Volume XL Monda y Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Fourth Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honow·able P.]. McNicholas Number 27 2 May 1988

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! On Friday morning the hon. the member for Fogo rose on a point of privilege, but before making his case asked that I consider Paragraph 83 of Beauchesne, Fifth Edition. I would ask the hon. member to now make his point of privilege. If, indeed, I need to hear the transcript of any information that was broadcast, I shall endeavour to obtain that information. MR. TUI.K: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, firstly I want to thank you for your ruling.

On Friday I felt and I still feel, that a point of privilege was necessary concerning allegations by a person outside of this House that a member of this House, namely the Premier, was lying. At that time, as you said, I did not have the transcripts. I now have the typed transcripts and I will table them after I am finished . I would like to make my point of privilege in this regard: On Thursday the Premier stated in this House, and I quote Hansard, "Mr. Dobbin offered me a job and I turned it down... On Friday morning CBC Radio carried Mr.

Dobbin live saying in reply to a question put by one Ted Blades of CBC radio, and I will quote exactly what he said, 'So are you saying that he is lying?' Obviously this was referring to the Premier, if you will read the interview. Craig Dobbin: Ll387 May 2, 1988 Vol XI. 'Absolutely! He is lying.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that I am not interested in any personal controversy between the Premier, in this case I will name him, Brian Peckford, and Craig Dobbin. I am not interested at all.

I am interested only in the O.f flee of the Premier and this Legislature, and the fact that the highest member of this Parliament, the highest claimed Minister of this Parliament has been called a liar by a person outside this r.egislature. AN HOM. MEMBER: Did you discuss this Harry Steele in Gander at your meeting? MR. SPEAKE.R: issue with (inaudible) Order, please! Order, please! Order, please! MR. TUl.K: Mr. Speaker, that I submit to Your Honour reflects on all of us, and the question obviously is: Does that constitute a prime facie case of privilege? Of course, it is my contention that it does. Mr.

Speaker, T would like to, if I may, refer Your Honour to certain parts of Beauchesne, just as reference for Your Honour, and I wl 11 start wl th section (16) : 'The privileges of Parliament, Privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers . " They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.' No. 27 Rl387

I would also like to refer Your Honour to Page 18,

Section 45. There is ample precedent to show that indeed the statements made by Mr. Dobbin, unless, I suggest to Your Honour, he can prove that they are correct, are a contempt to Parliament. ' Again I refer your Honour to

Section 45: 'Traditionally, articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the House have been treated as contempts. It goes on to say, "Two members of the staff of the House have been dismissed for writing such articles, and in 1873 the House judged an

article written by a Member to be a "scandalous, false and malicious libel upon the honour, integrity and character of - this --House, and of certain Members thereof, and a high contempt of the privileges and constitutional authority of this House". '

Section 48: "The House has occasionally taken notice of attacks on individual Members".

Section 49: "Following t'eports in various newspapers in 1976, the t'emarks of Mr. Auguste Choquette, which appeared to accuse unnamed Membet"s of accepting bribes, were t'efet'red by the House to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections". Mr. Speaket', those are all examples of whet'e, once a person outside or inside the legislature decided to comment upon the character Ot' make allegations against the charactet' of anothet' individual, it was found it to be a contempt of pat'liament, and a contempt of a legislature. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to also t"efer to some other quotations L1388 May 2, 1988 Vol XL ft'om Beauchesne, and I am sure your Honour will have no trouble finding them. When any o.f these rights and immunities both of the Members individually and of the Assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges at"e disregarded or attacked by an individual or authority, the offense is called a bt"each of pdvilege and is punishable undet' the -law of parliament. I would also like to t"efet' Yout" Honour to one other thing that is in Beauchesne.

Libels upon members and aspersions upon the.it' relation to parliament and interference ' of any kind with their official duties at"e bt"eeches of the privileges of members, but to constitute a breach of pt'ivilege they must concern the character or conduct of member's in their capacity. Mr. Speaker, I will contend to you that what we heard from Mr.

Dobbin fits those rules exactly, in that the allegations he has made reflect upon the character of the Premier of this Province as being, and I use the word only as he used it, a liar and, therefore is a contempt of this House; it is libel against one of the membet"s of this House, namely the Pt'emiet' of this Province, and unless Mt".

Dobbin can prove to this parliament, which is the highest court in the land, that what he has said is not, in fact, a libel, then I would suggest to you, yout" Honcut', that he is in contempt of this parliament, of this court, and should be brought before this House to explain his actions. I would also like to refer Your Honour to one other precedent that happened on August 7, 1938, when a dispute arose between one John No. 27 R1388

Kent and Dr. Edward Kieley. Kent claimed that Kieley verbally assaulted him because of remarks Kent had made in the House of Assembly concerning a Newfoundland Hospital. Not content to seek redress through the courts, Kent claimed Kieley' s actions had been a violation of his rights and privileges as a member of the House. In that particular case, Carson, the Speaker, summoned Kieley before the bar of the House and demanded an apology. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would contend to you again that Mr. Dobbin has libelled the highest minister in this Province.

He has done so in relation to statements that the Premier made in this House and outside it. I am not concerned with statements the Premier made outside, but I am concerned with the statements he made here. I will refer your Honour again, as I said, to the statements made by the Premier on April 28 in this House, when he said in answer to a question by the member for Fortune - Hermi tag, .. Mr. Dobbin offered me a job and I turned him down... Mr. Craig Dobbin says that that is a lie. I say to you, that unless Mr.

Dobbin can prove otherwise, then he is libelling the Premier, and the way for us to decide whether he is or not, is to pass the appropriate motion. Mr. Speaker, I say to you, if you are prepared to find a prime facie case of privilege here, I am prepared to move the following notice of motion. I can move it now, or I can move it later, whichever your Honour decides to do. AN HON. MEMBER: It has to be (inaudible) first. Ll389 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR. TULK: I understand you have to have a prima facie case first. MR. SIMMONS: Tell them what it is going to be. MR.

TULK: I am giving Speaker does case, I will motion: notice that if the find a pdma facie move the following

Whereas attention it has that Mr. come Craig to our Dobbin has made a serious accusation against a member of the House; and

Whereas s~ch an allegation constitutes a breach of privileges of the House; and

Whereas it is incumbent upon all members to protect the pr-ivileges of the House; Therefore

be it resolved that this Hauss agree to refer the matter to the Committe on Privileges and Elections .for appropriate action. Your Honour, if you find a pr-ima facie case, I am prepared to move that motion. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council, to that point. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is t"ather obvious to me that the Hon. membet" spent an awful lot of time this weekend digging very deep to try to find anything to substantiate this pat"tlcular claim of a bt"each of privilege. He t"eferenced fot" Your No. 27 Rl389

Honour's consideration situations that went back to 1873 and 1906, which did not have anything to do with the situation that he is describing here today, or trying to describe for Your Honour. He neglected conveniently, of course, to go on further and quote paragraph 47 for you, the first sentence where it says, Mr.

Speaker, and this is dght after these other two incidents he referred to, 'More recently notice has occasionally been taken of such articles or comments but the House has failed to take any action.' What I find rather ironic about this whole issue, the question of whether one person is calling another person a liar or whatever, is that the Liberal party would even bother to raise this particular matter. It was only a week or so ago, for example, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Wells) , the member for Windsor - Buchans, a so-called highly respected member of this House - not a member of the general public, but a member of this House - aspiring to be Premier, called another member of this House a liar outside the House - outside the House - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) prepared to defend it. MR. SIMMS: Prepared to defend it! to defend it! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: Big deal! Big deal! Prepared That give is you rather some il:"onic. Let references me from L1390 May 2, 1988 Vol XL Beauchesne, Mr.

Speaker, if Your Honour is prepared to consider this seriously, and I would assume that he is. I will stick with Beauchesne, the Fifth Edition. I want to quote several references for Your Honour that I will use in argument against this silly point of privilege . First of all, Beauchesne, Fifth Edition, page 11, paragraph 17: 'A - point of privilege is so serious it ought rarely to ever come up in Parliament.' Secondly, he was not talking about what happened outside the House, he was talki~g about inside.

Page 12, paragraph 19 (1): 'A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegation of facts, does not fulfill the conditions - of parliamentary privilege.' That is clear. Page 25, paragraph 84: The Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. His function when a question is raised is limited t.o simply deciding whether the matter is so serious and of such a character to allow the motion he talked about in order to take priority of all the other business of the day. Mr. Speaker, I hardly think this matter they have raised is that serious.

With respect to what the Premier himself had to say, let me give Your Honour another couple of quotations. Page 114, paragl:"aph 322: 'It has been formally ruled by Speakers that a statement by a Member respecting himself and particularly within his own knowledge must be accepted. ' And, it goes on to say: 'No imputation of intentional falsehood is permissable. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradi tory No. 27 Rl390

accounts of the same incident.' That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what we have here, nothing more, nothing less. Let me quote for Your Honour from the House of Commons debates, June 14, 1978 when the Speaker of the day was ruling on a similar question of privilege against the then Prime Minister, Pierre · Trudeau. On Page 6404 of those debates the Speaker said, 'The long established practice of parliament is very clear. That is to say, when an hon. member of this House rises in his place, puts the matter on the record' as the Premier has done - 'it is accepted by the House.

There is a very long-established practice that the word of any member of this House is accepted. -' In February 28, 1978, House of Commons debates, Page 3295, the Speaker ruled again: 'When matters of this sort or similar have been raised a Minister or a Member has risen in his place, and under the practices of this House his word has always been accepted and the matter has always been finalized.' Finally, let me give Your Honour one more quote, and this is a quote from Your Honour's own ruling in March 1987, using another ruling, incidentially, that Your Honour gave on 13 June, 1986, just to show you how consistent Your Honour is on matters of this nature.

Responding then to a point of privilege raised· by the member for Fortune Hermitage against the then Minister of Public Works in a very, very similar matter, making accusations of all kinds, and I will conclude with this quote, Mr. Speaker: 'I do not know whether the statements are in fact Ll391 May 2, 1988 Vol XL untrue. It is not the role of the Speaker to determine the truth or falsity of a member's statements to this House.

It is incumbent upon a member making allegations of that nature to proceed not by way of a point of privilege, but by another method that has been described in the past.• A substantive motion could be laid down or something of that nature, but certainly it does not constitute a point of privilege. And even Your Honour told a member of this House the same thing; he cannot proceed by way of point of privilege to try to accuse somebody of being truthful or untruthful. All the other references I think speak for themselves. When a member of this House or a member of any legislature speaks, his word is accepted, Mr.

Speaker. And that has always been the situation, for years and years and centuries and centuries, I suppose. Han. members opposite, for some strange reason, see this as a political opportunity, no doubt, more than anything else, to try to capitalize on something as silly as this. If they want to continue to play this kind of silly game, then, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to lot them continue to play and hang themselves. If they want to make substantive motions, we are prepared to do the same, too, Mr. Speaker, quite prepared. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition House Leader brought up the Carson/Kielly affair, which is a No. 27 Rl391

unique use of that particular precedent, because it did occur in this House back, I think, between 1832 and 1855, at the time of Representative Government but before Responsible Government. I think the member should have continued on with the entire account, because what, in fact, happened in the Carson/Kielly affair was William Carson was the Speaker of the Chamber at the time and essentially got into a fight out· on the street with Kielly, who was the Surgeon Gene~al of the Colony at the time, I believe. Because of that fight, Carson felt that his privileges as a member of the House were violated.

What happened was the House then drew him befo~e the bar, or attempted to. Actually I think they sent the unfortunate Sergeant...,..at.,..Arms of that time out to g~ab Kielly and bring him in. What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that both the cou~ts and Westminster, at the time, clearly over~uled this Chamber and said, 'You have nothing to do with a private dispute like that, even if it is a member of the House.' I think the analogy is exact he~e.

We are not talking about malfeasance on the part of the P~emier with ~egard to his office, we are talking about a dispute between him, as a p~i vate individual and anothe~ individual. On that basis it has no business whatsoeve~ he~e, and if we b~ing him before the bar, we c~eate the same mistake that this House made over 100 yea~s ago and, quite f~ankly, we should be ashamed of ourselves if we do it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hea~. hea~! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. L1392 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: 'l'he hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, t was tempted to say that the member wi 11 probably get an interview now on what should have been done with Kielly. Mr. Speaker, to the point, which I believe is a very serious one, I submit, first of all, that my good friend from Grand Falls has based all his argument on membership in the House. I submit to him and to Mr. Speaker that in all his citations he talked in terms of persons who we~e members of the House and ii1 so doing he missed the enti~e point put down by my friend and colleague for Fogo (Mr.

Tulk) , that tne whole burden he~e, the whole issue here relates to the actions of an non-member, an individual of the public who is not a membe~ of this House. Point number one. Point number. two: The gentleman for Fogo is in no way questioning the veracity or the truthfulness of the word of a membe~ of this House, in this case the Premier. Indeed, the contrary is true. The gentleman for Windsor - Buchans, the Leader of the Opposition has given the House the undertaking that he accepts the Premier's version of the incident. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, as the gentleman fo~ Grand Falls has said, it is standard practice, it is tradition that the House accepts at face value the word of any member, and the incident quoted by the gentleman for Grand Falls involving the former Prime Minister, Mr. Turdeau, where you had the word of two members, the respective versions being contradictory, the word of each No. 27 Rl392

respective member was taken because the rule applied in each case, they were, in each case, members of the Chamber. None of these situations apply here, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, it seems to me from the vocal support the gentleman for Grand Falls gets from his bench, that all of these people have some difficulty fathoming anything that is not cast in a partisan context, and our purpose here transcends the partisan concern. AN HON. MEl1!1B.ER : They should make you a saint. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Here is a person who is not a member of this House, Mr.

Speaker, who has apprently libelled a member of this House. Now, surely that ought to be a member of concern to everybody in this Chamber irrespective of his partisan label. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, Sir, you will find it a bit amusing that the people who ought to be defending the member of the House are the people who, for some strange reason, do not want to see him defended on this particular occasion, and that, itself, raises some questions. Mr. Speaker, we ask you to consider very carefully the point of privilege - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! L1393 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: raised by the gentleman for Fogo. We hope you will find a prime facie case so we can put down the appropriate motion, so we can bring Mr. Dobbin in here and get at the very bottom of this matter. If he wants to perpetrate lies against the Premier, let him do -it to the Premier's face in this Chamber. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPE.AKER: ·-.. Order, please! To that point of privilege, I will give this due consideration and should be able to bring in some more comment on the matter in the next few days. Statements by Ministers MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has long recognized that the growing aquaculture industry world wide has particular applications for our own fishery. 'l'he Departments of Fisheries and Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development continue to promote the acce ler.ated development of an aquaculture industry within the constraints and limitations of our unique geographic location and environmental conditions. No. 27 R1393

An integral part of such promotion is the provision of a sound legislative base on which an industry can be developed. A draft bill for The Aquaculture Act was presented to the House of Assembly during the Spring Session of the Fortieth General Assembly and received third and final reading in June of 1987. The Aquaculture Act, in its present form, is the result of an exhaustive review of similar existing legislation in other areas of Canada and other countries such as Norway. In addition, close consultation was held with the industry and legal experts in the field of aquaculture and ocean law.

As a result of these measures, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland now has one of the most progressive and comprehensive pieces of aquaculture legislation currently in existence. The Aquaculture Act has been drafted in a broad context to promote an orderly development of commercial aquaculture in this Province, where participants can be confident of government intent ion towards this industry. Under these new regulations, the annual fee for an aquaculture lease will be $100, a sum which will ensure genuine commitment but will not be overly prohibitive.

This licence will expire on the last day of the calendar year in which it is issued and is not transferrable. Site boundaries are required to be clearly identified and have visible the name, licence number, and lease number of the proponent. The Registrar of Aquaculture shall regard as confidential and refuse L1394 May 2, 1988 Vol XL access to members of the general public any information which describes unique trade practices or technology used by the licencee, unless these trade practices or technology are protected by patent, copyright or industrial design.

The Registrar of Aquaculture shall also treat as confident.ial any information which concerns the financial backing, obligations, or performance of an aquaculture facility or an aquacu1 ture enterprise. The Registrar of Aquaculture shall only regard information as confidential and refuse access to members of the general public to such information if a request for a designation of confidentiality is made in writing by the licencee.

The Registrar shall, however, only regard information concerning unique trade practices or technology as confidential for three consecutive calendar years and shall release such information at any time to an individual who is authorized to receive such information by the written consent of the licencee. Mr. Speaker, although a great deal of time and energy has been committed by this government to the aquaculture industry in this Province, we realize that our industry is actually just beginning to develop.

It is in the best interests of this developing industry to keep initial regulations to a minimum rather than attempt to encompass all potential areas of concern. Ongoing developments in the industry will be monitored on a continual basis to determine if any amendments to the Act or additional regulations become necessary. I am very pleased to announce No. 27 Rl394

today that this Aquaculture Act has been proclaimed in force by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the draft aquaculture regulations, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Executive Council, are approved for gazetting. The Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada wish to establish a regime governing the promotion, development · and regulation of an aquaculture industry in Newfoundland. The respective governments also wish to ensure that the application of their legislative jurisdictions occurs in a streamlined and effective manner.

Therefore, concurrent with the development of The Aquaculture Act and regulations, a memorandum of understanding has been signed between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada which allows for shared responsibility in the development and management of an aquaculture industry in the Province. I feel that the Aquaculture Act and regulations together with the recently signed memorandum of understanding will enable the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland to develop in an orderly and organized manner.

I am confident that this industry will contribute significantly to the overall economic development of this Province from both a fisheries and a rural development perspective. SOME HOM . MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker.. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for L1395 May 2, 1988 Vol XL Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious, I believe now, to the government and to people in the private fisheries sector that aquaculture is going to be a very important industry in the future.

In fact, already it is gaining momentum, I am told, in that world production, for example, has increased very dramatically i.n the past few years. In fact, I believe it has gone from about 2 . 6 million tons in 1970, which was the level then, to a present level of about 10 million tons; it probably exceeds 10 million tons right now. '-.. 1n fact, Mr. Speaker, 1 think the importance of the aquaculture industry can be summed up by sayi.ng that at the present time about 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the world's total production of fisheries products, the fishery output, is done through means of aquaculture.

Mow, there are a few things, I believe, that the minister should keep an eye open for:

a) that we not overregulate the industry. If there are any complaints I have been hearing in the past couple of years it is that it has become too regulated. For example, a fisherman wishing to commence aquaculture has to, first of all, acquire title to land on the landwash . That, in itself, is a time consuming and rather very involved problem. I note in the minister's statement he is saying now that it will be a one-stop-shopping type operation, you will go to a department of government and hopefully acquire all the necessary permits to start an aquaculture industry or farm, whatever you want to call it. Mo. 27 Rl395

Of course, on the bearing in mind aquaculture industry intensive, it is business.

Then again, there must be certain to protect the people those who want to get the industry. other that hand, the is capital a risky I suppose, regulations themselves, involved in Therefore, while certain regulations are necessary, and certain guidelines, I would caution the minister not to allow the bureaucrats to run away with it and to make the regulations too stringent, because there is no more effective way of stymieing the growth of aquaculture in this Province than to allow it to become bound with bureacratic red tape, which, as we all know, is often the case. Mr.

Speaker, there is a recommendation in the House Royal Commission Report on Employment and Unemployment that I believe has some merit, and it is that maybe the time has come, or at some point in time in the foreseeable future, that: some of the smaller aquaculture operators, farm operators would get together and organize themselves into a joint marketing agency, where they would share facilities and share the cost of promoting their product, and, of course, share the cost of transporting their product from the various regions in the Province to the marketing area. Mr.

Speaker, I think that aquaculture is going to be one of the means in the future of maybe offsetting, counteracting some of the shortages that we are now experiencing in fish. If properly developed, is seems to be a surer way of guaranteeing a certain supply. In fact, aquaculture is not new in this Province. I am L1396 May 2, 1988 Vol XL sure the minister is aware that there is a pond in St. Mary's Bay called Holyrood Pond - I am sure my friend from that district, St.

Mary's - The Capes, is aware of this story - which is a huge body of water, and going back one hundred years that was being used for aquaculture purposes. I think there was an Engligh gentleman who came out here and started raising lobster, I believe, in Holyrood Pon4. It is not new, but certainly it is an exciting and fascinating science. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. memb~r's time has elapsed. MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, I conclude by saying that it is one that we should keep an eye on, make sure it is not over-regulated, yet, at the same time, make sure that people who invest their time and money into aquaculture get the protection they need. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menehik. MR. FENWICK: I am pleased to see the statement and the fact that the regulations and the Act has been promulgated, although r am still not entirely sure that this government is on the right approach with the aquaculture development.

We saw last year the very unfortunate situation where the co-operative and the people in Bay d'Espoir, the small operators, were bypassed and National Sea was brought in to take 60 per cent of the product from the fish hatchery, and basically to get some sort of a hammerlock on the whole operation. the part of No. 27 These initiatives on the government, this Rl396

direction that they take, I think flies in the face of the way in which development should be done. If you look very closely at the House Royal Commission, and you look at the Economic Council of Canada study back in 1980, you will see that there is a completely different direction they are talking about there. When you look at a large operator, you are looking at a mega project.

What they are saying is that small operators, who are at a widely dispersed basis and who can have a degree of competence bull t up over the years, are the best way to go and I would like to see that used as the major impetus for developing it. Now, we all know that there has been a considerable amount of development by individual operators, mostly _with regard to mussels, and a bit of salmon work as well. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR . FENWICK: Yes, but generally, I think, that is the direction you should have gone in holus-bolus.

I think that is the place we can get our people, and we can get the most amount of employment created out of it as well. Mr. Speaker, there are just one or two things in the statement that are quite mystifying and I would ask if maybe the Minister of Fisheries, somewhere along the line, could clarify them. On Page 2 he mentions the confidentality of the information for a three year period of time, and in reading the last couple of sentences of that paragraph it is completely obscure what he means by it.

He talks about, • The Registrar shall, however, only Ll397 May 2, 1988 Vol XL regard information concerning unique trade practices or technology as confidential for three consecutive calendar years and shall release such information at any time to an individual who is authorized to receive such information by the written consent of the licencee . " It seem to me, if you have the consent of the licencee, he can give . you the information that he has registered there. So maybe the Minister of Fisheries, somewhere along the line, could clarify that.

Does this mean that after three years all the information is available? MR. RIDEOUT: .. , Yes. MR. FENWICK: That is what it means? In which case, it makes a bit of sense. I think, maybe, you should talk to your. speech writer. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see a memorandum of understanding between the federal and provincial governments because, of course, fish farming and aquaculture is an area where you do have to have some land-based operations, you do have to have some sea-based operations.

It is pleasant to see the federal and provincial governments getting their act together so that we have one operation and one place that is responsible for developing it. In that way, I hope we will be able to develop the industry to the extent that it can be. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR . DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: No. 27 Rl397

The hon. the Minister of Mines. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Ron Dawe and the other ministers on the St. George's Gypsum Mines Divestiture Committee, I am very pleased to announce today that Domtar Gypsum has decided to ~eactive the gypsum mining operation this Summer. This decisi.on comes after a year of uncertainty about the operation following Domtar's earlier decision to sell the operation. I am sure this will come as welcome news to the people i.n the Flat Bay area.

For 1988,. operations will be at a reduced level to produce gypsum to supply local consumers and cement plant markets outside - of the Province. The Flat ~ay mine had supplied material to United States cement plants a few years ago and it appears that market conditions make that feasible once again. The level of future operations will depend on a decision this Summer on Domtar's proposed new gypsum wallboard plant in New Hampshire. A decision to proceed with the New Hampshire plant will trigger increased p~oduct.ion at Flat Bay, beginning in 1989, to supply the new plant.

This wi.ll require the development o.f a new quarry at the mine site. It was just about a year. ago that Domtar announced their intention to se 1.1 St. George's Gypsum Mines Inc. They had earlier acqui~ed the m1n1ng operation when they purchased the assets of GenStar. At the time it did not appear that they would need gypsum f~om the Flat Bay operation. A joint Company/Government Divestiture Committee was formed with the government side chaired by the Ll398 May 2, 1988 Vol XL hon. Ron Dawe and including the hon. Hal Barrett, the hon. Neil Windsor and myself, with a number of officials.

The Divestiture Committee was ve~y thorough in its efforts and considerable interest was shown in the operation. However, a sale was not achieved by the original deadline of December, 1987. In the meantime, changing market conditions caused Domtar to re-evaluate the situation and ultimately to decide that the Newfoundland deposits would be the best source of supply for their proposed new plant in New Hampshire. ,, While operations will be at a reduced level for this year, the company has agreed that · every effort will be made to maximize employment, including conducting some rehabilitation of the old quarries.

We understand that the~e is good proability of a decision to proceed with the New Hampshire plant. This will create a long term, stable market for gypsum from Flat Bay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, firstly, on behalf of the official Opposition, I want to welcome the announcement. We welcome any announcement which has a connotation of job creation, employment, economic development in this Province. Indeed, we are going to be just as enthusiastic No. 27 R1398

this year at welcoming the announcement as we were when we welcomed the same announcement last year. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister did not bother to say, this is the same initiative that fell through last year. The second thing, Mr. Speaker that I want to say is I am a little taken aback by the minister's almost unbridled enthusiasm for a plant in New Hampshire. Nowhere did he address the question of why the plant to construct wallboard could not be put in Newfoundland, if it is going to depend upon a raw resource from Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SIMMONS: I understand that a plant in New Hampshire would create a stable market for gypsum from Flat .Bay, but a plant in New.foundland would create a stable market for gypsum and also create some additional jobs and allow us to do some further processing of our raw resource. MR. HODDER: We have one, in Corner Brook. MR. SIMMONS: Oh, the member for Port au Port has found that out, too. I could have told him that. I am not talking about the one in Corner Brook, I am talking about the proposed new plant in New Hampshire.

If the Premier and the member for Port au Port are indicating that they are satisfied because we already have one, I say to them we are not satisfied. Now, Mr. Speaker, T take some encouragement from the fact that Ll399 May 2, 1988 Vol XL the old quarries are going to be looked at with a view to rehabi.l i tatlon, and I hopE:} that the Fischells' deposit will be taken into account in that particular context. Mr. Speaker, the minister did not indicate, but T hope he will subsequently, just how many workers are going to be. hired for this operation this Summer.

That would be helpful information to the people, particularly, who live in the immediate area. Otherwise, we believe it is a good initiative on the part of Domtar, it is part of a good initiative, and we hope they will 'o all the way and process the gypsum here as wallboard. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member .for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We must be the biggest fools that every walked the face of the earth.

About a year. ago, that same minister stood up in this House and announced as a great opportunity the sale from GenStar to Domtar of this particular operation, and said that it would be a good move; after all it was the free market working and everything else. Three or four weeks later, he comes back into this House to announce it was being closed down. Why Mr. Speaker? Was it because we were running out of Gypsum? No. Was it because we ran out of markets and there was no place to sell it? No. It was because the new operator had other mines and other operations and just wanted the market.

He did not particularly No. 27 Rl399

care at all about what went on in St. George's. Now, after a year of tremendous uncertainty and people running out of unemployment insurance, we have the company coming back and saying, 'Well, we have a little need for it this year, so we will operate it for a couple of months this Summer and maybe will open up an operation in New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the way we developed our economy, not just since this government has been i.n place but for the last eighty or ninety years, since we started with foreigners .

When I talk about foreigners I mean foreign capital from the United States and from other parts of the country dominating our economy, telling us exactly what we should do. Mr. Speaker, it is not in our best interests. It clearly has not been in the past, it will not be in the future, and I think! we are going to see the minister stand up a month from now and say, 'Whoops, I am sorry! They are not going ahead with the new Hampshire plant. We are still going to have to lay the people off • and very little will happen. Mr . Speaker, we are fools. We never, ever learn. Oral Questions MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker . MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: Mr . Speaker, on Friday when the Premier was dealing with the question of the proposed simulator facility, he suggested that an Ll400 May 2, 1988 Vol XL offer that had been made - Hansard says 'submitted to the federal government on May 2 and approved on April 23, ' but I believe that should be March 2 because the chronology he submitted suggested March 2, so Hansard is in error there - he went on to say, 'and they still have not concluded the deal. They still have not accepted the offer.' Where does the projects stand at this moment? MR .

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: We are still waiting. I will table now, r-fr. Speaker, the Order in Council, which T tabled this morning to the press, of February 26, approving it _to _from the Province, and then a letter that went forward to the federal government, then the approval from the federal government, and our letter of approval, too, which included both federal and provincial approvals based upon a set of conditions. The conditions are attached, which I tabled as well.

Number one, I just want to clear it up because the Leader of the Opposition brought it up on Friday, and one of the other members asked for the Order in Counci 1, so I have a copy of the Order in Council here as well, which clearly indicates that there was no conflict o.f interest here between myself and the company. Because this was all done back in February and March and the letter \!Jenf: out May 8 to the company from us on behalf of both governments, with the attached conditions, which are here as well. So the company has not been able to meet the conditions that the No. 27 R1400

two governments placed upon the project in order .for us to release our money and for the project to go ahead. We ar.e still waiting for the company to get back with an acceptance of the offer that was put to them last year, and ! table some of the information. The Leader of the Opposition might want to go over some of the condi t.ions that were in that letter that went out to them last year. So we are still waiting for the company to respond, as I understand it, to the offer that was made by both governments. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

WELLS: That was on May 8 from the letter T saw, there is a copy of it on my desk, but I did not see the conditions that were attached. Are they tabled? PREMIER PECKFORD: Here it is. MR. WELLS: I am sorry. It does contain those four conditions. On October 9 there was a NIS news release, a formal statement made by the Hon. John C. Crosbie, the Hon. Mr. Ottenheimer, who was then Minister of Energy, and I believe, a Mr. Mark Dobbin, who was Vice-President of Sealand Helicopter Limited. It was released over the NIS wire and stated that the proposal was going ahead, that it was going to be developed.

Were the conditions, then, met at that time, and since unable to be met? Or why was it announced on October 9 that the Ll401 May 2, 1988 Vol xr. project was going ahead? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Well , it was approved by us. I will have to look at the exact statement that went out because I have not got that here. I guess at that time the company thought that they had met the conditions. I do not know. I checked over the weekend and there still is not a complete agreement on it. MR. SIMMONS: The first sentence. ., MR. TULK: The first line. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes. MR.

WF.LLS: 'Will go ahead.' PREMIER PECKFORD: 'Will establish, ' yes. Well, they have not met our conditions as of this day. MR. WELLS: Then, why was it announced on October 9 if conditions were not met? PREMIER PECKFORD: Well, there was supposed to be an announcement of an offer. I will have to check and see why it went out this way. I do not know. It does say 'will,' I agree with you. But there is no deal, as of this time, because they have not written us back meeting all the conditions that we offered. I do not know why it was made that way. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. Mo. 27 Rl401

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the the Leader of the Opposition. han. MR. WELLS: I understand that the Premier may need a bit of time to look at this. PREMIER PECKFORD: I will just have to check with the people downstairs who told me that. MR. WELLS: Yes. MR. PATTERSON: (Inaudible) what your salary is. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Premier may need some time to look at it. Would he tell us what conditions have not been met, where the matter stands now and give us an explanation as to why it was firmly announced as a project going ahead on October 9, 1987? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I have all. no The Leader of and my through it that the problem with that at wording here is as the the Opposition said, understanding, in going over the weekend, is company has not accepting all of the the offer that was come back conditions of made by both governments. MR. TULK: All of them or some of them? PREMIER PECKFORD: I do not know if it is all of them. I suppose they met some of Ll402 May 2, 1988 Vol XL them, but the presented, has not by the company. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: package, as been accepted The han. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, T want to raise a question with the Premier on a related issue. Tt goes back to last Thursday here in the House when I put a question to the Premier abdut the now much publ i.cized job offer with Canadian Helicopters. He indicated at that time that the of fer was not pursued. T could read the words to hi.m but I am sure he remembers what he said on that occasion. The essence was that it came up in one meeting and the offer was not pursued because he was not interested. Now, Mr.

Speaker, subsequent to that exchange between the Premier and me here in the House, indeed on Friday, I believe, the Premier told the press that a job of fer was, indeed, discussed on at least four occasions, in three separate meetings and in a telephone call. t wonder would the Premier indicate to the House again which version is correct, the one he told the House or the one he told the press? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say four meetings to the press. I think Mr. Dobbin has said four meetings. I have indicated that No. 27 Rl402

in an initial meeting, which was on another subject altogether, which I explained in the House last week- MR. SIMMONS: • Strawberry Hill. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, it was Strawberry Hill. - that was when the offer came up and there was one subsequently meetings to that, after Mr. Dobbin made the offer to me, where he explained it to me, and then I did not accept. MR. SIMMONS: There were two meetings. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes . MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary, Mr.

Dobbin has said, in talking about the details of the deal - or T guess we ought to be saying the alleged deal insofar as this House is concerned because the Premier has told us otherwise but Mr. Dobbin has said publicly, in talking about some of the terms of the alleged deal, that it included a $100,000 corporate loan at low interest rates. Again, I want to give the Premier an opportunity to put on the record what his recollection is of this particular detail, if it ever came up at all. Will he confirm that this issue was discussed at all? Or will he tell us exactly what Mr.

Dobbin is alluding to here when he talks Ll403 May 2, 1988 Vol XL about a $100,000 corporate loan at low interest? PREMIER PECKFORD: Kr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I think T have already answered that, Mr. Speaker. That is news to _me. I was offered a job by Canadian Helicopters International or Canadian International Helicopters, whatever the name is, whatever way the words go together for $150,000 a year for five years. And it is the first time I ever heard of anything to do with a $100,000 loan. It gets expensive, see. What is it?

Eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars in total. MR. SIMMONS: The $1 million man. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . T was hoping to address the question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard), but he is not here today. I would like therefore to address the question to the hon. Premier. The situation exists in this Province today whereby Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are being denied work on defense construction, Canada's north warning sites at Cartwright and Saglek.

The situation has past two years No. 27 existed for the and it is Rl403

anticipated by all concerned when work commences within the next few weeks there w.i11 be no difference this year, which is the final year of the three year construction project. It is also expected to be a most labour intensive year for construction work at the north warning sites in the Fall. And this is from a brief, Mr. Speaker, that was presented to an hon. federal minister, but also to us in the provincial government.

Could the Premier tell us what he and his government officials are doing about this matter to correct it so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can get a chance, an opportunity, to work on these projects here in the Province? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is somewhat similar to situations that arise when we have federal - provincial agreements. This is even worse, in one sense, where it is a completely federal job.

When this whole early warning system came up in the beginning, a couple of years ago, we made representation to the federal government, first o.f all, to break up for the design and engineering of the work into small packages to allow engineering firms in Newfoundland to participate. We have been what shall I say? fairly successful in that effort and we persuaded the federal government, and Mr. Crosby and others, to organize the

schedule and organize the work in such a way that Newfoundlanders in the engineering fraternity would get an opportunity to get in on the L.l404 May 2, 1988 Vol XL engineering and design of it. And that has worked and a number of engineering firms in the Province have gotten involved. It came to my attention sometime ago, all through this whole project up North in Saglek and in Cartwright and so on, and the whole business of jobs for Labradorians and for Newfoundlanders.

And we are the devil's own job getting through to the federal government to put some preference on Canadians who live in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the same way in the tender system on federal-provincial projects. Tf it is a completely financed pr6vincial project our local preference applies, and we can exert some pressure to see that our own people are- employed.

But when you get tender calls going out, involving federal money and provincial money - even though it is all Canadian money - and tenders come in .from a contractor in Newfoundland and Labrador and a contractor on the Mainland, even if the contractor in Newfoundland comes in only 5 percent more expensive, most times if not always - it goes to the mainland firm. Given that this is 100 percent federal, what are we doing? to come directly to your question. We are doing everything we can to try to persuade the federal government to hi.re as many Labradorians and Newfoundlanders as is possible.

But, you know, we can just keep shouting and bawling and doing all that is necessary to do, and writing and telephoning to do it, but, of course, in the final analysis they either are dented by our influence or are undented by our influence. We are doing all we can to try to get as No. 27 R1404

many jobs for our own people as we can. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, so much for consul tat ion and co-operation, because this is a problem that has gone on for two years, and is now entering a third year. I would like to ask the Premier what specific actions is his goverment taking with this problem? Are there discussions with the federal Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Jekinek) or the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), or the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat?

We would like to know what specific actions are taking place right now, because the work is going to be starting in the very near future. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Specifically it has been handled in large measure by Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Dawe) but in the last few months by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr.

Warren) as well. ~o for specific action, tomorrow afternoon in Goose Bay there will be a meeting between the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with the Defense Department to once again hammer this issue with the federal government to try and get more jobs. L1405 May 2, 1988 Vol XL a meeting tomorrow with the Defense directly, with the of Intergovernmental There is afternoon Department Minister Affairs and the Minister of Northern Development, as a .follow-up to other letters, telephone calls, representations, meetings that we have had for the last six or eight months.

We are trying to bring it to a head again tomorrow. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. K. AYLWA.itt>: They are trying to bring it to a head, Mr. Speaker. I once heard a Premier up in Alberta saying, 'When can we come home?' We have people here in this Province now who cannot even get an opportunity to get work on projects in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I would 1 ike to ask could the Premier, while these discussions and this meeting .is going to occur now - finally something is going to happen, at least to stimulate the discussion table any correspondence that he or his ministers or his government have had with the federal officials? While he is doing that, I will table for him my own correspondence to the federal Minister of Supply and Services and also my own correspondence to the federal Minister of Labour, both of whom say there is nothing much they can do, that is the way it is, and, sorry, but that is the way it is going to be.

Can you answer that question? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. No. 27 Rl405

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, we get exactly the same response as the hon. member gets to our representation. MR. K. AYLWARD: Co-operation. PREMIER PECKFORD: Exactly. On totally jurisdiction, and do as they a matter within they can like. which is federal go ahead I just find it a little bit interesting. I mean, the hon. the member for Stephenville is old enough to recognize that when I started on this local preference business years ago, as it related to the offshore and then generally, T did not get that much support from members opposite or from anybody who sat opposite. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER PECKFORD: Talk about representation! I cannot remember getting one letter from members of the Opposition saying, 'As Premier of Newfoundland, even though you are a different political colour, I support you on local preference.' I did not see too may representations coming to me from the hon. member or his party during that time. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, going on a nation open line show on CBC right across the country, and the first call that came in \\ras from a Newfoundlander saying, 'My son, what is wrong with you, Peckford, bringing in local preference into Newfoundland.' MR.

STMMS: See the same crowd, too. L1406 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek . ... MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health (Dr. Collins), and it concerns an

article that was in yesterday's Sunday Express. In reading the article, Mr. Speaker, the impression is given that the Minister of Health looks upon the omission of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code as an effective method for fighting an AIDS epidemi.c. Since I know the minister is considerably more intelligent and articulate than that, and would not make such an irresponsible _ s.tatement, _ _the question T have for him is: Would he please get up in his place and correct the obvious inaccuracy in an

article like that? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Health. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the newspaper in question. I do not have a subscription to the newspaper in question, and I will have to borrow it, I guess, and find out what the han. member is talking about. MR. FENWICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Tn that case, Mr. Speaker, I will put it in more context, because I thought that the minister had read the

article concerned. No. 27 R1406

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it. MR. SIMMS: What do you want more research funds for, Peter? MR. FENWICK: No problem. table it . I will be glad to The question is this: Ts the minister looking upon denying people with a different sexual orientation in our Province the same human rights protection we have from discrimination in employment or housing or other social services? Is the minister looking on that as an effective method of discouraging people of different sexual orientation and is he looking on that as a means of allegedly combating an AIDS epidemic as is alleged in the particular article? MR .

SPEAKER : The bon. the Minister of Health. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts are well know by now. that there are certain circumstances that are related to the ATDS infection and the AIDS disease. Those circumstances are in 90 per cent of the cases due to illicit intravenous drug abuse. and that is because there is multiple use o.f needles that are not properly sterilized and, therefore, the infection gets into the bloodstream in that way.

The second way that 90 per cent of cases arise is through homosexuality activities or bisexual activities, and those activities are of a particular type that have been documented in the medical literature. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a smaller number of cases that come in other Ll407 May 2, 1988 Vol XL ways. For instance, unfortunately. before the AIDS virus was well identified and so on, blood products that were given medically were contaminated, but that is not now the case.

All these products, in the Western world anyway, or most countries of the Western world, are now protected so that there is no risk from blood transfusions or blood products given to hemophiliacs, so on .and so forth. Then ther.e is another group whereby infants of mothers with AIDS infection themselves become infected from blood exchange across the placenta. So those are the small number of cases. but the vast, vast majority are from intravenous drug abuse and from certain sexual proclivities of the homosexual and bisexual . community .

My approach is we have to try to discourage those types of activities if we want to get at the AIDS virus. There is nothing wrong with putting out all sorts of general information. it is great stuff and all that sort of thing, but really to hit the source of the problem you have to get at those two particular sources of infection. MR. FENWICK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR.

FENWICK: My supplementary would be to the Premier, if he were in his seat, because T am quite concerned that what we seem to have is a government position over there whereby they are denying human rights protection to a class of individuals under the guise of saying that it is some sort of health matter. Now. this question will be to the Deputy Premier, or whoever wishes to answer on behalf No. 27 R1407

of the government. tt is a straight, clear-cut question. t want to know what the government's position is with regard to including sexual orientation as a protected category under which individuals shall not be discriminated in our human rights code? That means they cannot be fired for having a different sexual orientation, that means they cannot be denied housing for it, that means they cannot be denied other general social services. Would someone from the government please answer my question directly? Do you believe in protecting those rights as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Yukon now do, or o you not? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. SUJMS: Mr.. Speaker, T will refer the question to the Deputy Premier and let the Deputy Premier answer it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct, that certain provinces have acted on this particular matter, but the majority have not. I presume that the other provinces have it under study, under consideration.

These types of serious alterations in government policy, and so on, often take time to put into effect because not infrequently they have wide-ranging ramifications and you need to be aware of those and you need to study them to see where you are going. I cannot really speak for the other provinces which have not enacted the sexual orientation aspect of things. T cannot speak for them but I can Ll408 May 2, 1988 Vol XL speak for our own government, and that i.s that we have it under consideration and at some point in time a definitive decision will be made in the matter. MR.

SPEAKER: The bon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: My question is for the hon. the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn). The minister will know that the Throne Speech announced the immediate appointment of a task force to find out why one-third to one-half of ,,high school graduates fail in math and science in their first-year courses in post secondary institutions. praising such a has been throughout I want to go on record as the bon. minister for progressive plan. It welcomed by educators the Province.

I would 1 ike for the minister now to give the House an interim report on the progress of this task force and, while he is at that, would he give the House the names of the members who are serving on the task force? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the hon. member for his complimentary remarks on the idea of coming up with the task force, one which is badly needed, as we know.

I would like to report to the hon. gentleman and the House that the guidelines for the task force, the Terms o.f Reference, have now all been drawn up, have been agreed Mo. 27 Rl408

to, and a number of names of individuals have been pooled to make the final selection, which will be done within a very, very short time. I would say within days. I will certainly notify the House and the hon. gentleman at that time. MR. DECKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the member for the Strait Isle. MR. DECKER: hon . the of Belle Unfortunately, Mr . Speaker, I have to withdraw my compliments. The Throne Speech said that the task force would be put in place immediately. Will the minister explain why he is sitting on this very important issue?

Has the minister lost some of the sense of urgency that was portrayed in the Throne Speech? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, no, not at all, but, unlike the han. gentleman and the members opposite, fools rush in where angels fear to thread, so we took our time to develop the Terms of Reference. It is a very serious study, a very compl i.cated one. We are looking at, actually, something which will affect greatly the future success of many of the young people in our schools.

So, consequently, the proper Terms of Reference had to be established and, in order to establish such Terms of Reference for such a detailed look at the topic, then a number of agencies had to be consulted. That did take some time, and finding the Ll409 May 2, 1988 Vol XL proper people, of course, to do such a study. You know, you just cannot pick everyone whom you might think is qualified because people have commitments too. So, consequently, putting all of this together does take time. We have been working steadily on it and, as I say, within a very short time we will be announcing the start of the project.

MR. -DECKER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the han. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. DECKER: I guess the minister is fighting with teachers around with such a trifle. too busy to play The minister will know that .if this math problem is to be overcome, students will have to receive a maximum of math instruction at the day school level. Will the minister explain whether or not provision will be made to increase math instruction when the junior high programme is put in place?

It is my understanding that junior high math will be reduced with the introduction of the new junior high report. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minlster of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, in order to properly fulfil the mandate, the committee will have to look at all the reasons why our students are not doing as well as they possibly should at the post-secondary level. The answer could be that there at some problems at the post-secondary level, it could be No. 27 R1409

all the problems exist at the senior high school level, or perhaps we wi tl find many of the problems s tal:"t well before that. As you know, especially in math, it is something that builds. Consequently, these are the things that will be looked at and the concerns raised by the hon. member could be very legitimate ones and certainly, we expect him and others to make submissions to the task force when they start operating. MR. w. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: My question goes to the han. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout).

And again, it concerns the Canada-France fishery dispute, and boundary dispute. News reports over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, indicate that Canada and France, within the next week or ten days, will be appointing a mediator to work on the dispute, to mediate the dispute. Will the minister tell the House if Newfoundland has had any input in the selection of that mediator? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I can tell the han. gentlemen and the House that since we have been provided with the mediation agreement that was signed in Paris, I believe a week ago Friday - anyway, the latter part of the week before - we have had an opportunity to study that particular document.

We have communicated to the federal government some concerns that we L1410 May 2, 1988 Vol XL have with the mediation process, and we have indicated to the Government of Canada that we would be quite prepared and anxious to pass on our comments and our suggestions and our recommendations on the proposed person who may end up being the mediator. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is question to' the minister.

It seems to me that this matter is of such importance to this Province, the selection of that mediator is of such importance, that the Minister should not be asking or expressing an interest in having input, but should be almost demanding it. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, has the Premier, then, received any indication at all back from the powers that be to the effect that Newfoundland will be given a say in the selection of that mediator? And if that information is not forthcoming, Mr.

Speaker, within the next few days, would the minister not communicate with his counterpart in Ottawa and, in light of its importance, demand that Newfoundland have a say in the selection of that person? MR. SPEM<:ER: The han. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr . Speaker, the hon.gentleman will be mindful, no doubt, of the fact that the mediator, if both sides can agree on a name, is supposed to be selected by the end of this week. That is one of the No. 27 R1410

concerns that we have with the particular accord that was signed in Paris; we think that it is actually too tight on timing in terms of the selection of the person. We have been in communication with the federal government, with our representative in the federal Cabinet, I believe the Premier with the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with the appropriate people in Ottawa, and we have been in touch with Mr. Siddon outlining some concerns that we have wi. th the accord, and we are going to demand that we have an opportunity to address those as best we can.

I do not really think, for example, that it is practical to be married to the end of the week deadline for the selection of the particular individual. That is one area, but there are others where we have concern with this particular accord. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I assume that once the mediator has done his thing that he will be then reporting back to a general meeting of both the Canada and France negotiators. That being so, Mr.

Speaker, would the minister then not consider it necessary that Newfoundland be represented at that conference when the mediator brings back his recommendation? Would the minister not agree, in light of the importance of what is happening, that it is important that Newfoundland have Ll411 May 2, 1988 Vol XL representatives or observers at that meeting to ensure that our rights are protected? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. 'MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentleman will be aware, no doubt, that it was from the formal negotiating team that Newfoundland withdrew back several months ago after non­ surplus Northern cod had been placed on the bargaining table. We have since that particular time continued to be represented on the Jndustry and provincial advisory committee th~t continued to advise the federal negotiator and the federal negotiating team, on and off as negotiations have been since that particular time. I should also say to the hon. gentleman that the mediator is a facilitator.

He is not a negotiator, he is not an arbitrator, under the terms of the accord there is not meant to be any recommendations, there is not meant to be any formal negotiations, there is not meant to be any arbitration. The mediator's role is soley to explore back and forth between both sides whether or not a possible solution might be available if you do this, or if you do that, or if you do something else. tn the final analysis, Mr.

Speaker, whi.le there will be no written report, no written recommendations, any agreement that may come out of the mediation process has to be ratified by both sides, the Government of Canada and the Government of France. And, of course, in terms of the Government of Canada, we are still No. 27 Rl411

very active in the federal-provincial-industry­ government advisory committee that is still existing and operating. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for oral questions has elapsed. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the annual report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the year 1987. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given DR. TWOMEY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon . the Minister of Public Works. DR. TWOMEY: Thank you.

I wish to table in the House an answer to Question 118 asked by the hon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert). I wish to also answer questions that were asked at the Estimates Committee by the hon. the member for Burgeo Bay d'Espoir. He questioned 2. 02.02. 07; another Ll412 May 2, 1988 Vol XL question asked in the Estimates referred to 3.1.03.04; another one asked in the Estimates details the salary voted for Newfoundland Information Services; another question asked in the Estimates was to list the location of all rental office space leased outside St.

John's by the Province, give the length of time for the lease of each rental agreement, and give the financial terms of each rental agreement. Petitions MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker. " MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for But"geo Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. T have a petition from community of McCallum. petition reads: the The To The Hon. House Of Assembly, In Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned fishermen of McCallum in the district of Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the fishermen's wharf in McCallum only measures 30' x 30' and is not adequate to serve the needs of the fishermen; and

WHEREAS the difficulty in fish; and

WHEREAS the fishermen unloading have their fishermen have no place to tie their boats; and

WHEREAS the fish collector has problems trying to get the fish on No. 27 Rl412

board the boat; and THEREFORE, the undersigned, your peti Honers, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to ask the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate monies immediately for a fifty-foot extension to this wharf. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting petition in view of the fact I have already has some correspondence with the provincial Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) concerning this. He informed me the fish shed and wharf was owned by the provincial government but leased to Clarenvi lle Ocean Products.

They felt that they could not do much with i.t while the term of the lease was in place. I have checked with the federal Department of Fisheries to see if they could do anything about it and they say no. If it was theirs, they could then, possibly, do something about it. So it seems to me to be a situation where the buck is being passed between the Province and the federal government and then back, and st.ill the people who suffer are the fishermen in McCallum.

There are over forty boats using this wharf in McCallum, and anyone who knows anything about the South Coast real i.zes that these are two-men boats, i.n most cases, and they fish outside of McCallum, outside of Pushthrough and out in that area of the South Coast. They when Ll413 go through they go out enough hardship to fish in the May 2, 1988 Vol XL morning wl thout having to come in and suffer further hardship by wai tlng for hours to try and unload, sometimes not even able to get near the wharf for hours. For your information, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out there was almost 3 million pounds of fish landed in McCall am last year which was taken and prpcessed in the fish plant at Hermitage, and that created jobs for about one hundred workers for an addi tiona! four months. We have a bunch of people in McCallam that are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. ··. They are a hard working, industrious group and they at"e contributing their fair share to the economy, I might add. Mr.

Speaker, if you just took the statistics from the amount of fish they caught last year, and the overall contribution to the economy by the employment they created in the fish plant in Hermitage, I think they have served better than what they were actually getting, especially the runaround they are getting. The provincial government owns it and they say they cannot do anything because it is leased. The federal government say 'Yes, we would, but it is not ours. We think something should be done. ' They have been in and had a look at it.

Not only is the wharf small, but the fish shed that those men have to use is small as well, and that comes under the same broad scope as the wharf. Again, it is leased to Clarenvi lle Ocean Products and nobody wants to take responsibility for it. It seems to example of No. 27 me to be another this government's Rl413

attitude toward rural Newfoundland. It seems to me as if there is an attempt to bury them in McCallum, instead of doing something to help them in a very vital industry, one that is the backbone of Newfoundland. This government can find $22 mill ion for a Sprung project in Mount Pearl, but yet, they cannot find a few thousand dollars to expand the wharf in McCallum that 1s going to contribute more to economy, I submit, Mr. Speaker, than ever the Sprung project is going to contribute, where we put $22 million in. What I say is they should be able to find money to support the fishing industry. Mr.

Speaker, it is the backbone of our economy. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that to this House, as the fishing industry in McCallum, . so goes the fish plant in Hermitage because it is interrelated. It is a situation where if the community of McCallum stops fishing, or is not able to land the fish they catch, it affects the dollars that are produced in the fish plant at Hermitage. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. GILBERT: In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that the minister pay very close attention to this petition and ensure the people of McCallum are looked after and get the rights and justice as they are entitled as hard-working Newfoundlanders. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Ll414 May 2, 1988 Vol XL Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, let me take a few minutes to acknowledge the presentation of this particular petition by the hon. gentleman for Burgeo - Bay d • Espoir and to make a few remarks on it. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I should say that I believe over the last several days or weeks the hon. gentleman has been in touch with me regarding the possible transfer o_f this particular facility from the provincial Department of Fisheries to the Small Craft/Harbours Board. It is my understanding the Small Craft/Harbours Board are prepared to invest some money to create an extension of this particular wharf, and, of course, that is the role and the constitutional responsibility of the Small Craft/Harbours Board moreso than it is the Provincial Department of Fisheries.

Albeit we have over the last several years built a number of these facilities, and rightly so, in a number of f ishlng communities around the Province in an effort to expand the infrastructure necessary for the prosecution of the fishery. If the Small Craft/Harbours Board wish to have responsibility for this particular facility, then certainly we will not impede that nor will we stand in the way of that.

We will ensure that haste is made or we will ensure that we quickly move to have that particular facility transferred to their jurisdiction, if that is what they wish, and if they make some legitimate commitments for No. 27 R1414

further expansion of the facility . I just want to make a comment on the hon. gentleman's statement about government's attitude towards rural Newfoundland and say to him at least the facility was put there by the provincial government. The wharf was built and the shed was built by the Provincial Department of Fisheries . I would say to him that is at least some degree of commitment towards providing an appropriate facility. What has happened, obviously, is that over the last few years the facility has been outgrown by the particular activity in McCallum.

It is an important facility and the fishery of McCallum is very important for the fish plant in Hermitage, as he legitimately points out. I can assure him, Mr . Speaker, that if the commitments that he talked to me about from the Small Craft/Harbours Board can be substantiated, then T will ensure that this particular facility is transferred posthaste so that the fishermen of McCallum can have their facility expanded and improved to the - AN HOM. MEMBER: I notice the word 'posthaste'. MR. RIDEOUT: Well, it will go from us posthaste. Whether Small Craft/Harbours Board will accept it posthaste remains to be seen.

But we would not stand in the way of that transfer, Mr. Speaker, so that a lot of money could be spent legitimately upgrading it. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. Ll415 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the petition from the good fishermen at McCallum deserves the full support of this House and support to pleased to that he I want to give my the petition.

I am hear the minister say will expedite the As I understand it, transfer is affected, transfer. once the then the former Small Craft/Harbours whatever they these days, division of-. administration, or call themselves that particular the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has expressed facil.i.tate an interest in helping that fifty foot ex tens ion to the fishermen's wharf at McCallum. T know the wharf we 11 and I know well the people who used that wharf. Mr. Speaker, there is nowhere else in this Province more hard working fishermen than the ones you find at McCallum.

They have a very stable fishery at McCallum, essentially a year round fishery. They take their fishing very, very seriously, all species, all year round. Mr. Speaker, in addition to helping to stablize the economy of the McCallum community, the other economic contribution made by the fishermen at McCallum needs to be noted. The minister made reference to it and the gentleman for Burgeo Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert) made reference to it, and that is the improving viability of the fish plant operated by Clarenville Ocean Products at Hermitage. Do you know, last year i.n No. 27 Mr.

Speaker, calendar 1987 that that Rl415

plant put out $11 million worth of products in 1987, $11 million, completely from inshore sources including McCallum, of course, but also including to a degree Gaultois, but particularly Hermitage, Sandyville and Seal Cove, and even a bit over the road. Mr. Speaker, it is an amazing operation and one of the reasons it is is because of the continuing supply that is forthcoming from McCallum. That supply can be increased and it can be stab! ized with a proper fishing facility at McCallum which they do not have. They have wrestled with substandard facilities for many years.

I believe now the time has come to ensure that they have the tools with which to do the work. I am delighted that the minister is going to do his part to help facilitate that. Thank you. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Orders of the Day MR. SIMMS: We will have a couple of first readings fi t"st.. Mot.ion 4. Motion, the hon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland Institute Of Agrologists." (Bill No. 38) On motion, Bill No. (38) read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Consumer Affairs and Ll416 May 2, 1988 Vol XL Communications to bill, "An Act To Insurance Companies No. 39) introduce Amend a The (Bill Act." On motion, Bill No . (39) read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. · SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: I wonder if I might be bold enough to ask mem~rs opposite if they would perrni t me to revert to Notices of Motions for about thirty seconds, and with a slight explanation. Would there be any argument to that? MR. TULK: The last motion (inaudible)? MR.

SIMMS: It was not exactly a lost motion. I apologize to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, I told him he was going to get twenty lashes because he lost this notice of motion, but. it was not exactly his fault. The Clerk at the Table, it was not exactly their fault. t have it here now, as a matter of fact. I accept all the responsibility. Tn giving this notice, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the Oppos.i t.ion House Leader and I do not know if the hon. members in the corner were aware. t believe I did mention it in the House, though, one day.

Certainly the member for Waterford Kenrnount did as the critic. He is aware. Order No. 6 on the Order Paper, which was Bill No. 4 on judgement No. 27 Rl416

recovery, I would like to withdraw that now, by agreement, and the notice is the replacement bill which was really re-done because of legal technicalities and all that stuff. I would like get permission or agreement from the House to have Bill 37 fit in where Order 6 is now. Is there any big problem with that or would that be acceptable? MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed? MR. WELLS: What is the bill number? MR. SIMMS: It will be Bill No. 37 when it is distributed. MR. WELLS: Is that on judgement recovery? MR. SIMMS: Yes. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: That is agreed. MR.

SIMMS: There is an agreement, Mr Speaker, and the Clerks at the Table can make note of it for when they get it printed. I, therefore, give notice, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer Affairs and Communications (Mr. Young), that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Judgement Recovery (Nfld.) Ltd." (Bill No. 37) I thank hon. members for their co-operation. L1417 May 2, 1988 Vol XL We will move to Motion 3, the Meech Lake Accord. MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

Before recognizing the hon. member for Menihek, I want to rule on the motion raised by him and seconded by the member · for St. John's East. It was to refer the motion on Meech Lake to a Select Committee of the House. I have consulted authorities in other jurisdictions on this matter and this is not a dilatory motion, but a substantive one. It is asking for a... certain action to be taken. It cannot be entertained as there can be but one question pending at the same tlme, as hon. members would note in Beauchesne, page 149. So I rule that that mot ion is not in order.

The hon. the member for adjourned the debate. speaking to the amendment. Menihek He is The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr . Speaker . What I will then be doing is moving another amendment which is a dilatory motion because it is the exact wording that is there. I will give you the wording of it now, but I do not intend to move it until I finish speaking. It is moved by the member for Menihek and seconded by the member for St. John's East that consideration of the question be postponed until November 2, 1988. This would be the exact form that is in the book. I will give a No. 27 R1417

copy to the Speaker before I actually - AN HON. MEMBER: A six-month hoist . MR. FENWICK: No, it is not. It is moved that consideration of the question be postponed until November 2, 1988. That is not a six-month hoist. It is directly out of the book. MR. SIMMS: It is a dilatory motion. MR. FENWICK: A dilatory motion, exactly. If the Page wishes to come up, I can give him a couple of copies so the Speaker and both parties can get a copy of it. MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the member, the hon. member now, if he wishes, is speaking to the amendment. MR. FENWICK: does not six of one the other.

Yes, it Speaker, dozen of either way. MR. SPEAKER: matter, Mr. and a half It can go Would the hon. member please take his seat for a moment? MR. FENWICK: Yes, okay . MR. SPEAKER: I am not quite clear and I do not know if anybody is. I am certainly not clear what the hon. member is doing. At this moment, as far as I understand, he was just reading this previous matter but I have already ruled that that matter is out of order. Maybe the hon. member will explain. Ll418 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, if the page comes here, I will give you a copy of it.

I intend to move a motion and I want to give you a copy of it before I did that so you would have a chance to look at it and I read it into the record. Mr. Speaker, the wording on it is exactly the wording in the

section on -dilatory motions and I will refer to that. If you look at page 151, you will see in there 'Dilatory motions are designed to dispose to the original question either for the time being or permanently._ They are usually the following ·- type: That consideration of the question be postponed to' , then it says in brackets, 'date'. So the motion I will be moving is that consideration of the question be postponed to November 2, 1988, which is approximately six months from now. AN HON. MEMBER: A hoist . MR. FENWICK: No, it is a motion following exactly that format.

It seems to me if those motions are in order at that point, then this one would be in order. You seem to indicate in your ruling on my previous motion that a dilatory motion would be in order at t.his time. So that is the motion I was going to make. I gave you a copy of it because I felt it important not to hold up the proceedings of the House while you had a chance to look at it and make sure that it is in order. But as I sit down I will move that motion. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. No. 27 R1418

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I must offer far Your Honour an oppartuni ty for further consideration. I am sure you would want that, I am sure members of the House would want it. I want it because I want to be certain that what is being proposed he~e is, in fact, in order. The bon. member, when he moved his motion a day or two ago, whenever it was now, argued very strenuously that his motion was in order. Your Honour has just ruled it was not in order.

Therefore, Your Honour, and hopefully the member would not mind very much if I was dared to stand and question again that perhaps the bon. member is not in order. The only quick ~eference I have - but it is an important matter, Mr. Speaker, and that Your Honour - MR. FENWTCK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SIMMS: I am on a point of order now. MR. DINN: This is a paint of order. MR. FENWICK: The point of order is that there is no motion entered . I just gave notice of one. MR. SIMMS: I am on a point of order. That gives me more reason, Mr. Speaker, to be susptc~ous about whether he is right or wrong.

He does not even know when another member is on a point of order the Ll419 May 2, 1988 Vol XL han. member cannot stand. Mr. Speaker, it is matter and one that very, very sure of. concerned about an important we should be I am nat too anything in particular, because we can always negate the amendment anyway, but I want to be sure that the rule is right. That the practice is right. That the procedure is right. That is all I am concerned abotlt. I am more interested in the procedure for future and Your Honour may even wish to take five minutes to have a look at it.

The only quick reference I have to it, and I ci!d not have notice of it so I did not have much time to do any research on it, but in Sir Erskine May's Twentieth Edition, now the hon. member may not have that there at his f lnge~tips, so he should not rely solely on Beauchesne. There are many other parliamentary references which Speakers consider. Tn Sir Erskine May, page 386, there is a

section there which deals with restrictions on motions for the adjournment of the House or adjournment of the debate. This motion clearly is in the second category . It is a motion that adjourns the debate until November 2, or whatever . It is also very suspiciously like the six month hoist motion which also in Beauchesne has been ~uled - and we talked about it, Mr. Speaker, the other day, you may recall that that applies to bills, readings, it does not apply to motions, which we are dealing with here.

Just for consideration, and I realize there is some ambiguity here, but there is a reference here that says: "Members already spoken to the main question" well, T guess he has nat spoken to the main quest ion, because he was No. 27 Rl419

speaking to the han. the member for St. Barbe's (Mr. Furey) amendment, I suspect. But, certainly, if you have spoken to the main question, you are not pe~itted to move any fo~ of dilatory motion, nor, having moved a dilatory motion - he argued that he was moving a dilatory motion - he cannot then speak to the main motion. Similarly, if he has moved a dilatory motion, he is not entitled to move another in the course of debate on the same question. So, the question here is, I guess, whether it is a dilatory motion, as the han. member said it was, or whether it is not.

Tf it is, as he said it was the other day, then he cannot move another dilatory motion. It is very clear there in Sir Erskine May. MR. LONG: (Inaudible) confuse the issue. MR. SIMMS: No, it is not confusing. It might be confusing for the han. member, I understand that. The han. member easily is confused, but the members of the House on this side and on that side over there - I know, I am looking at them, they are nodding, they know that I am right. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it serious matter. Obviously, not want to have to be is a we do in a posit ion to vote down this particular motion.

We will i.f we have to, but why waste all that time? Let us check the procedure. Let us ensure the procedure is correct and that the motion is, in fact, in order. I do not believe it is. T. have some suspicions about it, and if I have five or ten minutes, as Your Honour will likely take, perhaps I will find the appropl"'iate L1420 May 2, 1988 Vol XL references to assure the House that the procedure he is suggesting is done properly. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR.

FENWICK: As - you know so clearly, this motion has not been moved and, therefore, the request to attack it on a point of order - MR. SIMMS: You gave copies to the Speaker and everybody else. MR. FENWICK: Yes, but it has not been moved. I gave a copy as a courtesy to the Speaker so that he would have a chance to look at it and a chance to be able to consider whatever decision he would make on it, knowing that the Government House Leader has this usual way of stealing the time. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh , oh! MR . SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

FENWICK: But, to the substance of the arguments that the Government House Leader raised, Mr. Speaker, you ruled, just a few minutes ago, that the motion that T made the previous session was a substantive one. So it was not a dilatory motion and the argument from Erskine May, that you cannot move two dilatory motions, should not apply. Also, it is the exact same wording as is indicated on Page 151 of Beauchesne. No. 27 R1420

MR. SIMMS: Which deals with bills. MR. FENWICK: No, it does not, it deals with motions. This is a dilatory motion on that. Tt is perfectly within order. But, Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am speaking to the amendment that was - What was the amendment? MR. SIMMS: You are first. on Have the point of order you finished the point of order? MR. FENWICK: No, no. I am just trying to think of where I would be, because we have not actually moved this motion at this point. We would be discussing the amendment of the member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward), I believe, the amendment that he proposed. MR. LONG: st. Barbe.

MR . FENWICK: The member for. St. Barbe. And that would be where the debate would cant inue. That is where I would like to continue with the debate, prior to getting a ruling from the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I understand the bon. the member has got up to speak on the point of order. The han. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: To confuse it a bit, if I may. The han. member says now that he has not moved. Ll421 May 2, 1988 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: No . MR. SIMMS: That is what he says. He just said he has not moved this motion. He said he just sent up a piece of paper saying he was going to do it - MR.

FENWICK: Yes. MR. SIMMS: - even though the piece of paper says 'moved and seconded'. I believe Your Honour, if I recall, interrupted the hon. member and asked him ta.. explain what he was doing. MR. FENWICK: And I did. MR. SIMMS: And I member motion. seem to recall saying he was MR. FENWICK: the hon. moving a No! You heard wrong. Clean your ears out! Get Dr. Coil ins to do it for you! MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was wrong yesterday; he could very well be wrong again today. Perhaps Your Honour might wish to recess for five or ten minutes, at least to check what the han. member said, Mr. Speaker.

If he did not say it, then that is quite fair. MR. SPEAKER: I think Menihek moving not? the han. the member for can clarify this. Was he this particular motion or MR. FENWICK: No. Mr. Speaker, knowing the No . 27 R1421

argumentative nature of the Government House Leader, and how he makes all these petty interruptions, I, as a courtesy, supplied a copy to Your Honour, a copy to the Opposition benches and a copy to the government benches, indicating, at the end of my time period, I would move that, so that you would have a chance to see it and you would have a chance to make an informed decision on it without wasting the time of the House, which the Government House Leader is obviously doing now. No, I have not moved this mot .ion at this point. That is the answer. MR. TULK: To that point Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: of order, Mr.

To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the motion that the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) has moved, it is a motion asking that consideration of the question be postponed until 2 November. I would refer, Your Honour, to

Section 417 and that falls under the

section of "Types of Motions." In this particular case, a privilege motion, and in this particular case, the subhead again is a dilatory motion and if it is a motion, I see nothing wrong or out of order with it. As to the time when it can be moved, it must be given the right of way when proposed during a debate, a privilege motion, which this is, even though it is a dilatory motion, and they are, "designed to dispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently." The motion has done that. L1422 May 2, 1988 Vol XL The only question that I have in my mind, Mr.

Speaker, is if you find this in order and the motion should pass, does this mean that debate on this bill stops as of the time that motion is voted on and passed, or not? I see the motion as being perfectly in order and, I think, to say otherwise would be incorrect. MR. SPEAKER: I think the simplest and the best thing to do is t am going to recess for a few minutes and check into this matter. Recess MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! t have checked into this matter. tf the motion is moved by the hon. member, I will deal with the matter then. In the meantime, I recognize the hon. member as speaking to the amendment.

The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, if it is in order, I will move it now. Moved by the member for Menihek and seconded by the member for St. John's East (Mr. Long) that consideration of the question be postponed until 2 November, 1988. I am asstwing it is in order. MR. SPRAKER: Order, please! It is moved by the member for Menihek and seconded by the member for St. John's East that consideration of the question be postponed until 2 November 1988. No. 27 R1422

All those in favour of the motion please say 'Aye.' Those against the motion say 'Nay.' SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay! MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated. MR. FENWICK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FENWICK: The point of ruling that non-debatable order is: this motion? what you are saying? MR. SPEAKER: Are is Is you a that The motion proposed by the hon. member was not debatable. MR. FENWICK: Okay, that is fine. Mr. Speaker, in that case I have another amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek. MR. SIMMS: Are you moving another amendment? MR.

FENWICK: No, this is an sub-amendment to the amendment that is on the Order Paper. MR. SIMMS: Are you moving it now or are you just telling us you are going to move it later on? MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is a series of four or five different sheets of paper, but I will read Ll423 May 2, 1988 Vol XL it and we will have the whole thing as one sub-amendment to the amendment that is currently on the Order Paper. Then I will be able to speak to the whole works at once. I was talking to the Government House Leader before, and this seems to be the only way we can adequately move it in.

MR. _SIMMS: (Inaudible) sub-amendments? MR. FENWICK: They are only small. Anyway, here they are: The first 'one: Moved by the member for Menihek and seconded by the member for St. John's East that the Constitution Act, 1987,

Section 1, sub-section ii, be amended by adding the words, 'and promote' after the word 'preserve'. I will give you a copy as we go through them, Mr. Speaker. But they are all considered as one sub-amendment. That is the way we would like them to be considered. MR. SIMMS: A poi.nt of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Whether the hon. member would like them to be dealt with as one sub-amendment is one question. Whether it is proper and the Chair is prepared to accept them as one sub-amendment is another question.

The hon. member gets up and he reads this little thing that says whatever it was he said - I do not know - ' read, and, add , so , • or No. 27 R1423

whatever, but, Mr. Speaker, how in the name of the world can we determine whether or not that is a proper amendment, if we do not know exactly what he is talking about. Your Honour is going to have to go through each of these, if this is the way he insists in dealing with it, or else do the courteous thing, give them to His Honour, let His Honour study them, and deal with them at the appropriate time, as to whether or not they are in order. You cannot deal with five pages of legal and wordy amendments like that. That is too silly to talk about. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, if you find it convenient, we can give you all of them at once so that you can have a look at them, but T would like to at least introduce one, because I have a feeling, judging by all the procedure time that I have consumed, that if I do not introduce at least one of them, and I would like to introduce them all at the same time, then I will have very little time to speak on any of the substantive issues that we have ahead of us. I will be glad to give you a copy of all five of them and then speak on them.

Then you can rule whether or not you have accepted them all or whether or not they would have to be introduced at a different time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: L1424 May 2, 1988 Vol XL To that point of order raised by the bon. President of the Council, T am certainly not going to rule on any matter that I am not satisfied in my mind about. If the hon. member has many sub-amendments, I certainly want to have a look at them, study them and take whatever time is necessary to see in my mind if they are correct and . get the proper advice on the matter.

I am not- prepared to take a bunch of any sub-amendments and say they are either right or wrong. So this might take quite a considerable amount of time to deal with. If it does, I will take that tinte. I think the bon. President of the Council got up for the clarification of the Chair as much as anything else. I am prepared to deal with this matter as it arises. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, to a point of order, then. He has pc-oposed an amendment now that Your Honour has. So Your Honour now is going to determine whether or not the amendment is in order before he can obviously speak to it. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! As far as I can see, this particular amendment, if you like, to a change in the Constitution Act, T am sure that took days and weeks and months of thinking and working out just what was debatable and what was going to be proposed to the House of Commons and to every other House of Assembly. T am certainly not going to say off the top of my head that everything is in order. I am just going to study the matter. No. 27 R1424

So if the hon. member wishes to speak to the amendment that we have at the moment, I am quite prepared to study the others. I cannot say how long it is going to take but they will be studied. MR. FENWICK: Now for the $64,000 question, Hr. Speaker. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: He is speaking to the amendment . Your Honour has not yet ruled on the sub-amendment. MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. MR. TULK: How much time is your Honour going to allow the hon. gentleman to speak? MR. SPEAKER: How much time has he had?

The hon. member has fifteen minutes. The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, that is fine. I will go ahead and speak to the sub-amendment that we have before us now, or the amendment we have before us. I hope. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fortune - Ll425 May 2, 1988 Vol XL Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I am not interested in taking sides in this particular issue, but there is another issue here. I believe what we are about to do establishes a precedent in this House and, I would submit , in every other parliament in our parliamentary system. Mr ..

Speaker, the member has moved what he purports to be a sub-amendment. It is either a sub-amendment or it is not. I submit the Chair must tell him which it is before we can proceed with the business of the House or else we hav~ the situation where members are proposing amendments or motions or whatever, and are not in a position to know whether that amendment is in order. That is an unconscionable situation to be in.

I submit at this point in time there is only two things that the House can do at this point, allow the member to speak to the sub-amendment, which de facto means the sub-amendment is in order, or recess the House to determine whether the sub-amendment is in order. T do not see that we can proceed without determining the admi.ssi.bil i.ty of the sub-amendment. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Your Honour, I know this is not a good day for you, but I flnd myself unusually in agreement with my cousin from Fortune No. 27 Rl425

Hermitage, now that he has made the comments that he has made and given me an opportunity to think a 1 it tle bl t more about it, I think he is absolutely right. I know that is what your Honour is trying somehow to do, but you are kind of boxed in a corner and maybe the appropriate move certainly we would not mind at all and it would not come out of the han. member's time, so it is really i~relevant - but for you~ Honour's own good, I suppose, the appropriate thing to do might be to recess for a couple of minutes with the Clerks and just see - MR. BARRETT: Call it six o'clock and come back tomorrow. MR.

SIMMS: Well, that is up to his Honour. He may only need five minutes to have a look at this particular sub-amendment. Maybe that would be the appropriate thing to do your Honour, so that you will feel comfortable with it yourself. I do not feel comfortable now, after hearing the member for Fortune - Hermitage. I think he has made a very valid point. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I am prepared to deal with that matter now. I think the point raised by the - Would the han. member please take his seat? I am prepared to agree. I think the point is well taken. On reflection I think I will have a recess.

I can assure hon. members I will have as many recesses as is necessary after all these number of amendments because the thing is going to be done correctly. T am Ll426 May 2, 1988 Vol xr.. just going to call another recess now, and we will deal with this one sub-amendment I have. This House is recessed. Recess MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I have studied the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Menihek and I received advice on the matter.

As hon. members know, a sub-amendment's function is to alter the amendment, not the main motion, and as I see, the sub-amendment proposed by the han. member for Menihek deals with sub-section (2) of the main motion and not the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for St. Barbe. For that reason, it is out of order. The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speake~, I appreciate that that is an accurate ruling.

The reason I proposed it that way, of course, was that in the previous debate on a railway resolution a number o.f weeks ago, we did something entirely different, and it was ruled in order of that time. i thought that we had a new precedent to work with in ou~ House, but I am glad to hear you are saying now that a sub-amendment should be on the amendment because that is the way I have operated· meetings for as long as I have been involved with meetings, and I think it is a good ruling in that regard. I thought we had new rules. Mr. Speaker, since this fi~st opportunity I have No. 27 is the had to Rl426

speak on the Meech Lake Accord, I must say that we were, when the Meech Lake Accord originally was agreed to and when the details of it came out, quite supportive of the general thrust of it because we think it is extremely important that the country, from one end to the other, be seen to be a country, act as though it is a country, and think as a country. That, indeed, was one of the major objectives of the Meech Lake Accord, that the province of Quebec would feel that it was part of it. However, Mr. Speaker, since that time, it seems to me that the Meech Lake Accord has run a very rocky road.

There were obviously problems with it, problems with the provisions for francophones outside of Quebec and anglophones within Quebec, and those are very serious ones that when this amendment is dealt with, we will then move our regular amendments to it and try and get those back on the Order Paper back on the table so they can be debated as well. There were concerns from womens' groups and individuals who felt that the special status for Quebec somehow could override the equality prov1s1ons of the constitution.

Although my own reading of it does not suggest that, there does seem to be a very simple way of amending that, and later on, we will show you that amendment as well. It is possible, by just inserting one additional number, to make sure that that is covered itself. There is, Mr. Speaker, a great travesty in this Meech Lake Accord, and that is the one group that has r:-eally lost, lost beyond any shadow of a doubt are the L1427 May 2, 1988 Vol XL people of the Northern ter:-ritories of the Yukon and the North West Territories.

Prior to the Meech Lake Accord, if the Yukon, or the North West Territories wished to become a pr:-ovince, it was a matter between themselves and the federal government, much as the inclusion of Newfoundland and Labrador into the Confederation in 194.8 and 1949 was _ simply a matter between the federal government in Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is, 1 think, a particular kick in the teeth to those Northerners, who 1 have a consider:-able amount of empathy with, since they had no input whatsoever into the proceedings and have therefore lost the right to establish those territories as provinces in the same manner as Newfoundland and Labr:-ador:-, and, indeed, in the same manner as all the provinces of Canada, except for the first four, which formed the Dominion of Canada back in 1867. Mr. Speaker, that was one of the amendments we will be looking at in the future. It is a problem with the Accord that I think has to be corrected.

It is a case really of simple justice in a sense that it is something that was taken away in this whole process . Some of the other amendments we are proposing are nice to have, are additions to the rights that these groups currently enjoy, but this \lras clearly a right that was enjoyed by the Northern people that was taken away. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we will be pr:-oposing amendments to the particular Meech Lake Accord in which the Northern territories will also participate in the No. 27 Rl427

select.ion o.f Senators, and Supreme Court Justices. One of lhe changes of this particular Accord has been that we are in a position to nominate Senators to the Senate. Before I go on I should tell you that I believe the Senate is a totally useless appendage as it presently constructed and would certainly like to see it phased out. But, Mr.

Speaker, if in the future, because the Meech Lake accord does have it on the agenda, if in the future it has a role, if it is elected, if it does have powers, if it has a responsibility of the regions, maybe in some future date that opinion of myself and of the federal and provincia 1 1 sections of the party, may change. We may actually see there is a role for it there, and if there is, then the selection of Senators surely should have some responsibility to the provinces, and this is what is given in it.

At the same time, the Northwest Territories are excluded from that function and an amendment should be made there so both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon would also be in a position to nominate individuals to the Senate from their area and to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court of Canada, if indeed that is what is going to continue as well. Finally, of the major holes we see in the Meech Lake Accord, there is the whole question of aboriginal rights. To us it is extremely important that aboriginal rights be enshrined in the constitution way as they are seen to the right to some self-government.

Mr. is consistent with the in such a be given meaningful Speaker, it L1428 May 2, 1988 Vol XL position that we took in this Chamber several weeks ago with regard to the development of Labrador and the possible of future military development up there. We said, and we put it on the record at that time, that we felt that the aboriginal peoples of Labrador, both the Innu .and Inuit, had a right to say what goes on in the- territory that they have claimed for these 10,000 years or more. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we say that for all the aboriginal peoples in C~nada. They must have some say in self-government.

For them not to, Mr. Speaker, would continue the dependency that we have seen for -the last 125 years that has led to more native people living in poverty with substandard services in terms of municipal infrastructure and so on, than any other group within our society. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the other groups we wish to address, and we will when we get to ot.her amendments that will be brought to this particular thing. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that the Meech Lake Accord is now, for all intents and purposes in its present form, a dead initiative. Mr.

Speaker, that development only occurred last week with the elect i on in Manitoba. Prior to that there was one of ten provinces that was opposed and that was the Province of New Brunswick. But the Province of New Brunswick had essentially one individual, the new Liberal Premier of New Brunswick who was opposed, and there may have been way to placate that individual. For example, they might have Mo. 27 Rl428

decided to build addi tiona! ships or something in his drydocks at Saint John, New Brunswick, · and on that basis there may have been a deal struck. I am not suggesting the man would have necessarily gone for it, but there were ways of overcoming one individual's reluctance to it and as a matter of fact, as a strategic move, I think it made a lot of sense. He was put in a very st~ong bargaining position, vis-a-vis the federal government and in a position to extract something in ~eturn for the support of the Meech Lake Accord.

Up until the Manitoba election, this was the only province offside, but the offside position may not have lasted very long. The situation in Manitoba is, in my op1n1on, impossible to be resolved so that the Province of Manitoba will ratify the Meech Lake agreement. It is absolutely impossible. What you had in Manitoba prior to the election was an NDP government the~e that was lukewarm on it at best, that had a lot of individual wrangling among its own members and was reluctantly supporting it because of the nation building aspects of it.

But concerns were raised everywhere and the party, if it had its own wishes, would have been less eager to do it, but did it as part of this nation building that it was committed to. Mr. Speaker, they were also commit ted to holding hearings, to having a committee travel the Province to get the input of the francophone groups within Manitoba, to get the opinion of the aboriginal groups and to listen to the entreaties being made by the Yukon and the Northwest territories, by women's groups and so on.

Ll429 May 2, 1988 Vol XL That process, I would suggest to you, may still occur, but it is pretty much irrelevant at this point because even that lukewarm support that was there is now, of course, gone. You now have in Manitoba three different sections, none of which forms a majority, the largest of which is headed by a Premier who is commit ted to the Meech Lake Accord, as I understand, but has only twenty-five seats in fifty-seven seat House.

The next largest group is headed by a woman who is adamantly opposed to Meech Lake, and under those circ~mstances would not agree to it. ' And the third group of twelve, which is headed by Gary Doer, is also a group which would be very reluctant to agree to it offhand; they would demand considerable amount of change to it in order to entrench the rights of aboriginal groups and so on. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba then creates a problem, but at the same time,- MR. J. CARTER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for st. John's North. MR. J.

CARTER: The member for Menihek, wherever he is from - he is not from here, T know that has occupied the time of the House for most of the afternoon - MR. LONG: He did a good job. He did a very good job! No. 27 Rl429

MR. J. CARTER: - with spurious points of order and procedural hassles, and now his t.i.me is certainly up. I think he should be in vi ted not only to sit down but to leave the House. MR . FENWICK: To the point of order, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menehik. MR. FENWICK: I am not sure when the member for . St. John's North became Speaker. I assume it is your responsibility still to let us know when we have time, and I have been informed I have three minutes. MR. SPEAKER: There is no point ·of order. The hon. the member for Menehik. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, what do we have?

We have a flawed document which at this point has two provinces adamantly offside, but there is one a little bit more adamant than the other. Tt seems to me that the urgency has gone, and i.f the urgency has gone, why not take the opportunity to allow input from the groups within our society who have clear objections to it, inclu4ing the Francophone Association of this Province, including women's groups that I have talked to, including other people who have major concerns about aboriginal groups.

Why not strike a committee of some sort, and I know I · am speaking to the previous resolution, but there is no reason that the government cannot go ahead with one if they wish to, why not have a committee struck to listen to the people of our Province about what they want done with it? Because, Mr. Ll430 May 2, 1988 Vol XL Speaker, as sitting there here, we will legislation circumstances provinces. sure as you are and I am standing have to amend this because of the in those two - Tf we have to, let us get the input that we did not have a chance for before. Let us find out what the problems are.

Let us see if we can come to the table the- next time with a couple of other changes that may be in the better interests not only of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but, Mr. Speaker, in the better interests of the rest of Canada, as well. What I do is urge the government opposite not to rush this motion through any more, let us have the time to consult with the people of the Province. Because, after all, it is not just ten men's constitution that was done overnight ln secret, it is the constitution of Canada and it deserves a lot more consideration that it has gotten.

We have the time, we have the opportunity, let us make sure we do not make any major. mistakes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Mines. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say what an honour it is to participate in the debate on the Meech Lake Accord. Indeed, as the hon. member for Menihek said, we are in the process here today of nation building. Having gone through the Meech Lake Accord, I think it is very important that everybody is heard, that we give No. 27 Rl430

our thoughts on the proposal and, in my op1n~on, Mr. Speaker, support it wholeheartedly · because I think it is very important to this nation. As a matter of fact, I think our Socialist friend down there did a disservice to this House today by, basically, his stalling tactics, with his amendments, etc. I think he should have thought about it a little more and put a little more time into what we are actually doing here today, and what we will do in the next few weeks with respect to the Meech Lake Accord. Now, Mr. Speaker, the