Volume XLI Monday Province of Newfoundland FORTY- FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Number 1 2 April 1990

rhe House met at 2:00 p.m . MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please! Before moving on to the routine business of the day I lAJould like to advise hon. members that this is the first day of the live broadcast of the proceedings of the HouSE!, and at the appropriate time I tAJill table the guidelines for· the m€:1dia. BSfore getting into our business we wouJ.cl J.ike, on behalf of hon. Members, to welcome to the public galleriE!S today twenty-three Grade X and Grade X 1 students from Holy Heart of Mar·y School herE! in St. John 1 s, accompanied by their teac hE!r Mr. John Fitzgerald. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: Statemen~s by Ministers. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr . Speaker. MR . SPEAKER : ThE! hon. the Leader of the Opposition . MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before we move Statements by Ministers, I would like to have the House mark the Forty-First. Anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland and Labrador into Confederation as the lOth Province of Canada. ObviousJ.y, the Ann i versa r y date its e 1 f was on a day when the House was not in Session, but I do not ·think it should pass by on the first occasion thereafter without all of us here marking the occasion. I knotAJ tAJe are all proud to be Ll.

Apr·il 2, 1990 Vol XLI Canadians at this particular time. When thetne is a lot of strain on thr:~ Canadian farrriJ.y, it. ·. is perhaps a fitting toi.rne fo1n us to be ever so cognizant of the benefits and privileges we haUl=! in this country. I believe a11 han. Members would want to appropriately mark the Fotnty- ·F irst Anniversary of the newest Province of Canada. SOME HON . MEMBERS: Hear, hE~ar! PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Premier . PREMIER WELLS: Mr. SpeakE!r, I aqtnf~~' i 1- is appropriate.

Unfortunately, on the day when it occutnlned, on March 31, it was a day whE!n the Housr:' tAJas not si t·t.ing. We are in t:he middle of a debate now that is debating, in fact, the future structure of this country and what its constitutional struct:ure tAJ:ill be like, and hou.J, if at all, it will be changed From what it is at the moment. This is an appropriate timE! for aLl of us in this Province to rE!cognizE• that I believe we at"e, fj.rnst and foremost, Canadians.

That does not rna k e any of us any t h '"- 1 e s s proud of our NE~wfound1and and Labrador heritage, but we are citizens of this glnE!at count.r·y fitnst and for''t!tnost and I suggest that in all of our discussions and d~~bates, particulainly on Ute Meech Lake Accord that is before the House now, we ouq h t·: to b1::>a1" l:hat pr·inciplE! in ntincl and ought to ensure that tAl~~ put in plclce constitutional changes that wiJl reflect that for all Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. 1 r:, (Af 'tet"noon) Rl

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Heat~, hear! Oral Questions MR. RIDEOUT: Mr . Speak(:~r. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition . MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Speaker, I understand from public statements that the Government has had a confidential copy of the Harris Report now for, I believe, a week or so. In view of the fact that the Report was released and made public on Flniday and, therefore, is in fact now a public document, I cannot conceive of any reason why the Government would_ not now be prepared to comment publicly on the recommendations of the Harris Report. Mr.

Speab:~r, tJJould the tell the House whether or Provincial Government communicated formally Government of Canada its response to the Harris recommendations? MR. SPEAKER : The han . the Premier . PREMIER WELLS: Premier not the has to the official Report Mr. Speaker, the Report tJJas only mad~~ public on Flniday. There has · been no meeting of the Cabinet since the publication of the Report. We will, u.Jithin the next few days, be making clear - and tJJE! may not wait until the next Cabinr:'t mE!E!tin<_:), because WE! have had the Report for a while as han. L2 Apri1 2, 1990 Vol XU Members know.

I think we have had it fo1n five or six days not~o.J, so lAJE! know very tAJe11 bas:lcal1y where we ar(:~. We have communicated to the Newfound1and 1nepr·esentative in the Feder·al Cabinet th(:~ viE!WS of this Province. We will be making a formal public statemE!nt. As a matter of fact, Mr . Speaker. we had rn~:!etings concerning Uw rnattel" this mo1nning, and had discussions with fisheries officials and u.d th othet~s. We will be rev'.ietJJinq the Report with others in this Province as well as Government officials.

I have asked for an immediate, fairly quick response from others IAJho ar'E! int.r::•lnE!SlE!d so that the Government can consider other points of view before we take a for·rnal pub1ic posoit.ion. Hopefully, that w:i11 bE• ab1e to I:)E:! done within the next few days. MR. SPEAKER : The han. the Leader of LhE! Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Min . Speaker, in viet.u of Lhe fact that. th~O! Govel"I'Hil E:~nt had an advanced copy of the RE!pOI"t, I am surprised that they wou1d not have been ready to respond immediately. But anyiAJay, Mr. Speak(:~r. I u.JondE•l" if thE!

Pn~rl't:i.el" could te11 the House whether or not the Province wi].] . b(:' demancltn~~ - I would h~ve said have demanded, but the Province ha s not responded yet in the Forma1 tJJay t.o the Federal Government, as I understand it, but. tJJhether t:he Province wil1 be demanding of' Lhe Federal Government, to use Lhe words of the Harr·is RE•por "L :itself, that .it stlnongly lni,.COifll'nE!ncls an i rnrn E! d i a t e ,~ E! cl u c t i o n i n t h e f i s h 'i. n g mortality of northern cod to a No. 15 ( Afler·noon) r~ 2

level of at h~ast 0.30, in other words, an immediate TAC of 178,000 tons and then moving at the ear·liest posibility to a level of 0. 20, in othetn wotnds to a TAC of 125,000 tons. Will the Government bl':! demanding that the Fedetnal Government move to implementing that recornmendation immediately as it is bli:dng caLled upon to do by the Harr~s Report? MR. SPEAKER : ThE~ han. the Pt"ern:i.er. PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Report having been available to the Government fotn the last five or six days, tAle coul.d take a look at it.

What WE:~ coul.d not do is discuss it L1.Jith othE:~tn fishing intet"ests in thE:~ Province, because we had no ability to make it public. It would have been a breach of the trust under which it was given to us, so that we have not had an opportunity until just starting over the weekend and today to address the concerns of other sectors and other people involved in this Province. Before WE~ state the final position of GovernrnE~nt, we intend to carnE~ to a conclusion as to what will be the most likely consequences of accepting what Dr.

Harris recommended totall, or should it be staged on a more moderate basis or exactly what the position should be. We E~XPE~ct that tAle tAli11 be in a posi l:ion to do that t.uithin the nE~xt fE!IAJ days, and I cannot, Mr. Speak•;:!r, do it on a piecemeal. basis in r'E:'sponsli:' to questions by the Leader of l~.he Opposition today. MR. RIDEOUT : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Lead~~r of the Opposition. L3 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI MR.

RIDEOUT : Mr. ~;peak" er, in the T"hrone ~3peech and the Budget Speech the Government had delivered to the House ovet" the last month Ol" so, the Government inforrnE!d thE! HousE• and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they were pressing ahead in an effort to Forge a joint Federal Provincial. agt"E!emr:!nt to respond to the present fisheries cr·isis.

I t.uondE!r if Lhe Premier could tell the House whethE!1" 01" not such an aq1"E·~~rnent has been approved in principle, whether or not an aqreement has ber:~n initial1::1d, 01" wh~:!n w~~ rniqht E!XpE:~c t some joint announcernent from the Federal and Provinc i al Governments now that the Harris Report is out on an appropriate response package for the present crisis in the fishery. PREMIER WELLS : Mr . Speaker : MR . SPEAKER : The han. the Premier . PREMIER WELLS: No, M1". Speaker, no a~p"eernent has be~~n initialed. An Ll91"BE!IrHC!n L has been drafted and put forward by the Province.

We hav•~ put fo1"Wat~d detailed proposals as to the manner in which we would expect the response shoul.d take place. As a matter oF fact thE•t"e lAJas, I should say, a kind of aq1"ee1nent --· I cannot: say there was an agreement in principle with the Fecle1"a1 Gove1~nrnent. T l·1.::~1ne lAJas a substantia} 1eve1 of" agtnE!EHT1ent., at least with one of" the Ministers and 1.1.rith the Fede1"al Tas·k ForCE!, as to the dir·ect.ion in lAJiri.ch :it ought to go. The Province and the Provincial Task Fo1"C~~ devc-?.loped a memorandum of understanding and for a period of time negotiated with the Federal.

Government and put this fortAJiH'd, and t.ue have put No. P.> (Afternoon) R3

forward a pretty detailed plan of how the response should be. But I believe it was about three or four weeks ago, all of a sudden thE-~ Feder·al Gover'nlm;!nt stopped working with the Province on it and, I have to say, there has been no substantial level of work with the Province in the last three to four weeks on that agl"eement, perhaps even a little bit longer on that; no substantial level of work since Mr. Valcourt became the Minister, but I do not tAJant to be unfair to Mr. Valcou1nt. I would say that is accurate, that there has bE:~en no substantial level of work since Mr.

Valcourt became the MinistE!r, but, in fact, I believe the change had really have started prior. So to be fair to Mr.

Valcourt I would say l:he changE! of attitude of thE:~ Federal Government, in terms of working with the Province to achieve this kind of joint response to deal with the fisheries, the kind of three pronged attack that I have already out1ined here in the House of Assembly and on other occasions publicly in this Province, so that up until about four weeks or so ago it seemed like the Federal Government was enthusiastic about the appl"oach, then they seemed to have changed and the impression that we have today is that the Federal Government wants to go in its own dirE:'ction.

Maybe thr:~y have been recognizing tha ·t the Province has taken the lead and has shown the lead in the manner in which the response should be taken. Largely these proposals have all originated with the Province. It may be that the Federal Government is concerned about political credit or something, I do not know, but, in any event, over the last four weeks or so they seem to have walked away from it. L4 Apr·i1 2, 1990 Vol XLI MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Leader of thE! Opposition. MR. RIDEOUf : ·rhank you, Mr. Speaker .

We will haVE:' morE:~ to say on t:hE:~ Premier 1 s last remarks over the next fE!W days, and in clue cout"s~:!. In view of the disturbing revelation the Premier has made to the House, that in fact for the last thr'eE! or four tAJ~~Ed<s 01~ tTir.:tybe even longer there has not been any progress nor any cormnunication made in developing a joint initiative with the Federal Government - AN HON. MEMBER: Discussions. MR. RIDEOUT: Well, the Premic:~r· sc\id thE!I~o has not been any discussions. PREMIER WELLS : No progress. It. is not t~ighl:. to say no communication, no progress. MR. RIDEOUT : Okay, no progress .

Well, 1 '"till be bound by the PrE!Il"Li.E!r 1 s LAJOt"ds, Mr . Speakeln, 1 no pl"ogr·ess. 1 In light of that disturbing revelation, can Lhe Pretniet" l:e11 the House whether or not he has personally tried to ensure that progress would be ITidde and that it tAJou1d get back on an even r·c.d ,1 by calling the Prime Minister, for example, as he did on the rE!fugee problem just last week? Has thE! Premier personally tried to get himself and the Pl"irrre Minoi s tN' invo1ved in making sui~E! l:.hat this substantial crisis facing this Province is addressed appropriately by both levels of Governtm~nt? MR .

SPEAKER : No. 15 (Aftenwon) I~ lj.

The hon. the Prf.:~mier. PREMIER WELLS: The answer to Speaker. fhe meeting with directly, when hour discussion MR. SIMMS : (Inaudible). PREMIER WELLS: that is yes, Mr. first time was a Monsieur Valcourt I had about a two with him ·- Just hold on! If the Opposition House Leader will just hold his horses. I wtll answer the question so that it will be fu11 and accurate, rather than just thr:~ little bit he may want. MR. WARREN: Because you say so . PREMIER WELLS: That is rig.h-t. Becausr:~ I say so, and because I have accurate knowledge of what I did. MR.

SIMMS: (Inaudible) to the Prime Minister, that was the question. PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker. the first detailed discussion I had of this was about four weeks or so ago within a couplE! of days of Mr. Valcourt 1 s appointment, tJJhen I sat down with him for at least two hours I would think. or very close to two hours. and we had a dE•taiJ.E•d discussion. I talked to him about:. tht::~ manner in tJJhich the Pl~o\lince wouJ.d prE!fer to see it develop.

I told him of some concerns I have, that the "Federal Government stalled the thing last Fall, to the po:i.nt tJJhere the Pl~ovince hdd to put: up money to extE!nd thr:! notice period when the Federal Government failed to do it. And I cl"id not want us to br~~ in this position again, so I would like for the Federal L5 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI Government to respond positively as quickly as possible. Nothing very much has happened. It L\Jas a rnaj Ol" tnattl'.~r t~.Ji.th the Atlantic Premiers whE!n we ITIE!t :i.n Corner Brook.

I presented a detailed paper to them and spelled out the position and the conCE!l"n we have with the failure of the Federal Government to properly respond. A communique tAJas issUE!d out of that conference and I wrote the Federal Government again in the 1ast few clays sending that communique and asking for a meeting with the Federal Gove0nment and the Provincial Premiers affected by this before any dE~fintt.ive postt:i.on t~.Jas tai<E~n by the Federal Government. Now that has just gone out in the last couple of days, so I cannot:. E!XpE!Ct a response to that just yet. On Thursday.

I guess. of last L\Jf!l:"k I spoke to the PrirnE! Minister and I wrote the Prime Minister·. I told hirn about our concE·l~ns about lack of development in the fishery, and I told hir11 about certain apprehensions we had. I was addressing the question as well of thE! refuget::~s. both thE• refugees and the fishel~ies mattE• I". and I expressed sorne apprehE!nsion that I had about t.he attitudE! of the Federal Government. He assurE!d mE~ there was no basis fot" any concern about l":.he att.:it.ucle oF the Federal Government, but that he would explore t:.he tnatter fuLly and get back to l'ne.

Up to th:is point in time I have not:. yet heard back frorn thE! Pr:irne M:i.n:i.stE!l~. but I expect I wi 11 s h or t.1 y . I F he does not, I will call htm again. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : ··1 he hon. ·· thr:~ ME!l"nber· fot" Cr·ancl Bank . No. 1. 5 (Afternoon) I~ 5

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries . Last IJJeE!k I questioned the Minister on the $2. 1 million reduction in the Department of Fisheries Budget, and in giving an explanation for· thE! reductions tl1e Minister listed three reasons: one IAJas the conclusion of a Northern cod study, a $200,000 payment to the trustees of the Rose Ting Group of Companies, and $300,000 not needed now because of the middle distance efforts being reduced.

On scrutinizing the Budget, one can see on Page 121, Subhf:'ad 3. 1.06, that this year there is $53,000 more being spent on the middle-distance effort. I would like to refer the Minister to Pages 120 and 121, Industry Support Services, 3.1.04, Aquaculture, where we see a reduction of $48,700; Subhead 3.1 .07, Fishing Vessels, reduced from $2 million to $600,000, a reduction of $1 .4 rniliion; and Subhead 3. 1. 08, Inshore Fishery Support, where there was $300,000 budgeted last year and no money this year.

I ask the Minister tJJhat impact tAlill these severe reductions have on the fishing industry and, in particular, on the fishermen throughout our Province? MR. R. AYLWARD: Hear, hear! A good question . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries . MR. W. CARTER : Mr. Speaker:-- I am going to have to take that question as notice. I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to be carrying in my L6 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI head explanations for the various aspects oF our Estimates.

I can only tell him that I think the Estimates CommitteE! is meeting on Friday night and then, 1 arn surE!, he will have ample opportunity to ask me questions on the Budg et and I will havt::' ample opportunity to respond to the questions. AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible) Friday night, is it? MR. W. CARTER: Wednesday, I think, i.s :i.t . not? Wednesday night. MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Member for Grand Bank . MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Just onE! comrn€:~nt t.o thE' M:i.n:iste1n.

He very readily had at his fingertips last week the three reasons as to why the $2 .1 million rE!duction occurrE!d in thE:~ · BudgE!t. But, of course, upon scrutinizing the Budget, I found that thE! major iterns of reduction tJJelne not ev~::~n mentioned by the Minjster. I would like to refer the M:in:ister to Page 124 of the Budget EstimatE!S, Subhead 4·. l.. 03, SpE:~cia] Fisheries Emergency Respon se.

For this year, we see a paltry $80,000 budgeted for that progr '<:lrn, and when we look at the current crisis in our fishE!ry, tJJhetne we tAJ:i . .l1 see reduced landings and, consequently, reduced earnings, how can the Min ister justify eviscerating this very :important Fisheries Response program for fishermen of the Province? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. W . CARTER: Mr . SpeakE!r, again, I think the No . 15 (Aftr:~rnoon) 1~6

han. Member wiLl have to contain himself until the Estimates come before the House on Wednesday night. I tAli 11 be very happy then to provide answers to all of these questions. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Member for Grand Bank . MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say to the Minister before posing my final supplementary. that I hope he is faster coming with answ~1rs to these questions than he tAJas tAli th tabling the conditions attached to the funding to Fishery Products International, for which I asked the second day the House opened this year.

I have not seen thE~ anstAJer yet, lAJhtch tells me thc:'re are no conditions. Mr. Speaker, Page 126. Subhead 5. 1.04, Fishing Boat Bounties. Last year, in the Budget, there was $3.6 million allocated under that program; this year it has bec::'n reduced to $3 rnilJ.ion, a reduction of $600,000. Now, certainly, the Minister can provide an answer as to the effect and the impact this dramatic decrease will have on ftshermen throughout the Province. What effect will that $600,000 reduction, under Fishing Boat Bounties, have on the Province? MR. SPEAKER: ' T"i1e·-··· ·han~···the Minister of Fisheries . MR. W. CARTER:.

Mr. Speaker, again, I shall provide thE! han. Member w"i.th the answers when our Esttmates come beforE! the Cornrni ttee on Wednesday night. MR. GI~EENING: L7 Apr·iJ. 2, 1990 Vol XLI Ml". Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: H]e han ~---:t-il'e Member for Tel"ra Nova . riR ... :__ .... G ~...U:.NJ. .. ~G : Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I wish to dtrect my question to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

At a meeting held last night in Lethbridge between your officials and the commel"cial sawmillers from Unit 2, which come under thE! jud.sd'i.cU.on of Un"i.t 2, the saJAJmi.llE!l"S tAJerE:1 nottfiecl that thei.r licence had expired on March 31. Would the Minister te11 this hon. House if a satAJrni11el" lAJas caught cutting or s~:! l ling pulpt.~Jood or lumber, tAJould he b(! ch<H'9E!d and prosecuted or would the Minister implement some temporary licence for these sawmillers? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minisl:E!l" of FOI"estry and AgricuJ.tUJ"e. Mf~. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is basically right.

The commercial sawmillers, commercial ltcence holders in the ProvincE! tAr:i.l1 not be prosecuted. They are looking at the licence bei.ng issued on April 15 as oppoSE!d to Apri.l l, as it a1ways was. As far as domestic cutters are conu,1rned, tAH:' aJ"e in the process notAl of gE!tti nq rc:1acl y to issue the liCE!nCE~s to dornest.ic sawmi1lel"S. If the J.:i.cenCE!d sawmiller, be hc:1 dornest.ic or commercial, is harvest'i.ng without a permit and thE! reason he does not have that permit is because of actions by the Department of Forestry, he wi11 not be prosecuted. MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the Member for Terra Nova . No. 15 (After·noon) WI

MR. GREENING: ·Mr~-··- .. SpE!aker, the understanding given sawmillers is due to the fact there is no federal/provincial agreement as it pertains to clear-cutting and silviculture and tl1e cost of the silviculture, the clear-cutting would have to be passed on to the sa~@illers, they would be forced to do their own clear-cutting. WouJ.d the Minister tell this han. House if he would give the sawmiJ.lers a chance to have an input into the cost if they must clear-cut while using their commercial sawmill licence? MR . SPEAKER: Thr:1 hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. FLIGHT : Mr.

Speaker, clear- ·-cutting is a matter that is decided by the Department's officials in conjunction with the sawmillers. In some areas of the Province we clear-cut and in some we do not. In some areas it is right to clear--cut and in some areas it is not advisable to clear-cut, where you have mature timber dispersed with young growing stands. Any time my officials or the Department makes a decision that clear-cutting will take place in a certain area, it is normally after conversations with the sawmillers. Mr.

Speaker, the Member rnade reference to the Forestry Federal/Provincial Agreement. the Forestry Federal/Provincial would have nothing to do with whether or not an area will be clear-cut or not clear-cut, that is a decision made by the officials, normally in conjunction t.uith the users of the resour·ce. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova. L8 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI MR. GREENING: It tJJas explained last. night that due to the cost of clear --cutting the Department would force the sawmillers to clear-cut, tJJhich is going to be a heavier burden on the commercial sat.r.Jmillers.

DUE! to the fact that it dr:1pends on the area they are cutting in, would the han. Minister agree to meet with the commercial satJJmillE!rs oi=­ Unit 2? MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minis let~ of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. FLIGHT : Mr. Speaker, I hav10:1 no problGWl in meeting w:i.th thE! sa~nn:LU .r::•l"S of Unit 2. I will also check wilh my officials to see whether or no t instructions have been issued in certain areas of Unit 2 that require clear-cutting and the reasons for that. If the decision is right and proper lAiith regat"d to good forest management, then I guess it. tAJill haVE! to stay tha ·t way.

If it is creat:i.ng a difficulty for the Member's constituents o l" t h "=' s atAJrrr:i11 e l" s in L h e a r· IC"! a , t h e n I tAli 11 c ''! r t: a i n 1 y look at their concerns and di sc us s those concerns with my officials . MS DUFF: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the M~;:,rnber fol" ~3l: .. John's East . MS DUFF : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ~Jould lib: J to din>.c t. Ulis question to the hon. thE! Min.isLE!r of Education . I understand the Minister represented the Government House L~;:'cH~er last tAJ(~ek in the capacity of the M:i.nister responsible for t.he Status of No . 15 (AflE!rnoon) R8

Women in a meeting with the Hon. ·Gerry Weiner. Was the Minister authorized to give Mr. Weiner any indication that the Provincial Government might be prepared to cost-share, or to enter into a cost-sharing arrangements with the Department of Secretary of State in the event that the Department of Secretary of State were prepared to reconsider the 100 per cent funding cuts for thli:~ wornli:~n 1 s c.:~nters? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Education. DR . WARREN: Mr. Speaker. yes. I did represent my colleague last week at a meeting with Mr. Weiner.

I was accompanied by two officials f1nom the Wornli:~n 1 s Policy Office, and Ml". Wein,':!r t.uas accompanied by his officials and Mr. Ross Reid. I did convey to the Minister our concerns about this issue. I conveyed the substance of the resolution passed unanimously in this House. We did consider a variety of options. but I think it would not be appropriate for i'nE:'. at this point in time, to indicate to the House what these options were. I have reported briefly to my colleague, and I intend to further brief him on the nature of these discussions this afternoon . MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Member for St..

John 1 s East . MS DUFF: I am sure the Minister is aware that even as late as Lhis morning there were a number of women - I think thirty women - actually arrested because of their continued sit-in, and that certainly has to be taken as an indication of the depths of 1..9 Apri1 2. 1990 Vo1 XLI frustration and feeling of the about that issue. the depth of Women 1 s Movement In the course of conversation with the Secretary of State, did the Minister urge Mr. Weiner to directly respond to the Leaders of the Women 1 s Movement by getting in touch with them personally on this issue? MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Education . DR. WARREN: I think . Min. Speaker. it is fair to say that we reflecl:E!d thE! dc'!ep feelings of the WOHl(~n involved and the Province generally on this issue and indicated that the women did want to meet with him directly. and rny ITIE!et:i.ng was no substituh"O! fo1n that tnC::!E:~ttw~. WE! did indicate that to the Minister . MR. SPEAKER: The han . the Member for ·st. John 1 s East .

MS DUFF: I wo u 1 d 1 i I< E! to as I< the Minister ' if OttatAJa in spite oF all ur'gings fails to make a timely and reasonable response on this issue, what is the Provincial Government 1 s bol-:tom line? Is thE! Provincial Government prepared Lo let the women centers die, or do you have an alternate strategy, either jointly lAri th OttatAJa or unilaterally, to ensure that the Centers will rli:Hnain op~~n? SOME HON. MEMBERS : li ear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader. MR. BAKER : GoVE!rniTIE!nt Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. 15 ( Aft,~rnoon) House f~9

I should like to inform the han. Member that we have not given up in our quest to have the basic funding done by the Federal Government. The meeting in Ottawa, on Friday, was stage one of that particular process. There is further communication today along the J.inE•s of insisting that the Federal Government do something in terms of something more than they have now agreed to do, in terms of providing the basic funding to keep the women 1 s centers open. r:'I_~_!_ .. ~.UJ D §.Q_~ : Min. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Membt~r for Mount Pearl . MR . WINDSOR: "Ttian-1< ·-yc,-u. question is Finance. Mr. Speaker.

My for the Minister of Last week we exposed the Minister of Finance 1 s attempt to hide $2.5 miJ.lion of increases in the price of alcoholic beverages and mislead the people of this Province into thinking that there was no increase to be applied to liquor, wine and spirits . Today the Liquor Corporation has announc«:1d, in fact, that effective today there is an increase of From 50 cents to 80 cents per bottle. I predicted last week that at least 20 CE!nts of that is becauSE! of the $2.5 million th(':! Minister of Finance is taking from the Liquor Corporation in his Budget.

Will the Minister now confirm that that is indeed the case? What is the breakdown? How much is being applied for increases from suppliers? Is it indeed, in fact, 20 cents on each bottle because of uo April 2, 1990 Vol XLI the $2.5 million the Minister takes in his Budget? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister· of FinanCE! . DR . KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the MembE!r is makinq a mountain out of a mole hilJ. . As I indicated the week before last, in Hansard, l:he distillE.~rs have put up thEdr priCE!S and this will result in an increase.

I would like to go back a J.itU.e bit and tell you precisely what happem1d, because you indicc-ltE!cl the only way Government has of getting money flnorn thE! L.:i.quor· Corporation is for thorn l:o raise their prices. That is not true. The Liquor Corporation has substantial retained earnings. This year they are proposing to make a profit of $78 rni11ion. How are we going to g e t. $8 1 . 5 out oF $78 mil1ion? Beca use they are going to take $2.5 · rnill.ion F1nom their retained (~1al"nings. In addition to that, Mr. Spr,1aker, l:.he suppliers to the Liquor Corporation are raising their prices.

Spirits are due to go up because of increases from suppliers, and the L:i .quor Corporation tacked on fifteen cen·ts, I think it lAJas - fifteE!n cents on the Fifty lAJas their tacking on. They did that on their own. This ts lAJhat l~hE!Y do normally. In addition to that - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER : OrdE~r·, please! DR. KITCHEN: No . 15 (Afternoon) 1no

In addition to that, the prices of wines are altering; some wines are going up and some are going down, and the Liquor Corporation decided that they would assess wines by ten cents. AN HON. MEMBER: So you are (inaudible) . DR . KiTCHEN: Not a fixed percentage at all. What I would say, though, some of the wines are going down by as much as ninety cents a bottle. So anyone who wants to avoid the tax, merely switch your brand. MR . SPEAKER: Order, plE:1ase! Before I recognize the han. the Member for Mount Pearl I want to advise han.

Members that it has been brought to my attention by the audio people that many Members arE! speaking low and they cannot hear them. I would advise han. MernbE!rs and Ministers to speak loudly so that l:hey can be picked up by the Hansard ~ystem. The han. Pearl. the Member for Mount MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mr . Speaker, I do not know who the Minister thinks he is fooLing.

The Liquor Corporation, if they have $8Q mi11ion profit, then my next question is why is the Liquor Corporation making profit over and above the amount the Ministe1n of Finance demands they retu1nn to the Provincial Treasury each year? Now, that is not a profit that is reported by the Liquor Corporation, the MinistE!r' dictates the amount that the Corporation is to return. Over and above that the Corporation is ex pee ted to Lll Apr·il 2, 1990 Vol XLI oper·ate in basis; they of making whom? a balanced budget are not in a position profits. Profits for So, Mr.

Speaker, the question is: If indeed they are making profits, tA.Jhy are they making profits? And who dOE!S thE! MinisteJ" think he is kidding? You know, it is very clear that the price of these beverages is going up. MR. SPEAKER: or<:re-·r-:--· p l·e·-a: s E! , The:1 han. gE!ntleman has gone into a supphHnentary, and I thtnk he has asked a supplc:HrJE!ntary. I tAr:i.Jl ask the han. th10:1 Ministe1n of Finance to respond. The han. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: - "- ·---·-···-·-··-"-· Mr. Speaker, the retained ec-n·nings MR. WINDSOR: I have not asked it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, ph1ase! The han. gentleman - MR.

WINDSOR: With due respect, Mr. SpE!akel", I have not asked the question. r.:'!.~--~-.... -~P_.~_0JS. .E. .. R : I thought question. gentleman to MR. WINDSOR: I picked up the I will ask the hon. get to it quickly? Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Yes . Indeed I tJJi 11 . I tAr.i11 as k the hon. Minister then, Mr. Speaker, how much tAlill beE! In be expected to increase? I had predicted thi1nt'~"''n cents per No. 1 S (Afternoon) Rll

dozen. Will the Minister tell us now how much beer is .going to increase over and above any suppliers increase that is expected? QE...:_ _ KITCH EN: Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr . Speaker, I wish to correct, first of all, the statement the han. Member made when he said that the retained earnings were our problem. It was while he w~s Minister of Finance that the retained earnings built up to $19 million and the cash balance to $6 million. So last year we took away some of that retained earnings, and this year we are taking an additional $2.5 million. MR.

SPEAKER: The han . the Member for Mount Pearl. MR. WINDSOR : Thank you, Mr. S~eaker . The han. gentleman is trying to play games with numbers and he does not understand them. Let me get into another issue, a relatr:~d issue, Mr. Speaker, of the payroll tax. In the Minister 1 s Budget and I quote, the Minister says, 1 The general rate of 1.5 per cent • to employer payrolls in excess of $300,000 each calendar year . 1 We were led to believe by officials that companies that had payrolls in excess of $300,000 would pay 1.5 per cent on the amount in excess of $300,000. MS DUFF: The Minister said that .

L12 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI MR. WINDSOR : And I believe the Minister, in fact, said that. In recent days, officials ar'E! telling E!mployers who are caLling h:i.s D~::~partrnent that no, if your· payr·oLl. i.s over $300,000 you pay 1.5 per cent on the total payroll. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. WINDSOR: My question is this, Mr. SFH: ~a ker, and I realize I arn being long . My question is, which is correct? Because if you hav1?. a pay1~o11 of $4-00,000, 1.5 per CE!nt on the extra $100,000 ·.is ~n.~:,oo. But if it is 1 . 5 p E! r cent on ~1; 4-00, 000, it. is $6,000 a b ig difference. Which is true, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : A good question . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Sp~::~al<er, the hon. MernbE!r is always coming up with these strange concoctions: He had a leak from this official. He got a leak from the Federal GoVE!rnmE!Ilt. He is always in thE! business of leaks, and he manufactures these silly arguments. No offic:i .aJ. of this Department, of l~h~:~ DepartrnE!nt of Finance, ever told a customE:H' or a client that they did not have to subtract the $300,000. MR. WINDSOR: That is not true . DR.

KITCHEN: And he might as welJ. start telJ.ing the House, not manufacturing those imaginary leaks. The correct anstJJer, Mr . Speaker, is that F1"om every payroll $300,000 is subtracted and the 1.5 per cent, No. 1 S ( AftE!rnoon) rn2

if it applies to that sector, is on the balance. MR. WINDSOR: You better tell your officials that, because they do not know. MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation. MR. GILBERT: I would like at this time, Mr. SpE!aker, to present the:~ exceptions to the Public Tendering Act for the month of February. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: .Mr .. ~ ... S-peak~r, I would like . to table a special warrant.

This applies to last year and it is For the amount of $560,000. And also, Mr. Speaker, I lAJould like to table some orders in council. The four orders in council, Mr·. Speaker, relating to precommitments, some by the Department of Works, Sel"vices and Transpol"tation in the amount of $30 million for roads and $900,000 for printing for Tourism, and a further· $2 miJ.lion for Tourism for promotions and something like $7.7 million for education for text books. These are precommitments, Mr.

Speaker, and in addition I would like to table one further order in council having to do t~ri th the creation of a nelAJ subhead tAdth the Departmc:~nt of Employment and Labour Relations. Ll3 Apri1 2, 1. 990 Vol XLI Orders of the Day MR. RIDEOUT: Mr . Speakc:~r . MR. SPEAKER: The han . l·:he LeadE!r oF the Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Ml". SpeakE! I". I r·isli:~ under the provisions oF Standing Or·cler 23, to ask lro~ave Fol" an adjournment of the House to discuss a matt:r:~r of ur<;;JE!nt pub1:i.c business. This issue, Mr.

Speaker, is the rc:~lease on Friday past of th•=:! independE!n t l"eVi(!liJ of the state of the northern cod stock, commonly refeJ"I"ed l:o as l::he Han·is RE!pOI"t. Now, Mi". SpeakE!I", I sc.1y to You1" Honour and to the House that. thel"E' is no doubt about thE• importancE· of the Har-ris Report Fol" thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Therefore, it is urgent that the Government responses to this report be debated by this House immediately. Mr. SpeakE!r, I rE!fE!r you t.o Beauchesne, the fifth edition

section 286 which reads as follows. 1 The mat:te1" must be so pressing that public interest wiJ1 suffer if it is not given immediatE! attention. 1 NolAJ, Ml". Speaker , Dr. Harris's first recommendation that the tota1 allowable:~ catch be 'inunedic"ltely not at sornli:~ ti.rne :i.n the fut.u1"e but immediately reduced from 197,000 tons as it is sEd:: fo1" 1990 to 178,000 tons, and that it be fur·ther l"educed to 125,000 tons as early as possible, surE•ly, Mr. Speaker, points out clearly and more adequately than anyone can say, that in fact the public interest wi1l suffer if this No. 15 (Afternoon) Rl3

report is not given immediate attention. Nothing is more pressing than the possible commercial collapse of the northern cod stock. And therefore, with that collapse the collapse of hundreds of communities and the economic survival of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I refer Your Honour again to Beauchesne the same edition,

section 287. That particular

section states, 'that the subject be brought on early enough and that public interest demands that the discussion take place immediately. ' Now, Mr . Speaker, since the report was only released on Friday, this is the first opportunity, obviously, that we would have to bring this urgen ·t issue beforE! the people's House. The recommendations of the:~ report, Mr. Speaker, demand immediate discussion. Mr. Speaker, for further reference I refer Your Honour to Hansard, May 29, 1978.

The Speaker at that time said the following: 'It is a matter in which the Speaker's j udgc:~ment has to be used.' And he went on to say, that 'Obviously I think the matter is urgent and the Chair has to exercise discretion with respect to whether there is a reasonable expectation that the mal:ter would be debated within a reasonable period of time.' Now, Mr. Speaker, even while the Speaker of the day was making that judgement, the address in reply on the Budget Debate were still on the Order Paper and the Speaker noted in saying that we are dealing with parameters and I have to use my judgement on what hon .

Members consider urgent and that shall not be insulated from what L14- Apr·il 2, 1990 Vol XLI the public appear to thing is urgent and important, and it would appear to me ·that if Standing Order 23 has any meaning, and I think it does, Mr. Spr:!akE•r, that it is a matter which falls within this criterion, and the Speaker allowed the motion and allowed the debate to follow.

AL the preSE!nt time, as everybody knows in the House and in the Province, at the present time, this House has beE!n forced by Government order, because Government calls the Orders of the Day, to debaU! l:.he r'escinding RE!Solution on Lhe ME!E!Ch Lake Accord, and it is perhaps very, very likely that that part. i c u l a r debate t..ui 11 cont. in u e at-:. least until the time set aside For the Easter adjournment. So, Mr. Speaker, thE!re will be:! no other opportunity immediaLely available to debaLe Lhe Harris Report except for, undt'l~ the provisions of Standing Order 23.

Finally, I refer you to Beauchesne's 6th edition, paragraph 390, which says thE! Following: "Urgency" tAJithin this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means "urgency of debate', and I cannot see how anyone can argue that with the tremendous irnpli.caU .ons, il'nrnediate implications if the report is to be a c ceptE!d over the nE•x t ttAJo or three days or before the ~~mJ of this week, the immediate implications of that report on l:h1~ people, hundreds of communities, thousands of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Finally, Mr.

Speaker I want to quote the words of Your Honour, yourself, in ruling on a s:itnil.ar situation in Hansard, on NoVE!rrtbE!r 14, 1989, which was resolved eventually by agreement by both sides of the House, but, at that timE:~, Your Honour ind:i .catecl that "Whether debate today lAJould do No . 1 S (Afternoon) R 14-

something to help the situation 11 , obviously, Mr. Speaker, we think it wou1d, because the Government 1 s response to the Harl~is Report, and the Government is going to have to respond to it in a very in-d~;:~pth way over the next few days, but the Government 1 s response to that report would be significantly helped by debate and discussion right now in this particu1ar House.

More telling, is Your Honour 1 s o l:hel" quote: 11 The key matter is whether the debate shou1d be held today, and in this matter, his honour would have to decide whether or not conditions in the fishery today, are any more dramatically worse than they were yesterday 11 • Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question today, in light of the Harris Report, obviously has to b~~ a resounding yes! So, Ml~. Speai<E!r, if YOLII" Honour would so rule, my colleagues and I would rise in the required numbers to ask that debate begin immediately on the subject of the Harris Task Force Report. MR. SPEAKER: The hon .

The GoVE!rnrnent House Leader. MR. BAKER : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, to this particular request or motion. Standing Order 23, provides leave to make a motion for the adj ournmE:~nt of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

In examining the meaning of that particular condition, we go to Hansard or go to Beauchesne, and in BeauchE:~sne WE! find that in the House of Commons l:hey hav~;:~ a similar mE!Chanisrn and the wording of the mechanism is discussed in much greate1~ d~;:,tail and paragraph 390, page 113, indicates LlS April 2, 1990 Vol XLI specifically that 11 UrgE!ncy 11 this rule does not apply matter its e 1 f 1 . tArithin to thE! Now, Mr.

Speaker, we all know that the situation in the FishE!r'ies is indeed an urgent matter and do not dispute that Uw fishery sit.uaU.on is indeed urgent and has be1~n urgent for somE! quite considel"ab1E• time. When it was first indicated that the Federal Government and their advisors had made a rnistak10!, a VE:H'Y SE!r'ious mistake, lAJh:i.ch resulted in over- ·-estimat.ion of t·:h1?. Northern cod stock, and from tht;lt point on, thE•re has bE! en a ve1~y urgent situation in the Fisher:i.es. However, Mr. Speaker, urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means urgency of debate.

In other lAJorcls, is there any I"E!ason to haVE:! that debal:e today, which would make some difference tomorrow, that would make somE! difference to the Northern codstock tomorrow? Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that a process has ·to bH gon~~ Ull~ough, a fairly compl'icah~d proCE!SS that wouJ.d bE:~ gonE! throuqh as quickly as possible and that. t:he NorthE•I"n codstock will not replenish itself overnight. Also, Mr. SpeakE!r, I would 1 ike to poin ·t out to You I" Honour, that there is ample opportunity in the House to discuss these matters.

I would like to remind Members opposite that every second Wednesday they have the opportunity to call whatever motion they see fit to put on a Monday therefore, Mr. Speaker, thal':. 'is onE! opporl~unil-:y. Obviously, the Throne Speech and the Budget Debate are still on t.he Order Paper and this J.uou1d Pl"ov:l.de ample opportunity in the rH:!xt couplE:~ of lAJeeks fol" a dE'!bate on that particular topic. In conclus'ion, tAle do nol':. qUE!Sl:ion No . 1 ~i (Aftel"noon) R 1 ~>

the urgency of the situation but what we do point out is whether we debate it today, tomori"OW, or next Wednesday it wi11 make little difference to the Northern codstock. The Newfoundland Government, if it is to be sensible and reasonable, will have to go through the process and talk to all parts of the fishing industry and so on, get imput from all sectors of the fishing industry before a detailed response can bE:1 donE:1 anytAJay. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no urgency of debate in that sense right now. MR. SPEAKER : The House is going to recess briefly to give the Chair a chance to take a look at the request.

Recess MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! As hon. Members have pointed out in their submission, in a debate of this nature, in an emergency debate, the key is the urgency of the debate and not of the matter itself, and in so ruling I refer to a ruling made by Speaker Ottenheimer in 1975 when a similar situation camE! to the House. He said, 'In rny opinion the matter is obviously urgent, obviously of public importance, but I do not concur that there is urgency of debate at this moment.' I would also refer to a ruling of Mr.

Speaker Lemerieux given in the House of Commons and available:! in Hansar·d of Jt..1ly 9, 1969, he stated, 1 The motion is acceptable only if it concerns a matter that has unexpectedly become urgent and not if it concerns a situation that has prevailed for some time . 1 Ll6 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI If I understand correctly the hon. Me rn be r 1 s co mm E! n t s , the question i s no doubt both important and urgent but it has prevailed for some time and the debating of it today would not pos sibly change the situation .

The other accompanyinq reason is the fact that ther'E! is ample room to talk about this matter and indeed one cou1d not rule it out on Meech Lake which is a constitutional matter. We are indeed dea1ing with a fE !der·al matter and the Speaker would be hard pressed to rule sornE!I:)Qdy out of order when adclr·essing U1at in the discussion of Meech Lake, so I rule that it is not in order. MR. SPEAKER : The hon . the GOVE!rrHnE•nt HOUSE:' Leader. MR. BAKER: ·--·· -·--· ··-···-·--· ... ···-- On motion 12, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Motion 12. Order, please! I think we asked For a decision with respect lo the hon.

Uw Member for Tornqal: Mountai .ns as to whE!ther or not he be pe1nrrd .t LE•d to continue to spoak l:oday. I t:h·ink that was a matter raised by the Opposition House Leader . I point ou l: to hon . Members that when the hon. Member introduced his motion the records fi"Oifl thE! Table show that he had two m:i .nutes remaining in his presentation. EVE!n within our own, and Ul<:'n there were points of orders raised, Standing Orders that points of order are normally taken out of that and th e hon. Member would not have any time left .

I also respE!Ct No. 1 1) read a to l"ule on thi s this kind ( Af tc:•r·noon) lAJ'.i th of Rl6

situation. It is fr-om the House of Commons by Campion called 'An Introduction to the Procedure of Rules for the House of Commons, paragraph 3. se;:~ction 3. and it says this: 'A Member who has seconded an arnendrnent may not after such an amendment has been disposed of speak to Lhe main question or moue or second another amend men L. ' So this qui t.e clearly says that a Member who has moved a motion cannot speak to the main question again. So I rule that even IJ..Jith our own Standing Orders the hon. Member's time was up other, of course, than my concession of the House .

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. MR. WARREN : A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker . MR . SPEAKER: The han . the Member for Torngat Mountains on a point of privilege . MR . WARREN: "Yes·:-Mr.-s rea 1< e r . What happened on Friday past, Sir. in rny opinion I believe rny privileges as a Member in this House had been breachE!d. I refer you, Sir, to page f~51 in the Hansard of Friday. The SpeakE!r in the Chair at the time when I said: "I adjourn the dE!bate" the Speaker said: ''The hon. t:he Member for Torngat Mountains has adjourned the debate." On page R53. Mr'.

Speaker is speaking again. and Mr . SpeakE!r' s says and I quotE!: "The han. the Member For Torngat Mountains has adjourned the debate .'' On two occasions, Mr . Speaker, the Speaker recognized that I adjourned the debate . It was not L17 Apri1 2, 1990 Vol XLI until R 74 that the Member, Mr. Gullage, to quote 'Mr. Speaker, I now riSE! to adj ou1nn thE! dEdJate. 1 Mr. Speaker, that was something J.:i.ke two hours J.atE'in. WhE!n 1 lAJa s speaking, Mr. Speaker, when I brought in the re soJ.ution 'I move, seconded by the Member for Grand FalJ.s (Min.

Simms) that the resolution be referred to a Special Select Committee of the House.' I at l:hat time, Min . Speaker, had seventeen minute s left in my speech . Mr. SpE:~ab:!r. seventeen minutes when 1 moved that motion. Then the Speaker took the 'ayes' and thE! 'nayE• s ' -­ the Speaker said the Ayes had it, and with that, Mr. Speaker, th e House went in to a turmoil. And by thE! House going into a htl~moil at that t:i.rne, Mr . Speak1:>1", it caus~; ~d me, as an elected representative of the peop1e in this PlnovincE!, to be depr'iu~::~d of rny tnights to f'intsh my debate in this particular resolution. So. Mr.

Speaker. I believe that in all due respect, Sir, my right s were breached on Friday past by the events that occurred after I introduced that resolution as it pertains to Standing Order 35. Ml~. BAKER : Mr . Speai<E!r . MR. SPEAKER : The hon . the Gov ernm ent Hous e LeadE!r . MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . It is obviously not a point of privilege, but I hear what the han. MembE!r J.s saying and I believe that we had '.indicated across the fJ.oor on Friday that the han . Mernbeln \AJanb :-d to Fin :ish out the time that had be en remaining \AJhE:'rl he made the motion, No. 15 ( After'noon) rn 7

that we would be quite agreeable to him doing so. And I agree with Your Honour's ruling because of the motion that that precluded that possibility. But Your Honour also pointed out with agreement, we could allow him to conclude the two or three minutes left in his speech. And I say to the Opposition House Leader through Your Honor that we would be willing to let him continue for two or three minutes, if we had an agreement from that side. MR. ·siMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: ThE! hon. the Leader. MR. SIMMS : Opposition House Yes, Mr.

Speaker, just to show how cooperative we are as usual, if the Government for once is prepared to relinquish the power that it has, and . the majority that it has, and by agreement allow the Member to speak for fiVE! minutes and that will be accceptable to us. Five minutes? MR. SPEAKER: The table informed me that it was two minutes, maybe the table can check. But again by agreement of the Hosue if they want to agree let the hon. Member speak for five minutes and we can do five minutes. Five rninutE!S . The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: Mr.

Speaker, when I was abruptly interrupted on Friday- L18 April 2, 1990 Vo 1 XLI SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. WARREN : Mr. Speaker, the reason I gu•?.ss I stood in this House two ye•ars ago in support of the Meech LakE! Accord is I believed at l:.hE! tirne and other Members in this House believed that we have to get on with national reconciliation. I think we have to get on with finalizing the work that was started on the constitution . Mr. Speaker, our energies should not be devoted to continually debating, debating, debating. I think our em~rgies in this House should be devoted to crE!attng jobs. Ml".

SpeakeJ", WE~ have to get on with the future. We have to work for the future and anyway IAJe do that naturally is by all oF us in this House, on each side of this House, is to support l:he Meech Lake Accord. Now, Ml". Speaker, I hE:'arcl the Premier say on a number of occasions and other Members 'it gives special status to QuPbec .' Yes, Mr. SpE:'aker, that is tJ"UE!. It does give special status to Quebec. But then again, Ml". Speaker, every province has special status in one way or another. Let us look at our own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have our own special status with our denominational educational system. So, Mr. Speaker, I tHo!1ieve lAW <H 'E! special. I would say that the greater· risk, Mr. SpE!aker, if IAJe do not accept th.::~ Meech LakE! Accord, it wi11 be moving QuebE!C further away from our Canada as we call. Canada today. Mr·. Speaker, I think that. is tAJhat I am concenwd about. You havE:~ to look, Mi". Speaker, at many of lhose sections that are in the Meech Lake Accor·d and even by giving Quebec the No. 1 S (Afternoon) Rl.8

special status, it still gives ·the power to the Legislature in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, if they have the power surely goodness we are not naiv.:~ in other paints of Canada, in the other nine provinces and the two territories to even suspect that Quebec, through its Legislature, wou1d do things other than what they believe and what should be right for the rest of Canada. Mr. Speaker, there are concerns in the Meech Lake Accord that I am not famfliar with and in fact I do · not appreciate at thE:~ same time. I am concerned about the Supreme Court judges and I am also concerned about the Senate, Mr. Speaker.

We have al1 said it is not acceptable. Many people across Canada have said it is not acceptable but nothing we do, whether in this LegislaturE!, or in any other Legislature in Canada, is acceptable to everybody. There are always flaws. Any rules, regulations, statutes, or anything else that is passed in the LegisJ.ature there are always some people who lAiill find somthing wrong with it. I do not like, for example, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories being left out of the Meech Lake Accord. I am not completely satisfied, Mr.

Speaker, that the Innu and the Inuit people of Northern Labrador are not included in the Meech Lake Accord under its present form but there is the suggestion from McKenna of the para11e1 accord !:hat wi11 address those issues. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, ·it. is better for us to take what WE! have now and let us go forward from this day and improve on what we have. Do not destroy what we already have because I am concerned wjth the attitude of the Premier of L19 Apri1 2, 1990 VoJ. XLI this Pl"ovince.

Although today in this Legislature when addressing the congratulatory messagE! of our forty-one years in Confederation the Prern'.ier said w~~ a1l should bE! proud to be Canadians. I onJy wish that:. the Premier was not speaking from both sides of his mouth becc:-J.use unfortunately htO! is not practicing what he preaches. I believe the Prern'.ier will 1et Canada break up in ordE•I" to gE!t his own way and that. i.s the unfortunate thing about it. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipa l and Provincial Affairs. MR. GULLAGE: Tha-nk--you-:--M I" . s pea k e r .

FirstJ.y, I would ].'ikE! to cornrnend all the previous speakers who have spoken on the issue. I Lld.ll try to add something, if I can, t:o l:he debate. Other than what has already been said that will be difficult because I t.hink a]J of the points havt::~ been toucht::!d on, but I wjlJ. try my best. to add and contribute to the debate. Senate reform is probably the most conten·tious issue of all, and it seems to be discussed more than any other point concerning the Meech Lake Accord.

I recall one of l:he prevtous Members spokE! about the situation in thE:' Urd.ted States and thE! fact that having equal representation by each statE:~ does not, in fact:, contribute to removing t:he regional disparities that exist. I would like to take issue with that to some degree because I find it to be an unconvincing argument whE:~n you consider that surely :if you have an equal number of No. 15 (Afternoon) rn9

representatives from a state or from a Province, it has to be preferential to a larger number from a given province or a given state verses a smaller number. Surely anybody can envision a group of people acres s a table or across a legislature and if the numbers are unequal, the larger numbers would create a great disparity - and we see that now, of course, in Canada. rhe fact that we have a legislature, we have a House of Commons that is weighed heavily in favour of the stronger provinces with, I believe, some fifty per cent.

I stand to be coJ~rect.ed but I beJ.ieve it. is fifty per ct:~nt of the Members oF the House of Commons are from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. AN HON. MEMBER : Sixty per cent. MR. GULLAGE: Okay, sixty per cent. So it is greatly disproportioned as far as the House of Commons is concerned. Obviously we would like to correct that disparity to some degree by way of having an equal elected and effective Senate where baJ.ance can be provided, at least in the upper House. Mr.

Speaker, I am going back a way now in history, but looking at the United StatE!S situation back when they had the conference back in 1787 - I suppose probably one of the greatest constitutional conferences ever held. And at that timE• -··· I arn reading from a text ··- It says, 'What one real point almost wrecked that convention? How to protect the interests of both the small and the large states.' That is the very issue that divides Canada now, 203 years after the Americans L20 ApriJ. 2, 1990 VoJ.

XLI solved the dilemma For \~heir nation, and it is the very issue that will split Canada apart if we do not do something about it. This isSUl':! in 1787 became For the Americans what it is for Canada today. The issue of representation in the reaJ.ms of legislative power. The real difficulty lies in the affair of representation. If this could be adjusted, al1 other matters wou1d be sur·mount:ed. Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have a parallel situation to the situation which occurred or which was prevalent in the United States prior to the drafting of their constitution.

And that was, at the time, the most dif-Ficult matter to settle, and they took some considerable tirnr:~ i.n deal tng with it, considerabJ.e debate, a lot of pl~oposals, and Fina] ly reached the conclusion that it was wise to have a Senate ulith equal representation from all states regardless of population, regardless of power, rr-.:·gaJ~d1ess of economic strength.

And indE!I::!d th'" Senate in the United States is far, far - I do not think anybody would argue - far, far more effective than our SenatE! because of the way it: is comprised and the fact that it is equal regardlE!SS of the size and population of any given state. Mr. SpeakE!r, why do IAJe nec::'d a morE! effectiVE! Senate? Why do lAH~ m!E!d an elected Senate?

I belieVE! the most important reason is to help correct and help Foster the strength of the poor provinces, help correct the disparities and continue to provide sorne str'E!ngth to the s mailer provinces thaI ~ do not have adequate representation or equal represental:.ion in \":he House of Commons. Regional disparity, of course, is soJ'nE!thing No. 15 (Afternoon) R20

that we have had to live with ever since Confederation, and we are still far behind. Far behind even our netghbours in the Atlantic Provinces. Mr. Speaker, we will slip even further behind if we do not have some coJnrection in the t.uay the natton is governed. Bill C-3, dealing with regional developmE:~nt in Ontario and QUE!bE:~c, was just recently introduced in the House of Commons. I am going to read a couple of paragraphs from the B:i.ll: 11 The Mirl'.ister shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions assigned to the Minister by sub---section 6 ( 2) in a mannE!r that will (

a) promote economic development in areas of Ontario and Quebec where lolAJ incomes and slow economic growth arE! prevalent and where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate; (

b) emphasize long-term E!COnomic development and sustainable employment and income cn~ation; and (

c) focus on small and medium-sized enterprises and the development and enhancement of entrepreneurial talent." It goes on to deal with setting up a special initiative to deal with science and technology focusing entirely on Ontario and Quebec. Mr. Speaker. that is what is wrong with most of the regional development programs we have in Canada. Instead of focusing on wherE! the rE!aJ. nE!eds aJne. which is in Atlantic Canada, as one exampJ.e; certainJ.y, on the:~ East Coast tt is clearly Atlantic Canada, and specifically, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. the two poorest Provinces in the nation.

Instead of focusing where the rE!al ne~~ds arE! L21 Apri1 2, 1990 Vol XLI and making sure that mon~~Y is delivered even within a Province where the greatest unemployment exists, t.ue have programs that arP introduced for the Atlantic Provinces, federal initiatives that clearly are negated by the fact that they introduce a similar program for Ontario and Quebec. I just gave you an E!Xarnple of a progr·am that is about l:o b1?. introduced to further d:i.s'l'.:c1nCE! us in terms of wealth and development, from the richer provinces of Canada.

Because if they are spending equal dollars per capita in Ontario and Qu1::!bec, such as they ar·e at.ternptin~J to do here t~o.Ji th th:i.s JnE!giona1 intttat:ive as they ca11 tt, sc:iencr:~ and technology, putting dollars into an alrE!ady rtch economy .... nobody would argue that certainly, Southern Ontario is the richest part of this nation rhe very thought that · U1"!Y are going to further enhance and further enrich that particular Province with a program for regional development. sure1y heavens, whethc:'ln j_t. be the Atlantic Plnovinces or Manitoba or any other area of Canada that. needs assistance, until the rest of this nation has received regional dollars and regional programs that. !Adl.J. hEd.p bd.ng us up to par- not neCE!SSiH''i.ly ever to be in the same category as Ontario, Southern Ontario. in particu1ar, one of Uw r'ichest. parts of North AmE:~rica, 'lel:. alone Canada.

It woul.d be just a p:i. pe dream fo1n us to think. I suppos1?.. that we would E!VE!I~ bE! as t~o.Jea1thy. But any chance we haVE! to devel.op ou1n tndustry. our resourc~:'S. our businesses, has to be done in co-operation with a strong CE!n'l.Ta1 Fedc:~ral Gov1::!rnment. And we:' cannot have a strong Federa1 Government No. 1 S (Afternoon) R21

if we continue to have initiatives all over Canada on an equal basis regardless of need. We are seeing that now. We are seeing our programs nE!gated by the fact that dollars continue to be spent by the Federal Government disproportionately in areas where those dollars are really not needed. So we have a the weakening Government dramatically on Newfoundland. grt:!at of lAJi 11 our concern that our Federal impact situation in We do not see any movement at all, of course, from Mulroney or Bourassa. All they want to do is let it happen. Let us sign Meech Lake, that is their attitude.

They do not want to sit down and discuss any of the points that are being made by the dissenting provinces. they are not open for discussion. They want to discuss everything afterwards. Let us discuss Senate reform after the fact. As if we had some magic guarantee. We have to go into this thing with a blind trust. a blind fajth, and lAJho could ever trust Mulroney now at this stage. Surely heavens he has lost any trust that anybody ever had in hirn. He is just running out his time now.

Everybody realizes that it is just a matter of a couple of years and the electorate t,~.Jill make sure that he no longer participates in the governing of this nation, and wi11 no longer create the kind of problems that he has crE!ated so far in his term of office. But he and Bourassa continue to dig their hE!els in. They say therE.~ is a deadline, and indeed it is a deadline. I thought first that perhaps it tJJas just a political deadlinc:1 that you could L22 Apr'il 2, 1990 Vol XLI just pull away and say it does not exist anymore, we will take another year. we wi11 take another six months.

But I understand it is really a deadline because it was established by the First MinistE!rS at the timE!, and it is indeed a deadline that tJ.Je haVE! to deal tJJith. So thE!Y ar'E! ho1cling that up and saying that we have this deadline. WE! haVE! to ITIE'~:d:: it. and we want eVE!rybody to agrE!l~ to it. all the Provinces to agrE·e to it. Never mind your concerns, leave all your concerns on the table and we will address those concerns after you have signed Meech Lake. I believe that given Mr . Mulroney's track record, leave Bourassa alone for a moment, [ think that would be a tnos'l dangerous thing to do.

I bt~liE!Ve with the changE!S that. WE! need tJ.JE! have to negotiate and rnake happen before Meech Lake is signed. Mr. Speaker. I would lj ke to dt~atJ.J a paraLlel, if I may, l:.o one oF the areas of rny Ministry that have made me very popular in most parts of Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. GULLAGE : That is amalgamation. HopefuJly we can turn a11 that around be!l=-ore - what is it they say 'It is not over until it. is over' and I can assure you that wil.J be thr:! case. I remain confident in spite of the prE!SS . Mr.

Speaker. if we look at Canada and we look at the dispar'"ity bettJ.Jeen the Provinces we can dt~atJJ a great para1lel to that if we look at Newfoundland and the communities in this Province. I beJ.ieve Meech Lake . paral1eJ.s to a No. 15 (Afternoon) R22

great degree, a lot of the con<htions in Meech Lake, a lot of the discussion in Meech lake, parallels to a great degree the discussion that is going on in the amalgamation process. If you were to hear a lot of the presentations made by town councils and city councils. you would understand the differences between many of our communities because indeed almost every grouping has a mixture of a relatively prosperous community with a poor community, where perhaps all the industry is in one community and only residential content in the other. That is the same kind of disparity that exists in Canada.

We hav e very weal thy provinces and very poor provinces. What is our Confederation all about except being abl~ to help one another by way of regional initiatives, true regional initiatives. I do not mean by way of providing the same dollars as I mentioned earlier in all provinces on an equal per capita basis which just negates the whole process, but real regional initiatives that address the needs of the poorer parts of this country. We are trying to do the same thing with the amalgamation process.

Again, if you were to look at a Jot of the presentations that councils are making, you will find that the disparities are there, they are there in every region of the Province and Labrador. Where we do have, indeed. a town where there is a fish plant, or a prosperous industry, a paper mill, whatever, and in the next town there is nothing, absolutely nothing, except residential housing. So the disparity certainly exists.

To had L23 carry the point further. a consulting firm work We with Apr·il 2, 1990 Vol XLI our financial staff, looking at the various ini ·tiatives w~::~ worked with thE! communities on, financial initiatives, tax incentive grants and so on. One of the first things thE!Y flagged was the great difficulty in coming up with an equitable tax situation in a Prov'.ince where the disparities are so great between our people and between our communities in particular', ou1n corporated and our unincorporated communities.

The sug~1estion they have made, and it is rather an obvious one, is that we have to deal lAJith these communities differently.

If, in fact, we have a situation where a tot~oJn or city has a good solid tax base, it has good industry, good business as well as a residential tax base, then consideration has to bE! given to that community differently from a community that has only a residentiaJ. tax base and, indE!ed. may need some special assistance because it does not have th e assets in place, it does not have the business and industry in place to sustain itself and providE! l:he necessary r~;:wr:'nue in the sam~ :! 1.uay as the more prosperous towns or cities would have.

Is that any difFerent than talking about Canada as a whole, speciaJ. consideration to the parts oF Uds nation that are different? SureJ.y that is what Confeder·ation is all about. Mr. Speaker. that is lAJhat Senate reform is all about. For anybody to ar·gue that an Edected, equal and effective SenatE! is not going to be h<;!lpfuJ. in goVE!ndng this nation, it has to bE! a VE!ry hollow and empty argument . Because surely it will help put some balance into the situation in the House of Commons right now, where clearly we have very littJ.e say in the programs that impact No. 15 (Afternoon) R23

upon us dramatically. As we all know, the bulk of our revenue, and I stand to be corrected, I think almost half our revenue, 48 or 49 per cent, comes from federal coffers. Now, granted, we contribute in the first place, but that is a significant amount of money and I would hate to see any result of Meech Lake impact upon the need for assistance that we have. We are in for - I was going to say terrifying and perhaps I should - a very difficult time in the years ahead. In almost every area of our Government, and almost every Ministry that you can name, wehave difficult situaU.ons.

Certainly all the resource sectors are going to have a difficult time in the years ahead, and we can get into all the reasons for it. Everybody realizes we have a crisis in the fishery; we are certainly going to have difficult times in the paper industry as we become more and more a part of the North American scene, if you like, the international scene, as we now have free trade. We have not yet seen the impact of free trade upon us. Add to that the GST which very shortly, in less than a year now, will be in effect.

I talked to the Minister of Finance about that, and the difficuJ.ties we are going to have bringing in the GST. In fact, the Federal Government seems to be saying in that particular area that the provinces are going to have an obligation to introduce, if you like, and to put in systems to collect their tax. Incredible, Mr. Speaker, a tax that all the provinces, to my knowledge, have spoken out strongly against. Why did they bring tn the GST? I suppose if you want to go bac I< it star ted to be discussed around the same time L24 - April 2, 1990 Vol XLI they were debating free trade.

I remember that when they talked about the importance of free trade, one of the main points was the fact that we had to strengthen central Canada, they were really talking about, we had to make sure our manufacturing and our industry in Ontario and Quebec could compete with the United States. And tJ.Jhat are we finding now?

You will find that some of the industries they spoke about: at that time they now haVE! plans for closing, because they are deciding in the head office, sornew~wrE! in the United States, that perhaps we can operate with just one large plant located on a regional basis, such that they can distribul:.~~ to the market from one central location and why bother with these branch plant operations in Canada? Has it really worked. Well, it is too early to tell, I suppose, in all fairness, but tAle are seeing some bad signs. AN HON. MEMBER: Jobs lost . MR. GULLAGE: That is right. One Member' says jobs lost.

Obvious1y, if a plant closes, the chances of it reopening in the free trade scenario, with the competttion frorn thE! United States, wH :h lE!n times the population - everybody knotJ.Js t.hr::~ difficulty of cornpEd.in~J against industry with that kind of a population base to draw upon, that kind of a market to manufacture for and to sell to, the great difFicultir:'S of trying to introduce new industry or trying to bring an industry back once it has been closed.

At thr::~ sarne tirnE!. they started talking about the CST, and, of course, obviously it is U.r:~cl in, because again they wanl:t::'d to No. 1 S (Afternoon) R24

strengthen industry in Central Canada. That was the prime thrust behind it, remove it f1nom the manufactu1ning side and put it directly onto the people on the retai1 side. Is that not wonderful? Who gets hurt the most by that? Why, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, all the poorer provinces which can least afford to pay it, and particularly NetJJfoundland, with a 12 pe1n cent sales tax already.

I am not the fir·st onE~ to say this, many others have said it in debate before, but we have the highest of everything bad and the lowest of everything good: the highest unemployment and so on, the highest taxes certa:i.nJ.y; twelVE! per cent, and Jn less than a y1::!ar f1norn now we are going to have the GST added to it. So we have a serious situation ahead of us, as I mentioned, with problems in most of our resource areas, a difficult challenge for this Government to deliver programs, to deliver initiatives that wi11 sustain us through thE!Se difficult years, so, Mr.

Speaker, I submit tJJe have to have a strong Federal Government behind us. It is imperative that we do. Any program, Meech Lake or any other constitutional change that might be considered, has to be done with consideration for regional disparities in mind, particularly the great disparities that exist betwec~n Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. Mr. Speaker, last year I had the opportunity as a netJJly elected Member of thE!

HOUSE!, shortJ.y aflE!ln the by·-election in Waterfor·d Kenrnoun ·t, to spe!ak to an amendmE!nt proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Developm ent, at the time the MHA in the Opposition For L25 Apr·i1 2, 1990 Vo1 XLI St. Barbe, and his amendment tJJclS on the recognition that Newfoundland and Labrador does indeed consU.tut:.e w:i.thin Cc-H1ade1 a distinct society. I am now quoting my own words, at the time, in response to the amendment: 'Newfoundland was, in fact, very distinct prior to 194-9 in that it was a nation with equaJ. status t:.o Canada and in t:hat respect alonE! deserves disU.nct. status.

Quei:H :!C has never ever had that status, even though it was one of the founding partners. French and English were the predominant languages and thE! predominant cuJ.tures at the time of Confederation, but certainly Quebec couJ.d never argue that it was , in fact, a distinct: nat. ion as Newfoundland can certain1y argue .' But, Mtn. Speaker·, I atn not about. to resurJ"ect t.haJ anwndrn!:H·•t. or that debate or to get into the fact that we a1ne <:1 distinct Province, because you can argue that about almost every province in the country. But ther 'e i s a strong argument, if you want ed to make it.

We probably have a stronger argument, perhaps next l:o Quebec, because we do have to recognize that they are a distinct province, with distinct cuJ.ture, distinct language and so on. rhey were one of the found:i.ng partners. We are not arguing with that, Mln. Speaker, bu t WE! can lTldkE! a terrific argument, i.f tJJe tAJantt::!d t.o rnake one, for NE!Wfoundland being very, very distinct. as weJ.l. And if I rE!CaJ.J. UH:' debatE~ a year ago on l:h•'~ am•:'!ndnwn ·t p1noposed by my colleague, I t.htnk we made a very strong case on that amendment for NewfoundJ.and being a distinct society. Mr.

Speaker, al : that t.ime I also said that $32 rrl'i11:ion oin saJ.ar'i E!S alone tJJere faced oFf against No. 15 (AflE!rnoon) R2S

Federal Fisheries. In my research then, I found out that the total fish landings were $257 million and that the Federal Government is getting pretty close to that in expenditures, including salaries to their people, which constitutes about 10 per cent of the total figure. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government, of course, spends a lot of money on the fishery; they spend a l .ot on surveillance, $32 million in salaries alone, a lot on surveillance!

An argument was being made, and it is still being made, that one of the things we would achieve by approving Meech Lake as it is now - possibly achieve- is more jurisdiction; we would have an opportunity, if you like, if we were granted it, to have more jurisdiction and more say in the Fisheries. Now, Mr. Speaker, after what I have said so far about conditions in this Province and the difficult time we are going to have ahead of us, just the thought of taking on the obligation of sharing in Fisheries jurisdiction - surveillance alone is just unthinkable!

Surely, we have to have a strong Federal Government and strong federal jurisdiction over our fishery. We need to have management . say, yes. We proposed at the time that there should be a joint management board similar to what is being proposed for the Oil industry, for oil developments. We need a stronger say in management, yes, but the very thought of being part of the jurisdiction per se, and being given jurisdiction, where we would have to pay our share, whatever that happens to be, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would have a hard time playing our part and paying our share.

L26 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI We do, indeed, want to see Quebec become part of the Constitution, and we would like to see the Meech Lake Accord dilemma solvE!d, but we cannot do that at the expen se of Newfoundland . We have to have movement, we have to have some consideration for the points that are being made by Newfoundland, Mainitoba, New Brunswick and others who have signed and are now expressing concern. We have to have consideration of Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Bourassa, to other points of view besides th10!ir own.

So far, and we haVE! only have two and a half to three months left, a very short period of brne tAJith, I would think, a strict dead1ine, or it appears to bE! ···- assurn:in~1 l:.hat it is, inder ,~d we ha ve a difficult time ahead of us in these next three months. But we can talk all we want about it, we can rnake as many proposals. as we like, l'-1r.

McKenna or any other PrE!ITiil.':~r can make proposals and suggestions on all sorts of ways of solving, in their minds the stalemate at which we are right now, but. nothing u.d 11 ever happen to solve these problems or solve the pr·oblern tAlE! have with Meech Lake until the Prime Minister and thE! Prern:i.t :!r of Quebec dectde that they are gotng to negoti.ate and they ar·e gcd.ng to listen and come back to l:he table and be willing to make changes.

I would submit that is where we are right now, and I would hope for the sake of Canada and for the sake of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we see sorne movement on the part of these two Gentlemen so that. we can ge•t on with solving the dilemma we are presently in and see this great country finalize the Con stitution which will serve us long into the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. 15 (Afternoon) 1~26

Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order-;-· please! Before recognizing the han. gentleman for Grand Fal1s I would like to welcome to the galleries today thirty-two Grade VI students, accompanied by their teachE!r, Mr. Hubert House, with five chaperones from the R. L. Ash Elementary School in Lethbridge, in the District of Terra Nova. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR . SPEAKER: The han. Opposition House Leader . MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to participatE! in this debate and, at the outset, to say a few words with rE!Spect to the Amendment proposed.

I think the Amendment is straightforward and probably acceptable. I see little difficulty, why Members on the other side would even have any trouble voting against it. It simply asks the House do the courtesy of advising and informing Members of the House of the results before the Governor General is notified of same, and I think that is a perfectly acceptable, perfectly legitimate Amendment, onE! which I feel quite confident Members of the House, including Members on the Government side, would probably support. Mr .

Speaker, I want First of all, in this it is difficult to address, debate, and to address everything in only time slot, but I cover the points I a thirty minute shal1 try to want to cover. L27 Apri1 2, 1990 Vo1 XLI First of all, I lAJant to cornrnE!nt on some of the misunderstandings, misreprE!Sentations that arE! comin~~ forth quite often and have come forth quite oftE!n in debate. OnE!, for example, that you oFtE!n hc ;~ar, particularly from Members on th e other side, where the Opposition is trying to block debate or delay debate on the Meech Lake resolution.

Indeed it is quite frequently what you SE!E:• from l:.he press reports, the Opposit ion continue delaying tacttcs. Wel1, Mr. Speaker, I want to try to overcome that particular perception because, in our view, it is not quite accurate, and I will try to make the points. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SIMMS: First of all, the Opposition in presenting its case is trying to make a case For public hearings on this particular . issue.

That is the number on e approach of Members of the Opposition, which is precisely the same request the Premier made back in his speech on the original Meech Lake issue in 1988 asking for public hearings. Mr. Speaker, let us just J.ook at the argument that the Government puts forward with respect to us attempting to block debate.

We have had a night sitting la st Tuesday, on an occasion when most of the normal afternoon sitting was taken up tAJith debat.~ :· on petitions, not debate on pE!titions. bu l: debate on lAJhether Members had lost the right to present petitions on behalf of l:he public, b~~cause a11 that: happE!ned on that particular occasion is that one Member, the Member for Humber Valley (Mr . Woodford) presented a pE!tition and that t.uas all that we were allowed to No. 15 (Aft(:'rnoon) R27

present while we had others to present, or not the Member for Humber Valley, I am sorry, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rideout), I believe. Anyway there was one. And that is all that we were allowed to present when the Government House Leader intervened and attempted to, and did I guess, successfully eventually move that the House move to Orders of the Day. Now, Mr.

Speaker, what we have seen in this first week of debate from Tuesday to Friday is simply this: from the Opposition, we had one peU .tion on Tuesday, only one petition; but on Tuesday there were two statements from Government Ministers, two rather lengthy statements as a matter of fact. On Wednesd~y we had one petition which was in keeping with what we were doing anyway with respect to petitions, presenting petitions on behalf of the people. On Thursday we had three petitions and then we had a normal day of debate, regular debate, but we went then into a night sitting because thE!

Government insisted on ramming this thing through and would not approve the motion to adjourn on Thursday. And on Friday we had only three petitions but the Government brought in four ministerial statements, so just who is delaying what is open to

interpretation in my view. But it is not fair I do not think to abuse the Opposition of delaying tactics. SOME HON . MEMBERS: No, no! MR. SIMMS: In fact, we have hardly had a chance to debate the issue mostly because of procedural problems that have arisen and that have been quite legitimately debated in L28 April 2, 1990 Vol X L.I this House, in my view. rhe petition one in particu1ar· on Tuesday, and certainly th•~ char·ade and farce that we witnesSE!d her'E! in the House on Friday. So, Mr.

Speaker, we have had, af ·ter one week of dE!bate, since the Government proceeded to call this issue, we have had one speaker on the main resolution and four or five speakers I believe it is now on th~:! amendment. So that deals with that particular misrepresentation. Now there is another one over there that Members opposi t.E! often throw across to us, tAJhy did you not hold hE!arings on the or:ig:inaJ. Meech Lake Accord back in 1988? Not that it really rnakE!S any difference, Mr. Speaker, because the Members hE!re ar'E! now the Government, and when in Opposition they asked for public hearings.

Now they are the Government let them hold them. So I mE! an that is not really a relevant argument. But the simple answer is Uds, and I ask Members to consider this. For example in the 1981 debate with respect to repatriation of the constitution thE!rE! tJJas no debate on that particular matter in Provincial Legislatures. None whatsoever. Secondly, back in 1987, wil:h respect to Meech Lake and the Meech Lake Accord, Hw s:ituation was quite d:ifferent. ME~rnber's k nol..IJ this, but they continue to put forward a different imprE•ssion, in hopes of confusing the public, I suppose.

But at that particular time in 1987, every leaciE!r oF every GovernrnE~nt in Canada, E!VE!ry Premier and the Prime Minister' in Canada, aJ.l agreE!d with the Meech Lake Accord, every Government in Canada. No. 15 (Afternoon) R28

Mr. Speaker, indeed, ev~::~ry leader in this Legislature of the day agreed and welcomed the Meech Lake Accord. The leader of the Lib1;!ra1s, the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Government at the time, the Premier. So, I mean, to somehow suggest, 'Why did you not ho1d public hearings? 1 - the answer is simple. The situation was quite different back in those days from what it is now, quite different, because of the unanimity thet"e was among all. the Premiers and all the leaders of all the Governments in Canada.

As well, in our House, the leaders of all three parties welcomed and agreed with the in it i at i v e s at the time. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, all three Federal party leaders, the Federal leader of the Liberals, the Federal leader of the New Democratic Party and the Federal leadE•r of the . Progressive Conservative Party all supported the Meech Lake initiative.

One would have to admit, even the most ardent Liberal J.n this House would haVl':! to admit that the situation back in those days, 1987 19 8 8 tAla s cons i d I;! r ably different, not like the situation today, where you have a11 kinds of fractions opening up across the country, you have a lot of divisiveness, lots of controversy. And, in those days, I guess, there was more of a political will to try ·to resolve a major problem. So that addt"esses misrepresentation, you will. that particular I suppose, if The other matter I want to address is with respect to speaking time. We talked about it.

Members opposite tossed 1988 whE!n you Lake there was across brought not much L29 Apd.1 2, 1990 'Back in in Meech debate on Vol XLI it, not much discussion,' and so on. The Premier says it. The Minister of Development, on''~ day, flicked across, 1 You on1y had two days debate. 1 NolAJ, whE!I"E• he got that I have no idea. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, it. is misleading to suggest it and to hide the facts. because it is untrue, it is unfatr, J.t. is wr'ong and, what is worse, Mr:HnbE!rS opposi.te, I arn sure•, know it.

The fact is, in 1988 on the original debatE! on Meech Lake, thirteen out of the fifteen Members who sat in the Liberal Official Opposition spoke J.n that debate. Just about ev~::~ry Mernber of the Official Opposition spoke in that debate. In fact, the leader of thE! party, notAJ the Premier, spoke thl"ee t.imes in th1;! debatE! and t·hE! ME!rrtbe I" f o I" Stephenville, I believe, spoke twice. There we1"e nJne MembE•I"S of the Government lAJho spoke. rh1;! Premier, on OUI" side, spoke tt.~.d C(~~ and the now leader of Lhe Opposi.ti.on spoke twicE•. The two NDP Members in the House both spoke to the resoluti.bn.

So practically all the Opposition Members in the HousE:1 had an opportunity to speak. The facts ar1?. these: lh1;:! ciE:1batE! was held over a thi.rteen-day period, thirteen different days. There was no particuJ.ar I"Ush, as there is now, because the Meech Lake resolution was introduced March 17 and was not conc1uded unU.l July 7, no closul"e, and :it ran over a three and one-half month period. So there was no push, no rush, as thE!l"E:~ appears to be these days.

There were twenty - four different speakers, a total of about eiqhtE•en hatH'S spent in the debate, a total of thirty speeches, incJ.uding the leaders .. _ No. 15 (Afternoon) R29

The Premier can shake his head all he wants. These are the facts. We have had, so far, about six hours of debate, not counting today, of course, and only nine Members, in total, have spoken, not counting today, and five Opposition Members. Mr. Speaker, those are ·the facts. It is a fallacy, it is a myth, to throw across l:he House that there was not much time for the original debate of the Meech lake Accord and somehow give the impression that we have rushed it through. That is not true, that is wrong, and the Plnernier knows it; that is what makes it even worse. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to comment briefly on what transpired during this - past WE!ek in this Legislature. First of all, what we saw on Friday was the tyranny of a majority. Without question, without doubt, that is what we saw here on Friday in this House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! .. - MR. SIMMS: Which is something, Mr. that we, as a minority Opposition, are supposed protected from. Speaker, in the to be First of all the resolution itself is unprecedented -· asking for rescinding of another resolution - that is unprecedented in this Legislature.

The Government is using its majority to ram through this resolution forcing night sittings and things of that nature, as early as the first night and the second night, and then we saw Friday 1 s spectacle. On Tuesday, we saw right to petition L30 April 2, 1990 the public 1 s which is one Vol XLI of the absolute rights the public is guaranteed in thE• Const.i tution - cut off because of heavy handed tactics of the majority GovernrnE!nt Members. Then we s<:tlAI an absolutely shameful, unprecedented move here in this HousE! on Friday where the Speaker rightly ruled that the Opposition motion had carried.

Yet the Government proceeded to use its majority in a way never done before in this Legislatu1ne, to overrule that vol:e and embarrass its OlAin Speakel", in my view, in that process. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote, if I may, because of the seriousness of that 1natter on Friday and I feel very strongly about it, I can assure hon. Members . Let me just quote a fE!W short passages For your benefit from Beauchs~ne. These are excerpts from Beauchesne. MernbE!rS might be interested in hearing what Beauchesne has to say about it.

The very first paragraph i.n Beauchesne, paragraph 1, page 3, 11 The principles of Canadtan Parliamentary Lau.1 are: ro proU•ct a rninori ty and res.train the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; ... to enable eVE!ry Member to expr1:!SS opinions ... and to give abundant 11 I rE!peat abundant 11 opportuni ty for the consideration of every mea sure, II Under The Constitution Act section, paragraph 3, on page 4-, referring to Government 1 s and Parliaments in Canada, and I quote: 11 ••• such ·ll''adi.tionaJ. features as respect for thE! r'ights of the minority, which pr'(~!c1ucles a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways. 11 No. 15 (Afternoon) 1no

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, again paragraph 4, page 4, under Privileges of Parliament it says, and I quote: 11 Few of these 11 privileges 11 are of greater importance than the right to regulate the internal proceedings of the House, or more specifically, to establish binding rules of procedure. 11 I would say to han. Members it might do them well to reflect upon these particular passages and ask for themselves whether or not they think these most important principles were met particularly with what transpired here on Friday. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I wouJ.d like to get more to the subject at hand, having said that, particularly the issue of rescinding this resolution or the resolution that rescinds the original resolution. I have serious concerns and I do not mind saying it, whether the Government agrees or not. Or the Premier agrees or not is irrelevant to me. But I have serious concerns about this very dangerous precedent in itself. The question is, who would ever trust us in the future? It could in fact become a bit of a joke.

Every time there is a change in a Government and a constitutional change passed legitimately by an elected Legislature previously, may not be liked by a new Leader or a new Premier. he can rescind it, if it is not yet proclaimed. I have concerns about that. MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) . MR. SIMMS: T say t.o the Deputy Coordinator of ·the Meech Lake Speech making, the Member for Pleasantville (Mr. L31 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI Noel) I have concerns about i.t:, whether he agrees or not I do not care. I have the right to express my opinion and that is exactly what I am doing here today. I also, Mr.

Speaker, have• been following what the Premier has beE!n saying on the issue. Trying my best to understand. But I have to admit I have trouble understanding his stubbornn1:!SS and his unwilJ.ingness to sholAJ sornE~ flexibility and leadership in trying to resolve this constitutional crisis. I have concerns about it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about. it, I will deal tAJith that when the time COHIE:1S, if thE:1 Premier IAlOUJd like to settle down. I also have trouble understanding, hotAJ carne the Premier sees it one way and just abou~ everybody else se•es it another way.

Anybody else who has any constitutional expertise, we should say. Mr. Speaker, the Premier says: 1 Meech Lake will mean tha·t small Provinces like Newfoundland will never be able to enjoy a better or more improved standard of li.ving, if Meech Lake goes through. 1 I wonder how come, PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, these smaller provinces do not agree wjth him. They do not believe what he is saying. Three of the Provinces have premiers who are lawyers and the other one, I belieVE!, is an Economist, so I have trouble, I do not understand, I cannot understand why he is so stubborn.

Many people tend to forget the real purpose of Meech Lab~ in the beginning, was to gE!t Quebec as a full partner in its signatory to the 1980 Constit.ut:i.on, and it. IAJas done, as I say, with the agreement of every Canadian leader of e•vc:1ry No. 15 (Afternoon) IDl

Governmen-t at that time. I do not know why that is not being emphasized and repeated over and over by the Premier. I suspect they know why, but I do not understand it. I also want to say up front, and in response to what the Premier just threw across the floor of the House, wj_Ul respect to Mr. Bourassa 1 s comments. I have no hesitation in saying that I, too, do not appreciate the comments made by Mr. Bourassa, which he made publicly.

I found them offensive and I will go as Far as to say that I did not like the Prime Minister's comments either, at the First Minister's conference, which were basically in the same context, about Newfoundland owing Canada. I did not appreciate those comments either, and I have no hesitation in saying I was pleased when the Premier stood up and made those comments. AN HON. MEMBER : Did you write him about it? MR. SIMMS: No, I did not write him and tell him, so let there be no hesitation about that Mr.

Speaker, I have absolutely no hesitation in making those comments and I would not have s toad for it either, if I had been in the Premier 1 s place, and I commend him for taking that particular position. But the question is, is not the real answer though, to somehow try to rise above all of this rhetoric, rise above all the legal mumbo jumbo that we hear, day in and day out on this issue that does nothing more than to confuse Canadians, because that is what is happening.

Is is not more important to work as hard as possible to try to unite Canada, the country of Canada and at the same time, and more importantly, I L32 April 2, 1990 Uol XLI guess, to work on Newfoundland's behalf? Is not that lJJhat_ is mos ·t important, showing that you care for our own people, that is what I would like to SE!e on thE! PtH't of the leaders who are presently engaged in this debate across Canada. That is what. I want to see. I want to see a willingness, a determination and I want to see a rE!Solve to try to overcome this current crises that u.Je hav~:! u.Jith respect to the Constitutional Amendment.

It is aLl leadership, that is what we lAJant to see in Canada today. That. is what I l.~oJan-t: to see as one NewFoundlander. Now let me lry to touch on the three points, as I undeJ~stand l:he Premier has arU.culatE!d, and w:it :h which he has concerns and problE!ITIS, and if I arn t.~owon~1, Ol" j_f he can explain to rne a lil-:l':le tnol~,? clearly~ I would appreciate it. Perhaps when he closes thE! debab:'! on the ResoluU.on, but I w~nt to run down through them and T u.Jant to give him my observations on the three issues which he mentions.

First of all: The concer'n about the restriction of Federal spending powers. I have I~E!c\d t.hE! Accord, contrary to what sorne of the Members opposite might believe, I have read the Accor'd, I have read the Amendment, I have read a lot of material pu 1:. for'th by people who are constitutional experts, shall we say, and I ht-·lVe asked people. As I read it, the Accord only mentions, first of all, New National cost-shared programs, to begin with, the Premier nods.

The onJ.y thing restricted as I understand is the ability of the Federal Governrnc::~nt to use its spending power's to intrude into areas of Provincial jurisdiction without the Provinces' consent. That. is IJJhc\l I read. It does not affect any No. 15 (After'noon) R32

existing cost-shared programs, it does not affect cost-shared programs or services under Federal jurisdiction, it does not affect spending initiatives undertaken solely by the Federal GoVE!rnment, as I understand it, and I cannot see where it affects Equalization or ACOA, Grants to individuals, Unemployment Insurance, any of those things, I cannot see that anywhere. So, wher·e has the federal spending powers been limited? We have always been, in this Province, I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, we have always, as a Province, as a small Province in the Canadian Confederation, been subjected to a take it or leave it situaU.on in regard to national cost-shared programs. If a Province did not accept the federal . program then the feder•al revenues would not be available. But now as I read it for the first time we will be able to, as a Province, help shape sorne national cost-shared programs that would meet our need. That is the way I interpret it. The Premier can shake his head.

If we cannot shape a program to fit. our needs then we can design one of our own that does, and receive federal financial support to help us deliver that program. Now that is the way I read it, that is the way I understand it, so again I do not understand the Premier's problem tAd th this whole issue and his inability to see it. The second point deals with the special legislative powers for Quebec that the Premier, I believe, if I understand hirn, says is contained in the Meech Lake Accord.

Again I have read it over and over and I have talked to others about it and I have read a lot of the comments put forth by many experts on that particular L33 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI point and quite frankly as a lay person I am not l.earned, I arn not a 1 aw y e r , I do not s e e in t. he Accord where any federal powers, for example, would be transferred to Quebec, that is not theJ~e. He agrees. I can only read the distinct society clause as cJ.earJ.y spelling out basically the legislative powers that Quebec already has. AN HON. MEMBER : Ah, ah! MR. SIMMS : He can Ah, ah, a11 hr::~ wants . AN HON.

MEMBER: (Inaudible) . MR. SIMMS: WeJ.l, let me carry on, first of aJ.l, with my points. Even U11:> allies the Premier had on this issur::1 a couple of months ago, up until a couple of months ago, New Brunswick and Manitoba. Manitoba is still an ally - I arn not quite sure - but at the moment they are. But both of their 1nepo1nts, as I understand it, agree that Meech Lake does not give Quebec any special new l,;,1gislat.ive poWE!rS -both of their reports. PREMIER WELLS : (Inaudible) . MR. SIMMS: The Premier can. tE!lJ rn(!

JAJhE!J"e it says it but I am told that both of their reports agree that Quebec does not get any new legislative" powers under this. Then I even get more confused when I h"1ar l:hE! Premier say, as I think hE:' satd, I do not IJJish to put words in his mouth but maybe he will correct me when he closes debate, but he actually has no Jneal problem wj t.h Quebec being recognized as a disU.nct society but he JAJouJ.d No . 1 S (Afternoon) IB3

prE!fer to see it in the

preamblE!, as opposed to in the body of the constitution. Quite frankly it is just confusing and I think it is confusing not on1y for rne as an individual who sits here, and I recognize the weaknesses I have in trying to understand everything, but I am here every day listening to it all, so I then wonder how can the public, how can the peoplE! ge•t a full grasp of it? How can they understand? Why would thc::~y not be confused? I think it is clear. MR. NOEL: We are not confused. MR. SIMMS: Oh, the Member says they arE! not confused but I would beg to differ with thE! han. Member. I believe the people are confused.

I really do. I believe they have trouble following the Premier's logic. Frank McKenna has trouble following the Premier's logic, and Frank McKenna is in his own right, as I understand it, a bit of a constitutional expert. · Perhaps more so than the Premier. MR. WINDSOR : The Premier shakes his head . MR. SIMMS: WeJ.l, he did his masters thesis on Constitutional Amendments and I would say that puts him in a category perhaps a notch above the Premier. Joe Ghiz and John Buchanan are both lawyers and they do not agree with him. They do not understand his logic.

Gordon Robertson, who was a special advisor to Prime Minister Trudeau, a former secretary to the Cabinet, a very much respected individual dOE!S not agree wi t:h thE! Prerrder. He says the Premier is interpreting it wrong . Neither L34- April 2, 1990 Vol XLI can the forty constitutional law professors from all across Canada, from Osgoode HaJ.l, Queens University, McGill, Dalhousie, UNB, University of Moncton, University of Victoria B.C. Forty law professors, constitutional lawyers, they say the Pr,:.>mi,~r' s

interpretation is lAJl"ang . And then there are all kinds of other groups. The Quebec Liberal Party's Committee - what is it called? -· the ad hoc Comrnit t.ee on the Anglophone community, they asked that Meech Lake be ratified. They even wrotE! us . WE! wrote them back and said, You should be writing Mr. Wells, the Premier. There is no point in writing us. Mr . Speaker, another ' point I t,o.d sh to make, because 'it has to do t,o.Jith logic, it is true I understand, - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SIMMS : We will see. We wiJ.l see.

It is trUE! that the Prerni .er, t.uhen he was in prival:e practice I believe, argued Mr . Trudeau's position before the Newfoundland Supreme Court in 1981 that unilateral patriation was constitutional. PREMIER WELLS : No . MR. SIMMS: He says, 'No'. I am !:old he did. I am also told that the Supreme Court, in fact, rejected the Premier's arguments at l::ha'l'.: ttrnE!. He shakes his h1=:!ad and says, 'No, that is not true. ' But that i. s what t.ue understand, and I hope he will take the time when he does get up to sp':'ak to corr,~ct !:hat, becausE! that ts certainly the No. 15 (Afl:ernoon) R34-

"" impression of people. therefore, now. given to an And it is that he could awful lot possible, be wrong And what about his predecessors? Liberal Leader Roger Simmons at the time, now Member of Parliament. PREMIER WELLS: Only a (inaudible). MR. SIMMS: Well, here is what he said in Hansard, May 20, 1987: 11 Now, Ml". Speaker, again for the record, let me say on behalf of my coLleagues 11 - that is all of you over theJ"e - 11 that the achievE!ITJent in bringing QUI;!bec into the Constitution is a marvelJ.ous achievement., and we now have achieved that. 11 Leo Barry, now Mr.

Justice Barry, May 1st. 11 6peaking on behaJ.f of the official Opposition, we in the official Opposition 11 - that is you people - 11 Welcome the developments which took place. 11 He said, 11 I want to underline the fact this is a s ig ni fi cant day for Canada, and in light of the entrenchment of the fisheries agenda item it is also a significant day for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. 11 Even the present Minister of Fisheries, the ME!mber for TlAJi ll in gate , is quoted in the EVE!ning Telegram, August 12, 1987 on the fisheries item, by the way.

The discussion was the Liberal Leaders 1 , in the:~ Maritime Provinces, concern about Newfoundland 1 s push to get fishery on the agenda. The Member for Twillingate, the Minister of Fi s heJ"iE! s said, 11 I see thE! Province, for example, playing a roJ.e in having wide open consultation and input into the licencing policiE!S of Ottawa, and have almost veto power in terms of quotas and things of that L35 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI nature. 11 Now, Mr. Speaker, is the Member for Twillingate. that And what about, Mr. Speaker, tending to mat t ers at home? I will have to conclude it, I guess, with these few remarks.

I have only a couple of minutes left. The PrerniE!r, I believe it. is fa-.i.J" to say, has been quite successfu1 in one thing in h"i.s first year' in office. They have successfu].ly camouflaged from the peopJ.e the real probl1:~ms and J"l:'!al issuos our people are facing today. They have carefu1ly masqueraded their incompetence, in my view, they have done it tAJith the hE!lp oF a lot of smooth ta1k, a lo t of a1ibies, a lot o·F blal'lling other people, and an overabundance of legal mumbo jumbo. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that the peopJ.e of the "Province i:U"e bE!ginning to see through it..

They see the increases in unemployment, they see the tax increases, they see the catastrophe existing in our fishery, they see the rising electricity rates, they see the forced amaJ.garnat.ion pJ.an, they SE!E! BiJ.J. 53, they se1;! ·Beaton Tu1k, and they remember the promise of economic recovery, the pro rnis1:! to improve labour relations, the promise to cut out political patronage, the promise never to tolerate conflict of interest, l:h1?. promise to bring horne every Mother 1 s son. They remember l:hem all, Ml". Speaker'. They hope, though, that people lAii.11 forqE!t.

Well, what better way to makE! people forget than to camouflage the reaJ. issues of the Province by spending the entirE• t.oi rne on this Meech Lake resoJ.ution, Mr. Speaker? I think people are gE!tting a J.:i.ttle weary of hearin~1 the Prr:~rnier and his coJ.leaques say, but we have only been in office for a short per·iod of time. MJ". Speaker', in tlAJO W€~Ed<s No. 15 (Afternoon) I~ 3 5

time the Premier will be J.eading his party into the second year of their rnanda te: H1e people want you to spend time at home. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: The people want you to s pE! nd time at home dealing with the issues. Because you, Mr. Premier, have many rnore fish to fry rtght here in Newfoundland and Labrado1n, and I would suggest that you do it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: ·rh~·Fion .--·-the Member for Eagle River. .MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I must say I am very fortunate to be in this HouSE! of Assembly.

I am also fortunate today to have the opportunity to speak on this historic occasion, to have an opportunity to indicate some of the words I feel toward the future of this country. We never had that opportunity before in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I look forward to the next few minutes to be able to outline some of the things that concern me. Of course, in a half an hour you do not have enough time to deal with aJ.l othe complexities of Meech Lake and the constitutional problE!ms of this country.

I listened with interest to what has taken place in this House over the last number of tJJeeks, and especially over thE! last few days L36 April 2, 1990 Vol XU on the Meech Lake Accord. I guess I wanted to have Hli s oppor l·:u ni ty to outJ.ine some of my central objections l:o the Accord, and outline why I am against this particular document . One of t:he reasons, Min. SpE!akE!r, that I am d!O:'ad s~::~t agains l: this Accord is because I am a Federalist. I believe in the• Federal Government. I beJ.:iE!VE! i.n a strong Federal Government.

I also object to this particular Accord because I sit hE!re in thJs House as a minority; I sit hE!rl''. in this House as a Member of the Metis Association; I sit in l:hts House as one of Hw fE!lAJ ME!lllbE·J~s from Labrador in this particular LegislaturE!; I s:i.t hE!r'e i.n Ud.s House, also, as somebody tAJho gr't::!W up with the minority of Quebec, with the Anglophones on thE! Qu•:d:.l•:~c North ShorE=~; I sit hE!rE! knowing what has happened to the Anglophones of the Quebec North Shore. I also, Mr. ~peaker, take great pride in dealing with the issue as it is before us, but a1so in the form that is before us.

I mean it is not every day that WE! hav<::' to cotnE! to the point of rE:~scindinq a particular resolution. Many scholars have noted that it is certainly a very, very rare occurence in our par'lic:-unentary democracy, and certainly I think everybody shou1d t.ab~ it very seriously. I do take it very seriously; I take the resc:Lndtng of any particular resolution in this particular House oF Assembly with utmost caution. And when I get prepar'ed t.o speak on this particular issue I have to say why, lAJhy is it l:hal:: we have to take these steps?

Why is it l:hat at this point in ti .rnE! thE· Pl"erni.E!r No. 15 (Afternoon) 1\36

of the day and thE:1 Government of this Province have to take this particular step? I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no doubt about people who have expressed concerns over this resolution and have exprE!SSed concerns over MeE:1Ch Lake and the lack of debate over MeE!Ch Lake? You know, we have heard from different people saying in past points in tirrH:1, first when it. was introduced, there was no need for any dE!bate, there was no need for public hearings.

There is no doubt that at the time, at t.hE:1 euphod.a of the signing, when people thought the country was about to be brought together as it never was before, there was no need for debate, there was no nr,11:-d for public hearings, there was a need for celebration. There is no doubt about what happened at that particular time, there is no doubt .about the poJ.itics of perception and the image that has been created right from the uery beginning.

It was brought out from the darkness of that particular place to the fore of the Canadian political arena, encompassing all the roses and all the tributes that one could possibly make to any particular statem~::~nt. And who in his right mind would say these are our leaders, these are our people who arE! making the decisions on this issue? Who would think they would eVE!r go and display thE! lack of judgement they did? Nobody did. But it was not too long, Mr. Speaker, before people started to wonder.

As the resolution was brought into the different Legislatures, as the media began to have a look at it and open it up, as people in this country L37 April 2, 1990 Vol XLI began to look at it and see thE:'iln place in that agrer:Hnent, as l:he women's groups got together and studied this agreement, as the NaU.ve people of this country got together and as ked, 1 WhE!re are our places in this agr€:1E!mE!nt?' as thE! minorities of the country, parU.cularly the AngJ.ophones in Quebec and other linguistic minorities outside Quebec got. together and as ked, 1 Whr:?.re are our places in this country? they said, 'No, we arE! not convincE!d tJJe have our places in this country.

ME!E!Ch Lake does not protect our particular places in this country. 1 And, they and th'" media looked at the essenCE! of that document. I must say, Mr.

Speak,~r, that as I view this move with utmost concern, I am disappoinl:(!d lJ..I':i.th a number of things: I am disappointed that people triviaJ.ize the matter so much; I am disappointed that people bE!little others' concE•rns; I arn disappointed with the fearmongering that is taking place over this agreement, of late; I am very, very disappointed to understand that the Federal GoVE!rnrnent is preparing to put an open book on the advertising dollars to different communications firrns to go out and sel1 Meech Lake, as they did Ftnee Trade; I am Vl?.ry disappointed that people on al1 sides of thE!

House and in all parts of this country are corn:ing to this issuE• tJJith their political baggage we11 in hand, and they arE! pJaying s traig h tf orwatnd, crass, partisan poJ.itics with it. I think that is wrong. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ·Hear-·:--h"ea-r-T __ .. ____ ..... _._ MR. DUMARESQUE: No. 15 (After·noon) 1~3 7

I listen to different speakers and I cannot help but say the proof has to bE:~ ther•e. People say they do not agree with different parts of the agrE!ement. As thE! ME!rnber for Torngat Mountains noted in his speech today, he disagrees with i:he Senate not being part of this Accord; he disagrees wH:h thE! SuprE:'me Court judges and how they are going to be affected; he disagrees with the Native people and where they will be; he disagrees with parts about where provinces wil1 not be corning in, and the amending formula. My lord, he only had a half-hour and hE! had already disagreed with about 50 per CE!nt of it!

I mE~an, how long do you have to go about defending the truth against pure crass politics? fhe Opposition House Leader stood up today and blatantly said he disagrees with our position and that he heralds this Agreement as prospective unity for the country. And he compliments the Premier on it. Of course, he compliments the Pre~ier, because he is the one person today who is recognized from coast to coast as a nation-builder, a person committed to federalism. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

DUMARESQUE: The record wi11 show that in 1987, when this great document was brought into this House and debated for a number days , the Opposition House Leader did not have the opportunity to stand up and arb .culate the great benefits of that Accord at the time. I wonder exactly where his heart is? I just Speaker, noted in L38 want to a the to revert now, Mr. couple of thi n.g s I beginning about one:' April 2, 1990 Vol XLI of my basic disagreement s with this Accord.

It centers around fede:~ralism, what fE!deralism ITH'!ans, what it has meant to the United States, what it. has meant to Australia, what it has meant to other parts of the world which have actually used this exercise for the betterment of all its people and for the bettE!rl'nE!nl: of all its regions . It has meant tremendous strides for rninori ties, for the weaker regions of their countries, and for people tAJho fc!el disadvantage through no fault of their own. I submit, Mr.

Speaker, that . the reason IAJe are taking this step, at this particular t:l.tTlC:', in l:hois particular House, is because at this point in time we recognize that federalism in Canada has failed. Federalism, at l:.h :is point in tirne, has fail1:!d to cornE· together and take ca1ne of l:he weaker regions of this country, and to take care of the weaker in our society, namely, the minorities.

You do not have to go back through a Jot of histo1ny, any study of regio nal econo1nic disparity will show that in th e beginning of the country, wht:~n WI?. startE!d to build the countr·y and bring together th10:~ pieCE!S, you could clearly see that the per capita income oF the poorer provinces, now thE! 1 haVE! nol 1 provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and others, when this country started to come together and work around these particular blocks, the se provinu>.s IAJE!rl:'! wE!i.l off, these pr·ovinces had a hj gher' standa1nd oF living than l.:hey have notAl. But what happen"''d?

It does not take any great political scholar to figure out what happened. fhe political representations in the House of Commons, as they s tart,:!d to be divided up and as they became No . 15 (Afl:er·noon) ID8

involved in decision-making, clearly saw a path towards the well-being, betterment. and protection of central Canada. We saw decision after decision made in the protection of the infrastructure and the well-being of central Canadians. We saw departments created and we continue to see them created today, which are geared to the protection and well-being of central Canadians. and that is in fact not in fiction, not in anybody' s mind, that is in fact a result of the structure that his country had operated under for those 120 years.

It operated under a system where if you had the seventy-five MPs from Quebec and the ninety-five or so from Ontario, the same kind of representation was made in the Federal Cabinet. And it is not unkind for anybody to say. It is only natural to expect that people who have been given this kind of authority will exercise it; they will exercise it and they will take it to its end, and that is what has happene!d. It is happened to the point where ~e are today in a 'have not' position and WE! ar·e not improving.

We are in a situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today where we have the worst of all the good statistics and. I guess. the least of all the better statistics. Unemployment is well below one half or twice the times of the national average, our per capita income is significantly below the Canadian average. I do not need to go into all these statistics. but what we have is a full-fledged acknowledgement that Newfoundland and Labrador will continue t:o be in a position of 'have not' status. We will always be there.

And how do you say the Meech Lake Accord prohibits anything like L39 April 2. 1990 Vol XLI this from changing? Well, there are a couple of things that have particular significance. One is the amending formula. An alllE!nding formula that will. be put: in place now will mean there can never' be any constitutional change in this country unless there is unanirni {:y. agreemerit by all ten provinces. That will, without a doubt, condemn and prohibit Senate reform forever.

There aJ"~~ not many things in this country d.ght now that we can look to, I do not think, as parliamentarians t.o try and curb what I have mentioned in the past few minutes, not many things at a11. You can look to a particular program and you will see again the program's objectives and the program's expenditUJ"es arE! going to be rationalized by the politicaJ. representation. You can look at the Supl"''~me Court c\nd sr,~e how they are made up and what they are attempting to do. And you can look for political wi11.

But again, you are going to come down, I think, to the one instrument of our particular structure, the Senate. That is thE! onJ.y instrument in fedE!ralis1n in Canada today that offers us an opportunity to change l:he lAJay tl1ings have been for thE~ last 124· years. We are going to have to take advantage of this particular opportunity to forward the progress, to push towards the adoption of an equal and effective and elected Senate. WE! havE• to do that in order to provide any semblance of balance of political power in this country, and certainly any sembalance of hope for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

People have to say, you know there are other things in that Accord, like the distinct society. The No. 15 (Afternoon) 1n9

Opposition House Leader has · made many great speeches in this House. He has made many good insights into what happens as to the weJ.l-being of our people. But I just could not believe today, I could not believe today, that a man of his stature, a man of his experience, would get up and say that the distinct society clause in the Meech lake Accord does not mean anything. Would be able to get up herE! in this House today and say that the distinct society clause does not give Quebec any more legislative power.

How can you say that when you have the Premier of Quebec saying, that if he had Meech Lake he would not need a notlAiithstanding clause, he would override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And that does not mean power. You can say no to the Supreme Court. You can say no to the anglophones and the minorities of Quebec because of that particular document and the distinct society clause. A