions to our celebrations, the federal Department of Secretary of State, who provided more funding than we did towards these celebrations incidentally, the federal Liberal Government, and, in particular, the general public whose enthusiasm and generous hospitality to our visitors have made this year such an outstanding Success. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we start planning for the 500th Anniversary of the discovery 6256

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2926 MJ - 3 MR. SIMMS: of Newfoundland by John Cabot, and perhaps we can dress up the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) in that particular one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE?KER (Russell) : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to respond to this so-called Ministerial Statement. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the rules of this House as they apply to Ministerial Statements,there is no trouble to see who abuses the rules.

Here you have a minister trying to justify fiddling while Newfoundland burns, while Newfoundland goes down the economic tube. Mr. Speaker, what a gigantic bluff. And, Mr. Speaker, we have some questions that we will be asking about the cost of these celebrations and we will have some questions to go on the Order Paper in connection with these celebrations. We hope, Mr. Speaker, to get the true cost, because the figure that the hon. gentleman just flung across the House is not the true cost of these celebrations. MR. SIMNS: How do you know? MR. NEARY: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I know.

And we want to get the cost of sending this monkey, the fellow they had dressed up in the monkey suit, back and forth across the Atlantic. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth on a point of order. MR. SIMMS: To answer that question by the Leader of the Opposition, those funds were provided by 6257

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2926 MJ - 4 MR. SIMMS: the federal Liberal Government to provide employment for students to travel around the Province to participate in certain activities. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 6255

November 10, 1983 Tape 2927 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder if that crowd up there are not as bad as that crowd across the House. The silly, foolish things that they do: The number one priority in this Province in the last year was throwing cocktail parties, unveiling commemorative stamps, and a little handbook. I went to some of these receptions, Mr. Speaker, out of curiosity more than anything else, and what I saw was a handful of prominent Tories at every reception, every cocktail party over and over again. Mr. Speaker, the ordinary people in this Province completely ignored - MR.

SIMMS: Boy, do not be so negative. MR. NEARY: - completely ignored the hon. gentleman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the question what did this do for the unemployed in this Province? What did it do about the high taxes What did it do about the high cost of living? What did it do about hospital beds when you have people who need treatment cannot get into hospital? The number one priority is to go out and celebrate. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Royal couple would have come to Newfoundland anyway.

They did not go to Nova Scotia because of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert celebrations in Newfoundland, or they did not go to Western Canada because of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert celebrations in Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, what a gigantic bluff: What a gigantic bluff And if the hon. gentleman wants to take over the leadership of that party, Mr. Speaker, he will have to come up with something a little more substantial than that, something a little more meaningful to the ordinary people of this Province than going on with these foolish, silly, celebrations - MR. SIMMS: Sit down boy: 6259

November 10, 1983 Tape 2927 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: - the administration celebrating while the rest of the Province are suffering and struggling for survival. Mr. Speaker, I say shame, shame on the hon. gentleman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). Mr. Speaker, the House opened this morning at 10:00 and according to how feisty it has gotten already I am glad it did not open at 7:00 this morning.

But I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries - he is coming back into the House - on the resource-short plant programme. In 1977, as everybody will recall, the country of Canada under the Liberal Government established the 200 mile limit. And the objective, over a period of time,was to get as many foreign fishing boats outside the 200 mile limit,and indeed outside of Canadian waters altogether, outside of the Continental Shelf. Now, Mr. Speaker, that has not been accomplished so far because of traditional rights and trading rights and so on. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is a danger under 6 J

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2928 SD - 1 MR. TULK: The RSP programme - the Resource Short Plant programme - that indeed we may be opening the door again to foreign vessels coming inside of that 200-mile zone to catch our fish? I am referring to an announcement that the minister made I believe the other day,both in the House and outside the House / that he is contemplanting bringing back foreign bottoms, as he now calls it - AN HON. MEMBER: What is that? MR. TULK: They are boats, Mr. Speaker -to deliver fish to inshore plants.

I would like to ask the minister this morning is that kind of move going to be a principle and a trademark of the Peckford administration? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all the concept or the idea of having foreign vessels in our waters and catching fish by foreign fleets and taking it back to the respective foreign countries to be processed is a completely different concept from having foreign vessels catch fish and having it landed to be processed here in our own country and here in Newfoundland. It is a different concept all together.

The only reason why, at the present time, we are proposing that foreign vessels or foreign bottoms be used to land the fish or catch the fish is because unfortunately at the present time the owners of the Canadian fleets are unable to determine or to provide the independent companies, who own these plants without trawlers to give them a firm,determined cost of harvestino oer pound.

Because of that the independents just cannot say ys on a blanket approach to the companies like National Sea and Nickerson and Fishery Products and the Lakes , who are still there until the restructuring has been put in place. 'You go out and use your vessels, catch the fish, bring it in but we will determine at some later date what the cost is going to be per pound of that fish you catch for us. And that is the 6261

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2928 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: whole problem at the present time. It is onlyas a temporary measure that we are saying to Mr.

De Bane in Ottawa, 'Give the right to the independent companies to engage foreign vessels' - we know they are available and are available right now; in fact, today they are waiting,in ports like Halifax in particular ,and they are waiting off our Coast to be engaged to catch part of that resoure-short plant quota , which is there,not a pound caught to date this year of 10,000 tons total-'to catch part of that 10,000 tons and have it landed to be processed in those plants without traw1ers.

And we are saying that because, as I said earlier, the Canadian companies who own the Canadian fleet are unable to co-operate sufficiently even to the point of giving a cost per pound to the independent companies as to what it would cost to use their trawlers to land that fish. I want to stress again that this government is very adamantly opposed to foreign vessels and foreign fleets taking fish from our waters to foreign countries to be processed when we have fish plants here crying out for raw material, crying out for fish to be processed, demanding it and pleading for it.

We are always opposed to that and we are now. But at this present time, to break the stalemate and to get fish to our plants to supply jobs for Newfoundlanders at a time of the year when there is no fish for them, we are supporting and made a proposal to the federal minister last week as a temporary measure to give permission to the independents to engage foreign vessels to catch the fish at a certain price, supply the fish to the plants in Newfoundland,and have it procesd this Fall and part of the Winter. MR. TULK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. 622

November 10, 1983 Tape 2929 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Two points about the minister's answer; i would like to point out to him that oftentires as, I am sure he is aware, temporary very quickly becomes permanent. The other thing is that I know full well the difference between coming and catching fish and bringing it back to another country to be processed,or processed and then taken back to another country by the same boat, as opposed to landing it. But I would like to ask him, Mr.

Speaker, are there any plants in Newfoundland at the present time that are using foreign vessels to land fish in this Province right now? Are there any plants in this Province using foreign vessels? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, yes, there is at least one operation that has been using foreign vessels and qettino fish from foreign vessels and that is in the St. Anthony plant. There have been foreign vessels supplying fish to that plant for the last number of months. It is the same kind of an operation, or arrangement, that was worked out for the St.

Lawrence plant in previous years. In that case Portuguese vessels were engaged, they caught the fish and landed it to be processed in St. Lawrence. These permits, or licences, were later transferred by the federal government to the right to land the fish and process it in St. Anthony. And to my knowledge, I am pretty sure I am correct in that, that is the only location in the Province where foreign vessels have been given the right to catch fish to land and be processed, in other words sold to the local companies. And we, this government, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his 6 J

November 10, 1933 Tape 2929 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: government, are very firm and adamant in the restructuring agreement that if we have got to use foreign vessels, we should never, never be totally dependent upon having to use foreign vessels to catch fish for our fish plants when we have a fleet - not a good fleet, there are many vessels need replacement.

That is the reason why in the restructuring agreement it is clearly specified that this new, so-called super company, will have to use their trawlers, make them available to the independent companies, Canadian vessels owned by the Newfoundland company, to catch the resource-short plant quota fish an have it landed for processing in the plants of the independent private companies here in Newfoundland. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for Foqo. MR. TULK: The minister has said that as far as he knows there is only one place in Newfoundland, namely St.

Anthony, I believe - MR. NEARY: And St. Lawrence. MR. TULK: No, the St. Lawrence licences were transferred to St. Anthony: Is that correct? MR. MORGAN: Yes. MR. TULK: - that legally have the right to land fish. I would like to ask him if there are any places where they are doing it perhaps illegally in this Province and do not have the right? I refer him to the Southern Shore, namely Bay Bulls, the O'Brien's. Is that possible? Mr.

Speaker, the minister also says that the difficulty now is the cost of Canadian bottoms, the cost of Canadian boats as opposed to foreign boats, to land fish for the resource-short plants, and we accept that, Mr. Speaker. And I think the proposal that he has made is that he would take 4,000 foreign, 4,000 Canadian and let - I do not know where the other two have gone - but he would 625 1

November 10, 1983 Tape 2929 NM - 3 MR. TULK: use those two, 4,000 foreign, and 4,000 Canadian, for vessels to land at resource-short plants. I would like to ask him, Mr. Speaker, before coming to that decision,if he indeed consulted with the Fishermen's Union in the Province? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of practice over the last three years we are in a continuing process of consultation, negotiation and discussion with the Fishermen's Union. There is hardly a week passes but I am in

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2930 ah-1 MR.MORGAN: discussion with Mr.Cashin, either by telephone or in meetings. We have a good liaison and a good working relationship. The Fishermen's Union is of the Opinion that there has got to be a firm, determined price for the Canadian vessels to supply to these plants where many of their workers, union members, are looking forward to employment. The union themselves last Summer engaged quite a number of foreign vessels, Mr.Speaker, which came to our waters to purchase fish directly from fishermen.

But many of these foreign vessels and foreign fleets demanded from the Government of Canada at the same time that they be given some fish stocks in order to do that, because they knew that our situation was rather desperate in the glut situation, where there is a large catch in a short period of the year, during the cod trap season, and we had to depend on foreign vessels to be able to buy directly from fishermen. The situation as it now is with regards to illegal activity, I would say that any foreign vessel landing without permits from the federal government would be illegal.

And the only operation I know of connected with Bay Bulls-you mentioned Bay Bulls Sea Products which recently had the misfortune of having its plant burnt - did have an operation that we call over-the-warf - MR.NEARY: No, over-the-side. MR.MORGAN: Not over-the-side,over- the-side is different. Over-the-side is where fishermen sell directly to the vessel. Over-the-wharf would be where the company would buy the fish from the fishermen and have it taken immediately aboard a foreign vessel. That kind of operation at Bay Bulls last Summer, wasapproved by the federal government of Canada.

In fact we had one at our own plant in Black 6236

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2930 ah-2 MR.MORGAN: Tickle,Labrador, where Nickerson was operating our plant for us. We had one there, the same type of operation, a foreign vessel at the wharf with freezing capacity on board,and they assisted in accomodating more market for fishermen because our plant could not accomodate all the fish being caught by the fishermen in the area. So these kind of operations are quite legal and proper. I know of no case in the Province where there areany foreign vessels catching fish and landing if for processing without the necessary licenses from the federal government. MR.TtJLK: Mr.

Speaker. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The hon.member for Fogo. MR.NEARY: You did not answer the question about the unions. MR.TULK: I thank the minister for that piece of information Let me ask him one other question. He did not answer the question on whether indeed he had consulted with the union on this particular proposal that he has put to the federal government.

But I think it is fair to say that one of the things that has been discovered is that the cost of Canadian vessels or Canadian bottoms to land this resource-short plant fish, if you want to call it that, is probably about 25 per cent higher than what it would be with foreign vessels. At least some people have made that statement. Could the minister explain to this House why that is the case? Is it labour costs? Is it the cost of fuel or just what is the reason behind the Canadian vessel cost being higher than for foreign vessels? MR.NEARY: We have the catching capabilities.

MR.TULK: We have the capabilities, certainly.

November 10, 1983 Tape 2931 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and a very pertinent one to what is happening at the present time. The argument is that the foreign vessels could land fish at a cost maybe seven to eight cents per pound less for the same type of product than Canadian vessels could land it. And the argument has been it is because of the relatively cheaper labour on these vessels; the cost of labour for the vessels is less than what it would be aboard the Canadian vessels. I am not willing to totally accept that.

That is the reason why, in the restructuring agreement, we pointed out that if it ever came to a point in the future where the independent companies disagreed with what the harvesting trawler companies were saying their cost was to harvest the fish, independent chartered accountants would be called in. They are saying they do not want to make a profit on harvesting fish for the independent private companies, they merely want to break even, have no losses either.

Well, I cannot accept in a blanket way and totally the argument that the only reason foreign vessels can land fish at less cost is because of the labour cost. Efficiency of operations is a key thing to look at. If the companies themselves cannot land fish less tha, say, thirty-two or thirty-three cents a pound, if that is their harvesting cost, I would say they are going to have a problem in becoming a viable operation. Because the independent plants claim they cannot pay that much for fish per pound and have it processed and then taken to the market for a profit at today's market prices.

So if the independents cannot do it, if they have to pay that much for their fish, I just cannot utJ

November 10, 1983 Tape 2931 EC 2 see how any of the trawler companies can make any money either. So I am not willing to accept that because there may be need for improvement in the efficiency of the harvesting sector of the industry.

And that is the reason why, in the restructuring bill and agreement, it specified that whenever it comes to a point that the independent companies will disagree with what the harvestina companies are saying under cost for harvesting per pound, that we will then establish an independent board of chartered accountants and that independent board will scrutinize and clearly determine how much it really costs per pound for Canadian vessels to go out and catch fish and land it in this Province. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

I would like for the minister again to answer the auestion of whether indeed he has consulted with the union on this particular case and whether they have agreed that he should take the proposal that I understand from him he has taken to Ottawa to the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) , that indeed they have accepted that proposal. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to bring a new question, if I could, to the minister to bring back the idea of foreign oinership of fish plants and indeed our fishery resource in this Province. Under the restructuring 6 .J

November 10, 1983 Tape 2932 P1K 1 MR. TULK: agreement it has been said, I think by the Federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane), that we have created the second largest fish company in the world, which controls harvestina and it controls tro- cessing and it controls marketing. Basically it controls the whole kit and caboodle in Newfoundland. Is the minister now saying, when he talks about the divestiture efforts that are going to be made to pass this company back to private enterprise, that he would sell part or all of that super company that is now being created to foreign interest? Is he now saying that, Mr.

Speaker? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, this government have never been opposed to foreign investment in any indistry in the Province. In fact, we have always been of the opinion and complained about the role of the Foreign Investment Review Agency that its very strict regulations and guidelines is discouraging to any potential foreign or offshore investors in coming to invest within Canada, let alone in the Atlantic region and here in Newfoundland.

We have been concerned about that and we are saying that these kinds of regulations have to be changed or FIRA itself completely wiped away. There has to be a total overall revamping of FIRA's regulations to attract and encourage offshore or foreign investment in our industries in Canada, and in rarticular, the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and here in Newfoundland. We have never been opposed to foreign in- vestment. At any time we welcome it and we encourage it. As for control of our industry, we never did say we want total control to be in the hands of foreign investors.

We would welcome foreign investment 6270

November 10, 1983 Tape 2932 PK - 2 MR. MORGAN: as long as it comes to a point where our local investors, either private or government - in the case of the super company it is going to be government - would have control.

Control would rest within Canada, control would, rest within Newfoundland if at all possible, but we would welcome foreign investment to be shareholders with us whether it would be West Germans, whether it would be the Russians, whether it would be the Portuguese, or U.S., or anyone else throughout the world who want to invest their dollars with us, we would welcome them because we think that private sector dollars are important to have in any industry. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. T'ULK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is obviously forgetting something, and I want to quote to him from his own speech on Tuesday. He said, and this is in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, 'Once that comPany is established" - referring to the super company - "stability is brought back in the industry and we are once more getting this operation of harvesting and processing and marketing from the deep-sea side of our industry on a viable footing.

Then we may be able to attract someone whether they be from West Germany, whether they be from Portugal, whether they be from the 'U.S., no matter where they are from, or our own Canadian investors, no matter where we find them we would like to see private sector dollars come into this new company." Mr. Speaker, we all want to see private sector dollars come into the fishing industry, we believe in private investment on this side as well. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that 6271

November 10, 1983 Tape 2932 P1< - 3 MR. TULK: there is something that he should be very careful of and that is that he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. Investment is in many cases control. And I would like to ask him how he can sit there and say that this super company could be brought out by a West German company, or indeed a Portuguese company, and that company would not essentially, under the present agreement, have control. I would also like to ask him if that is in keeping with the Premier's professed political foundation that Newfoundland's resources should be kept and run by Newfoundlanders? MR. NEARY: By Canadians. Right on. A good question. 6 27 2

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2933 MJ - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MP. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question in the last part of the last answer, that we want to have private sector dollars invested in the fishing industry and, whether it comes from offshore or foreign interest or from within Canada or within our own Province, we welcome it.

And if the hon. gentleman is to clearly interpret what all the restructuring is about, he should read very carefully the corporate structure as outlined in the bill, which is the agreement itself, with regards to the two divisions of the new company, where there would be a shareholder company or division and there would be an operating division. And our position is that we want to have different divisions even beneath that. We want a common services division, including marketing, and we want to have different divisions of harvesting and processing operations. I mentioned this in my speech a few days ago.

One division could be the company we now know as Fishery Products, one division could be the Lake Group and John Penny and Sons combined, and one further division could be the Nickerson operations in Newfoundland taking in North Atlantic Fisheries, Triton and possibly T.J. Hardy. Divesting ourselves of these individual divisions would still mean that we - in this case the two governments and the Bank of Nova Scotia - would have control. But the different divisions could be sold out to private sector dollars and the private sector dollars would be subject to the scrutiny of foreign investment through regulations.

As I said earlier, these regulations are now under FIRA. FIRA should carefully review these regulations to attract these kinds of private sector dollars which we feel are not available today in Canada. We have got to go out and try to attract foreign dollars 6273

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2933 MJ - 2 to be invested, not to have control, not to take over our industries, not to take over our resources, but to work with us in developing our resources and be partners with us in joint ventures. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister.

I am aware of the different divisions that are contained in the company,and It am also aware of who the major shareholder in that company is,and I am also aware of who controls the different shares in that company and it is, namely,the federal government and the Bank of Nova Scotia, particularly the federal government. The federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane)1 as a matter of facthas control. If you look at the complete structure of that company and the complete shareholdings and so on, the federal minister has the major control of that new restructured company. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to stand in this House and explain how, even if he sells a division or if he sells the whole of the company, if he sells the major part of that super company to the West Germans, I would like for him to stand in this House and tell us how the provincial government of this Province, the provincial Minister of Fisheries is then going to have control, not only over processing,but over harvesting and marketing of Newfoundland's fish as well? MR. NEARY: Good question. MR. TULK: Have we not indeed sold out?

Once that takes place, that divestiture procedure has gone through, have we not then sold out that company to foreign interest1 once again is not out fishery being controlled by foreign interests outside of 6274

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2933 MJ - 3 MR. TULK: Canada altogether? MR. NEARY: It is against everything the Premier have been preaching about for the last three or four years.

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2934 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the hon. gentleman today is going to take

part in debate on the restructuring, and I am glad he is asking these questions because he obviously misunderstands what is happening in the restructuring agreement. MR. TULK: You will see when we get to the debate. MR. MORGAN: Because, forgetting who the shareholders are for the time being, look at who is going to be running the company and the management and the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors will consist of eleven members: Five will be from the federal level, three from the Newfoundland Government, two from the Bank of Nova Scotia and the others are going to come from the union, when they take part, and the CEO, who has to be jointly agreed upon. Whoever the CEO is going to be heading up this new company will also be on the Board of Directors, to make a total of eleven. At no time will the federal government have control to do as it wants on the Board of Directors and in running this company. We are not passing over control to the federal government. SOME I-ION.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen are living with their heads in the sand, because up until now we had no say whatsoever on the harvesting of the deep-sea fishery, we had no say on the assignment of the vessels in catching the fish, we had no say on the allocation of quotas, we had absolutely no say over the deep-sea fishery in our Province except on the licencing of plants, onshore activity. That is all we had. Now we are going to have a major say in a company that is going to be controlling the catching, the harvesting, the licencing and the marketing of that fish. 6276

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2934 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: Are you as gullible as you pretend to be? MR. MORGAN: Maybe they have a new twist coming up today in debate on the restructuring bill. Now they are going to try to say that we passed over the fishing industry to the federal government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no MR. MORGAN: They had it all, Mr. Speaker, they had all our fishing industry. MR. NEARY: How gullible can you be MR.

MORGAN: Here is our most important industry and we have been saying for some time, the Premier in particular, has been saying it during the constitutional debate, 'Look, our fishing industry is so important to our Province' - MR. NEARY: You are going to give it away to the West Germans. MR. MORGAN: - 'yet the federal government has been controlling it, the federal government has been controlling our main industry'. And now finally through an agreement with the federal government they are going to give us a say, a major say, and now the Opposition is trying to say that we are giving away what we had.

We never had control of the fishing industry. We never did, Mr. Speaker. To answer the question, Mr. Speaker, this restructuring agreement, I want to say again, through the company structure and the structure of the corporation itself and the Board of Directors, and the way the Board of Directors will be put in place, will give this government more say than ever before over the deep-sea sector of our fishing industry. And do not let anybody ever be getting on with the nonsense that we are giving away our fishery, we never had control over our fishery at any time since Confederation. 6277

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2935 ah-1 MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for Port au Port. MR.HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan), but not on the same matter. I notice that the minster said in his speech on Tuesday that the government had given a guaranteed loan to Bay St. George Seafoods Limited last year. That company now owes $50,000 to fishermen in the Cape St. George area of the Province. I would like to ask the minister what he intends to do about this?

The company has not declared bankruptcy but they have not paid the fishermen and there are some fishermen who are owed as much as $2,000 or $3,000. Is the minister in communication with the principals of this company and could he tell me what he is doing about it? MR.SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR.MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, during the past year, in the past twelve months,we did indeed assist Day St. George Seafoods.

We assisted Aqua Fisheries, we assisted Atlantic Fisheries, we assisted Bay Bulls Sea Products, we assistedBelle Isle Seafoods, we assisted Blue Ocean Products, we assisted Clarenville Ocean Products, we assisted Greenspond Fish Processors, we assisted Great Harbour Deep Seafoods, we assisted Island Seafoods, we assisted Eric King Fisheries, we assisted Newfoundland Food Processors, we assisted North Atlantic Fisheries, we assisted Ocean Harvesters, we assisted Port Enterprises, we assisted Smith Seafoods Limited, Triton Seafoods, White's Fisheries, Eastern Ocean Products, S.T.

Jones Limited, Fogo Island Co-op, Great Harbour Deep Seafoods and a second time. All of these companies, Mr.Speaker, this government was very pleased to help, after very close 6278

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2935 ah-2 MR.MORGAN: scrutiny and assessment and analyses by three departments of government, Fisheries, Finance and Development, top level officials, we deal with these companies and if it looks like they can be viable operations, and indeed they did look like they are going to be viable operations or he would never have assisted them. They met the criteria we established, and we established some firm criteria,We then set some firm guidelines and some firm policies they must comply with if we give them assistance, and they have done that as well.

Now as it pertain to the one company in the hon gentleman's area 1 it seems that questions in the House of Assembly these days are mostly connected with the little parochial problems of the individual member's district more so than the Province-wide issues. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh :m.sPEAKER (Russell) Order, please! MR.MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is fully aware that if we did not assit that company there would have been a plant closed this Summer in his district. And now he is complaining because the company is owing a few dollars to someone.

Well,if the company is owning a few dollars to someone,and it is a matter between the government and the person who the money is owed to,we will interfere. 6279

November 10, 1983 Tape 2936 NM - 1 MR. MORGAN: But it is a private matter between the company and the people they are dealing with, whether they be fishermen, or suppliers of services, suppliers of various types of supplies, etc., it is difficult for us to go interfere in private enterprise in that manner. Our loan guarantees have some very strict conditions set down to them,but it is not in dealing with day-to-day affairs of that company, and their dealings with fishermen.

But if there is a problem, surely the fishermen can sit down with the company themselves and work out what the problems are without having to come to government to interfere in that matter. But I will say sincerely to the hon. gentleman, if the company that he referred to, which we have assisted financially, if the financial assistance in any way or form is tied into the problem he referred to,we will get involved and do our best to resolve it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am disappointed to hear the minister say that this is a parochial little problem. I mean, $50,000 being owed to fishermen MR. NEARY: Foreign ownership is a parochial little problem too. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I happened to see that company's books and the guaranteed loan that the minister gave to that company was just enough to get them to operate for the next "r. And they fell into a debt to the fishermen and to the plant workers to the tune of $50,000. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister when he gave 6230

November 10, 1983 Tape 2936 NM - 2 MR. HODDER: them the loan last year- and I should point out that they have received two Rural Development loans as well - did the minister have anyone sit on the Board of Directors, or did the government check to see how this money was being spent? Because I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the Department of Fisheries had done their job when they gave that close to $100,000 guaranteed loan to the company last year,and had looked at the books as they should have, they would have seen that the company needed much more than that. What they did, Mr.

Speaker, was to put the company in position to operate one year and to get itself mired financially. The situation was able to be forecasted a year ago, before they got that government grant. MR. NEARY: You would not put the Minisiter of Finance (Dr. Collins) on the Board of Directors. He would cook the books. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please The time for Question Period has expired. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave to answer the question? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. MB. NEARY: We want to get this information. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, when the Premier and his government makes assistance to fish companies in the Province,we just do not casually hand out thousands and thousands of rThllars to these companies. MR. WARREN: You do You do when there are by-elections.

November 10, 1983 Tape 2936 NM - 3 MR. MORGAN: Do not ever try to leave the impression that we are irresponsible in handling the taxpayers dollars. We have three very competent officials from three different departments, Fisheries, Finance and Development, who are on a monitoring committee on a weekly basis They monitor every one of those companies that are outstanding with loan guarantees from government.

We are always on top of what the companies are doing, what they are doing wrong1whether it be insufficient or poor management, or not doing things properly to make money; we are in a continuing monitoring process from my colleague, the Minister of Development's department and my own, Fisheries, and Finances I take strong exception, Mr. Speaker, to the same member who1 last year when his plant was closed in Piccaddily, put untold pressure on the Newfoundland Government, myself in particular, to get assistance for that company to get the plant opened. He did not care 6232

November 10, 1983 Tape 2937 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: form the assistance took, he did not care in what form the money was given, merely to get the money out and get the plant open. MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. MR. NEARY: My hon. colleague on this side of the House gave leave to get information but the hon. gentleman is starting to get political now and almost as silly and foolish as his leader, so we withdraw the leave, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been withdrawn.

Before we proceed, I would like to welcome to the gallery a former member of the Legislature representing the district of St. GeorgeTs in the person of Mr. Alec Dunphy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart NOTICE OF MOTION MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Alcohol And Drug Dependency Commission". MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of the Environment. MR. ANDREWS: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Assessment Act". 6233

November 10, 1983 Tape 2937 EC - 2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MRS. NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MRS. NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond further to the question from the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) on a tender notice for water and sewer in Hopedale.

I would like to advise him that there was no tender for a project or a phase of water and sewer, it was just a pre-tender notice or more or less an invita- tion for contractors who might be interested in the water and sewer project that is proposed for Hooedale to go up there to assess the area before a tender call would be made. I have since had a telegram from the Council in Hopedale, asking us not to proceed with a phase of water and sewer just yet. MR. WARREN: For what reason? MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEARER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please Order, please MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, there are a large number of written questions on the Order Paper that have not been answered, they have been there now for five or six months and there do not seem to be any answers forthcoming. I would like to ask the Premier, the gentleman who went around this Province talking about open and honest government, what time we can expect to get answers to the written questions that have been on the Order Paper now for five, six and seven months? 6234

November 10, 1983 Tape 2937 EC - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! That is not a valid point of order. I am sure that same question could have been asked during the Question Period. MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. MR. NEARY: The day before yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) undertook to table information that he was reading from a document and that information has not yet been tabled, Mr. Speaker. 6235

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2938 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: Under the rules of the House, I understand that it is mandatory, you have no choice. Mr. Speaker, the document is traditionally tabled when it is read, it is laid on the table immediately. MR. DAWE: He did not read it. MR. NEARY: The hon. gentleman did read from it and the document has not yet been tabled. The hon. gentleman read from it again today. MR. SIMMS: Extracts. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you quote from a document, read from a document, my understanding is that under the rules of the House it is compulsory for you to table that document. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I want to know at what time the document that the hon. gentleman told the Huse he was going to table will be tabled? It should have been tabled that day. MR. MORGAN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): To that point of order, the hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentleman apparently must have been lost yesterday afternoon, or he was not in the House of Assembly, because just before the closing of the House yesterday I stood on a point of order and asked the House of Assembly to give me leave - because the rules say you have to table something in the House at a certain time - to table a document. That document was tabled yesterday afternoon. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER: Order, please SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition- 6238

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2938 SD 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I went to the table about twenty minutes ago and I asked the Clerk if the document had been tabled. The Clerk told me, 'No, the document had not been tabled'. The Clerk gave me a copy of a document that was tabled which was not the document the hon. gentleman was reading from, It was a statement circulated to the press the day before yesterday from the Premier's office and not the document the hon. gentleman was quoting from. So the document, Mr. Speaker, has not been tabled according to the Clerk and the people at the Table of the House. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I ask again, when will the document be tabled? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. Premier. PREMIER PECKDORD: Mr. Speaker, there are rules governing this House and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) cannot be allowed to get up and abuse those rules. There is no point of order. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition had a question,we just finished Ouestion Period. There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. M.R.

SPEAKER: Order, please The Chair has to rule that indeed that kind of a question could have been asked of the minister during the Oral Question Period. If the hon. minister did undertake to table a document as far as I know there is no time limit set to do that kind of thing. Certainly the hon. Leader of the Opposition has not raised a valid point of order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) , I would like to welcome 6237

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2938 SD - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : to the galleries the Democracy class from St. Boniface High School with their teacher, Mr. Edward Slade, the Vice-Principal. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I was here in the House yesterday when the minister tabled the document. He tabled it saying that it was a document which he had referred to in his speech and referred to the fact that the Opposition has asked for the particular document. Mr.

Speaker, it is a rule that if a member quotes from a document - as he did this morning in Question Period when I asked him a question; as he did on Tuesday when he was speaking to the bill on restructuring - that he tabled that document. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood yesterday in his place and said he tabled that document. MR. WARREN: Which is a lie. Which is a lie. MR. HODDER: He referred to the document as the one which the Opposition has asked for, and that is the only one we have asked the minister for this session, Mr. Speaker.

So i suggest that this should be a point of privilege, because there has been an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of 6238

oveuiber 10,1983 Tape NO. 2939 MJ - 1 MR. HODDER: hon. members here and to mislead this House of Assembly, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister must clarify it. MR. OTTENHEIMER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Minister of Justice to that point of order. MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is a point of order already. The hon. minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) has said that he has tabled a document, the document that he undertook to table. Now the Opposition are saying that he did not table the document, the Minister of Fisheries has said he did table the document.

I mean, one can keep going back and forth on that all day without making a great deal of progress. It would appear to me that when the hon. minister says that he has done what he has undertaken to do, the House takes his word for it. Now there is a question of fact which the Chair can determine between now and when we next sit with respect to what was tabled. I think the matter is much better left rather than allegations back and forth of something being tabled and what has been tabled not the same document as one thought somebody undertook that he might table and getting into all kinds of contortions.

So I suggest we leave the matter and Mr. Speaker will have an opportunity to look into it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please Order, please The Chair has heard what it feels to be enough argument to this point of order. It appears to be a difference of opinion between two hon. members. However, the Chair will undertake to look at the document and make a ruling on it at the next sitting. MR. NEARY: On point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of privilege. 6239

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2939 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we feel very strongly that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) attempted to mislead this House. • SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Oh, Mr. Speaker, that is • correct,because let me quote from Hansard what the hon. gentleman said on November 8, 1983 when Mr. Roberts, the member for the Strait of Belle Isle, said, 'Would you table that list?' He, Mr. Morgan, said, 'Yes, Mr. Speaker, not in the form it is now, but I will table the list of the companies that we have assisted in the Province over the past year and a half.' And Mr.

Roberts said, 'And how much you have put in' And Mr. Morgan, 'And how much we put in.' Now, Mr. Speaker, this document we have here is one that was brought to the Press Gallery by Mr. Petten, the Premier's advisor or whatever he is, the day before yesterday, that was given to me from the Press Gallery, not the one the hon. gentleman was quoting from in the House. This does not give you a list of companies that the hon. gentleman talked about or the amounts that were spent. Mr.

Speaker, this is an attempt to mislead this House and I think it is a breach of the privileges of this I-1ouse I mean, what else could you call it, Mr. Speaker, but an attempt to mislead the House? Mr. Speaker, apart from that let me also say this, that it has been traditional in this House for hon. members when they quote from a document-and I have had many an experience in it, Mr. Speaker - when they quote from a document the document has to be put on the table immediately. You cannot take it outside the House and change it and doctor it to suit yourself and edit it. It has to be tabled then, Mr.

Speaker, otherwise it is not valid evidence to put on the table of 6290

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2939 MJ - 3 MR. NEARY: this House. And sotherefore, it is not a question of time, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of if the minister has time he can do it in a day or two or three days; documents,if they are going to be tabled, have to be tabled immediately in this House. That has been the custom, the tradition and that is the rule of this House, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that our privileges in this House have been breached Mr. Speaker, I think I have made a valid case, a bona fide case, a prima facie case, to have the hon. gentleman taken to task, Mr.

Speaker, by the Chair and disciplined. MR. TOBIN: Sit down, You are making a fool of yourself MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this to go on, This is not a circus or a bear oit, this is not a tavern we are in, this is the highest court in the land rand when the minister says he is going to table a document, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour should insist that it be tabled immediately, in our opinion. 6231

November 10, 1983 Tape 2940 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: My hon. friend has the quotation, page 115 of Beauchesne, Documents Cited, 327 (1) "A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generalled acquiesced in." Now, Mr.

Speaker, I submit that the hon. gentleman has violated the rules of this House. The hon. gentleman undertook to table a document. It should have been tabled immediately. And then, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was not here, but I understand, and I have Hansard in front of me, the minister said, "Mr. Speaker, just for a second, with permission from the House I would table the document asked for by the Opposition earlier." We did not ask for this document, Mr. Speaker.

This was the one that was volunteered to the media outside of the House the day before yesterday by the Premier and his flunkes down on the eighth floor. And, Mr. Speaker, you agreed to allow the hon. gentleman. 'Is this House ready for the question? All those in favour of the amendment, "aye", contrary "nay", I decalre the - Well, the amendment. Anyway, we got on to the amendment. But we gave the hon. gentleman permission to table the document, which he did not do. Instead he tried to mislead the House, Mr. SpeaIcer. MR. WARREN: That is right, purposely. MR. NEARY: Purposely tried to mislead this House.

I think it is outrageous and scandalous and the hon. gentleman should not be allowed to get away with it, Mr. Speaker. 622

November 10, 1983 Tape 2940 PR - 2 MR. TOBIN: Withdraw it, boy. MR. NEARY: And the Table confirmed it for me this morning when I went to the Clerk and to the table and asked for that document. Then the hon. gentleman got up and said, 'I tabled it yesterday.' and then there were sneers and laughs and jeers. MR. TULK: That is all they know. MR. NEARY: That is all they know over there, Mr. Speaker. The arrogance That is one thing the people of this Province were worried aIx)ut, how arrogant this administration would beconE - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEN(ER (Russell): Order, please MR.

NEPPY: - with the big mandate they were given. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. HODDER: We are on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: We are on a point of privilege at the present time. MR. MORGAN: House privilege is different, see. Personal privilege is no good when it is House privilege. MR. NEARY: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am finished with my point of privilege, but I would like for Your Honour to treat this matter as urgent and take it under very, very serious consideration, because it violates the basic principles of the operation of this House, Mr.

Speaker, and I think the hon. gentleman should be serverely disciplined for what he did. MR. NEARY: The hon. Minister of Fisheries, to that point of privilege. 23

November 10, 1983 Tape 2940 PK - 3 MR. MORGAN: I rise on a point of personal privilege and not just House privilege. MR. HODDER: What is the difference? You cannot do it. MR. MORGAN: There is a big difference. * Mr. Speaker, because I have now been charged with purposely, the word was 'purposely', the same thing as intentionally misleading this House. MR. WARREN: Exactly. MR. MORGAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious accusation. I am going to defend it now and point out, in fact, that he has to withdraw that statement. MR. NEARY: We are on a point of privilege. MR.

MORGAN: The hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, has to withdraw that statement and here is why, Mr. Speaker: Mansard will prove, Mr. Speaker, that during my debate, and I only used the bill 629 4

November 10, 1983 Tape 2941 NM - 1 MR. MORGAN: itself and some notations to the bill, I had no prepared document, no prepared notes, that is all I had in my debate, for an hour and a half, on the restructurinq. MR. WARREN: Another lie. Another lie, MR. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, may I have silence? May I have order? Mr. Speaker, I promised twice during the debate to table information as asked for. Once I referred to differences between the agreement signed in May and the agreement signed in September, and I held out the document and said, "I will now table this document." Hansard will show this.

"1 will now table this document." MR. NEARY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please MR. MORGAN: The document was not tabled. It was a very, very inadvertent mistake. So it was tabled yesterday, the document showing the differences. During the debate the hon. member from the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) asked me questions about some of the companies I was mentioning which got assistance during the past year, the independent companies. I was listing off the companies, some from memory, some from the notes on my desk, but there was no prepared document. MR. NEARY: There was. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member in the Opposition, not the Opposition Leader, but the hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle asked the question would I endeavour to supply the House with the information and table it in the House and I said, Yes, I will gladly do that. I will get all the information, all the companies we have assisted'. Then his second question to me was, "And the total amount?' I said, 'And the total amount, we will table it in the House." But that was only the day before yesterday, 6235

November 10, 1983 Tape 2941 NM - 2 Mr. Speaker. I have had my officials workino on cetting all the information on all the companies on the list, how much money, when it was approved by the Cabinet, when it was given to the companies in loan guarantees. It takes more than one day to deal with all that information. I will endeavour to table the information, Mr. Speaker, and it will be tabled in the House. We have no secrets to hide. We are proud of all the companies we assisted. We are proud of all the help we supplied to the companies. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR.

MORGAN: And that is what the hon. member of the Opposition wanted; he wanted to know which companies we assisted, the list of them, and how much we paid out in loan guarantees. We are quite proud of our performance in that regard and we will gladly table it. So there was no, Mr. Speaker, there was no intentional misleading of this House of Assembly and there was no purposely misleading this House of Assembly by me as minister of the Crown or member of the House. And that statement, Mr. Speaker, must be with- drawn,because it is a very serious accusation against a member of the House. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that was a great attempt to talk, hoping that everybody would forget the point. The point, Mr. Speaker, was that in Hansard of November 8, Mr. Roberts, the member for the Strait of Belle Isle said, "Would you table that list?" That was the list that the minister was reading from. The Minister of Fisheries said, "Yes, Mr. Speaker, not in the form it is now, but I will table the list of companies we have assisted in the Province over the 6'-

November 10, 1983 Tape 2941 NM - 3 MR. HODDER: past year and a half." MR. MORGAN: I was reading my note. 4R. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, he was reading from a list as he did this morning and Beauchesne is - MR. NEARY: He says so himself, "1 want to indicated that - MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he said, "By the way, I am reading this list off because I want to indicate that these are the independent companies that we, this Newfoundland Government have assisted to keep them independent, to maintain their independence." Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear that if the minister is reading, the minister is not at liberty to go and bring in another list. If he quotes 6237

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2942 ah-1 MR.HODDER: from any paper or state document or list or letter or anything else, Mr. Speaker. As a minister of the Crown if that is not before the House for debate, then he has to table that particular list or piece of information. Mr. Speaker, the minister undertook to do that, he undertood to table a list of companies to which the government had given grants or guaranteed loans. He did not do that.

He instead tabled something which has to do with an agreement which was not the matter he was speaking of at the time, Highlights of the Improvements of the Federal/Provincial Restructuring Agreement. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we already had that particular piece of information - MR.NEARY: That is right, we did. We got it outside the House. MR.HODDER: - and when he did table it he said that he was tabling the list that was asked for by the Opposition. MR.TOBIN: You are wasting the time of the House. Sit down. MR.WARREN: It is not wasting time. He misled the House. MR.HODDER: Now, Mr.

Speaker, if that is not a deliberate attempt to deceive this House of Assembly and to deceive members on this side of the House, I do not know what is. MR.SPEAKER (Russell) I will hear one other argument. The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENNEIMER: Thank you, Mr.Speaker. It appears to me that in the point of privilege now before the House there are three aspects. There really cannot be three points of privilege, because the Chair 6238

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2942 ah-2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: can only hear one point of privilege at a time, so there are three aspects. One deals with the matter of whether the undertaking to table was fulfilled or not. The hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr.Morgan) says he tabled the document; the Opposition say that it was not tabled or what was tabled was not what was supposed to be tabled. Earlier, before the point of privilege came up, when the Chair ruled there was no point of order, the Chair undertook to look into that question of fact and inform the House on it.

So I think that is a matter, before the point of privilege came up at all, which had been resolved and Mr. Speaker undertook to look into it and inform the House. Briefly on the second aspect of it, and that is the rules with respect to tabling of material, certainly what the Opposition House Leader read at the bottom of page 115 in Beauchesne, Subsection 327 I certainly do not argue with that.

I would point out that on page 116 there are also items 3,4, and 5, and I will just read them to draw the Chair's attention to them, because I do not know which category the document which has been tabled, or which allegedly was quoted from comes under. I do not know. But with respect to tabling there are also three other rules briefly cited there: 6239

November 10, 1983 Tape 2943 EC - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Subparagraph (3) "A public document referred to but not cited or quoted by a Minister need not be tabled." (4) "Only the document cited need be tabled by a minister. A complete file need not be tabled because one document in it has been cited." Paragraph (5) "To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.

The admission that a document exists or the reading of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute citing." I just pass that on for the House's information so that when the Chair reviews that they will be aware of those citations as well. So, as I said, I believe there are three aspects of the privilege before the House, which I would not expect, obviously, Mr. Speaker to rule on now: one, whether something has been tabled and what the nature of the document that has been tabled is, and whether it is the appropriate document to be tabled. So I suppose there is that.

And then there is the other aspect of it and that is the allegation that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) has purposely misled the House; and the further allegation, that the hon. the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Hodder) just finished a couple of minutes ago, that the Minister of Fisheries has 'deliberately attempted to deceive the House of Assembly' - I have taken that down in quotes.

So I would suggest to Your Honour that,when there is an ooportunity,there will be a ruling necessary certainly on the question of citation and of tabling, and also whether it is pernissible under the circumstances for the hon. gentleman opDosite to allege that the Minister of Fisheries'deliberately attempted to deceive the House of Assembly. We look forward to Your Honour's ruling when it is convenient for Your Honour to so do. 6300

November 10, 1983 Tape 2943 EC - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! Order, please! The Chair indicated that he would hear one more argument from the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and feels that he has heard enough arguments on this matter. It is certainly a very serious matter and the Chair will certainly take it under advisement and make a ruling as soon as possible. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. OTTENHEIMER: Order 35. MR.

SPEAKER: Order 35 is the bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province And The Government Of Canada Respecting The Restructuring Of The Newfoundland Fishery." The hon. the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) adjourned the debate last day. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Mr.

Soeaker, in the beginning of this debate, I want to establish two or three points, one of them which will require the consensus of people on the other side, the first one being that I might or might not take - I will try to say what I have to say - if it takes an hour then sobeit, if it takes forty-five minutes, sobeit, if it takes an hour and a half, I would ask that the other side grant the same privilege as I granted to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) the other evening, that is, give me leave of the House. As I said yesterday; Mr.

Speaker, recognizing the importance of the minister stood in this House and said, Mr. Speaker, that it is the most important before the House this session', if the qar been put on the table is any indication so the bill, when 'And I suspect, bill to come age that has far, then 6301

November 10, 1983 Tape 2943 EC - 3 MR. TULIK: I suspect that this is indeed, as the minister said, an historic day in this Legislature. I would even go further than that, Mr. Speaker, and say to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) that indeed it is an historic day in Canada itself, 6302 a

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2944 MJ - 1 MR. TtJLK: It is historic, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons,but primarily I suggest it is historic because it shows what can really happen in a Province and what can really take place when people in governments really and finally do decide that there is way out of a problem by negotiation. It shows, Mr. Speaker, what can happen in particular in regard to matters of prinicple, and that is what this bill is. Make no mistake about that, Mr.

Speaker, the problems in the fishing industry have not been solved, and I think the minister indicated that as well the other day, the problems in the fishing industry in this Province have not been solved by the signing of this agreement and the passage of this bill both here and in Ottawa. It is an agreement in principle which says that the two governments will work togetherunder various corporate structures and so on, to work out the problems of the fishing industry. The real issues of the fishing industry have yet, I suspect and I suggest to Your Honour, to be dealt with.

The real issues will come later, I think the minister has experienced one of them already, and that is the RSP programme which is part of the restructuring programme at this point. The minister has been dealing in the real world with that problem, the problem of Canadian bottoms, as he is now calling it, Canadian boats, charging approximately thirty to thirty-one cents a pound for landed fish when the inshore plants in this Province are used to getting it for about twenty or twenty-two cents and they - need to get it at that price in order to survive.

So the real problems of the fishing industry are yet to be dealt with, but it is an important matter of principle that has been agreed upon by the two governments that will pass in this Legislature, I am sure, and I would hope that it would pass 6333

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2944 MJ - 2 MR. TULK: in Ottawa very quickly. The other one that we raised this morning, Mr. Speaker, is the question of foreign ownership, the possibility of foreign ownership of the resources of Newfoundland and of the fishing industry; the processing, the harvesting and the marketing sector may indeed creep in through the back door. That may very well happen. But it is an important matter. So I would trust, Mr.

Speaker, that if leave is needed for the few questions that I have to raise in this debate - if it is needed; as I say it may or may not be - then I would trust that leave will be granted to do that in the same way as we granted it the other day to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) and allowed him to go on to make his case on this important agreement on the principles of the fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning of this debate that this is an historic day in Newfoundland's Legislature, of that I have no doubt and it is an historic day in Canada.

I want to make one other point before I really get into the process that has gone on and what has really happened with this bill and that is, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are not going to delay any more than is absolutely necessary the passage of this important bill on the principles of establishing a new fishing company for the Newfoundland fishery. Mr. Speaker, it is beautiful to have the shoe on the other foot.

The minister and the Premier have constantly looked across this House asking us to get 'our Liberal buddies ' - I think that was the key phrase - in Ottawa to do certain things for Newfoundland. We at times have tried to get that done and we have not always been sucessfui but on some occasions we have. I would hope that the minister can now get his Tory buddies in Ottawa, his Tory friends in Ottawa - he has been on the radio for the last couple of days - 6304

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2944 MJ - 3 MR. MORGAN: They better. MR. TtJLK: What are you going to do with them if they do not, 'Jim'? - he has been on the radio for the last couple of days saying that the Torys and the NDP, but particularly 6305

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2945 SD - 1 MR. TULK: the Tories should make sure that this bill passes very quickly. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we in this House , perhaps as early as Monday - I think there are a number of people on this side who have certain points they want to make - but I think this bill can be passed as early as Monday or Tuesday, as far as this side of the House is concerned,with very little problem. So in this case, Mr. Speaker, we in this Legislature may indeed end up ,thanks to the Tories in Ottawa , being ahead of the federal bill itself being passed.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we will. I want to commend Mr. Pierre De Bane, the federal Minister of Fisheris. I can say one thing for that gentleman: I may not always agree with him, as a matter of fact I do not always agree with him- there were a number of occasions when I disagreed with him privately and publicly-but I want to laud and praise him for his efforts in getting this piece of legislation put together as well as getting the agreement signed. He has done a magnificant job and worked very hard at it and I want to praise him for that. Mr. Speaker, we are going to support the bill.

As well as allowing passage of it- we cannot stop passage once we stop speaking anyway - we are also going to support the bill. We are going to do that, Mr. Speaker, for several reasons1 the primary reason being is that the people of the Dunn Peninsula and the South Coast of this Province have suffered enough. God knows they have suffered enough in the last year or year and a half with the closure of the deap-sea plants. It was fast reaching a point on the Dunn Peninsula, and indeed in all of Southern Newfoundland as I am sure my friend from Fortune - 6336

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2945 SD - 2 MR. TULK: - Hermitage (Mr. Stewart) will agree / and the member for Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin),and the member for Grand Bank (Mr. Matthews) will agree that it was fast reaching a point on that coast where people were rapidly running out of unemployment insurance benefits and were being forced to go to the department run by the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Mickey). And that is not, Mr. Speaker, what the people of the South Coast of this Province are used to and it is not what they want. It was probably the first time in their lives. Mr.

Speaker, I can remember sitting in this House after 1979 when the member for Burin - Placentia West was on this side of the House and he was a very happy man compared to what I was, being from the Northeast Coast of this Province, representing a district on the Northeast Coast of this Province because he could look at me and say, 'I practically have no unemployment in my districtt. Mr.

Speaker, for those people who have been reduced to what they have been reduced to in the past year,and for anybody in this Legislature or indeed in the Legislature of Canada to suggest that they are going to hold up a bill that in some way may keep them in that same position, is intolerable. We are going to support the bill and as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can stand here today and say that this bill fits tobally within the policy of the Liberal Paty of Newfoundland and Labrador.

November 10,1983 Tape 2946 PK - 1 MR. TULK: I do not believe I can do that, I know I cannot do that because our policy has been that all the fish plants on the South Coast1 all the fish plants have to be kept open, all the fish plants on the South Coast have to be kept open. Now , Mr. Speaker, when we made that statement we were not saying that all of the fish plants on the South Coast have to be kept open for the next little while or it has to be let to some corporate management, some chief executive officer of some super company to decide.

We meant the phrase for exactly what it said, that all of the fish plants have to be kept open. MR. NEARY: Period. MR. TULK: Period. And, Mr. Speaker, as I look at this bill, as I go down through it, I am not sure-and I do not believe anybody else in this House is sure, I do not believe that anybody in Newfoundland is sure- that indeed all of the fish plants are going to be kept open, period. I do not believe that is possible to get that out of the bill. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, I do not want to sound like an alarmist, and I do not want to sound like I am in some way hindering the future of the Grand Bank plant or indeed the Burin plant, But if you talk to the people of Grand Bankas I did last weekend,the feeling is we will try and I have no doubt that the people of Grand Bank will try to see that their fish plant is competitive, is efficient, and effective in every way possible, but there is also a feeling , th Grand Bank by a number of people that what you are seeing in a state of execution at the closure of the Grand Bank plant.

I hope that is not the case and I trust that it is not. Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why we have to support this bill,because,as I said in Question Period today,and as I said earlier on this

November 10, 1983 Tape 2946 PK - 2 MR. TULK: morning,this bill will not solve the real issue, but it is an important bill in that it is an agreement in principle and an agreement of principle of how the two governments will solve the fishery problems in this Province. And we have no problems with that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back for a minute, if I can, and stay on it for a little while, as to why we say all of the fish plants in this Province have to be kept open and why we said that earlier in this game. There are a number of reasons for that.

But the primary reason, I think it can all be put under the one caption, and it has been put under the one caption for some time is social reasons. Because, Mr. Speaker, to close down fish plants in this Province, to allow a super company , to allow a bureaucracy to close down the fish plants in this Province means, as I think it was first said by the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) - for once he said something right; I think in that case he did - is that it would be centralization through the back door. What you would be doing essentially is tearing Newfoundland apart. And we on this side, Mr.

Speaker, are not prepared to see Newfoundland society ripped apart by some bureaucrat or some chief executive officer of some super corporation. The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that we said earlier in this game- early in this process,it is not a game; a game does not carry the right connotation- this rocess that went on, is that we agreed earlier that there was an overcapacity in the fishing industry in Newfoundland. Mr.

Speaker, the people who were then being affected in Grand Bank, and indeed are being affected all around Newfoundland by the overcapacity in processing for the stocks that we have, it is not their fault that they find themselves in the situation that they are in

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2947 ah-1 MR.TULK: It is the fault of both the provincial Minister of Fisheries of the day and the federal Minister of Fisheries of the day - and I am not talking about today, I an talking about in 1977.

Now, Mr.Speaker, if you get the tapes of television shows and the tapes of radio broadcasts,you will find the the federal Minister of Fisheries of that day and the provincial Minister of Fisheries of that day1 Romeo LeBlanc and Walter Carter respectively,anf iey were both encouraging people to get into the fishing industry , buy boats, and they were encouraging private investors to expand plants, to build olants. And , of course, this Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgan) ,we have here has to share some of the blame for what has gone on because, quite simply,he has passed out processing licenses all over this Province, particularly when it suited his political purposes. MR.NEARY: Like dealing cards at election tirre. MR.TULK: Like dealing cards at election time, A certain by-election in Bellevue will attest to that. So , Mr. Speaker, it has not been the fault of the people of the South Coastor indeed of the people of Newfoundland that their fish plants were closed. So, Mr. Speaker, we said earlier,and I will repeat it again,that all fish plants have to be kept open.

And that is,and I hope it will remain the Liberal party's policy. MR.NEARY: As long as you and I are around it will. MR. TULK: As long certainly as I am spokesman for fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador.And I will not be if it is not. MR.NEARY: As long as I am the leader it will be the policy.

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2947 ah-2 MR.TULK: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said7we have set the fact very well that there may indeed be a social cost involved. If anybody thinks in this House today , if anybody believe, that both levels of government will never again have to put money into the deep-sea fishery,or indeed into the inshore fishery, if people in this House believes that, then I say to you that they have rocks in their heads. There will be times,because of the social nature of both the deep-sea and inshore fishery, when governments will again have to come to the assistance of the fishing industry. And, Mr.

Speaker, let there be no doubt, again let me make one other point clear, let there be no doubt that on this side of the House we believe that as far as it is humanly possible we should make the fishery economically viable-in as far as it is humanly possible we should do that. But it is clearly the case that you cannot accomplish that overnight and neither can you do it at the expense of different communities and the way of life that we have in Newfoundland. 6311

November 10, 1983 Tape 2948 NM - 1 MR. TULK: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely, in my opinion, why one Michael Kirby and his task force were so unsuccessful. They were unsuccessful, Mr. Speaker, in their ventures. And I am glad they were unsuccessful in their ventures. And that is precisely why we from the very beqinninq expressed some grave doubts about the Kirby Report. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kirby's overriding mandate was to make the fishery econmically sound'economically viable' was the word. It was supposed to be the report to end all reports. Mr.

Speaker, God knows that in this Province we have had enough reports on the fishery. It has been reported to death and studied to death. Kirby's was supposed to be the report to end all reports and he failed4 He failed because his mandate was so heavily weighed on the economic side rather than on the social side.

The report failed to recognize one particular point, and this is an important point and it should be kept in mind by all those people who are going to reform the fishing industry, and that is, and I am going to repeat it again, the fishing industry in Newfoundland has a social factor involved in it, the fish industry has a social component involved in it. Now, Mr. Speaker, there will always be politicians involved,because politicians exist, that is the very reason why politicians exist,to take care of the Province's society, not to take care of the Province's big bureaucracies.

We have to take into account economic realities but we have to take into account social factors as well. And I ask the question again; How could any member of this Legislature, through cold-blooded economics, destroy one single Newfoundland outport or community? The answer for the Liberal Party was obviously 6312

November 10, 1983 Tape 2948 NM - 2 MR. TULK: no, and it remains no. That is why it was easy, very easy, for us to stand in this House months before the present government did, and you did not have to think it through very much, it was very easy for us to stand in this House and say,"Every plant in this Province remains open." Mr. Speaker, that was, I suppose, last November or December.

The government, I am going to be very kind to them, the government borrowed that policy - I use the word "borrowed' with some great care - and on March 23 we finally heard, through a document which I do not believe I have here now, a document presented by the Premier making it their policy. And we are proud that they did. They added something else that we had also put in our submission to the Kirby Task Force and that was co-ordinated marketing app..roach and a co-ordinated fleet deployment, the use of the fleet to see that our plants were given a supply of fish.

As I said, that was all part of our proposal to the Kirby Task Force in July of '82 and theirs was March '83. We were proud, as I said, of the fact that they had accepted it. Mr. Speaker, that was why, and I want to review this history briefly, that was why we had no problem in sending a Telex to the Prime Minister of this country asking him to take Michael Kirby and at least put his report, if you want to you can do it with Kirby, at least put his report on the shelf and let the Federal Minister of Fisheries completely handle the issue. MR. NEARY: How wise we were. MR. TULK: How wise we were, but we did it.

We did it because we believe, as I said, that the fishery - is a political issue, that politicans M u,.J

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2949 MJ - 1 MR. TULK: should be involved with it, it is a social issue and,therefore,00liticians have to be involved in it. That was why, Mr. Speaker, at the People's Conference when somebody said to us, 'You have a federal Liberal Government in Ottawa and you are a Liberal Opposition in Newfoundland, what are you going to do about a proposal, a motion with the first clause in that motion sa'ing that 311 plants have to be opened? that was why we had no problem in standing and saying, 'Yes, indeed we support that,because that has been our position from the beginning.' No problem at all.

As a matter of fact, that petition, that proposal was also supported at that time by the provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). Whatwas the date of that? Was that about March 28, late March? It was late March that the Minister of Fisheries and the Liberal Opposition and everyone at the meeting supported that proposal. MR.HOUSE: And members of parliament. MR. TULK: Yes, the members of Parliament. There is a recognition on this side of the House that the fishery weaves right through our whole political life,our whole life in Newfoundlafld,oUr whole social culture and so on. Mr.

Speaker, I have to say as I said earlier,that we on this side of the House - because I am sure the Minister of Fisheries is still somewhat concerned about Grand Bank,because I think it is fair to say that Grand Bank is assured at this time that it has eighteen months rather than perhaps the twelve months that it might have had if the original proposal of March 16th had gone ahead and given that super company time to evaluate whether indeed it was a viable fish plant or not. Burin is not at this time a primary processing operation,it is a cooked food operation which is secondary processing.

As I said.we can accept that 631 1

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2949 MJ-2 MR.TULK: that is the case for two primary reasons: That we have a statement of principle here which both governments have agreed to, and we will pass this legislation - the real issue will still have to be dealt with and we will watch closely to see that the minister lives up to living in the real world in dealing with those real issues as they come forward. The other reason that we can accept this agreement is that Mr.

Kirby, a person who I have come to somehow personally like, although that was not the feeling the first time I met him, as you will recall - MR.NEARY: Who was with him? MR.TULK: -Peter John Nickerson. And they both have failed , in my opinion, and I hold no personal animosity toward either one of those gentlemen, but they have personally failed to make the Newfoundland fishery totally economically oriented, and that is good. 6315

November 10,1983 Tape 2950 PK - 1 MR. TULK: If anything, Mr. Speaker- and I want to get into this with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan); we started to get into it this morning-if anything the political influence, and I am not saying it is a bad thing, the political influence on the new super company being created under the restructuring programme is perhaps much greater- I say it is much greater -than the government's former influence ever was over private companies in this Province.

The Minister of Fisheries may think differently, he may profess differently publicly, but if he sits down and examines the corporate structure,who has shares and 1as I said this morning, he who pays the fiddler calls the tune - he will see that politicians now have more influence in the deep-sea fishery in this Province than ever before. Unfortunately for the Provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgan), if he looks at that same corporate structure he can come to no other logical conclusion than the person in this country regardless of who he is, who really has the most control over that deep-sea super company, that restructured company ,which will take in some inshore plants, isreally the Federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane), That is the person who has the most control. There is absolutely no other way for him to figure it out. And the honest truth is, as we reminded the minister last year in this House, that he did have control over the processing sector in the province.

That was there in the constitution. But under this new super company,I suggest to him that really if you sit down and take the federal government- there are eleven members, Mr. Speaker, on the Board, five appointed by the federal government, three appointed by the Provincial Government, two by the Bank of Nova Scotia, one by the union; and the CEO is a joint appointment. NEARY: The union has not said whtier the" 7.,ill accept. 6316

November 10, 1983 Tape 2950 P1< - 2 MR.TULK: Let us suppose they do accept, let us suppose th at the Bank of Nova Scotia which has two votes on that Board, and whoever the Federal Minister of Fisheries is in two years time—it could be Jim McGrath wanting freezer trawlers - MR. TOBIN: It will certainly be a Tory. MR. TULK: Right, it could be Jim McGrath wanting freezer trawlers, factory trawlers off this coast. It could be Jim McGrath, the Minister of Fisheries in two years time, the Federal Minister of Fisheries. The five appointments on the Board are federal.

Nowif anybody believes, if anybody is stupid enough to believe that those five appointments - are not going to carry out the wishes of whoever the, federal minister is, he has got rocks in his head. He has rocks in his head, Mr. Speaker, if he believes that. The Bank of Nova Scotia well - and this is what it is, it is nothing else, it is a profit-making organization - they are not concerned about social reasons 311 this Province. Neither should they be, it is not their job, Their job is to make a profit for their shareholders.

So you have the federal Minister of Fisheries with five appointments on that Board and the Bank of Nova Scotia with two, Now, Mr. Speaker, that is seven out of eleven. That is control.

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2951 SD - 1 MR. TULK: The provincial minister can sit in his seat all he likes, and the Premier can talk all he likes about the fact that he now has a consultation process in place in the new agreement. Mr. Speaker, we know what consultation is. Consultation, basically, is going and asking, 'What do you think about what I am doing?' That is basically what it is. So the influence of politics is greater, and it should be, but it has been lost by this provincial government. The Premier and the minister will say, "Well, we can veto any decision' - MR. NEARY: That is not veto power. MR.

TULK: - 'of that company, that is in the agreement.' So the federal minister makes the decision that he is going to close - let us not use Grand Bank. Let us say he is going to close - where? MR. NEARY: Timbuktu. MR. TULK: Triton. He is going to close the Triton plant which is not yet under the restructuring agreement, although the Premier has claimed that it is. He is going to close Triton and the Premier warns him and says, 'No, that is in my district. I am going to veto that.' Alright, what is the decision going to be now? The Premier's decision is that he is going to veto.

So you get the merry-go-round of the federal government then saying to the Premier, 'Well, we are going to veto your decision.' Now, Mr. Speaker, what is that? That is a merry-go-round where you are at a stalemate and nothing is being accomplished. So what is the point of your veto? You are in the same situation that we have been in for the last year and a half where nobody will sit down and talk to each other. That is where you are. MR. NEARY: Then they will eventually say, 'Well, if you want to operate it, take it and pay the cost.' MR. TULK: Yes.

A fish plant closes in the Province - Triton is closed, you might say - and the 6,-)

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2951 SD - 2 MR. TULK: Premier1 being Premier of this Province and being a good district member,which I am sure he is,says, 'Triton has to he re-opened'. The CEO,- is it? Chief Executive Officer. The CEO, as the Provincial Minister has been calling the boss of that super company-says, 'Well,all right, boy. It you want to open that company it is going to cost us $3 million in the next year because of our losses' only are they talking about loss of operations, they are talking about loss of income.

That could mean income after taxes - 'you are going to pay the cost of that. 'Some power, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) and the Premier have some power. If the Minister of Fisheries wants to pass out $3 million to a shoe company in Harbour Grace to run a fish plant, if he wants to pass out $3 million to them, and if he wants to cover their operating costs and their loss of income and so on, they would be some foolish not to take it. They would be some foolish, some silly. So, Mr. Speaker, what has the minister really gained, What has the Premier really gained? Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is the government that stood in this House repeatedly since 1979, and even earlier than 1979 but certainly I can remember since 1979, and have said over everything that you have to have total control in order to be able to run something. If you are going to run something you have to have total control. And they now find themselves - the Premier can say what he likes, he wanted total control of the Northern cod stock. MR. NEARY: Bowater is total control. MR. TULK: We will get to Bowater later, I guess.

The Premier said, 'I want control of licencing' he said it- 'I want control of quotas, I want provincial quotas'. And that basically is control of his own quotas. He now finds himself 6319

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2952 MJ - 1 MR. TULK: sitting on a board where he has 25 per cent ownership of a company, he has three board members out of eleven, and we have got a super company with other people running it and in control of the one single thing that this government had total control of in the fishing industry, namely the processing sector. Gone! MR. WINDSOR: We still have licencing. MR. TULK: You still got licencing. Oh! MR. MORGAN: We always did. Do not be so foolish! MR. TULK: Now, Mr. Speaker, he has control of processing - He always had control of processing!

How many times have we heard that minister stand in this House and say we can do nothing because we do not have control of the fishery, we do not have control of anything. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) in this House, for this government, I think recognized what was happening when, on September 9, he wrote to the Toronto Globe and Mail.

He recognized, being the good Tory that he is, he recognized that indeed we were becoming part of the Canadian nation and perhaps we were losing some of our jurisdiction, and he wrote to the Toronto Globe and Mail on September 9 and said, 'The De Bane initiative was a naked intrusion into an area of provincial constitutional jurisdiction which is intolerable to any province.' Now, Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister was being perfectly consistent with his Premier's policy. 'Stay out of our jurisdiction', namely processing.

He goes on then to say, 'A super company fishing industry in which a distant federal government will have overwhelming ownership' - listen - ' bears the seed of its own distruction and that of the welfare of many families and communities dependent on it.' Now, Mr. Speaker, what he was saying is exactly what has happened the federal government has a majority share in U'-'

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2952 MJ - 2 MR. TULK: that company along with the Bank of Nova Scotia and along with the unions and so on. They have majority control, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I do not agree necessarily, Mr. Speaker, with the last part of the Finance Minister's (Dr. Collins) statement to the Toronto Globe and Mail, in his letter I think to the Editor. I do not necessarily agree with him because what he is saying is that nobody else only this provincial government can do anything or really wants to do anything for the people in Newfoundland. I do not agree with his statement.

Again, I want to cone back to Mr. De Bane's efforts to get this problem solved. Mr. Speaker, if you look at - DR. COLLINS: If you see it that way (inaudible). MR. NEARY: Your stomach must roll over when you hear it. DR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) a copy. MR. TULK: Well, I will send you a copy. Unlike the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) , I will send you a copy of your own letter. MR. MORGAN: Table it for him. MR. TULK: Sure, I will table if for him.

I will send him a copy of his own letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail on September 9th in which he said, "It was totally unacceptable to this Province and to this government that we would have a super fish company in which a distant federal government', will have overwhelming ownership.' 'Totally unacceptable.' And today he is faced with the prospect, when we pass this bill, of letting that happen where he 6'j

November 10, 1983 Tape 2953 NM - 1 MR. TULK: no longer has any ownership in- that company except three members on the board. MR. NEARY: And they have to sit there like big mopes. DR. COLLINS: That is the crucial point of this whole debate. MR. NEARY: A big mope. MR. TULK: Exactly. And we have hit dead on it. You have absolutely no control at all in that company. DR. COLLINS: You do not have any concept of control, that is the problem. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to Mr. De Bane and his actions. I want to praise him as a man of principle.

As I said, I may not always agree with him, but I want to praise him, as the provincial minister has done, as a man of principle and compassion. It would have been very easy for the Federal Minister of Fisheries (Dc Bane) to walk away from this problem. It would have been very easy for him. He could have walked up to the provincial minister and said, "The fish plant closed? Your problem. I may have some money to give you but it is your problem to decide what you are going to do with it." He could have done that.

And perhaps politically for him that may have been the course of action for him to take, walk down and say, as he keeps referring to the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland, "'Jim', I have $75 million. I will give you that, now you go ahead and solve the problems in the processing sector of the fishing industry for which you are responsible." That might have been the politically wise thing for him to do. MR. NEARY: He would have done some travellina around the world then if he had to get his hands on that money.

November 10, 1983 Tape 2953 NM - 2 MR. TULK: He would never have come back. MR. NEARY: He would never see him again. MR. TULK: He would have never come back, Mr. Speaker, he would be travelling for the next twenty years, the Provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) But De Bane did not do that. MR. NEARY: He would have got as far away from Newfoundland and its problems as he could. MR. TULK: It is worthy of praise the man did not do it and he should be praised for it. As he said on July 4 of this year, to do that, to have walked away from it would have been inurioral.

I think his words were immoral and callous to have done that. His efforts are magnificent. Mr. Speaker, that aside, Mr. De Bane aside, the control of the fishing industry in this Province after this agreement was signed rests in the hands of the Federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) and the Bank of Nova Scotia if they decide to get together.The truth is the provincial minister has very little control, unless he is willing to pay through the nose for it. But then again, who would not? The Premier in this Province stands for control, he stands for ownership. The Finance Minister (Dr.

Collins) was right, and I want to re-emphasize it, he was right when he said he was following the line that the Premier has held out for years. And we do not need to go any further, Mr. Speaker, than the offshore to illustrate that. In 1979 I can remember quite clearly sitting in the House as a young member and hearing the Premier dance around his seat, fall over the desk almost - MR. NEARY: Almost cut his writs off for Newfoundland to own the offshore. r

November 10, 1983 Tape 2953 NM - 3 MR.TULK: 'We have got to have ownership because ownership means control' and in this company he has lost it, he is giving it up. Mr. Speaker, there are many other questions that one has to ask. A lot of people in this Province have been led to believe, as I said before, that we are now going to have a panacea in the fishing industry. It is going to be beautiful, 6324

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2954 ah-1 MR.TULK: it is going to be a beautiful world. I think the minister knows the difference because, you see, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is that we have set in motion- I am a firm believer in what I believe is called Newton's Law, I am not sure, but for every action there is a reaction - MR.CALLAN: Equal and opposite reaction. MR.TULK: - an equal and opposite reaction. Mr. Speaker, what we have done today, and what we will do on Tuesday or whenever the Tories decide in Ottawa they are going to let the bill pass - we hope that the provincial member (Mr.

Morgan) can do something with his Tory buddies up in Ottawa and get the motion off the Order Paper - is set up a super fish company and an outfit called the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation which will take care of certain segments of the Newfoundland fishery. They will try to take care of that and I have no doubt that they will try to do a good job.

But there is a very vital question that arises, there is a vital reaction that comes about somewhat as a result of that action that we have taken for the past year and a half, and we have to ask ourself this question now, since we have taken that action and since we have been so busy with that action ,what has happened to another very important and vital segment of the Newfoundland fishing industry? SOME HON.MEMEERS: Hear, heart MR.TULK: And I am referring, of course, to the inshore fishery. Mr. Speaker,

November 10,1983 Tape No. 2954 ah-2 MR.TULK: it is absolutely not good enough for either governments or politicians in Newfoundland and in Canada to sit back and take care of one segment of the industry without taking care of the other. The fishery in this Province is a total concept. There are perhaps more communities, smaller perhaps, but there are more communities and perhaps more people dependent on the inshore fishery than there are on the offshore fishery. Mr.

Speaker, that is a fact beyond dispute.And it is a fact beyond dispute that the inshore fishery in this Province is in trouble and I suspect it is a result of everybody in Newfoundland saying'We have to solve the deep-sea problem and attention being focused almost solely on that one problem, It is a reaction to the signing of this agreement. We have seen it this morning and we have seen it in the last two or three days. One of the things in that package, in the offshore agreement and the restructuring of the deep-sea fishery,was indeed that we were going to use the resource-short plant concept. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have seen in the last couple of days what that is. And what that says, what that resource-short plant concept says is that those plants who depend on the inshore fishery to operate during a short period of the year, during the Summer season basically, will be allocated offshore fish in the off season , in the slow season of the year, so that they can become economically viable.

November 10, 1983 Tape 2955 EC 1 MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if we look at this bill in

Section 8, what do we see about the resource-short plant allocation? What do we see in that

Section 8 about the resource- short plant? It says, 'Whenever part of the Company's trawler fleet is not fully utilized and is otherwise available such trawlers will be utilized for the harvesting and supply of fish at an agreed upon price, which shall be equivalent to the Company's harvesting costs' - MR. NEARY: Mumbo jumbo! MR. TULK: Listen. The provincial minister should listen very closely to the next phrase - 'as determined' - by whom? - 'the management of the Company' - not even the company, not even the board of directors, not even the minister. MR. MORGAN: Go on from there now. Go on from there. MR.

TULK: I am going on to the next part - Yes, indeed I will. to independently owned plants under the Resource Short Plan Program. If the owner of an independent plant disputes those costs, the Company shall ask an independent firm of chartered accountants to review management's determination of the cost and make a report to the Company's Board of Directors.' MR. MORGAN: 'This report shall be made available to the Governments on a confidential basis. No more than one report may be required each year. ' It is available to the government. He says it is available to the government.

But let me ask him this question: Even though he gets the information, even though he is told that that fish only costs twenty-four cents a pound MR. NEARY: His hands are tied behind his back. MR. TULK: Who is going to make the 6327

November 10, 1983 Tape 2955 EC - 2 MR. TULK: final decision as to whether or not the boats will sail? R. NEARY: Management again. MR. TULK: Management again. You are back to management again and you have no control, or the board of directors, and he has no control of either one, absolutely none. MR. MORGAN: Once the cost has been interpreted, whether they are going to take it or not then. MR. TULK: Then they decide whether they take it or not. If they take it at a higher price, they end up in the same position as if they do not take it at all. And the same position is what? Bankruptcy, probably.

You cannot make a profit. If they pay more than than twenty-two to twenty-four cents a pound, they cannot make a profit, they cannot even break even. MR. MORGAN: Who brought in the resource-short plant concepts? This government did. MR. TULK: Never mind who brought in the resource-short plant concept, let us talk about it under restructuring. Never mind who brought it in. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. TULK: That we will leave for another day. But the truth is that under the - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

TULK: I am going to ask the minister to be quiet in the same way as I sat here the other evening and was quiet when he was speaking and listened very attentively to what he had to say. Under the present structure that has been set up, the independents face either R2

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2956 SD - 1 MR. TULK: one of two choices, as the minister has said. They can either take the fish once they learn what the price is; if it is tood high they can say, 'No, we do not want it; or they can do without it. That is what he is saying. They can do one or the other. The end result is the same because those fish plants are not economically viable unless they have a supply of fish year round. That is the idea of the resource-short plant concept. And if they take fish that is too highly priced, they cannot make a buck on it anyway.

Perhaps that is the very thing that has been happening to some of the deep-sea plants, the delivery of fish by Canadian trawlers has been costing too much money. That could very well be the one major thing that has cause us serious problems in the deep-sea companies. That could very well be it. We have reached a place as a result of the restructuring - the minister will agree this is correct - we have reached a place where the independents are now asking to be incorporated in the restructuring not to - MR. MORGAN: If I could, I would like to clarify that for you. MR. TULK: Go ahead. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas) : The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Just for clarification on the independents, some statements were made last weekend by the independent companies and the head of the independent companies in Newfoundland that they were on the verge, was the term used, of asking Mr. De Bane to take them over and put them in restructuring because they want him to buy out the assets.

Well, I was in communication with the independents and had a telex back from them that they have not done that and there is no indication they are going to do that, but they are worried about this resource-short plant programme, they are worried about any 6329

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2956 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: unfair competition to be established by the super company, but they have not asked Mr. De Bane, the federal government or us to take them over and put them in restructuring. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TtJLK: Let me just suggest to the minister that if they have not asked I am pretty well sure that, unless something is worked out with that resource-short plant concept, they will. Mr. Speaker, I have a few more points that I want to make and I do not believe I can make them in the next few minutes. Do I have leave.of the House? MR.

MORGAN: Leave? Sure. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. SPEAKER: By leave. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to look at one other thing in this agreement. I want to look at many other things but one other thing in particular, and that is how well the structure of this company affects the marketing of the smaller companies, of the independents. And not only the independents, I suppose you can call them all independents, but even places like my own fish plants, Beothuck Fish and Fogo Island Co-op.

You have to ask yourself the question, again in the real world that we are going to be in when we start to work with this new super company, will they indeed be pushed out by the larger corporation, the larger super company? MR. MORGAN: It will be a sad day if they are. MR. TULK: Yes, it will be a sad day if they are. Because I think the minister will agree with me that I have - I will call it a company, that is what they are a company - a co-operative in my district which produces some of, if not the best then certainly some of the best fish in Newfoundland. MR. MORGAN: Top quality stuff. MR.

TULK: Yes, top quality stuff. 6330

November 10, 1983 Tape 2957 PK - 1 MR. TULK: If that quality or if that company, that co-operative is hurt in any way by this large corporation, then it will indeed be a sad day. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point in regards to quality, and that is we have heard in this Province for years, and we have been led to believe that it is the fishermen in this Province who are primarily responsible for the state of quality of our Newfoundland fish. Mr. Speaker, there is an awful lot of doubt as to whether that is true or not. A large part of the quality problem.

I firmly believe, and I am sure that some people on the other side will agree again, is a result of the way fish has been handled in fish plants. We have to ask ourselves a question and that is will that large company - I am a firm believer in small is beautiful - produce quality as well as the smaller companies are doing now or as well as they are capable of doing? And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is probably no.

Because one of the things that was in the Kirby Report, as the minister knows, is that Grand Bank would close and they would merge with Fortune and that they would put on two shifts, three shifts if necessary but certainly two. And what we are finding, I think I am correct and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think what they have found that if you put two shifts in in Fortune, then the bacteria count is up and quality will suffer. I think that is correct.

So we may indeed find that the super company produces a quality of fish that is not near as good as the quality of fish that can be produced by sainlier companies. We then have to ask ourselves the question will the smaller companies that are still left outside of that super company suffer lower prices? And the answer in that case is probably yes, because the feeling u..J

November 10, 1983 Tape 2957 PK - 2 MR. TULK: that will be around about Newfoundland fish is that it is of a poorer quality. we have been assured by the minister, (Mr. Morgan) and I think he was sincere in trying to assure us, that the smaller companies can use the resources of the large company for marketing. MR. MORGAN: If they want to. MR. TULK: If they want to they may use them. But what does the agreement say ? What does the agreement that the minister has signed and what is the bill that we are going to pass in this House really say? It says this, Mr.

Speaker, that the first priority of the super company in marketing A In other words, what they will try to do first is to sell their own fish. That is pretty reasonablefor a company to sell their own fish first. Who gets second priority? Whose fish is placed second to be sold? If an independent like Boyd Way and Beothuck Fish wants to use 1ç+re- I do not believe he will because I believe he will do a better job himself. MR. MORGAN: MR TULK: knows? He may. But if h do his marketing, and he are they going to say to at him and say, yes, but He will not need them.

I do not think so, but who did want to use that large company to says,Look , I want to use you. What him? Under the agreement they can look you are second to us. 6332

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2958 MJ - 1 MR. Tt.JLK: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what happens in times of poor markets, and that is not uncommon in Newfoundland in the Newfoundland fishery. Who gets the first kick at the cat? is what I am asking. The large company gets the first kick at the cat. Who has the most potential to develop new market strategies? It is obviously the super company. MR. MORGAN: That is the same as it is now. MR. TULK: But what I am saying to you now is that you got - MR. MORGAN: Fishery Products, for example, now (inaudible). MR.

TULK: But what I am saying to you now is that you have created a larger monster than was here before. Mr. Speaker, some people will say, 'But they have got that Newfoundland Marketing Planning and Co-ordination Council.' The weakness of the bill is that that is established by the super company. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to make a decision on something, you are only as good as the number of votes you have around a table if you want to get your decision through. Let us ask ourselves a question: How many independent processors will sit on that Planning and Co-ordination Council? It is not specified.

I do not know if the minister is aware of it or not, but it is not specified in the agreement. It could be one, it could be a dozen. Perhaps the minister, when he clues up, will tell us how many is going to be sitting there. We do know, Mr. Speaker, how many are going to be sitting on that Marketing Council from the other sectors. If you look at page 9, you will see that the number of representatives from the independents are not specified. We have three representatives from the board of directors of the company, including at least one provincial nominee - we are in a minority 6'.)

November 10, 1983 Tape No. 2958 MJ - 2 MR. TULK: position a