Volume XL Wednesday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Fourth Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable P.]. McNicholas Number 8 23 March 1988

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the member for Fortune - Hermitage. For the record, I will just take a moment to draw the House's attention to an error in today' s newspaper; one of the two great newpapers in this city has greviously misquoted me, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in the response to the statement by the gentleman for Lewisporte, the Minister of Environment and Lands (Mr.

Russell), I indicated, as Hansard will show on Page 323, that the increase to $625, in my words - these were not the words in the Minister's statement, and that is not the point of my rising would be become operative after October. These are the words in Hansard, but today • s Telegram, on page 20, quotes me as saying that it would become operative on 31 May, and that is incorrect. I said October, and that is when it will become operative. Statements by Ministers MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism. MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, Tourism is rapidly becoming recognized as a major employer and generator of wealth L378 March 23, 1988 Vol XL in our Province. And this is the case, even though the benefits derived from Tourism have to date been limited to our relatively short Summer season. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today that the development of Winter Tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is not only a distinct possibility, but it has become a definitive reality, given the tremendous growth and interest at facilities like Marble Mountain in the Humber Valley.

I was recently presented with a series of statistics developed by the Corner Brook Ski Club which evaluate the season to date at Marble Mountain and indicate that the downhill ski facility is enjoying a record year for revenues and visits by tourists, and I would like to pass that information along to the House today. To date, revenues at Marble Mountain have already increased by over 25 per cent over last year• s record figures, and this is with roughly about three-quarters of the normal ski season now complete.

Of particular interest to the local tourism industry is the fact that skier-visits from the mainland have increased significantly, and the ski club is actually estimating that the level of visitation from Maritime tourists will increase by well over 400 per cent before the end of this Winter season. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRETT: There are several reasons for the increase in interest and No. 8 . R378

visitation at Marble Mountain. Certainly, the excellent ski packages put together by the regional airlines, by travel agencies and hotels 1 with the assistance of government has played a major role in the phenomenal growth in Winter tourism activity in the region, as has the first-class experience and hospitality provided by our people to these visitors, who are coming in equally large numbers from around the mainland and from areas of our own Province.

In fact, Winter tourism, centered around the Ski Marble Experience 1 is creating an economic and job creation success story in the Humber Valley region of our Province. Tourists coming into Corner Brook from the surrounding area, from Nova Scotia, P .E. I., New Brunswisk, Ontario and Quebec and from the St. John's region mean new money to the economy of the area, and new money means jobs. Marble Mountain directly employs fifty-five people on a full and part-time basis with a payroll of some $15,000 per week.

Information from the ski club indicates that, over the four-month ski season, the Marble Mountain operation will directly inject approximately $700,000 into the local economy. In addition to this, retail sales of ski related goods in the area have already totalled in excess of $1 million in this season alone. In addition to these direct benefits, other establishments catering to the tourist trade, such as hotels and restaurants in Corner Brook and the surrounding area, are all enjoying increased business from the tourist trade. L379 March 23, 1988 Vol XL This again directly translates into jobs!

These establishments are maintaining a full complement of staff, and in many cases have had to hire additional staff to meet the growing tourist demand. The truly encouraging element of this success story is the fact that we have only started to scratch the surface of the potential to develop Winter tourism experiences at Marble Mountain, in particular, but, indeed, throughout all the Province in general. All signals indicate that this success will continue.

The construction of a new motel in Corner Brook to serve the increasing tourist trade, the formation of the Marble Mountain Development Corporation, and a ever increasing private sector interest in developing business opportunities centered around the ski ~xperience, should all be seen as examples of the desire of the people of the region to derive the maximum benefit from the growth in Winter tourism. The resources are being used wisely Valley to create prosperous economic on tourism.

When tourism potential successful elements there and are in the Humber a viable and sector based you add this to the other of the Corner Brook economy, notably the Kruger Pulp and Paper operation, then you are looking at one of the most prosperous regions in the entire Province. Certainly, the provincial government, in close co-operation with our federal counterparts, will continue our commitment to ensure that any and all economic development potential is realized in this particular region of our Province. No. 8 R379

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I stand to welcome the comments made by the bon. minister and to say to him that nobody in this House could be more pleased with this development than I am, personally. Because as the bon. minister knows, and as other members of the House probably know, I have been involved in the promotion of Marble Mountain for more than twenty years. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: The only direct comment I want to make is what effort is being made to really achieve something?

The first study was done on this in 1966. A committee of three people, of which I was one as it turned out, made a recommendation for a year-around park development, at that stage, for purposes of attracting tourists along the lines that the hon. minister has just now talked about, and the people responsible for parks in the Province at the time could not see it happen because there was not a sandy beach in the area. That just tells you the way we thought and have been thinking for a long time.

The time has come to take advantage, as the minister has said, of that tremendous facility and really develop in Newfoundland the potential that it has. It is, as the minister said, employing L380 March 23, 1988 Vol XL fifty-five people pretty well on a full-time basis now and that, Mr. Speaker, has been largely as a result of the effort of a tremendous group of volunteers in Corner Brook, with help over the years from former governments, and this present government has provided certain financial help over the years, as well, to obtain first the big T-bar, as it was called.

In 1967, the first payment of $20,000 was advanced by government to assist in the purchase and installation of that facility, and governments and others, including enterprises like the Bowater paper mill and the Lundrigan Organization, helped and contributed time and equipment and facilities and over the years that tremendous facility has been developed. We should also acknowledge some help from the Government of Canada in making available federal works projects, and that has helped. Now, I will tell all hon. members something else they ought to know, and it may be a source of pride for all hon. members.

Last Winter, I skied at Stowe, Vermont, to try it out. And to tell you the truth, I would sooner ski on the hills of Marble Mountain than I would ski at Stowe, Vermont. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Stowe, Vermont, bon. members ought to know, is sort of the pride of Northeast North America for skiing. The Northeastern U.S. considers Stowe the classy ski place in Northeastern United States. The ski slopes at Marble Mountain were better groomed and better presented than were those slopes No. 8 R380 ·~ -

in Stowe, Vermont. We have the opportunity, with the right investment and the right help for the people concerned, of developing a tremendous facility at Marble Mountain and, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to stop there; there are a great many other hills that we can expand beyond that . The opportunity is great! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. WELLS: The minister is quite right, I welcome his announcement, and I thank him for it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE.Al<ER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR.

FENWICK: I want to thank the minister for providing a copy of his statement well in advance, as we certainly appreciated having a chance to look at it. I must say that the development of a tourism industry in this Province seems to have been going in fits and starts in the past but, it seems to me, it is one of the industries that has the greatest potential for the future. Of course, we know Summer tourism on the West Coast of Newfoundland is probably one of its brightest industries in terms of what we will see in the future. In Winter tourism, I am pleased to see that Marble Mountain is doing so well.

We feel, in Labrador West, that we have the kinds of L381 March 23, 1988 Vol XL facilities that are a good adjunct to development of this kind of a Winter tourist potential in a place like Corner Brook. We have, as members of the House know, an extension on the season in Marble Mountain; when you start skiing down the slopes and end up with no snow in Marble Mountain, you still have four to six weeks of skiing left in Labrador City. And you have, of course, a month to six weeks skiing ahead of the season start in Corner Brook as well. So, on that basis, I am pleased to endorse the promotion of Winter tourism.

I look with approval on the assignment of a development officer to Labrador West, I think three or four years l!lgo now. I know he has done an excellent job of developing Summer tourism and Winter tourism and we are hoping that eventually this kind of diversification may also occur in Labrador West. So, on that basis, packages and tours and so on, are now being prepared for our area and we are hoping to be able to develop that into a first-class Winter ski resort, which it already is, but now we have to tell the rest of the world that it already is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. BUTT: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. BUTT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform bon. members that government, after careful consideration, has decided to permit a limited hunt in the Mealy Mountain caribou herd in Labrador this year. No. 8 R381

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BUTT: Before elaborating, I wish to emphasize that this hunt will be conducted on a trial basis for one season, with a full assessment of scientific data and information following the conclusion of the hunt. Several Labrador communi ties will receive a proportionate allotment of a total of 175 either sex licences for a hunt to be conducted over a three week period, from April 4 to April 25. Happy Valley - Goose Bay will be alloted 50 licences, Sheshatshit 40, Cartwright 30, North West River 25, Rigolet 16, Paradise River 7, and Mud Lake 7.

In Rigolet and Sheshashit, licences will be issued to town elders and community leaders who, in turn, will allocate them accordingly. In the remaining communities, an open draw will be conducted by the department and will be the means of allocating those licences. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BUTT: To qualify for a licence to hunt caribou in the Mealy Mountain area, a person must meet residential requirements as defined under the act; in other words, applicants must be residents of one of the seven communities.

However, regardless of the place of residence, any person who held a moose or caribou licence in the province in 1987 - 1988 is ineligible. For those who qualify, preference will be given to party licence applicants over individual applicants. I believe these prequalifications to be the most equitable method of issuing L382 March 23, 1988 Vol XL licences for this limited hunt of the Mealy Mountain caribou herd. The hunt will be supervised by the Wildlife Division of my Department, and will take place in a specified area.

The boundary is as follows: It begins at Mud Lake, follows the South Shore of Lake Melville, Groswater Bay and the Labrador Coast South to the the Town of Paradise River, then proceeds in a due South direction to the Labrador - Quebec border, follows the border West until due South of Mud Lake and returns to the Town of Mud Lake. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I remind bon. members that this is a pilot project, and will be carefully assessed upon the expiration of the three week hunt. Mr.

Speaker, I also wish to announce at this time that government has decided to allow a limited polar bear hunt this year in Northern Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BUTT: The hunt will begin on April 4, and conclude eight weeks later, on May 31. Four party licences to parties of four will be permitted, and the allocation will be determined by the Nain town council and other community groups, such as the LIA. The fee attached to these licences is $100 each. The location of the hunt is defined as Nain and North of Nain, which is consistent with requests from area residents. Mr.

Speaker, I want to emphasize that this is a pilot project for one season only. Further direction regarding the hunting programmes depends on the analysis No. 8 R382

and assessment of scientific data and information gathered. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress that these measures reflect a realization of the special needs of Labrador. I am certain most residents of Labrador will be happy when they hear this announcement, which is being made simultaneously in Labrador today by my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Northern Development. Thank you. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. KELLAND: Hr. Speaker. HR. SPEAI<ER: The bon. the member for Naskaupi. HR. KELLAND: Thank you, Hr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the advance copy.

It is an interesting thing to see the minister making a statement about opening the Healy Mountain herd for a trial hunt for one year, and it reflects somewhat of a different view, I think, than was expressed by government and a lot of others last year when there was an illegal hunt of the same caribou herd. This was done for a couple of different reasons by the Innu people involved, and the predecessor of the minister is pretty well aware of it all, we discussed it many times. For those people who wish this to take place, it will be good news for them, no doubt.

But there are others, other groups and other individuals, who have expressed some concern. For example, the L383 March 23, 1988 Vol XL government itself, I believe, last year said they were concerned, when the Innu people from Sheshashit went in to hunt the Mealy Mountain herd illegally, that the Mealy Mountain caribou herd could not sustain any sort of a hunt that would take fifty or sixty or seventy or eighty or ninety animals, or perhaps a hundred animals.

I would like to know from the minister, at whatever opportunity presents itself, what changes have taken place to now give the minister the belief that the herd can sustain, even though it is a one-year trial, a hunt of 175 animals, saying there will be 100 per cent success, of course? I find that interesting. The Innu, when they did their hunt they were making not just a statement that they needed Winter meat but a political statement, and we all know that, to express their concerns about what they believe has been the deterioration and the diminishing of their aboriginal rights of hunting and so on.

So I have some questions about that. Perhaps the minister, at some time, will tell me what has transpired to now make a hunt that was not possible last year in the eyes of government for probably only half the number of animals, now possible. I would like to have that particular information. It seems to me, too, that there is a bit of a political overtone. I hate to say this or even suggest it, but within the whole context of the statement, Mr.

Speaker, there seems to be the feeling that if we give the Innu the legal right to hunt caribou in Healy Mountain - I am speaking of the Innu only from Sheshatshit, not the other people involved - tl}en Mo. 8 R383

they will no longer be able to mount a protest to government, and get the media attention of government's inadequate treatment of them, by doing an illegal hunt again this year. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. KELLAND: By leave? SOME HOM. MEMBERS: No leave. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please? Th~ hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. KELLAND: Thank you very much, bon. members . MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I guess the fact that I can look on this much more positively than the member for Naskaupi (Mr.

Kelland) is the proof of the old adage that two people look at a half empty glass and some call it half empty and some call it half full. I am very pleased to see this initiative by government. If you look at it, I think the member for Naskaukpi is correct in assuming that there is a departure here from our normal style. To give you an example, fifty licences for Happy Valley - Goose Bay with a population of 6,000 to 8,000 people, and forty licences for Sheshatshit with only 650 people. L384 March 23, 1988 Vol XL There is obviously a different emphasis there, which we applaud, we think it is appropriate.

The other thing which I think is very important, Is it for the first time, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, that licences will be given to the elders and the town leaders to distribute among their own population rather than to individuals in a totally random draw? If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it shows a remarkable sensitivity to the way in which the hunt would normally be organized in a community like Sheshatshit. Again, I applaud that initiative, because I think it does show a difference in sensitivity.

Similarly, the four group polar bear licences · being given to the Main community, again to be allocated through the town council and the community groups, also shows, I think, that sensitivity. I think, that having done this, the government is now setting in place - I am not sure if this is true or not - perhaps, some legal grounds for the land claims and aboriginal hunting right claims of the Native peoples, the Innuit and Innu in Labrador. On that basis, I think that is a laudable objective and a worthwhile thing to do, and we applaud it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Oral Questions MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The han . the member for Naskaupi. MR. KELLAND: No. 8 R384

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Development and Tourism (Mr. Barrett). MR. BUTT: So the Labrador hunt is not important to you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. KELLAND: When they are ready, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. KELLAND: To the Minister of Development: Employees of Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited, who· have been laid off since February 8 of this year, which was supposed to have been a temporary lay-off, have come concerns that the plant may permanently close.

To allay those concerns, I wonder would the minister clarify the situation and state whether or not there is any intention on the part of government to close the plant permanently? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Development and Tourism. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The lay-off in February really was the direct result of a fire which occurred at the Hardwood premises on Topsail Road at that time. It might be of interest for the member to be aware that the activities of that branch of Newfoundland Hardwoods has been undergoing some evaluation now for a period of time.

I guess the loss of a significant amount of L385 March 23, 1988 Vol XL the stock which was on hand and the damages which were incurred to the buildings have caused an acceleration of the review process as to whether or not it is necessary to maintain that particular division of Newfoundland Hardwoods. The original reasons that that facility was established was to bring a form of technology to the Province which did not already exist here.

We now find that, through the past numbers of years, the private sector independently has obtained and acquired various elements of technology and construction techniques and manufacturing elements that basically displaces all of the initiatives that had been undertaken by the government of the day when that division of Hardwoods was established. So, I think there is probably a very real consideration and possibility that there might be a disposition by government of that particular division. MR. KELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. member for Naskaupi. MR.

KELLAND: the I should inform the minister, first off, that the lay-off that occurred starting February 8 was for a two or three week period and had nothing to do with the fire which occurred after the lay-off had taken place, just for his information. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. KELLAND: I had a look at the financial No. 8 R385

report of Newfoundland Hardwoods. I was curious to see from a net profit of about $1 million in 1986 that it had slipped to something like $385,000 in 1987. MR. BARRETT: Is it debt or net profit you are talking about? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. KELLAND: Net profit. That is not fish net, it is net profit. From about $1 million in 1986 to something under $400,000 in 1987, and a possible negative position at the end of this fiscal year, the end of this month. The minister was obviously aware of that, so what initiatives did he take to prevent that sort of thing?

And what does he intend to do with the seventy or so employees who will be affected by a permanent closure of the plant? MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Development and Tourism. MR. BARRETT: Well, I think that the bon. member is jumping rather significantly to some conclusion which has not as yet been reached. The decision has not as yet been taken. I said there is an evaluation process ongoing to give consideration to that option.

To reflect on the reasons as to the deterioration of the net profit of the operations of the plant, if one were to look at it in some informed detail, you would find that most of that erosion of L386 March 23, 1988 Vol XL profitability is directly attributed to that particular division of the company. As members should know, Newfoundland Hardwoods operates out of two major facilities, one in C1arenvi1le and the other in Mount Pearl, in St. John's. And the two divisions basically operate rather independently, because their whole product line and the"ir whole emphasis are in fact totally different.

But accountability as it relates to profit centres is still maintained, so therefore an evaluation of the cost out of the operations of both are indeed possible. So the deterioration that has occurred has been attributed to that division on Topsail Road. But it is not necessarily a question of upgrading of capability or capacity or introduction of new techniques.

Basically it is for the reason which I have just explained to the hon. member, and that is that other elements of the private sector have over a period of time introduced into their independent manufacturing, distributor organizations that which was at one time solely within the field of that division of Newfoundland Hardwoods. So the erosion from the business initiative has taken place in the private sector, which is really where it should be. So I do not know if the member is comforted by that information, but I think that should probably answer the question that he posed. MR • KELLAND: A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Naskaupi. MR • KELLAND: No. 8 the R386

It is interesting to note just on your response, Mr. Minister, that there is not a whole lot of difference on the gross sales from 1986 to 1987, so it would indicate some sort of inefficiency, perhaps, that the net profit has dropped so considerably in that period of time, by almost two-thirds. The big question, though, I think that I am asking in the final supplementary is when will these seventy-plus people know what their fate will be? When will they know if they will have jobs or not have jobs? I think it is a burning question for them and a burning question for the House of Assembly. SOME HOM.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Development. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there are two elements to the hon. member' s question. I think probably if he reflected on his own experience in the private sector or in business at all, he would realize that if sales remain at . a constant level there is going to be an erosion in profit, mainly because of the fact that your fixed costs are increasing every year.

The cost of salaries is going up, the cost of basic services is increasing, and the cost of acquiring the basic materials and items that you are selling or processing through your plant is increasing. If you do not have a similar increase in your sales element, then obviously you cannot maintain the same profit factor. With respect to the other .issue, L387 March 23, 1988 Vol XL the employees certainly indeed have a right to know, and they will be informed as soon decision is taken, when evaluation process has completed. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. Leader of MR.

WELLS: as a the been the Mr. Speaker, before addressing this question to the Premier, I want to express to him my appreciation and the appreciation of the members, at least in this caucus, who visited the Sprung facility last night, for his arranging it. I think I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not express publicly our appreciation for the kind of reception we received from Mr. Sprung and from his daughter, Dawn Sprung, and his wife also, who was there toward the later stages. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Frankly, we were very courteously and pleasantly treated by them.

They carried on the discussions in a very pleasant manner, and I publicly express appreciation to them for it, and to the Premier for arranging it. There are a couple of questions that I want to ask arising out of it. Would the Premier arrange a tour for the remaining members of the House who have not visited it? I understand most members on the opposite side have visited it, but I do not know that that is so. I am told it is so. Would the Premier arrange for the No. 8 R387

remaining members on this side of the House, who have not visited that facility, to have an opportunity to visit it? Because it is enlightening. Anybody who goes out there can learn something from seeing that. Would he arrange for that? And would he arrange for a similar briefing for the members of the House that he arranged for the media with respect to the negotiations and the arrangement for financing and so on? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition, and the members for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) and St. John • s East (Mr.

Long) agreed to the invitation that I offered them last week and that they visited the facility and that they were duly impressed with it. We will arrange it. It will take some time because there are so many people who want to get in to see this disaster that Peckford got involved in. But I am very pleased to see that other members of the Opposition also want to see this disaster, this white elephant on the political career of the Premier of this Province. In that light, I will attempt to arrange for other members of the House who have not already seen the facility to see it.

I have no problems either in arranging a briefing on the detiills and technicalities of the financial arrangements, and the various contracts and so on that had been entered into, for a representative number of the members of the Opposition. I would be extremely remiss, after saying yes to both of the bon. L388 March 23, 1988 Vol XL member's questions, if I did not take the bon. Leader of the Opposition to task.

Because it bothers me no end, it is more bothersome than anything else nothing to do with Sprung in particular - that the Leader of the Opposition is awfully worried about the fact that somebody might establish a similar facility in Kingston, Ontario . As a Newfoundlander - not as a leader of a party, not as a member of the House of Assembly I find it revolting that any Newfoundlander or Labradorian worth his salt would ever say that we have got to wait until Ontario gets ahead of us before we can decide whether we can do anything here in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The bon . the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: Just so that the Premier is not misled and he will fully understand the situation, the purpose of the comment is to talk in terms of our ability to compete with Ontario, where we propose to market. That is what we are talking about. PREMIER PECKFORD: In that case we should close down the paper mills in our Province now because there are some in Ontario. Shame!. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame ! Shame ! PREMIER PECKFORD: Down with Newfoundland! Up No. 8 R388

Ontario! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. WELLS: It has nothing to do with it. It is a matter, Mr. Speaker, of making a judgement. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to enable us to judge properly whether or not what is going to be asked of this Hon. House, in terms of approving those expenditures made by the government and approving of the guarantees given by the government, would the bon. the Premier provide the five year projections table for Newfoundland Enviroponics? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: I do not know if we can provide the five year projections because we do not know how many Sprung facilities will be on the go in the next two or three years in Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: I guess we will provide the five year projections for Baie Verte and their asbestos, ~~d for the Marystown Shipyard outlook, for St. Lawrence mines and for Hope Brook, because we got more money into all of those than we have into Sprung either directly or indirectly, Mr. Speaker.

So I do not know if we can provide five year projections for the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. I can say to him, as we have said in the House many times before - L389 March 23, 1988 Vol XL MR. WINDSOR: Is he going to be around here in five years? PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, who is going here in five years? Speaker, right here sitting. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER PECKFORD: to be around I will, Mr. where I am I will be here perhaps five or eight or ten years from now, primarily because of the Leader of the Opposition and some of the views that I hear him expressing, that it was justifiable for the federal government not to get between the hydro contract on the Upper Churchill sell-off years ago because Quebec would be mad; therefore, Newfoundland must suffer. I will be here because the Leader ·of the Opposition, five years from now, is agreeable for us not having more legislative jurisdiction over the fishery, Mr. Speaker.

And I will be here because the Leader of the Opposition believes that until something happens in Ontario it cannot happen here. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: My question is still the same, Mr. Speaker. Would the bon . the Premier table the five year projections for Newfoundland Enviroponics? No. 8 R389

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the bon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Beauchesne, Fifth Edition the bon. the Leader of the Opposition might want to read it tonight to just to practice up on it Paragraph 357,

Section 171, subsection (

c) and subsection (

d) say: In putting a question you must confine yourself to the narrowest of limits. The purpose of the question is to obtain information, but the question must not 'multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point. ' Or 'repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused. ' By the Leader of the Opposition's own admission, Mr. Speaker, this is clearly repeating the same question. Therefore, it is out of order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: If he wants to rephrase it, let him rephrase it. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, it is extremely difficult for the Chair to decide at times whether a question is exactly the same as a previous one. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell him to sit down! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Any minister does not have to answer any question he does not like to answer. L390 March 23, 1988 Vol XL The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, any minister does not have to answer, but there still have to be rules which govern the House which Your Honour must adjudicate over. I have no problem in answering the Leader of the Opposition, as I did in the previous question.

The projections for viability for the project that we are now involved in are 7 million pounds a year. If anybody wants to do a little bit of basic Grade V or Grade VI arithm~tic, based upon less than one-half of one facility producing at the present moment, we are going to reach far more than 7 million pounds.

It is highly likely, if you extrapolate, and there is no reason why in the other zones the same thing will not happen that is now happening in the one zone that is producing, that that being so - and obviously it looks like it will be so, because there is no reason to determine that the other zone will be different; they are going to be the same - that we are going to be at 8 or 10 or 12 million pounds a year, and 7 million pounds is viability. So any elementary student can do that kind of mathematics.

So our projections, looking at this one particular facility, and we hope we have many more, is to produce well in excess of 7 million pounds of produce a year. Our economic analysis shows that 7 million pounds is viability, and that the project will start making money. We have a clause in the agreement whereby we can be bought out, and then it can be completely in the private sector. Hopefully we No. 8 R390 .. ... ~ ..

wi 11 , Mr . Speaker, as the viability of this project becomes more imminent and occurs, get into other projects around the Province like this one. In the area of markets, there are unlimited markets for this produce, because there are 200 million pounds . imported into Canada every year of this produce, and we are talking about somewhere around 10 million pounds, which is 3 million over viability.

There have already been talks held, with people in Montreal and Toronto, brokers and wholesalers, in the same way as there have been in Newfoundland, with the New England States on this, so our projections over the next five years, conservatively speaking with a small 'c' - would be 10 times 5. Therefore we are talking about 10 million times 5, which is 50 million pounds of produce over the five-year period.

By the end of the five years, as I have already said, there may be other projects, so that, therefore, we could be looking at 70 million to 100 million pounds as we get into other projects around the Province. So that is on the production side. That would be our five-year forecast. On the marketing side, as I have already indicated, there is an importation into Canada from the Canary Islands, Mexico. Israel. and other places far more afield than Newfoundland for transportation costs.

By the way, we have a prov1s1on in the agreement that no other facility of this type can be constructed by the Sprung Group anywhere if it would interfere with the viability of this project, so we are covered there L391 March 23, 1988 Vol XL also. There is a condition as everybody knows, a provision in the agreement which means that no other projects can be built anywhere else if they impact upon the viability of this project, so we are protected under the agreement in any case.

So on the marketing side, without even talking about the United States and New England, who are already calling looking for some of this produce, we feel that to get ten per cent would be 20 million, we only have 10 million to sell, so we would only have to get 5 per. cent of the whole Canadian market. So a five year projection, Mr. Speaker, would be fifty million- MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The question was very simple, Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR.

TULK: - will the Premier table the five year cash projections for the Sprung project? Yes or no, Mr. Speaker, not fifteen minutes of an harangue from the hon. gentleman. He knows as well as we know that questions should be short, answers should be short and to the point. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. No. 8 R391

The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: So, on the production side, Mr. Speaker, and on the marketing side, that is where we stand. Now as it relates to the cost side, that will vary each year, because as most hon. people sitting in this House know, and I am sure that a lot of the people in the galleries understand, that the price of produce varies during the year. When the supply is low and the demand still high in the Winter time, the prices will be very high. In the Summertime, when you have your normal produce corning on from normal growing techniques, and the demand is still high, the price will go down.

So the projections over the next five years will vary in each one of those years. But it is anticipated by the government, by our best estimates, that we will produce more than seven million pounds of produce, which will, therefore, get us into viability. We have built into our projections the variation in price from Summer to Winter to reflect that.

So, it is our view that the five year forecasts on the business of production will be about seven million pounds, that we will be into viability and, therefore, be able to proceed on to provide other parts of the Province with research and development opportunities, hundreds of jobs, Mr. Speaker, and be on the ongoing leading edge of a very, very important technology. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: L392 March 23, 1988 Vol XL The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Justice (Ms. Verge).

My question concerns statements that the Minister of Justice made in this House last year when questioned about The Elections Act and the enforceability of certain aspects of it. · The Minister indicated at that time that this government would be bringing in revisions to The Elections Act this year in order to make sure that the disclosure provisions were beefed up to force disclosure. The minister also indicated that some other revisions might come down at the same time.

My question to the minister is: Given that we have had two byelections in recent time and that the time for disclosure is fast approaching, is the government, the other side, ready to bring in these amendments to The Elections Act to enforce disclosure? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the government is still considering various options for amending the provincial elections legislation. MR. FENWICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR.

FENWICK: Considering that we are almost in the fourth year of this government's mandate and they will have to seek another mandate, and considering, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite have had a barrage of questions about the No. 8 R392

Leader of the Official Opposition's salary supplements, and considering that a proper Elections Act would disclose this money, my question for thr minister is this: Does she not believe that it is long past time to bring in disclosure legislation so we will know who are tpe five or six backers that the member the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) says are the backers of the Leader of the Official Opposition? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, as I said, the government is considering possibilities for amending our Elections Act and there seems to be quite a bit of enthusiams to get on with it. MR . FENWICK: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR.

FENWICK: If that is the case, Mr ·- Speaker, can I then take that to be a commitment that we will have an Elections Act in this session of the Legislature so that we will know not only who are the backers for the Leader of the Official Opposition are but also who the donors are to the PC Party, to our party, and indeed to all politicians active in this Province today? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Justice . MS VERGE: L393 March 23, 1988 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, this is something for the government as a whole that we are looking at, and when a decision is made it will be announced to all bon. members. MR .

SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. MR. PATTERSON: Give 'Roger' a chance. MR. SIMMONS: Hear, hear! bumper. Spoken by a true MR. PATTERSON: I have bumped you more than once. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: I have a question for the bon. the Premier. The gentleman from Green Bay will be, in five years, here. No question about it, he will be here in five years! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

SIMMONS: The Premier will be aware of Clause 3.3 in the Sprung facilities construction contract, which clause provides that sub-contract prices are to be deleted from the information supplied to the government. I ask the Pre~ier, keeping in mind that the general contractor, the Sprung Group, is also the government's No. 8 R393

partner in the joint undertaking, and keeping in mind that it is the government which is putting up the actual cash, will the Premier agree to require from the general contractor a detailed accounting including dollar amounts, of the subcontract costs? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday in detail three or four times. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: the Mr.

Speaker, can the Premier divulge to the House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador his reasons for persisting in this highly irregular arrangement with the general contractor? Is there, I ask the Premier, any justifiable reason why the government should not be party to the detail of the subcontracts cost? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I answered that question in detail three or four times yesterday. MR. SIMMS: A good answer! MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for the Strait of Bell Isle . L394 March 23, 1988 Vol XL MR. DECKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the bon. the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DECKER: It is a well known fact that there is a disparity between funding for rural schools boards and urban school boards as it relates to educational instruction, and I make that clear for the bon. Minister. Will this disparity be eliminated in the upcoming budget? I ask the bon. Minister. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr.

Speaker, first let me thank the bon. member for the question, the first on such an important issue this session, and I believe the third from the Opposition since I became Minister of Education three years ago. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

HEARN: There is nothing like jumping on a hot issue, and the hot issue these days in education is the inequality of opportunities in Newfoundland because we have a Province made up of rural and urban areas, some of which are more economically feasible than others, consequently, g1v1ng school boards the opportunities in the larger areas to raise more money, and put it into the schools, than they can do in the rural areas, thus creating discrepancies not due to government funding ·but due to No. 8 R394

taxes raised locally. I appreciate what he is saying. The concern is there. The concern, however, was pointed out by us three years ago when we attacked the problem. and set up the Small School Study to identify ways of addressing inequalities. We brought in, over two years ago, a tax equalization grant which hit the problem dead on. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HEARN: And just to make sure that all the other bases were covered, the Throne Speech this year highlighted education, and especially educational funding.

We have agreed and are already setting up the terms of reference for a study to look at the total educational finance problem in this Province. To answer directly, story. the member's Tuesday will question tell the SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: There is just time for a brief final supplementary. The han. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the han. the minister is saying no. My question was specific and clear: Will it be eliminated? I take his answer to be no.

Now, my supplementary, Speaker, minister department is this: Will Mr. the his explain why is allowing this L395 March 23, 1988 Vol XL disparity in educational funding to continue? Do not give me poppycock, give me the truth. Why are you allowing it? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, we have, in this Province, in the present department inherited a situation that had gone on for a number of years. Since 1971, when a certain administration came into power, the changes in educational funding and improvements in education generally have skyrocketed.

From 1979 when the present administration came in, until today, the figures are unbelievable compared to the past. The inequalities that were there were unbelievable. We have attempted to address them, and in recent years, including this present year, with every means possible we have attempted to address the inequalities. The member knows so little about it and is jumping on one issue that is being highlighted out there. There is more than one way to address the inequalities that exist.

That is exactly what we are looking for in our total study of educational finance, and we will, with the other agencies with whom we are working hand in hand and have been for the past number of years, identify ways of solving the inequalities, and then we will do it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! No. 8 R395

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. Orders of the Day MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, before you call Orders of the Day. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise · under Standing Order 23 in order to ask that the regular order of business be set aside today to debate a matter of urgent public business. I have a copy here for Your Honour. The Leader of the Opposition stated publicly yesterday that, and I quote "It would be madness if Newfoundland had more legislative jurisdiction over our fishery." AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame! MR.

SIMMS: The same hon. gentleman said in this House on Opening Day - MR. BAIRD: Sit down, sit down! MR. DAWE: He is on a point of privilege. MR. DINN: Learn the rules of the House, he is on a point of privilege. MR. SIMMS: Pardon? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SIMMS:· What do you think I am on? I am rising under Standing Order 23, L396 March 23, 1988 Vol XL Mr. Speaker. MR. WINDSOR: This is a point of privilege, you cannot (inaudible). AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down! MR.- SIMMS: Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has risen under Standing Order 23. MR. SIMMS: So I can state - MR.

SPEAKER: 'Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House - MR. SIMMS: Right. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: 'must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and - MR. SIMMS: You have not heard what I had to say yet. MR. SPEAKER: 'before the orders of the day are presented upon.' That Standing Order is perfectly in order and the bon. member is also. MR. SIMMS: I will just be brief, Mr. Speaker, and then the hon. member can speak to it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SIMMS: No. 8 R396

His Honour has just ruled. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TULK: Are we not entitled to make a point of order? MR. SIMMS: Yes. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the President of Council is in order to put this motion. AN HOM. MEMBER: Of course he is. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, then the hon. Opposition House Leader can speak to the issue that I am raising. Mr. Speaker, gentleman said Opening Day - that same hon. in this House on SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMS: That the federal gover~~ent was justified that - MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! President of the As the Council L397 March 23, 1988 hon. at the Vol XL present time has risen on Standing Order 23, he is asking leave to make a motion and the hon. the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) is rising on a point of order. I am prepared to listen to the hon. member's point of order. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Thank you very much. I refer Your Honour in our Standing Orders, I do not remember the number right off, but it is here.

It says that at 4:00 o'clock, today being Private Member's Day, the Speaker is to call the order of business for the day which is Private Member's Day. I would say to Your .Honour that that being the time, he should now call the motion that was put by the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert), rather than allow any other business of this House to go on. MR. SIMMS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. MR. SIMMS: I can make just as strong an argument by quoting another

section of the Standing Orders, 23 (a), which says "Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business and before the orders of the day are entered upon.' That is what I have done, Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day were entered upon and I am perfectly in my right to do this. The hon. member has not even given me a chance to ask leave to No. 8 R397

present the motion yet. So I mean if the bon. member can hold on to his socks over there, I only have one more paragraph and then he can speak to it if he wishes. MR. TULI<: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMS: The han. member is trying to - I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULI<: Yes, on the point of order, you have the floor. MR. SIMMS: I am responding to your point of order. Do not get excited. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Just do not get excited now, you will get a chance. Mr.

Speaker, the bon. member knows full well what he is now asking Your Honour to do is rule that this particular Standing Order 23 cannot apply on Private Member's Day. MR. TULI<: Mo. MR. SIMMS: Well that is what the hon. member is suggesting in his argument. But clearly, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to do this before the orders are called and I did so, Mr. Speaker, you were listening. You were hearing me. Obviously I have the right to do it, and the bon. the members opposite were just too ignorant and wanted to interrupt me before I could even finish what I was trying to say.

He does not even know what I am L398 March 23, 1988 Vol XL going to say. So that is all there is to the point of order, Mr. Speaker . MR. TULI<: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAI<ER: To the point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULI<: Mr.

Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to something that he just read, 'before the orders of the day are entered upon. • I would make the point to Your Honour that at four o'clock and it is now five minutes after four, and it was one minute after four before the hon. gentleman rose in his place, I would make the point to Your Honour that at that point at four o'clock Your Honour should have called the orders of the day, which was the motion put by the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. MR. SIMMONS: And he did. MR. TULI<: And you did. MR. SPKAI<ER: Order, please! MR.

TULI<: And that being the order, and that being the point, at four o'clock we are automatically, according to our Standing Orders, into Private Member's Day. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULI<: It is now five minutes after four. The hon. gentleman is out of order to go to Standing Order 23 . Mo. 8 R398

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: I have just a brief what the bon. member Does the bon. member wish to speak to it? the right to respond? MR. SPEAKER: comment to is saying. for Menihek If I have The bon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Okay, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the bon . the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Yes, I just wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that what the bon. member is trying to do now is take over the Speaker's Chair as well as being Opposition House Leader. It is not Opposition Leader who will make these decisions, . it is the Speaker.

The Speaker has already accepted my right to move this motion under Standing Order 23 by recogn1z1ng me, and he did not interrupt me, he did not call me to order. I have about one paragraph remaining, Mr. Speaker, and then the bon. member can argue whether or not it is in order or whether he does not want to go for it. MR • FElJ'.NI CK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: On a point of order.

It is my understanding that moving Order 23 is not necessarily on the importance of the motion itself, or the subject matter, which may L399 March 23, 1988 Vol XL be quite important, but whether or not there is an opportunity to debate it. MR. LONG: Of course. MR. FENWICK: I refer you to the Order Paper in which we have Address in Reply, Committee of Supply and, I believe, a Fisheries Loan Bill in No. 8 of the motions. On that basis, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me, over the next couple of days there will be plenty of opportunity for members opposite and for the Leader of the Official Opposition to address that particular issue. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, if I may respond to that comment. MR. SPEAKER: I will recognize the bon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, Sir, that the Standing Order that we ought also to look at is Standing Order No. 53 (4).

It says, and I quote, Sir: "On Wednesdays the question period shall commence not later than 3:30 p.m. and the ordinary daily routine of business shall end not later than 4: 00 p.m. , and at that time the private member's motion shall be called by the Speaker." No. 8 R399

Mr. Speaker, in that sentence, there is a key phrase: 'the ordinary daily routine of business'. Mr. Speaker, the ordinary daily routine of business, I submit to you, includes everything other than the Orders of the Day. Everything that precedes Orders of the Day is 'characterized as the ordinary daily routine of business, which includes Standing Order No. 23, Question Period, Statements by Ministers, Petitions, etc. It embraces everything except Orders of the Day. That 53 (4) very clearly states that the ordinary daily routine of business shall end not later than 4:00 p.m. Mr.

Speaker, thanks to your proper exercise of the Chair, that is exactly what happened. At 4:00 p.m. or within a few seconds, Mr. Speaker went directly to call Orders of the Day. Indeed, he took me so by surprise that I turned to my colleague to my left to ask what happened on Petitions, and I realized it was Wednesday and Mr. Speaker was doing what he is required to do under the Standing Order which I have just quoted, to go directly to Orders of the Day. Mr. Speaker, I think it is an open and shut case. I can understand the gentleman from Grand Falls getting up.

They may want to delay the vote on the railway resolution with so many people looking on, but that is a side issue and they will not get away with trying to delay the vote. MR. SIMMS: A final submission, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final submission. MR. SIMMS: I will see if I can do something L400 March 23, 1988 Vol XL to help Your Honour out of this dilemma. It is a dilemma, of course, and unfortunately, the bon. members opposite are getting all hot and bothered over nothing.

The member for Menihek said there is lots of time to debate it, but he did not even hear what the motion was or what I wanted to debate, and he did not even give me the courtesy of allowing that. In view of the fact, Mr . Speaker, that during the entire thirty-minute Oral Question period, there was not one question to the minister on this side about the railway, not one question and, in view of the fact that Your Honour would obviously have to perhaps recess for a few minutes to consider the matter - because it is the first time raised, perhaps, on Private Members' Day - I will withdraw my intent today, Mr.

Speaker, and serve notice that I will do it again tomorrow. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Member's Day. The hon. the member for Menihek adjourned the debate. The bon. the member for Menihek. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, the resolution, as put forward by the Liberal critic for Transportation, is badly flawed. It is so badly flawed, Mr. Speaker, that it is frightening to think that this House of Assembly is being asked to pass a motion to discontinue the railway . I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, in the 156 year history of this bon. House that we No. 8 R400

have even gone on record to discontinue a right that we had under the Terms of Union and have done it voluntarily. Mr. Speaker, when I finish my contribution to this debate I will be tabling three or four amendments to this particular resolution. I have copies of the resolution for the proposed amendments to it and how it would look after it is amended. If one of the pages wish to come over, I would be glad to circulate them on both sides so that they can see them. Mr.

Speaker, the Transportation critic for the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition have both said that we have a right to a transportation system and that the transportation system means that we can parlay that right to a transportation system into a series of demands on the federal government, part of which would include things such as twinning the Trans-Canada Highway, others of which would be addressing the workers who would be involved if the railway were discontinued, and others of which would be a constitutional guarantee for the return of the railway in the future . . Mr.

Speaker, I think it is appropriate to read the actual wording of the Terms of Union. I think both the Leader of the Official Opposition and other members, who are legally inclined, will realize that Term 31 says, "Canada will take over the following services, and will, as from the date of union, relieve the province of Newfoundland of the public cost incurred in respect of each service taken over, namely" - (

a) is the first L401 March 23, 1988 Vol XL one listed "the Newfoundland Railway including steamship and other marine services." Mr. Speaker, it says nothing, absolutely nothing about maintaining a transportation system and, I think, it is extremely important that we realize that there is no Term of Union that says they have to keep up any transportation system in this Province. All is says is that while the Newfoundland railway and the steamships associated with it are on the go, it will pick up the deficit of it. That is why, Mr.

Speaker, I think, the Liberal resolution is so utterly dangerous, because in the poker game that will ensue, if the railway does eventually become discontinued, it will mean that we have taken our Ace, our Joker, our wild card, and thrown it in the discard deck even before we start negotiating with the federal government. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I think that the resolution absolutely has to be amended to say that this House is in favour of the continuation of the Newfoundland railway.

There is no other way that we can constitutionally expect the federal government to live up to their obligations and there is no other way we can possibly negotiate with the government if we do not maintain the one sound legal defence that we have for this whole situation. Mr. Speaker, it is, I think, a very important thing to also recognize that in the speech made by the member for Humber Valley (Mr. Woodford) that certain truths were spoken, that the businessmen No. 8 R401

in our Province have, over the last number of years, not used the Newfoundland railway to the extent they have before. That is a fact. There are a tremendous number of people in this Province who believe that the downgrading of the railway by raising rates, arbitrarily restricting the amount of service that can be given, have led to this also occurring.

On this basis, all we can say is that if the usage in the railway discontinues, or drops even further, then even maintaining that statutory right to the railway, although a victory of sorts, will be somewhat of an empty victory if we do not have that much usage on it. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical for us to maintain that that contractural obligation has to continue.

So, when we approach this debate, we approach it by looking at the rest of the resolution being put forward by the Liberal Opposition which says that there are certain things which should necessarily occur if it transpires that there is no more substantial use of the railway and if, under those circumstances, the federal government is not actually supporting anything. I think we should address those particular considerations carefully. One of the important considerations is the treatment of the individuals concern.

Those 700-odd people who now work for the railway clearly have spent, in some cases, twenty years or thirty years working for it and are not in a great position to look for alternative employment, are not in a great position to have a good retirement package given to them, and are not in a great position to L402 March 23, 1988 Vol XL get up and move to some other part of the country, if indeed, that is the option being put to them. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the first priorities will have to be the preservation of the financial integrity of those people who work in the railway.

When I say this, Mr. Speaker, I do not talk about miniscule separation packages, I do not talk about MILAP programmes that have been in existence in the past, in which the unemployment insurance is used to patch up a miserable existence for three or four years. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a comprehensive policy that finds work for every single railway worker who wants to continue on working and is in a position to have that as an option available to them. For those people who are close to retirement age and wish to exercise an option of retiring, that too, is an important consideration . Mr.

Speaker, that must be our first priority . However, I do say at this time that in the Liberal resolution there is a major group that is missing. That was pointed out by the Minister of Transportation and also by the member for Humber Valley and, of course, it has to do with the individuals who live in the communi ties that depend on the employment of the railway. Those are predominantly places ~uch as Port aux Basques, Bishop's Falls, Whitbourne, parts of St. John's and Clarenville, I understand as well. Mr.

Speaker, when you take several hundred jobs out of a community like that, you do not only have a problem with the individuals who lose their jobs, you have a No. 8 R402

problem with the entire community. If you want a classic example of that, I will ask you to look at Labrador West, my own district, where, between 1982 and 1984, we lost a thousand paying jobs in one of the mines alone. Mr. Speaker, a number of things occurred at that time that I do not want to see repeated in any of these railway communities and I think it is important that we understand that we have no systems in place that really provides an adequate safety net for these communities themselves. To give you an example, in Labrador West in 1981 an average house would cost from $50,000 $55,000.

These were very good houses, provided by the company, bought by the individuals over those previous years. Two years later, after a thousand people have been laid off, the average value of those houses dropped to about $15,000 each. Individuals who had $50,000 worth of equity had three-quarters of it wiped out within a year, primarily because there was nobody there to go· and buy the houses. The market kept on declining and individuals who were counting on using their homes as an equity in order to provide for their retirement had nothing at all when it came time to retire. Mr.

Speaker, if we do not look at the communi ties like Port aux Basques, like Whitbourne, like Bishop's Falls, if we do not look at the communities and decide that we have to support the communities themselves, then we have been terribly negligent. I have heard from some of the Liberal speakers say that they meant to address that but, Mr. Speaker, it is not in the resolution itself and, not being there, I would suggest that it is extremely important to make L403 March 23, 1988 Vol XL sure that it is and it is one of the amendments that we propose. Mr. Speaker, there is also another problem.

In communities like Port aux Basques, it is my opinion that if the railway were discontinued, it would not only be the jobs in a place like Port aux Basques that would be gone, but we would see a change in the transportation pattern in this province. Right now we have Port aux Basques as the main gateway for much of our freight and much of our passenger traffic. If you discontinue the railway and we do not see as much freight coming through there, then I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that a lot of the tractor trailer traffic that currently goes through Port aux Basques will be re-routed through sea routes to Corner Brook, St. John's and other centers. That, Mr. Speaker, I think, is a very important thing to remember. It is not just the jobs that will be lost, but it will be a basic change in the transportation pattern in this province. The basic change will mean an accumulative effect on communities such as Port aux Basques to the extent that it is my opini.on that they would lose tremendously by any attempt to do this. So, Mr.

Speaker, not only do we need protection for the workers there, but we also need an industrial strategy for communi ties like Port aux Basques. We have to look at putting in new industries in an area like that that may use some of the resources that were available to the railways, some of the shops and some of the rail yards, as is being done in Buchans, not very successfully, but it is being started in No. 8 R403

Buchans. Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely critical situation to look at. Another aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, is the question of compensation. It is being put forward that a twinned highway all the way across the Island part of Newfoundland would be adequate compensation, provided it were maintained for a significant period of time, or provided it was maintained in perpetuity by the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I question this on two grounds. The first is, I am not entirely sure that a twinned highway from Pot"t aux Basques to St. John's is entit"ely necessary.

Clearly it is necessary ft"om places like Whitbourne to St. John's, clearly it is necessary between Gander and Grand Falls, and clearly it is necessary in that death trap that the member for Humber Valley talks about between Deer Lake and Cornet" Brook where clearly a double, four-lane highway, with a separated median, is necessary. I question set"iously whether the stretch of t"oad between Gt"and Falls and Spl"ingdale needs a fout"-lane highway. Having tt"avelled it many times myself, I am not entirely convinced that a good two-lane highway with passing lanes would not be entirely adequate to the situation.

Since we are in a negotiating position, I would suggest that it would be more appl"opt"iate that we design the kind of highway that would be appl"Opt"iate for the Island part of the Province, which leads me to the othet" major lack, in terms of the concept of this resolution, and that is the Island part of the Province is not all L404 March 23, 1988 Vol XL the Pt"ovince. As a matter of fact, the largest, geographical chunk of it is the Continental part that abutts onto Quebec and the Ungava Peninsula. It is called Labrador.

That area, when it comes to tt"ansportation problems, is so far behind the rest of the Pt"ovince that it is laughable. I would suggest strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the other amendment that we have is that resources must be dit"ected to completing the Trans-Labt"adot" Highway.

A highway completed fl"om Labt"adot" West, which is also, as evet"ybody knows, now connected up to the mainland highway system, going all the way through Churchill Falls, tht"ough Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and then to the Coast of Labradot" would do mot"e fot" the development of Labradot" than any other single initiative that I can think of, including other initiatives that we have talked about in this House in the past. Mr.

Speaker, it is extt"emely impot"tant to the people of Labrador that they feel that thet"e is a commitment by this govet"nment and by the official Opposition and by any other pat"liamentary group in this Province to completing that road system. If it is part of a revolution in the way in which we organize transportation in this Province, then clearly it is appt"opdate that the Labrador part be included as well. Finally, Ml". Speaker, I think it is important in this debate that the govet"nment come clean with where it's position is.

We have been getting a lot of criticism of the Liberal position from the Minister of Transportation, and I think a lot of that cd ticism was No. 8 R404

deserved, quite frankly, because it was an inadequate resolution. But we have not been getting from the minister a clear-cut statement of what the policy of this government is towards the railway. What we have been getting is mixed signals. Back in 1979 and 1980 the Premier said we have a constitutional guarantee to the railway in perpetuity. A year or two ago what we got from the Premier - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, and I will be finished - what we got a year ago was an assertion that we did not have a constitutional right. So finally, Mr.

Speaker, what I would ask is, as this debate continues, would the Premier come in, stand up in his place and say to everybody concerned what government is doing about the railway. Is it on the table? Are you negotiating about it? Please, Mr. Premier, tell us what is going on. Thank you very much. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member from LaPoile. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

L405 March 23, 1988 Vol XL In an effort to put forth a resolution in this House that can be more acceptable to all members of the House, in order to be able to support - MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, just as a courtesy . MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: I indicated through the speech that there were a number of amendments that I wished to move and I distributed them to everyone. Is it possible for me to just move that before the next speaker starts? If we do not, we can get the other member to speak and to move it, but I think it is appropriate that it at least be put on the table. MR.

LONG: He said he was moving it but did not actually make the motion. He said they were being moved, but he did not make a motion. MR. FENWICK: I would make the motion that these amendments as listed on the paper be moved, Mr. Speaker. MR. LONG: They were circulated and tabled. MR. SIMMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader. MR. SIMMS: the Government House Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is in order for a member to rise on a point of order, which the hon. member had to, to move amendments to a resolution. I do not think No. 8 R405

there is anywhere that you will find that that is permissible. I saw a copy of the han. member's amendments, but I understood he had moved them during his debate. MR. FENWICK: I indicated I would. MR. SIMMS: But you neglected to do so. MR. LONG: He said he would move the motion at the end, but he was cut off at time. MR. SIMMS: I see, I see. Well, perhaps the amendment about to be presented by my colleague from LaPoile might suffice. Perhaps you can have a look at it. If not, later on your other colleague can attempt to get up. That would be our position, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think that can be done under a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: If that is agreeable, the han. the member for LaPoile, please continue. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, in an effort to put forward a resolution in this House that can be more acceptable and offer more opportunities for all members of the House to ­ support it, I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment by deleting, after the first

WHEREAS - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MITCHELL: - to move the following amendment to the amendment - L406 March 23, 1988 Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! MR. MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not get your ruling. I understood that you accepted the amendment that was put forward. MR. SPEAKER: No. MR. MITCHELL: O.K. I understand now, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I would like to propose the following amendment by deleting, after the first

WHEREAS and substituting thereafter: "WHEREAS this government has consistently supported the continuance of the Newfoundland Railway as an integral component of the overall transportation system; then "BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that government continue to carry on discussions and programs in co-operation with the federal government that will result in an inter-modal transportation system that meets the transportation requirements of Newfoundland and Labrador now and in the future; ..

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that government continue to recognize the economic importance of the transportation to employees and communities that might be negatively effected by changes in the existing transportation system; .. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should discussions lead to an agreement that the present railway employees be provided with alternative job opportunities, early pension, or alternate financial arrangements in direct No. 8 R406

consultation with both national and local union heads; "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that communities affected be provided with adequate alternate development opportunities; "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rates for through traffic between North Sydney and Port aux Basques continue to be set in accordance with the Terms of Union; "BE IT ALSO FURTHER RESOLVED that any changes in the Newfoundland transportation system be in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador." SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On point of order, the bon. the member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: I have to say to the bon. gentleman that I do not have the complete text of his amendment, but just from sitting in this seat and listening to it, it seems to me that the amendment is completely out of order because, what it would do is completely negate the present resolution. I refer your Honor to Beauchesne,

Section 431: "An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion," which I would say that this one does "is not an expanded negative and may be moved". Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that what the bon. gentlemen did was move an amendment which destroys the resolution that was L407 March 23, 1988 Vol XL put forward by the member for Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir in that it tries completely to do away with the intent, with the spirit, and, indeed, with the letter of what the bon. gentleman from Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir has put forward.

I would ask Your Honour to rule the amendment out of order. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the House Leader. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the bon. member's arguments are kind of strange in view of the fact that he prefaced his disagreement with the amendment by saying that he had not even seen it yet. Now, that, in itself, sounds a little bit unusual. Your Honour may wish to take a few minutes to recess to have a look at this. I do not know. That is up to Your Honour.

The point of matter is that it is perfectly acceptable, and may I read a quotation or citation for Your Honour from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Paragraph 425, which says, "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the questions." Mr. Speaker, I think if Your Honour has a look at this he will see clearly it is very, very relevant.

It encompasses some amendments that the representatives unions talked to Transportation encompasses that. No. 8 of some of the the· Minister of about. That In fact, if I R407

remember, and I do not have a copy of it in front of me either, the last "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED" makes a reference to the fact that any changes be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. To me, Mr. Speaker, that encompasses just about everyt_hing. So I cannot see how the hon. member can argue that it is out of order, especially considering the citation I just repeated for Your Honour. Paragraph 425, I think, makes it fairly clear. MR. SPEAKER (Parsons): I have heard enough, I think, to make a ruling. I think that it is of very, very grave importance to the House to have perhaps five minutes to make an assessment, and I will come back with a ruling within five minutes. MR.

SIMMONS: Will you hear argument before the recess? MR. SPEAKER: The Chair feels that it has heard enough argument and a decision will be made within five minutes. Recess MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! After due deliberation, we find the amendment is in order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: I will give the reason. Because it deals with the same subject matter, perhaps with more general terms.

I quote from Beauchesne, L408 March 23, 1988 Vol XL Paragraph 425, "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the questions." The han. the member for LaPoile. MR. FENWICK: On a point of privilege, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this: In the previous debate, you cut me off after speaking for fifteen minutes.

Clearly, in the rules of order, in rule 53.1 (2), "Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 49, no member may speak for more than twenty minutes in the debate." I checked with the Table officers and they informed me that they had assessed me five minutes for being recognized last Wednesday when I started the debate and adjourned it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Hansard for March 16, last Wednesday, on Page 154, you will see that I said all of two words, "Mr. Speaker". Then, at that point the Government House Leader said that we had to vote on something else. Mr.

Speaker, I do not speak that quickly, but surely "Mr. Speaker" takes a little bit less than five minutes to speak. I now move, on my question of privilege, that I be given back No. 8 R408

the five minutes I was denied in order to complete it. MR. SIMMS: He has to rule on the Question of Privilege first. MR. FENWICK: Yes, I know, but my motion at the end of it would be that I get my five minutes back in order to complete my speech, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAI<ER: The bon. the House Leader. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge what the bon. member for Menihek has said. If bon. members will recall, last Wednesday we had a tri-party resolution on the seal fishery.

When the member for Menihek was recognized at that time, I interrupted him and said that we had agreed in advance to, at a quarter to six, discuss and put the resolution on the seal fishery. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the bon. member does have a legitimate point.

In that particular case, of course, if you thus rule that way - I do not know how Your Honour will rule - then the bon. member would have the opportunity to move his amendments, in which case, then, I would argue the bon. member for LaPoile would still have the right to move his amendment, only it would be an amendment to the amendment, if Your Honour thus rules. We have no real problem with that and it would seem justifable. MR. SPEAKER: To the bon. member for Menihek, on L409 March 23, 1988 Vol XL his point of privilege, the Chair does not feel that it is a point of privilege, but rather a point of order.

In what he is justification. will be allowed minutes. AN HON. MEMBER: By leave? MR. SPEAI<ER: By leave. MR. FENWICK: saying, I find The bon. member the extra five Mr. Speaker, I will not take the five minutes, since I am close to the end of it, but I do wish to move the amendments that we have proposed, which we have provided copies of for both sides of the House. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege. MR. SPEAI<ER: The bon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I rose at the same time as my friend from Menihek, and it being a matter of privilege, I have to raise it at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question of the amendment from the gentleman from LaPoile which you found to be in order. As I said, for the information of the gentlemen opposite, I am going to raise the matter of privilege, and I need just a sentence of two to flesh it out before I come to my matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Government House Leader attempted to switch the subject from the railway to the fisheries. That No. 8 R409

did not succeed, another series playing. and now we have of their game Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government wants to destroy the resolution. Suddenly the government, which as the government could have brought in a resolution on the railway from the first day this House opened two weeks ago, but did not do it, are all interested in the railway. Where have they been for two weeks? My point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, is the following: As a private member in this Chamber I have a right under the Standing Orders, as does the gentleman from Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, who has put down the resolution that we are presently debating, and it ought to be an unfettered right, to put down a resolution, as a private member, and to give the House an opportunity to vote on it. What is happening here today, and what has consistently happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the government uses its majority to effectively wipe out Private Member's Day. That, Mr. Speaker, is a breach of my privileges.

It limits my capacity to put down resolutions, whether it be about the railway or whatever. I submit, Mr. Speaker, in making the ruling that you have made, you have, maybe unwittingly, breached the privileges of the gentleman for Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir and, in the process, you have breached the privileges of every member in this House because, in making your ruling, you have, in effect, severely limited the right of the member for Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir to get the House's decision on what he believes ought to be done in respect to transportation in L410 March 23, 1988 Vol XL this Province. Mr. Speaker.

That is the issue, SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Either we are going to have Private Member's Day, Mr. Speaker, or we are going to have that _ circus we saw this afternoon where the gentleman - MR. SPEAKER (Parsons): Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: - under the guise of a motion. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Sir. MR. BAIRD: Name him, Mr. Speaker, name him. MR. SPEAKER: Look, the Chair finds impossible to ascertain point of privilege is. MR. SIMMONS: it almost what the I will make it very quickly, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege, has it got to go on for an indefinite period?

I would like for you, Sir, to make the point of privilege. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, as I said around two minutes ago and not wanting to take undue time, I want to hear what the gentleman for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell) has to say on the subject. Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege, which I began to state, is that my privileges as a member of this Chamber are being breached No. 8 R410

as a result of the ruling made by Hr. Speaker. I wanted to make the point before recess because I was going to put this argument as a consideration for Hr. Speaker in making his ruling. I have no choice but to make it after the fact, and so I am appealing to Hr. Speaker to reconsider the ruling. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SIMMONS: There are very serious ramifications for my privileges, the privileges of the gentleman for Burgeo - bay d • Espoir and of every private member in this House. That is my point of privilege. If Mr.

Speaker finds I have established a prima facie case, I am prepared to put down the appropriate motion. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: To that point of privilege, so-called point of privilege, I have never heard any thing of the like in my life. It is absolutely ludicrous what the hon. member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) is trying to do. When you consider the fact that the hon. member is suppose to be a veteran of this parliament and the House of Commons in Ottawa, he should know better. What he is doing is questioning Mr.

Speaker's ruling which has already been made, already been ruled on. He is implying that a member should be able to put forth a resolution on Private Member's Day that cannot be amended, which L411 March 23, 1988 Vol XL is absolutely ludicrous because they, and I would not be surprised if the hon. member himself in the resolutions on Day, but more any of that, more past has amended Private Member's importantly than importantly - MR. SIMMONS: With the consent of the House .· MR.

SIMMS: - with the consent of the House, nonsense, with the ruling of the Chair, as always but more important than any of those legalistic types of debates or parliamentary reference type of debate, most important is the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have put forth a resolution here that can be acceptable to all members of this hon. House and that is the reason it was framed in the way it was.

Do not forget that the amendments we proposed, most of the amendments, at least some of the amendments that we proposed were amendments requested by representation from the unions involved in this situation to the Minister of Transportation, and he carried out his responsibility by ensuring those amendments were put forth. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: Mr.

Speaker, before everybody in the Gallery and everybody in this Province start to indicate to the Liberal Party opposite the kind of contempt in which they are held for trying to stall the debate on such an important resolution when there are people here waiting to hear some debate on the resolution, rather than this kind of legalistic argument, I suggest the hon. member for Fortune Hermitage go back, study No. 8 R411

Beauchesne a bit more, show some references, because he did not cite one as support for his point of privilege, and hang his head in shame at the same time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, there arises a new matter that I want to give notice of once we have seen the Hansard for today. I believe the gentleman for Grand Falls (Mr. Simms) said that the amendment moved by the gentleman for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell) was generated by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Doyle). SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no! MR.

SIMMONS: If so, Mr. Speaker, he has admitted that it is a government amendment on Private Member's Day. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Speaking to the point of privilege, I do not believe that anyone's privileges in this House have been taken away from them because of the ruling made by the Chair. I ask the member for Menihek if he would continue. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I will just read in the amendments. Moved by the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) L412 March 23, 1988 Vol XL and seconded by the member for st. John's East (Mr. Long) that the resolution be amended as follows. Mr.

Speaker, I have given three pages and the amended resolution is there, plus the motion: "That the eighth

WHEREAS be amended to delete the words 'inefficient and unacceptable,' and replace the words with the words 'underutilized.' "That the section, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, be amended to read that 'that this House of Assembly supports the continuance of the railway in Newfoundland, but in the event the railway is discontinued it only be under the following conditions: "Be it further amended that

Section (

g) be added to the previous section, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, saying, 'that a special comprehensive program be instituted so that the communities in which the major layoffs would occur so that the tax base would be protected, - new industries established to provide continuing employment at the same level in the community itself. "That the BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED be amended in (

d) to add the

Section iii) construct the Trans Labrador Highway through to the coast of Labrador from Labrador West, and pay the annual maintenance costs." So moved and seconded, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! As I understand resolution that and now there proposed. No. 8 it, there was a has been amended is a subamendment R412

MR. SIMMS: Maybe I can assist in the clarification. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the council. MR. SIMMS: This was agreed to before Your Honour came back in the Chair. The hon. member's time had been somehow fouled up the last day and we agreed to let him put his amendment, but then it would be understood that the amendment put by the member for LaPoile was actually the amendment to the amendment. The member for LaPoile is actually the one who has the floor. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentleman, for the first time since this Legislature has opened, is right on this point. He did give leave to do exactly what he said. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is a little bit confused now. Just debating? amendment? exactly Are we ~OME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: what are debating The amendment to the amendment. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. we the I appreciate the ruling from the L413 March 23, 1988 Vol XL Chair.

I also am very proud of the opportunity to eventually be able to speak in this House on the amended resolution. I feel for the first time since this issue entered the House of Assembly, that now we have a resolution that has some teeth in it, a resolution that we can debate, and hopefully, a resolution that all members of this bon. House can accept. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to see members of the Canadian National Railway in the galleries today. I am sure that they are very anxious to hear what is going to be debated in this bon. House.

I understand from the newspaper reports when they left the other day they were a little bit disillusioned with what they had heard, they were a little bit disillusioned with the resolution that was put forward by the Liberal Party, and I can say to this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution that is put forth today is a resolution that is coming from the hon. member for LaPoile. It is a good reason for that, Mr. Speaker, because CN is so important to my district and it is so important to the many constituents that live in my district. Mr.

Speaker, we can go back some hundred years ago when the railway was first instituted and establised in this Province. We see that Port aux Basques was established as a transportation town. The railway started from Port aux Basques and came to St. John's. People in my riding and in the town of Port aux Basques depended on the railway for their livelihood. Mr. Speaker, this is why I am very proud today to be able to stand in No. 8 R413

this House and present this resolution that I feel is going to deal with a lot of the issues that surround all of the controversy in connection with the railway today. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say that the resolution that was put forward by the member for Burgee Bay d' Espoir was . a hypothetical one. What the resolution talked about was whether or not we were going to do away with the railway. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, at this particular time in history the railway is still a viable industry in this Province.

I want to deal with some of the aspects of the resolution that I put forward here today, because if there are negotiations, and I know that there are negotiations because it is public knowledge. The newspapers have said that there are negotiations between this Province and the federal government in relation to the railway. My major concern is that in these negotiations there will be certain aspects that will be taken care of. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I was very disillusioned with that resolution which was put forward by the member for Burgee - Bay d'Espoir.

No mention whatsoever about any compensation packages for communities that would be affected if the railway, for instance, was to be replaced by another transportation system in the Province. There was no mention whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. I had in the galleries the Mayor from Port aux Basques who went away from here very .disillusioned. I have just been informed, Mr. Speaker, that I only have two minutes in this debate. L414 March 23, 1988 Vol XL I am very sorry - SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! MR.

MITCHELL: - that the time has been taken up on such trivial matters in relation to getting this amendment by the Opposition on the floor of this Assembly. I am going to have to make my remarks very brief, Mr. Speaker. So many people wanted to make sure that their interests in the railway were taken care of. We have people in the galleries today, I have constituents, Mr. Speaker, in my district, who have devoted their whole life to the railway. They have worked for the railway all their lives and we hear the Opposition, saying, 'If it is appropriate, Mr.

Speaker, we will do something for them.' Now, what is appropriate? Is two years appropriate? Is six months appropriate? Or if you worked for the railway for ten years, yes, maybe we could take a look at your situation. But if you work fifteen or twenty years, we may consider a pension. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to be definitive in what our policy was going to be in relation to what we, as a government, would put forward to the federal government. I think my resolution, Mr. Speaker, clearly outlines that, as it was put forward today. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to be able to rise in this bon.

House and to say that all aspects of the transportation system, as it relates to the employees, as it relates to the towns, will be a major consideration in any negotiations that take place on No. 8 R414

the railway government and Canada. between this the Government of Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to be able to say that under the Terms of Union, back in 1949, when the railway was in difficulty, that the federal government came to the rescue of this Province and said, 'Yes, we will take over the transportation system and we will help with the cost of operating that system.' I am very proud to be able to stand here today and say also that in any negotiations with the federal government I believe the assurance can be given that everybody involved in the railway will also be taken care of. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MORGAN: Not will be, they must be. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, they must be. I also have another major concern, Mr. Speaker, and that is concerning the transportation needs of this Province. I believe that it is more than just the railway at stake here. I sincerely believe - MR. SPEAKER: The hon . member's time has elapsed . SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The bon. the member for L415 March 23, 1988 Vol XL Twillingate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, I think there is a word for what we are seeing here this afternoon, but I am sure that is not parliamentary. If I were allowed to use it, Mr.

Speaker, I think the word hypocrisy would be very well in place, because what we say today is the Government House Leader, in one breath getting up and contriving a means of killing this debate, deferring the vote on the regulations by introducing a motion under Standing Order 23, that we defer the discussion on this bill, set aside the business of the House, and that is what it said, and debate a remark that was made by the Leader of the Opposition three or four days ago on the fishery - MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible) sell out. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: - even though, Mr.

Speaker, there are many occasions in the next few days, including the Throne Speech debate, the · debate on the supplementary estimates and others, where that issue, if he wants to raise it, can be debated. The House Leader chose to rise in his place and to ask that this motion go forward, knowing very well that the galleries are full of people, most of whom have a personal interest to be here today, to hear what is going on with respect to their future and the future of Canadian National in our Province. He was quite No. 8 R415

willingly to have this debate set aside, to have the resolution literally killed, to debate an issue that can be debated at any time during the next few days. Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland rail passenger service in this province is, without a doubt, one of the most debated, I suppose, one of the most maligned and one of the most abused public transportation systems on the North American continent. Going back to the mid-sixties, the debate started. Yes, I suppose, going back before the mid-sixties the debate started as to the viability of the Canadian National and our rail passenger service.

In fact, there is a very strong suggestion that it was back in those days, back in the '60's that the decision was made to bring about the abolition of Newfoundland's rail passenger service and eventually, of course, the entire rail service in this province . Mr. Speaker, · despite all that is being said in this House and in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I am not sure that the Government of Canada has taken too seriously the importance of this issue.

I recall when one of our local radio stations here, back in the late '60's o~ early '70's, at considerable expense to their company and effort, initiated a province-wide petition calling for the retention of the rail passenger service in this province. I do not know the exact wording of the petition, but what it said in effect was that the rail passenger service should be allowed to continue and that any attempt or any plan on the part of the federal authorities to abolish that service should be set aside.

L416 March 23, 1988 Vol XL I recall very vividly the effort made and the time taken and the money spent by that radio station to have that petition circulated and to ensure that it was a success. There were school children, for example, canvassing the various communities, getting people to sign that petition. The radio station in question, their talk show host spent hours over probably a two or three month period soliciting signatures for that very important petition.

Finally, when the last signature was affixed to that petition, they put all of the letters and all of the names in a barrel and they painted the barrel - I believe it was yellow - and on it they marked the words, "Save the Bullet, The VOCM Petition. " VOCM was the news media that initiated the petition. That barrel of petitions, containing the names of, I believe, something like 300,000 Newfoundlanders, was dispatched to Ottawa to be presented to the House of Commons. I was one of the four people who, on a hot day in July, rolled that barrel up Parliament Hill - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR .

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: - up the walk, up to the Centre Block in front of the cameras and the national press. We were · trying to make a point, the point, of course, being that Newfoundlanders did not want to see their rail passenger service abolished. We presented that petition in the House of Commons, with a great deal of fanfare, thinking that we were making an No. 8 R416

impression. Mr. Speaker, the following morning I had occasion to be walking down the corridors of the basement of the Centre Block going from one building to another. In the course of my travels through the basement corridor, I passed the garbage room of the House of Commons where waste paper is stored pending it being carted off to the dump or whatever they do with it. and lo and behold! Sitting in there, in all of its glory, was this barrel of petitions that was presented the day before coming from Newfoundland. Now that, something. the powers are not Mr.

Speaker, told me It told me that maybe that be then, as now. taking their responsibilities constitutional or their obligations too seriously. Nothing came of that petition and I suspect there were other petitions and other attempts made by elected people down here and by others to focus attention - MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible) garbage. MR. SPF..AKER: Order, please! HR. W. CARTER: petition in the Mr.

Speaker, it is all very well for members opposite, realizing there are people in the gallery, men who have a large stake in what is happening and what is being said here today and what actions will be taken by the federal government over the next few months, - MR. MORGAN: L417 March 23, 1988 Vol XL (Inaudible) Ottawa, sure. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to stand here, as the member for LaPoile (Mr. Mitchell) did and to some extent the gentleman from Menihek (Mr. Fenwick), and posture and try to be all things to all people.

I would suggest to you that while these amendments are being read, while they are being prepared, while the members who make them attempt to grandstand and to impress their viewers and try to impress upon them, of course, now they are fighting for the working class - SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is persistent interruption from one member on my left and I would ask him to please keep quiet. He has ample opportunity when his turn comes to speak. The bon. the member for Twillingate. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, while the bon. member No. 8 R417

was up presenting his amendment to the resolution, he admitted, and I think I can quote him pretty well, that it is pretty well public knowledge, he said, that negotiations are taking place with respect to the abolition of the rail passenger service. These are his words. So why this charade, Mr. Speaker? I do not get any kick out of seeing any rail passenger service being abolished. I think most Newfoundlanders in their heart would like to see that service continued. Of course, we would. It is part of Newfoundland's heritage.

There is no member on this side who gets any real kick out of talking or listening to comments that would have the effect maybe of downgrading the service and eventually abolishing it. Of course, we would 1 ike to see the rail passenger service continued. In fact, a lot of us, and I suspect most Newfoundlanders yet are not fully reconciled to the proposition that Newfoundland cannot, as other provinces, have a rail passenger service and a good Trans-Canada. Mr. Speaker, there are certain realities in life that we must accept and face up to.

I think most railroaders, those that I have talked to, have pretty well come to grips now with that problem. The rail passenger service in this Province has been downgraded, downgraded to the point where it is now uneconomic, in fact, it is loading up very substantial losses every year. MR. DAWE: Not the rail passenger service, that has been gone for some years. MR. W. CARTER: L418 March 23, 1988 Vol XL The rail service itself, I apologize, yes, the Canadian National rail service. Mr.

Speaker, that is a fact of life, Sir, and no amount of posturing or poll ticking or anything else will change that very fundamental, basic fact of life. What we are saying on this side is, in very simple terms, my colleague's resolution, while it is being criticized by the gentlemen opposite, trying to pick holes in it, to say it is flawed, and it does not make provision for this, that, or something else, the resolution very simply sums up, Mr. Speaker, I believe, what most Newfoundlanders feel.

If in fact it comes to pass that we must lose the railway, then let us take whatever steps we have to take now to protect our rights as enshrined in the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland to guarantee Newfoundlanders, not only this generation but future generations, that we will have a decent mode of transportation across this Province. If we cannot have a rail service, then we want this government in its negotiations with Ottawa, not to settle for thirty pieces of silver, for $800 million. That might sound like a lot of money but most experts will tell you, Mr.

Speaker, it is only a mere drop in the bucket when it comes to replacing the rail service and protecting Newfoundland's Constitutional rights in the Terms of Union. What we are saying is do not, for maybe political reasons, and some of suspect that is maybe the overriding motive for talking now in terms of a large cash settlement. You can buy a lot of No. 8 R418

votes with $1 billion or $800 million. That is not acceptable to us, for the government to sell part of our birthright and to maybe jeopardize the future transportation system in this Province for a cash settlement. We are saying, also, Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's resolution that if in fact it comes to pass that Canadian National and the governments of Newfoundland and Canada see fit, in their wisdom or otherwise, to discontinue to rail service, we are saying that the present railway employees be provided with alternative job opportunities or early pensions where appropriate. MR.

MORGAN: What do appropriate, ' appropriate. you mean it is 'where all SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. DOYLE: You can appropriate. ' loop holes. MR. W. CARTER: not say 'where There are too many Mr. Speaker, this resolution, presented by my colleague, protects the rights of the workers . We are not insensitive to the fact that most railway men have given their lives, pretty well, to the railway here in this Province. They worked long and hard.

We do not, I certainly do not, a man who raised a family and had all the problems that go with it, I do not know how people can function as they have functioned for almost two decades now, not knowing if they are going to have L419 March 23, 1988 Vol XL a job six months from now or in six months time. There has been a cloud of uncertainty hovering over railway workers in this Province now for the past twenty years. MR. DOYLE: You are not lifting it now with that (inaudible). MR. W. CARTER: The bon.

Minister of Transportation knows very well, and I do not want to be interrupted by him while I am speaking, but he knows very well that his friends in Ottawa are already making plans for the discontinuation of rail service in this Province. He knows very well that a sum of money. is being talked about. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, and we are saying do not do it.

Do not be tempted, as attractive as it might be to suddenly find yourselves with $800 million or maybe $1 billion in your back pocket so you can put on a massive campaign in your desperation to win the next election, do not sell the rights of Newfoundland, do not sell the rights of Newfoundlanders, not only this generation, but future generations as well. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things that we are supporting on this side.

I would like to again make reference to the attempts on the part of the House Leader to side track the issue, to do what he has to do to kill the resolution to make sure that it never comes to a head, or that members opposite will not be put in the spot of having to vote for a certain resolution or amendments to it. No. 8 R419

Mr. Speaker, I again say that I would plead with all members to support my colleague's resolution. What he is saying, in effect, is that if the railway is to go, then let us make sure that our constitutional rights are protected and that we do not sell out for a sum of money that in future years will prove to be very inadequate.

My leader makes a very good point when he says that any agreement now, for example, to discontinue the rail service in the Province must carry with it an understanding on the part of the federal government that if and when the need arises, whether it is next year or fifty years down the road, we will have not waived our right to a rail passenger service, or a train service, in this Province. That, too, must be part of any agreement entered into between the Province and the federal government. Mr. Speak~r, again I get back to the matter of the employees of Canadian National.

I can only say that I think they deserve better. I think that any working man, any person, any group of people who have given their working lives, as is the case in many cases, deserve to know where they stand and where they are going. I would ask the Minister of Transportation and the Premier, and I would ask the federal Minister of Transportation Mr. Crosbie), to come clean with the railway people and to come clean with the Province. Let the people know where they stand!

There have been all kinds of rumors circulating and headlines ~ t~ p~e~ s~i~ t~t negotiations are ongoing and then, of course, somebody comes out and denies it. There has been nothing L420 March 23, 1988 Vol XL but confusion. I think the federal Minister of Transportation, who represents, by the way, a riding in this Province that is the horne riding of a lot of railway workers, owes it to them to make his government's position abundantly clear, as does the Minister of Transportation for this Province. Remove the doubt and the uncertainty.

Let the workers know where they stand, and also let Newfoundlanders know where they stand in terms of the rail service. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. DAWE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the amendment to the amendment to the original resolution as put forward by my colleague, the member for LaPoile.

As members will realize, the member for LaPoile and myself share aj oining constituencies and, although to a lesser degree, certainly the constituents in my district are very much, and have been very much involved with the railway for a long period of time. Everybody has taken the opportunity to relate a little bit of history, I guess, about their own individual contact with the railway, the importance of the railway, and, I suppose to emphasize the important role the No. 8 R420

railway has played in this Province. I had the privilege, in the Sununers of 1960 and 1961, to work in the dining cars with CN, going back and forth across the Province. Some of the employees I see in the galleries today were obviously members of unions and staff of CM at that point in time. Some of the people I worked with, who have passed on, they will well remember. It was an experience, Mr.

Speaker, that I would have liked each and every Newfoundlander to have had sometime in their careers, have the opportunity to see what a valuable contribution the railway and its employees made, and the kind of economic benefit that the railway meant to communities around the Province. It is an opportunity that I only wish each and every resident of Newfoundland could have experienced. Coming into the portfolio of Transportation, back in March, 1981, one of the first things I was confronted with was a proposal from· the federal government that would have resulted in the closure of the railway, back in 1981.

I think, of any member of this legislature right now who was around at that time, with the exception of the Premier who has been consistently supportive of the continuance of the railway, on a number of occasions I highlighted a number of specific issues that resulted in a continuance and somewhat of an upgrading, as well as could be done at that particular time with the railway. But the Premier has consistantly supported the continuance of the railway, and this administration has consistantly supported it. If I may, Mr.

Speaker, I might indicate, perhaps, that second L421 March 23, 1988 Vol XL only to the Premier' s has been my support for the continuance of the railway, in the face of a lot of opposition. The member from Twillingate indicated that perhaps the writing is on the wall and that people not only within but without the railway have seen that it is on a decline and that perhaps we should deal with that reality. But we have consistently tried to make sure that the role of the railway was enhanced as much as it could be in the total transportation picture of the Province.

We also have to remember, and I would like tp remind the Opposition, that the decline of the railway is certainly not a new phenomenon. From 1949, the total employment with the railway, combined with the marine sector at that point in time, was in excess of 3, 600 or 3,700 people. By 1968, albeit the barrel rolled up Parliament Hill, that had declined to just in excess of 1,500; there was about a 50 per cent decline in employment in that period of time. A number of things have happened, of course.

If we want to look at the behind-the-scenes deals that were done, I am sure my colleague from Placentia, if time permits, would like to relate some stories about what happened with regard to the Argentia Branch Line and the Argentia Road, and other arrangements that were made which saw a continual decline of the railway over that period of time. One of the things resolution brought member for Burgeo - which I guess the Transportation and spoke indicated, No. 8 about the in by the Bay d' Espoir Minister of others who is the R421

inadequacy, first of all, and the hypothetical nature of the resolution. But even if you went on to discuss the resolution, there is the complete inadequacy and the shortsightedness. You talk about the member from Twillingate saying, oh! don not take your thirty pieces of silver. Do not sell out the railway for the short-term. What a shortsighted approach members opposite have taken. You cannot pull out the railway when you talk about transportation in Newfoundland, and say we will deal with the railway .

You cannot pull out CN Marine's activities or Marine Atlantic's activities, or our own intraprovincial ferry service activities and say we will just talk about that. You cannot pull out the improvements that we have had in our air services in this Province, both in Labrador and within the Island, and say, well, we will just talk about air transportation. You cannot pull out the dramatic improvements that have been made in road transportation in this Province and talk about just that. You pull out the inadequacies in our road transportation and just talk about that.

It has to be looked at in its totality. and to do anything less is really trying to create a smoke screen for purely political purposes, which is what the member has done with this resolution, instead of dealing with the issue. If you wanted to take your hypothetical resolution and deal with the problems, even with the railway, there is nothing but a vague recognition of the employees rights in the resolution put forward - where appropriate, or if it is appropriate. Mr.

Speaker, over the past three L422 March 23, 1988 Vol XL or four years I have had literally dozen of meetings with either groups of employees of the railway or individuals with the railway, to talk about the ongoing concerns that they have had.

The Premier and I met with them, I think it was a year and a half or two years ago, collectively with all the representatives from the various unions with the railway, and if I could sort of capsulize what they asked us to do, recognizing where the jurisdictional responsibilities are, as a group of employees they asked the province, asked the Premier, asked me and asked government if we would do whatever we could to make sure that in the ongoing discussions relative to the railway, whether it continued, whether there were reductions, or whether there improvements, that we would do what we could as a government to make sure that their position was protected, that their rights were recognized, and that they would have a fair opportunity a fair opportunity to seek either alternative employment, or to make sure that compensation packages to them were put in place.

And we have endeavoured right through this whole process to do that. That was a commitment that the Premier and myself and government made to these people, and we will continue to do that in any way we can as a government, to make sure that the employees of Terra Transport, of the Canadian National subsidiary in this province, are well protected and well recognized, and that their contribution to the lifestyle of Newfoundland over the past ninety years plus is recognized in whatever happens in the future with regard to the railway. Als