Volume XL We dnesday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND · First Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 26 5 Jun e 1 985

The House met at 3:00 P.M. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that yesterday I had a conversation with Mr. Bob Martin, Senior Vice-President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and he informed me that, today, the company would be announcing a reduction in their work force. The company is, therefore, announcing that seventy-five management and clerical employees will be terminated at both Sept Isles, Quebec, and Labrador City.

The number to be terminated at the Labrador City operation totals forty-five. Thirty are management employees and fifte~n are clerical and technical personnel. Mr. Martin pointed out employee reductions necessary by the that the are made company's determination to competitive position ore industry. maintain in the a iron The current work force at Labrador City totals 1,625 and had been trimmed to that level as part of the effort to weather the adverse effects of the recent recession and to prepare for longer term viability.

The senior Vice-President of the Ll316 5 June 1985 Vol XL me that such as voluntary be employed to impact of the those who will be company assured alternatives retirement will cushion the reduction on affected. I have been assured, also, that the Iron Ore . Company of Canada, which is back up to 85 per cent production capacity this year intends to remain fully competitive in world iron ore markets from the point of view of price, quality and the various other factors which mak·e their products attractive to steel producers.

It is unfortunate that as part of the process of improving efficiency and reducing costs of production there has had to be a reduction in the work force; nevertheless, if these measures were not taken the company's survival and the jobs of the entire work threatened. force would be Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr.

Speaker, speaking for the Opposition, we regret any announcement that a reduction of work force is taking place anywhere, particularly in a community such as Labrador City where the basis of the whole economy and the survival of the town itself is tied to the mining operation. Now we see another seventy-five people being laid off in keeping with the Iron Ore Company's desire to maintain the No. 26 Rl316

efficiency of the operation and maintain longevity. Mr. Speaker, Labrador City has gone .through some trying times and the minister in his estimates a few days ago gave some very, very pertinent numbers. He laid out to the Committee exactly what the conditions of the Iron Ore Company is labouring under and he made the comment, I think, that he did not want to frighten anyone in Labrador City or Wabush with regard to the statistics. I would say to him, Mr. Speaker, that not in the _process of frightening anybody.

It is one thing to frighten somebody, it is something else to be realistic and make sure that the iron ore workers in Labrador City know exactly what the short-term and long-term outlook is on that job in that industry and in that town. So, Mr. Speaker, I would want a chance to puruse the statement and determine exactly what this means to the operation and how this comes about before I would comment further. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that it is by leave that I get permission to speak at this time. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is this by leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave •. MR. SPEAKER: By leave. Ll317 5 June 1985 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: I too echo some of the sentiments of the member for Windsor-Buchans (Mr. Flight). It is unfortunate that we have these layoffs, that there are 45 individuals in Labrador City who will be affected by it, and I would like to point out, of course, that at this point these people have just had their lives ruined.

They are now in a position where their homes most likely are unsaleable and they will be in a considerable amount of difficulties and I would like to say to the ministers concerned, since these are unique problems, that there has been a response from this government in the past, helping out individuals who have been laid off in Labrador City and Wabush in order to re-locate elsewhere. I would again ask at this time that the government reconsider the cancellation of that programme which ended a year or a year and a half ago, especially for these kinds of individuals who will be cropping up from time to time.

After all, they will now lose their homes, most of their savings of their lifetime and be forced to look for jobs elsewhere. That is a very difficult thing for people to do, especially at that time of life. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT Mr. Speaker, as ice conditions begin to improve around our coastline, our inshore fishery is gearing up for its peak period. In connection with this, I would like to take this opportunity to inform this han. House that as of June 3 my department's inshore fish distribution program has been fully operationalized throughout No. 26 Rl3l7

the Province. My departmept operates this program during the peak of the inshore fishing season to attempt to find markets within the Province for surplus raw fish which may result from glut situations in a parti~ular region or area. Program co-ordinators monitor landing levels in their region and when a surplus to local processing capacity has been deemed to exist, they attempt to co-ordinate the movement of this surplus to plants in areas where there is a deficiency of supply in relation to processing capacity. This process is actively monitored and solutions are sought to any problems which may arise.

In addition, personnel are actively involved TIY'i th other agencies in determining the most effective utilization of over-the-side, over-the-wharf sales arrangements with foreign vessels. As in past years, seven program co-ordinators will be stationed around the Province: one each at Harbour Grace, Bonavista, Wesleyville, Gander, Port Saunders, Marystown and, in Happy Valley, Labrador. These co-ordinators will be on the job eight hours a di;iy, six days a week.

These co-ordinators are now visiting all plants and chairmen of fishermen's committees in their region, providing program details and assessing the mechanisms, such as salting facilities, which are available for dealing with "glut situations, normally June 15 to August 15; they will be contacting the plants in their respective regions on a daily basis. During non-glut periods, regular contact will be maintained. If a processor requires the service of the program during a non-glut period, he is requested to contact Ll318 5 June 1985 Vol XL the program co-ordinator immed-iately.

My department has operated this program for the past seven years and over that period, it has been effective in working with processors and fishermen to alleviate glut situations. I am hopeful that this co-operative effort will prevail again this year because, in effect, it is the processor and fishermen who benefit through being able to retain income which would otherwise be lost. In particular, I urge processors who are anticipating a glut or who require fish to contact the program co-ordinator as soon as possible.

The office locations and telephone numbers of the program co-ordinators are attached to this statement and have already been made public. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for supplying me with a copy of the statement beforehand. I think he said this is the seventh year for this Ministerial Statement, every year it comes into the House when the fish distribution desks around the Province are set up. Mr.

Speaker, what this clearly illustrates, what this confession clearly illustrates is the government • s inability to deal with the processing of a product that is most important to Newfoundland. Because, in spite of the distribution desks we have of for six or seven years, the minister knows full well that No. 26 Rl318

ther~ will be fish again this year that will be dumped, that will be sold over the side and so on. Now, he uses the correct word, he is very nice with the wording, it alleviates the problem. But it certainly has not solved the problem and my point to the minister is this, the problem has existed for years, this government, the government of which he is a part, and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr ~ Rideout), puts little into the fishery, less than 1 per cent of the pudget this year has gone into fisheries.

And I would ask him, rather than bring in this kind of a statement each year, why does he not come into the House and tell us how he is going to set up a process that solves the problem? In spite of the fact that he is claiming all the time that we have an over capacity in processing, when is he going to come into this House and tell us how he is going to deal with the glut problem in real terms and to the advantage .of Newfoundlanders, rather than just coming in and saying, 'Well, we are alleviating the situation.' Year after year that is all we hear from him.

What this statement says to the people of Newfoundland and to this House is that we, as a Province, that was founded as a fishing Province, and whose history is tied up in the fishery, what this statement says is that we have not yet developed the ability to deal with fishermen when they catch a bit of fish. That is what the whole statement says and that is all the statements says. We have not yet found how to deal with successful fishermen catching fish. If they have a . successful year, we cannot process it. They have to dump it over the side. Ll319 5 June 1985 Vol XL So, Mr.

Speaker, I would say to the minister that next year when he brings a statement into the House concerning the glut problem that he bring in a solution, a solution to this problem of the supply of fish not being able to be processed in this Province and having to be dumped, sold over the side or in some cases not even hauled up. Why does the minister not put some solutions in place rather than coming in making excuses for his own failure and his government's failure? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas}: Order, please!

Before calling Oral Questions, I would like to welcome to the galleries sixty-five Grade VII and VIII students from Little Heart's Ease, with their teachers, Wade Martin and Wilson Callan. I would like to welcome fifty students from the L. R. Ash Elementary School, with their teachers, Wayne Dawe and .Mrs. Marion Reader. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the Career Exploration for Women Group. The programme is conducted by the Adult and Continuing Education Division of the Department of Career Development and Advanced Studies. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Oral Questions MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker No. 26 Rl319

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall). Mr. Speaker, since we have had two governments of the one political stripe, federal and provincial, our land has been hit with a vicious, contagious disease. I do not know which level .of government is responsible for spreading it or which level of government is catching .it but, Mr. Speaker, it is rampant in our land. I refer to the disease of. political patronage. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder whether today the Government House Leader is more humble and more conciliatory and more sensitive to the rights of the people of this Province to know what is going on in their government and, therefore, I am asking the minister whether he is prepared today to table the salary details of the three defeated Tory candidates who were the latest recipients of political pa~ronage by this government? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the salary of any employee of this government can be obtained in the normal process through the estimate procedures and what have you. I do not have any salary deals - Ll320 5 June 1985 Vol XL SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: - details of anybody in my head. I do not even know what the salary of the hon. the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) is, but from the quality and the caliber of his question, I would say he is considerably overpaid. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bona vista North. MR. LUSH: This member is not going to be intimidated by the member for St.

John's East (Mr. Marshall), I assure you! I>1r. Speaker, the members of this House and the people of this Province have a right to know the salary details of these latest recipients of political patronage, and I am asking the Government House Leader whether he is prepared today to table the salary details, the contractual details, so that the people of this Province will be informed as to what is going on and what the salaries are. There are people concerned abou~ this, particularly the 30,000 to 40,000 unemployed Newfoundlanders in this Province. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: No. 26 Rl320

Nobody is trying to withhold the salary details of anybody. I do not carry the salary details of anybody, except my own salary, in my head or in my back pocket or whatever. I say to the hon. gentleman there is no attempt to sweep anything under the table. The question is, I understand, by the · way, already on the Order Paper. The member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) asked it. It was on the Order Paper yesterday. And, obviously, it will be answered.

We will certainly give that information and, at the same time, I hope, in just as forthcoming a way, the hon. gentlemen will be able to tell us how much the defeated candidate in Placentia is being paid from the public purse, through the Opposition, so that we will know exactly how much everyone is 'being paid. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, am ·I to assume from the Government Bouse Leader's (Mr.

Marshall) answer that he is going to take the question as notice and that he is going to table the salary details of these three defeated Tory candidates? Is this what I gather from the minister, that he is going to table that tomorrow? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Ll321 5 June 1985 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. gentleman is picking on the poor Government House Leader. I mean, why me? I did not hire .any of them. Ask the ministers concerned.

I support it entirely because the hon. gentlemen who happened to be employed, whom he wishes to refer to - and he wishes to get down in the dirt the same way as his contemporaries do in Ottawa - are people who are being · employed on the basis of their ability and their capacity to acquit the duties that they are undertaking. We do not mind, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the ministers and the ministry have no objection whatsoever to tabling the salaries, to tabling their duties and to tabling all relevant information, but I just do not happen to have it myself.

I am not the minister responsible but the ministers responsible will certainly be happy to do it at the earliest possible opportunity. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier in view of the fact that the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn) is not here. Does the Premier disassociate himself from statements of the member for Placentia (Mr.

Patterson) who referred, in the Committee and on public television, to the teachers of this Province as hooligans, that they were like trained terrorists from Morocco or Iran? ·Is this the policy of the government, or does he, in fact, disassociate himself from the statements that were made No. 26 Rl321

by the member for Placentia? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, you ~now, 'Do I associate myself?' 'Do I disassociate myself?' with various comments. I do not know the comments that various members and backbenchers make from time to time about this group or that group. MR. CALLAN: You used to know everything at one time. PREMIER PECKFORD: No, no! Contrary to popular opinion, Mr. Speaker, in response to the interjection just made by the hon. member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) while he was still in his seat, no, I honestly do not know everything.

I am sorry to disappoint him, but I do not. Obviously, the hon~ member for Placentia has some strong views. I think the comments that the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn) has made from time to time, in the last number of weeks, indicate the position of this government as it relates to the teachers and other groups. We want to finalize agreements with the teachers, we want to finalize agreements with other people who get paid out of the public purse, and we want to have good relations with all the employees who work for the government. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Eagle River.

MR. HISCOCK: Ll322 5 June 1985 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: I is the government having its cake an~ ­ eating it, too, using two of its insignificant backbenchers - the member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) and the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) to blacken and savage the teachers while the Pr~mier and ministers sit in the front rows of government and stand calmly aloof? MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, that question is out of order.

It contains innuendoes and suppositions and what have you. Listening to the nature of the questions today, I can see full well why the former distinguished member for LaPoile did not offer himself for re-election. The hen. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is out of order in that question. I mean, he is casting innuendoes, he is asking for various conclusions that are unwarranted, and he is taking an argumentative type of approach. Why does he not ask questions affecting the welfare of this Province instead of such silliness? MR. TOLK: To that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr.

To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TOLK: Mr. . Speaker, there is no point of order. Obviously, the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) and the No. 26 Rl322

member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) are hitting the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) where it hurts. There is no point of order. The member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) is asking a very important question on teacher relations in this Province. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): To that point of order, I would point out to hon. members that questions should not be argumentative in any way and in supplementary questions there should be no need for

preambles. I ask the hon. member to state his question. The hon. the member for Eagle· River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn) has stated that he will present the NTA with a list Friday. Could the Premier ensure that hon. members are told the number of complaints that are going to be presented? We do not want the documentation, we do not want any copies of the letters, but we do want to know the numbers.

Could the Premier ensure that when the Minister of Education makes this documentation to the NTA, seeing it was brought up in the House and made a public matter by the Minister of Education, that the number of complaints will be made public in this House? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, firstly let me say to the hon. gentleman that obviously he does not understand the difference between being a member and being a member of the Ll323 5 June 1985 Vol XL government. In his first question and the

preamble to his supplementary, before . he was interrupted because he was out of order, he kept asking questions of the backbench. Certain private members are invited into the Cabinet and become part of the government as opposed to part of the General Assembly of the Legislature. Therefore, if the hon. member wants to . address questions to me relative to the ministries, then I think I can answer them fairly definitively.

When he asks questions as it relates to private members, that is a different matter altogether and it is really not a question to the government or to ·the ministry, it is a question to the House. Secondly, obviously if the hon. member is going to, in a number of questions and

preambles, sort of indicate that we are trying to do something devious or underhanded here, and that is an attack on the government, then I cannot understand how the hon. member can get up on a supplementary then and ask, 'Will you give us the numbers?' Because, if we agree to give the numbers, then the Opposition can say, 'Here you are now trying to get some things out into the public, ·trying to get more of this out into the public.' I think the Minister of Education (Mr.

Hearn) has handled this in a very responsible manner and that is, if there are certain written things -not verbal~ verbal means nothing and is very easy to do -that come to the minister, who is responsible for primary, elementary and secondary education in this Province, then I think the way the Minister of Education has handled it is a very responsible way~ pass it over to the agencies concerned, the Newfoundland Teachers' Association No. 26 Rl323

and the respective school boards. I do not think it would be appropriate for the ministry to indicate anything more than that about it. Let those agencies take whatever action they think appropriate. If we begin as a government to indicate the number and then the next day somebody wants to know the nature of it, then before long we can be accused of doing the very thing that the hon. member says we should not be doing. MR. HISCOCK: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier. member for the question is to In view of what the Placentia (Mr. the member for Patterson) and Torngat (Mr. Warren) have stated, has the Premier called them into his office and reprimanded them in any way? Has he sent them any letters stating that this is not government policy? With regard to private members, backbenchers on the government side - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR.

HISCOCK: Order -, please! can they basically say what they want and slander any public group without due representation from these groups which can not stand up for their rights in this public forum? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Premier. Ll324 5 June 1985 Vol XL PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, from time to time we have heard all kinds of slander and whatever from the other side, from that party, and I do not know how they handle it.

If the hon . member is asking me as Leader of the Party as opposed to Premier, there is a caucus, there is a Provincial ·Executive of the Party, and there is an Executi v"e Council of the Party. Obviously, that is a matter that would be up to the party and to the executive and the executive council to deal with if in fact they saw in their wisdom that they wanted to deal with it. As far as the government goes, the various ministers speak for the government. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member for Fortune-Hermitage, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the galleries Reverend Bert Cheeseman, Chairperson of the Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees Association, and Kevin Breen, Executive Director of the School Trustees Association. SOME HON·. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the fishing activities of the foreign fleets and, in particular, the West German fleet.

I had .intended to put my question to the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer), but he is absent from the House, so I shall put my question to the Minister of No. 26 Rl324

Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). I wonder would the minister indicate to the House whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did indeed express a desire not to be associated with the representation made by the government to Ottawa on the subject of West German overfishing? MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: I -think I can say, categorically, no to that question, Mr. Speaker. I guess I can also say that I know where the hon. gentleman is coming from. Last night, in Committee, I read part of a working document that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr.

Ottenheimer) and I had drafted, I believe on April 26 or April 27, to the federal government expressing our very great displeasure with alleged overfishing activity . by the West Germans. And in I think the ta-bling of it will indicate that it was a draft. The piece of correspondence had been drafted by officials of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Department of Fisheries, but the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I discussed the matter and we mutually agreed that that representation should be made directly by me to my counterpart in Ottawa.

I undertook yesterday to table the official correspondence, which I will be doing at the appropriate. place on the Order Paper today. But no, Mr. Speaker, there was no disagreement. We collaborated, we co-operated in getting together Ll325 5 June 1985 Vol XL '·' the best advice from Fisheries and Intergovernmental Affairs in putting together our representation to Ottawa, and we decided that it should go out over the name of the Minister of Fisheries, as I believe was appropriate, and I believe my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) felt it was appropriate. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I submit to the minister that is far from being a matter of mutual consent and agreement. There was a note from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) indicating that he did not want his signature attached to the document. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister, did he ever send the telegram or the Telex? MR. SIMMONS: What he indicated last night to the Committee was that he had a draft. Did he actually send a Telex?

And if so, on what date? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas ): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will find the working document that the gentleman referred to in a few moments, but I guess he probably has it. The representation for this government to the federal No. 26 Rl325

minister was sent by special courier, I believe on April 30. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I understand, also, it was the original intention of the department to follow the process that the Premier had used over many, many years of whacking off Telexs to Ottawa, but that ~is colleague in Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) constrained him and indicated that the matter was not of sufficient urgency to be treated that way but, rather, to do it by letter.

Would he first of all confirm that is the reasoi) he did it by letter rather than telex? Secondly, would he indicate to the House what response he has had - it has been now a month or so - to that missile, in whatever form it went? In particular, has the federa~ government explained the matter of not informing the provincial government for a period of over two months, although the federal government was aware this was going on, this activity out there just beyond the 200 mile limit, on the Nose of the Banks, and has it apologized for that failure on its part? MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that I am not governed in my actions by the devious mind of the Ll326 5 June 1985 Vol XL member fo!' Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons). The hon. gentleman can read into any question or any answer exactly what he likes, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Rideout) cannot stand in this House and cast aspersions on another member, either on his own side or on this side, and we will not allow him to cast aspersions on members on this side. He has just made a statement that the member for Fortune - Hermitage has a devious mind. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: That kind of cop-out in trying to answer a question should mot be allowed in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I ask Your Honour to ask him to withdraw it. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentlemen on the other side are taking life a little bit too seriously today, I think. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was referring to the state of mind of the hon. gentleman and I do not see, really, that there was anything untoward about such a description. • No. 26 Rl326

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I have just been checking through Beauchesne on various terms have been ruled as unparliamentary. And one cannot go completely on that, because I see that on occasion some words are parliamentary and exactly the same words on other occasions are not. But I certainly do not see that particular term, and, in the context it was given, I do not think it was out of order. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I could put it this way, that if the hon. gentleman looks at a document that I tabled in Committee last night, as he did, and- see written across the draft document, 'Letter or telex', and if you deviate from that and the hon. gentleman tries to insinuate that you decided on a letter rather than a telex, then, I suppose, because of the deviation his devious mind must try to work wonders to try to figure out why you deviated from what your were talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, that it all there is to that. I decided in consultation with my colleague - AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question! MR.

RIDEOUT: There they go, Mr. Speaker. They ask questions but they do not want the answers. MR. SIMMONS: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Ll327 5 June 1985 Vol XL A point of privilege, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, you, Sir, may not be able to find the word because the word is probably not there. But what is there very clearly, and had I a copy of Beauchesne I could find it for you, is that a member may not cast aspersions.

It is there in those words, 'He may not cast aspersions on --another member of this House.' He may hold that belief, which he has to answer for to himself, but he cannot cast aspersions. And this House would be much better served, Mr. Speaker, if he would 'withdraw that remark and get on with the question at hand. He is squirming, you can see he is squirming, he is squirming because he knows what I have here in front of me. But let him stick to the subject at hand instead of getting into personalities. I .appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, for some protection.

He cannot cast aspersions on me and I ask you to make him withdraw that particular comment. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I will agree that nobody can cast aspersions on anyone, particularly nobody could cast aspersions on the hon. gentleman. But what he said was 'devious mind'. Now devious means to deviate, deviate means to change course, changing course means you have not got a fixed mind, and changing course, I would say, would be complimentary to anyone, particularly, Mr. Speaker, someone who is a Liberal because No. 26 Rl327

it has lately come to somebody who is a Liberal to be able to think of more than two things at once. So what the han. gentleman is really doing when he is saying he is devious is a person has a changing mind in one or • two or three places, that he has a mature mind. You know, he has a great mind, he has a good mind. I do not see anything wrong with that. I think the hon. gentleman is just a bit too touchy. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: If it were not unparliamentary, as I myself have already alleged, I would say to you, Mr.

Speaker, there is an example of a devious mind. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no prima facie case of privilege. MR. SIMMS: Shame! Shamel SOME BON. MEMBERS: Name him 1 Name him! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TOBIN: He has shouted ' shame' twice already and you have not named him. MR. SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that particular point. In the context in which it was offered it was not Ll328 5 June 1985 Vol XL . unparliamentary. I wou!d ask the han. minister if he would now answer the question. MR. RIDEOUT Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to answer the question.

The han. gentleman just talked about making me squirm, but there is nothing to squirm about. Mr. Speaker, I gave the Committee a document which said letter not telex, as a suggestion, signed by one minister, not two, as a suggestion. Mr. Speaker, we are open and honest and frank over here. · We consult with each other, particularly when my colleague happens to be the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) and we are interfacing with another government. Nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker, it is all aboveboard. MR. SIMMONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the han. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, now will the minister answer the other part of my last supplementary? . What response did he get from Ottawa on this urgent matter, urgent in his words in the draft, urgent from my vantage point, but not urgent from the vantage point of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? What response did he get from Ottawa? In particular, did he get an apology from Ottawa, or at least an explanation for keeping him and the government of which he is a

part in the dark for two whole months on this serious matter of raping our fisheries out there on the Nose of the Banks? MR. SPEAKER: • No. 26 Rl328

The hen. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, after four or five attempts at supplementaries and trying to draw political conclusions and trying to pit one minister up against another, there is finally an urgent question, there is finally something of great public urgency. Well, the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last night in committee and to the press when I was interviewed, is I have had word from Ottawa~ the federal minister has let me know about his activity and we are going to be further discussing that when we meet as a Council of Ministers next week. MR. FENWICK: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsibl~ for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Mr. MarshallL. As the annual report was tabled in the House two days ago and we have had a chance to look through. -it, it is quite clear looking at that report that, even with bringing on Cat Arm in the Summer or Fall, there are going to be significant problems with hydroelectric power and its supply over the next couple of years. As a matter. of fact, it seems to be getting more and more acute.

What it does seem to show is that there will be a considerable shortfall and that the Holyrood generating plant will be needed on a more or less continuous basis in order to supply electricity. My question to the minister is, are there any plans afoot to try and keep us Ll329 5 June 1985 Vol XL from again going through the horrendous increases in cost that we experienced last year? In other words what are the plans of Hydro for supplying electricity at a reasonable rate? MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, given that hyd;:g generation depends upon the amount of water that is available, the whole electrical generation system in this Province is a matter of real concern to this government. Because we find today, despite the . fact that we have more hydro power than any other province of Canada, we are probably as dependent or more dependent, except for the province of Prince Edward Island proportionately, on oil~ So really what it comes down to is the amount of water that is available. Now, last year we had a very low water fall and we had to depend more on fuel.

It is a fact of life, there is nothing that we can do about it. There is no such thing as rain makers or anything like that. There is no way that we can dictate the amount of rainfall available. We are very concerned about it. The amount of electrical bills that will · have to be paid, this year and ensuing years for a little while, is going to be directly referrable to the amount of rainfall and the amount of oil that we have to depend on. The more rain we have, the less the amount of the electrical bills. Now, what are we going to do about it?

I think the hen. gentleman is well aware of the policy of this government, that we are working assiduously, and we will continue to, to get an interconnect with Labrador for the purpose of making electrical generation in this Province No. 26 R1329

completely dependent on hydro power. That is the only long-term solution. In the meantime we will do everything we possibly can to keep hydro rates down. But I have to tell the hon. member, as he well knows, that when you are dependent upon oil the high cost of electricity is not the high cost, really, of electricity as such, . it is referrable to the high cost of oil. The more oil we have to use to generate electricity, the higher the cost will be. It is a matter of concern and we are working on it in the long term.

If we had been in the position of being able to work on this in the long-term some twenty years ago rather than at the point we are now, we would not be dependent upon oil generation •. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: As I hear the hon. minister's answer, he is saying that unless the interconnect goes ahead th~n we are condemned to ever-increasing hydro bills for the rest of our lives.

Considering that this government has failed abysmally over the last six or seven years to bring any kind of agreement into effect with the province of Quebec in order to do his and has really frittered away this time to a large extent, my question to the minister is, if that procedure does not work, is there any other plan whatsoever in place to avoid these enormous bills that we are going to be facing? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. Ll330 5 June 1985 Vol XL MR. MARSHALL: '" Mr.

Speaker, it is so easy for somebody who is not in government, and has no prospects of getting in government, to get ~p and make statements like that. How can the hon. gentleman say we have failed abysmally with respect to the generation of power? We have brought onstream in this Province every available environmentally safe hydro-electric project on this Island. There are others that are available but environmentally they are not acceptable to this Province because they will · derogate from our way of life.

Also, their input, their share of hydroelectrical generation would be so little it would not be significant enough when weighed against environmental considerations. It is so easy to get up and say, yes, we failed. Now, we cannot make rain, Mr. Speaker, we cannot generate rain. We can do many things but we are not omnipotent so we are dependent upon the rainfall. You ask what this government has done. This government has done everything it possibly could. It has taken the initiative to see what we could do to get a resolution to the Quebec problem through the courts and that did not succeed, that failed.

The problem with it was that the Supreme Court of Canada decided that we were not able to amend or to repeal our legislation. So we have found, through long frustration but valiant attempts, that the court route is not going to succeed. What else did we do? We have entered into detailed negotiations with the Province of Quebec and the government led by the present Premier of Quebec. We made a report to this Province and to the Legislature and everybody agreed, at that particular time, there was No. 26 Rl330 •

no basis for a resolution, but we are working now with respect to a resolution. We feel that the only resolution is through an interconnect with Labrador. This can only be achieved under the aegis of the federal government and, thank heavens, we now have a federal government which has indicated an interest in it and acceptance of the responsibility with it. As events unfurl in the next little while, we hope to be able to use the same means and bring to the table the same abilities which resulted in the Atlantic Accord to bring about a resolution of this situation. A resolution, I might say, Mr.

Speaker, that has been exacerbated over the period of years and made more difficult because the party of the hon. gentleman there opposite actually accepted the fact that we could not transmit our power through another Canadian province, actually accepted the fact that we were not Canadians. As we· found from the Atlantic Accord you cannot get equal rights if you go to the table not accepting that you are equal Canadians.

So what we have got to do in this particular case is unravel a situation not of our making, a situat .ion cast on us by the hon. gentlemen there opposite, who in their mealy-mouthed ways and their Uncle Tom ways and their desires to perpetuate themselves in power, as they did briefly in 1976, gave the shop away. But for that we would have it resolved. Mr. Speaker, in the hope I have answered gentleman's questiono working very hard on it. MR. FENWICK: meantime I the hon. We are A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Ll331 5 June 1985 Vol XL Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period and again in Committee last night, I undertook to table correspondence that this Province with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) regarding the overfishing activity by the West Germans offshore, and I am pleased to do that now. For the benefit of the bon. the gentleman from Fortune - Hermitage (Mr.

Simmons) , the first line of the letter is: "It is with a sense of alarm and ~rgency that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the bon. G. R. Ottenheimer, and I". So I will table ·that, Mr. Speaker. Also, Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a question raised by my colleague, the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan), regarding a Russian/Canadian incident offshore in 1978. I indicated yesterday that I would have officials in the department check out this matter with the appropriate federal authorities and I have been advised, Mr.

Speaker, that a collision at sea did occur on May 9, 1978, and damages were sustained by a Russian supply vessel during a boarding procedure. The incident No. 26 Rl331

was reportedly carried in the local media here in Newfoundland, in the newspapers, radio and television at the time. We have not confirmed this, but the incident was subsequently investigated by MOT, according to officials of Fisheries and Oceans, as all such incidents at sea are. I can also tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that we have also been advised by federal Fisheries that a negotiated settlement with the Russians was undertaken through the appropriate channels, the Departments of Justice and External Affairs and so on, and that an agreement was reached.

As to the monetary settlement, that has in fact been paid by the Government of Canada. The final part of the question raised by the hon. gentleman, I believe, is that I have been advised by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that there is no accommodation through allocations of fish to resolve such indebtedness. It was not and is not now the policy of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

So the incident did take place, there was a monetary settlement reached between Canada and the Soviet Union, the monetary settlement was in fact, according to the advice recieved, paid, and that there has been no trade-off of fish, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to compensate for damages of such a nature. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of order, the hon. member for Bonavista South. Ll332 5 June 1985 Vol XL MR.

MORGAN: In reference to the answer to the question posed to the minister yesterday, I want to point out, to clarify that I did not ask yesterday for the local officials of the federal Department of Fisheries to give replies or to investigate matters pertaining to overfishing of our offshore fish stocks. Because that is the whole problem, Mr. Speaker, his receiving answers federal officials. should come from the from local The answer minister in Ottawa. I said yesterday, and I repeat it now, that the minister in Ottawa should investigate.

I am not satisfied at all with the answer given by, I assume, officials to the minister. I am not blaming the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) here, it is a federal matter. But the federal officials are not supplying total information and accurate information to the Provincial minister. And, therefore, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this, that my question was - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is not a point of order. If the hon. member is not satisfied he can take that matter up on the adjournment on Thursday. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, order. I question. MR.

SPEAKER: I am on a point of am clarifying my Is this another point of order? MR. MORGAN: I am not satisfied. question. No. 26 saying I am not I want to clarify the Rl332

' . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MORGAN: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to stand to clarify the question that was asked yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have already ruled on that point of order. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, privilege. MR. SPEAKER: on a point of A point of privilege, the hon. the member for Bonavista South. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, can I not stand in the House to clarify a question that was raised yesterday? Because the question was, obviously, misunderstood. And I am not saying that I want to debate the issue tomorrow evening.

Some of my colleagues are here trying to advise me how to act in the House of Assembly. I will be governed by the Chair, not by any of my colleagues here. If I want to debate the issue tomorrow evening in the late show, I would say so. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is I want to clarify the question. I asked the minister yesterday to have the Federal Minister (Mr. Fraser) investigate, not to have his local officials here investigate. Because my information sti ll stands, that there was substantial damage and the bill is still outstanding to the Russians, to the Soviets.

The bill has not been paid in funds to the Soviets by Canada. And it is in millions of dollars, not a few Ll333 5 June 1985 Vol XL thousands of dollars. And the matter is so serious, because of overfishing of our cod stocks, it warrants investigation from Ottawa, not from the White Hills here in St. John's. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, to that point of privilege. MR ~ SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, the hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, when the hon. gentleman raised the question yesterday I undertook, I think as the record of the House will show, to investigate the nature of his question and to report back to him at the earliest opportunity. Now the documentation that has been provided to me is what I provided to the House. And if there is documentation to the contrary, then I would certainly like to have it and I will follow whatever course needs to be followed to ensure that it is investigated. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before calling petitions, I would like to r.ule on the point of order raised by the hon.

Minister of Forest, Resources and Lands (Mr. Simms) yesterday in connection with the petition presented by the hon. member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock). I have had an opportunity of reading this petition. Actually, the hon. member for Eagle River stated in the House yesterday that he had altered the petition to read 'Provincial Government' instead of 'Federal Government'. I would like to state that petitions should be addressed to No. 26 Rl333

the hon. House and it should contain a prayer. But the fact of the matter is, admitted by the hon. member, that he altered this petition. I am quite sure he altered it with the idea of clarifying the intent of what the people who signed the petition had in mind, but the fact of the matter is that this is not what the people who signed this petition signed. It was altered. So I must rule that out of order in the circumstances. MR. HISCOCK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. To that I would like to - MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I have already ruled on that point of order. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: With all the respect that one should have for the Chair of this Parliament, the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) rose on a point of order. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: No, he did not. MR. TULK: He rose and said, 'I am rising on a point of order.' And, Mr. Speaker, if you know what the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) was going to say next, I certainly do not, Sir. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Ll334 5 June 1985 Vol XL Order, please! If the hon. the member for Eagle River wants to rise on another point of order, I will hear him now. MR.

HISCOCK: This is a question, Mr. Speaker, not a point of order. I would like direction from the Chair. With respect to my petition which has been ruled out of order, I apologize for signing it, and Your Honour is quite correct, it was not done with intent. I should like to ask if that petition will now be returned to me . so that I can take it back to the community involved and have it properly executed? MR. SPEAKER: Certainly I would think that that can be done.

I can aP-preciate the difficulty of hon. members if they get a petition signed by quite a large number, twenty or thirty or forty people, and it is worded incorrectly. But, in this hon• House we have to go by the rules that are here. I cannot alter the rules. Certainly, as far as the hon. member is concerned, I see no reason why he cannot bring that petition in again, worded in the correct manner. I might also point out that petitions should be produced as originals signed by three members who are making the petition. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, there is a point of privilege on the floor and it has not been ruled on. I raised the point of privilege, there was some discussion, but it was never ruled on. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I thought I said No. 26 Rl334

'. there was no point of privilege. If I did not, I now rule that there is no point of privilege. MR. MORGAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: on a point of order, the hon. the member for Bonavista South. MR. MORGAN: I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that when a member of this House rises at any time to speak on a point of order that the person be permitted to make his point of order without interruption. A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I was standing on a point of order and was in the midst of trying to make my point of order when, Sir, with due respect to the Chair, I was interrupted by the Chair.

Surely, Sir, we are not going to have a House of Assembly in which we cannot, as individual members, make points of order when we feel we need to make them. That is the reason why I rose on a point of privilege, which takes precedence over a point of order. So, Sir, what I am saying is that, surely, any member of this House has a right at any time to stand arid raise a point of order on a matter he considers appropriate. In order for him to do that, he must be given ample time to put forward his point of order before a ruling is made, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I want to speak briefly to that. Obviously, any member of this House has a right to rise on a Ll335 5 June 1985 Vol XL point of order and to make his points. The supreme authority in this House is Your Honour. I appreciate what the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) says, that one has to be given ample time to develop his point of order. That is one thing. But there has to be somebody who decides whether what has been said constitutes a breach of privilege or a point of order. And from my understanding of it, that resides with the Speaker.

This is the only way in which the House can preclude itself from being tied up on points of order and points of privilege interminably, and the ultimate authority really is the Speaker. That is my assessment of the situation. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. I would like to assure all hon. members that I will hear them and I am obliged to hear them. But if a · point of order - and I am not referring to this one specifically - is drawn out too long, it is up to the Chair to decide on that matter.

Certainly, I will try to be absolutely fair and let every member have his point of view and will rule to the best of my ability in that matter. Are there any petitions? MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is now four o'clock. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It is now four o'clock and it is Private Members' Day. You can present your petition by leave. Does the hon. minister have leave No. 26 Rl335

to present his petition? SOME BON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by leave. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present an original petition. This is not a copy, it is an original petition. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh. MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is an original petition on behalf of some 350 people from the Marysvale - Georgetown area. In presenting this petition, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the hen.

House something that came to my attention only today, as a matter of fact, and that is that this petition I am presenting today, this original petition, was presented· last week. It was photostat copy that was presented last week by the member for Port de Grave (~. Efford). I might add that the photostat copy that was presented contains not one original signature except for the member for Port de Grave himself. So I consider that, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to be a serious breach of the rules of order in this House and the hen. gentleman from Port de Grave should be reprimanded for doing what he has done.

However, the hen. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is a new member and he is probably not familiar with the rules of the House. But be that as it may, I have been -Ll336 5 June 1985 Vol XL approached by the people Georgetown - MR. TULK: representatives of Marysvale A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: of and A point of order, the hen. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we have given the hen. gentleman leave to present a petition in this House, we did not give him leave to get up and lecture the member for Port de Grave. .

We will not sit in this House and take that and he can be assured right now leave is withdrawn. SOME BON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hen. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Oh, no, the hen. gentleman has given leave for the hearing of the petition of the hen. gentleman. MR. TOLK: It is withdrawn. MR. MARSHALL: Now having given leave you cannot withdraw it - MR. TOLK: Oh, yes, you can. MR. MARSHALL: - otherwise, Mr. Speaker, God help us. The hen. gentleman stands in this House and speaks at the fiat of the hen. member.

No. 26 Rl336

MR. TULK: When leave is given, correct. MR. MARSHALL : -. that is In other words, if the hon. gentlemen likes what he is saying, they can go on. If the hon. gentlemen opposite agree to what he is saying, he can go on. Sure that is not acceptable. MR. TULK: No, Mr. Speaker, nonsense. MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please. Leave has been withdrawn. Orders of the Day MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): This is Private Members' Day. The hon. the member for Fogo. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. TULK: Thank you for getting to the fact that I am at last allowed to present this motion. Mr.

Speaker, let me say, first of all, that it is a pleasure for me, as a member of this side of the House and, indeed, as a member of this Legislature, to present this resolution calling upon everybody in this House to reaffirm the policy that we have developed in this House of an all-plants-open policy. It is a pleasure because fisheries in this Province has always been a priority on this side. Our first policy positions have always been put forward on the fisheries. As Ll337 5 June 1985 Vol XL a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is usually the case that our first Private Members' Bill on the Order Paper, as soon as there is an opening of a new session, deals with fishery matters. This time we said, 'Let us drop it to second place in the hope that the government who has no intention, apparently, of dealing with the fishery, would, at least, put their first motion down, their private members' motion on the fishery.' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we saw the wishy-washiness and the conversion of the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) as he praised the government about its policy on Churchill Falls.

That same member, last year, was, of course, over here, berating the present government on its stance on Churchill Falls and the records of this House will show that. They chose not to put anything on fisheries, Mr. Speaker. The government has taken the route that it has always taken. It has mouthed platitudes about fisheries. We have heard the Premier stand up and issue motherhood statements about fisheries but when it comes to concrete action and when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, nothing happens. That has not changed over the past five or six years.

It wa~ the same last year as it is this year. It was the same regardless of what minister occupied that portfolio. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be repeated, the fishery is very important to Newfoundland. It is the lifeblood of this Province. Everything starts and ends with the fishery. As the member for Gander (Mr. Baker) or the member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward) and, I suppose, any members from No. 26 Rl337

St. • John' s will tell you, that once the fishery starts to go downhill, then the whole economic life of this Province goes down hill. It is part of our history. It belongs to us, it is in our blood, it is part of our culture and, indeed, it is part of our society. That is particularly true, Mr. Speaker, of the out port way of life in this Province for it would die without the fishery being there, without that fishery being developed in the way that it should be developed. You would expect, Mr.

Speaker, that being the case, that the government of the Province would give it a high priority and place it high on its priority list of development. But is that the case with this government? The answer is clearly, no. The member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) would do much better by encouraging his government to make fisheries a priority rather than going into committees and calling the teachers of _ this Province hooligans and what else·was it? MR. PATTERSON: ·Are you a teacher? MR. TULK: Of course I am a teacher and proud of it. MR. PATTERSON: Were you a teacher? MR. TULK: Of course, and I am proud of it. MR.

PATTERSON: Then the same thing applies to you. MR. TULK: There you go, see, look at the nastiness. ~ Ll338 5 June 1985 Vol XL MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Greening); The hon. member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: We do not have a quorum in the House and the Whip on the government side is more interested in talking about hooligans than keeping his members in the House. We do not have·a quorum, we are on a very important topic. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Quorum Call MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, if you look at what this government undertakes to do in its .budgetary process, it is obvious that it does not put its money where its mouth is with regard to the fishery. For example, if you look at the budget, as we have noted so often in Committee and in this House, you will notice that less 1 per cent of the total budget of this Province is used in the development of the fisheries. Now the (Mr. w. member Carter) for Twillingate yesterday evening made a very important point to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Rideout) and you will note that even when we are on a fisheries question that the Minister of Fisheries chooses to duck out of his seat and either go to some political meeting or, at least, he disappears from the House and that shows the interest of the government again. · It has been a No. 26 Rl338

political football for them. Now, Mr. Speaker, the member for Twillingate yesterday evening' made a very important point in speaking on the excessive processing capacity that is supposed, and I use that word guardedly, that is supposed to exist in Newfoundland. He made the point that indeed there may be no overprocessing capacity at all in this Province-- and, indeed, we had an indication of it today that at least at certain times of the years, in the glut season, that we cannot even handle the fish that we have.

The member for Twillingate went on to point out, that it would do well for government members to listen to the argument that the member for Twillingate put forward, he went on to point out that our problems are perhaps more in the marketing aspect of our fishery and more in the secondary processing that takes place in this Province than they are in overprocessing capacity. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to address another problem that I have addressed in this House before and that is this idea of surplus stocks, and I use the words ·very carefully.

We will hear the government come into this House, and we will hear the federal government, regardless of whether that federal government is Liberal or PC, we will hear the federal government talk about the fact that they are giving surplus stocks to foreign countries. Now what does that word "surplus" mean? Why are those stocks that are off our shores, those fishery stocks, called surplus? Surely we are not going to - does the member for Port au Port want to come on back? Surely we are not going to Ll339 5 June 1985 Vol XL ..... believe that we cannot handle that fish.

But yet that is what the very term "surplus stocks" says, we cannot handle that fish , so we are giving away fish to foreigners that we say is surplus to our needs. Now what an admission of failure. MR. PATTERSON: Who started doing that? The Liberals started that, Trudeau. MR. TULK: The narrow, the member Patterson) buttoned-down mind of for Placentia (Mr. has shown itself again. I do not care if it was Trudeau, if it was Mulroney, if it was Lester Pearson. MR. PATTERSON: You would have done better to talk about it when Trudeau was in power. MR. TULK: Oh yes.

Where have the member Where you for have you been? been? Where has Placentia been? Has he been hiding somewhere? If he would stay in this House, listen - MR. PATTERSON: (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please! MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that violent attack from Placentia is about - MR. BAIRD: And I agree with him, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: Old landslide is into it. The next thing you know now there will be something thrown across the House again. You should be quiet because the next time you may hit me. No. 26 Rl339

~ But, Mr. Speaker,'* to get back to what I was saying, I do not care if it was John A. MacDonald who adopted that policy, the fact that it was adopted does not make it right today. It did not make it right when it was adopted and it does not make it right today. So let the member for Placentia open up his mind, get it opened up so that we can put something into it, some wisdom. He is an old man and he should be wise. One wonders when one hears the words that comes out of his mouth sometimes whether he is or not.

We know he .is upset that the Premier will not put him in the Cabinet, we know all about that, he is terribly upset and I do not blame him. I do not blame him. He should have been in the Cabinet a long time ago. Then perhaps he would have opened up his mind, indeed he might have. He is a great gentleman outside of the House, but when he gets in here, all of his nastiness that he should be taking on the Premier of the Province and the government of which he is a part, he tries to throw across here. Slime and mud, the man who calls teacher hooligans, what else did he call them? AN HON. MEMBER : Terrorists. MR.

TULK: Terrorists. Was it terrorists he called them? But in any case, Mr. Speaker, let me get back to my original point that there is absolutely no way in this Province that we should be considering stocks surplus. Surely a country that has been in the fishery for the years that this Province has been in the fishery should have developed the technology to harvest that fish • Ll340 5 June 1985 'Vol XL and process it. Mr. Speaker, we do not catch that fish, as I said, because of our inability in marketing and secondary processing technology. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let us ask the government a very important question, let us ask the member for Placentia a very important question. How much is his government, which stands on a record of supporting the fi'shery, making motherhood statements about the fishery, how much is his government spending this year on marketing? Does the member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) know? MR. PATTERSON: Well, last year we put $40 million in the inshore fishery. MR. TULK: I am asking you a question. How much? Does he know? Well, I will tell him. MR.

PATTERSON: And I will tell you it was your leader who put Fishery Products into bankruptcy when he was fronting for the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Liberal leader. MR. TULK: This year in the estimates - is he going to on like that or do I have to ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker? He is frightening me to death, over there. I am shivering. How much money did his government put into marketing this year? Let me tell him - $331,500, big deal - in our most important industry. How much did they put into improving our processing capabilities? - $492,400.

Let me ask him if there is any subhead in those estimates for technologieal No. 26 Rl340

development? Is there? No. Not a word. That used to be there a couple of years ago, when the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) was Minister of Fisheries. Is it there this year? No. Nothing! So is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we have a fishery in the state that it is in today? Is it any wonder that we are giv~~g away fish when our own government, the people who are supposed to be primarily concerned with the fishery, sit back, do nothing, and let everything slide by the board? Mr.

Speaker, one other point: If there is any area that we have noticed this government neglecting in the last couple of months and using as a political football, and playing around with their political buddies in Ottawa, then certainly it is in the area of fisheries. I do not need to go into that, it is well-known: we saw it again this afternoon when the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). When he cannot get back to the former Liberal Government, then he will accuse us of politics and hide behind smoke screens. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the real action we see from this government is the Premier making all sorts of motherhood statements, and we have all kinds of examples of them. I think I have one here somewhere. Yes, here it is, this thing called a discussion paper on major bilateral issues - Canada and Newfoundland. That has been printed by the propaganda machine upon the eighth floor about one million times. That has been passed around. You read that at least three of four times a year, the same kind of statement, with Ll341 5 June 1985 Vol XL ....

PC blue all over the place, with the Premier's only claim to fame, the new flag, on it. You will get that at least three or four times a year, virtually a motherhood statement which is reprinted over and over and over. If that does not work for the Premier politically, then he will start lambasting. He spent the last three or four years lambasting a former federal Liberal government. Now, what do we see? We see an extreme quiet on the part of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) and the Premier. They do not send their little telexes from the eight floor any more, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr.

Ottenheimer) puts a little note on draft copies to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) and says, 'By letter, not telex.' Slow down the process, give the issues time to go away. Mr. Speaker, do we get the same kind of headlines now from the provincial Fisheries Minister that we used to get from the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) when he was Minister of Fisheries? 'Morgan wants meeting with federal minister.' 'Potential crisis looming in the fishery.' 'Morgan unhappy with the fishing plan.' Presumably he was speaking for the government.

We have not heard this Minister of Fisheries stand up and say anything about the fishing plan, which has not substantially changed, if at all: if anything we are probably giving away more fish. 'Morgan angry over Northern cod quota' - another headline. Any anger being expressed now through the media over there? No, Mr. Speaker, not a word. 'Morgan raps Nova Scotia on cod stock policy. ' 'Peckford denounces federal cod quotas. 1 No. 26 Rl341

Now, Mr. Speaker, is that the k1nd of enthusiasm we are seeing over there now about the Newfoundland fishery? Absolutely not. MR. TOBIN: I have the headlines too. MR. TULK: You will get a chance to speak. Just be quite. You do not need to be brought to order now for being unruly in the House, you can make your maiden speech · when you are ready. The only thing that has changed in the policy of this government toward the fishery is that they are now the quietest people that we ever saw in Newfoundland, and, Mr. Speaker, there is a very good reason for that. There has been a change of government in Ottawa.

They are now the handmaidens of Ottawa, as the government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) use to look over here and call us. They are now the handmaidens of Ottawa, they are now toeing the party line. I see that the member for Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) is ready to jump up over there and go to town. I hope he does, ·because if he does he will . get up and support a government, again, that has no policy on the fishery and has really nothing to say about the fishery anyway. Now, Mr.

Speaker, after making those general comments about why we introduced the resolution, let me speak to some of the specifics in this resolution, and I want to speak, first of all, to the first two Whereases:

WHEREAS all parties in this hon. House have formerly had an all plants open policy~ and - that is a correct statement, there is no • Ll342 5 June 1985 Vol XL doubt about that -

WHEREAS the Government adopted such a policy during the negotiation of the Restructuring Agreement~ and - there is no doubt about that, the government did adopt that policy. Well, I want to tell the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons), who at the time was in Ottawa, that he is right, and the member for Burin - Placentia West knows this, he is right when he says that - my time is gone already, Mr. Speaker? MR. FLIGHT: And you making such an excellent speech. MR.

TULK: The member for Burin Placentia West knows this, that when this whole issue developed, the Premier started off in this Province by admitting that certain plants might have to close. It was not any member on this side, nor it was not any federal member in Ottawa who was in front of the television cameras talking about the negative fallout that might exist. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. - TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just got notice that I had five more minutes. Is there something wrong? MR. SPEAKER: My watch is wrong. Carry on. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, you mean you are going to interrupt me when I am just getting into full flight? He knows that the Premier was in Ottawa on January 3 spouting out No. 26 Rl342

that kind of thing after meetings with federal officials, that there may very well have to be some negative fallout, that there may very well have to be some plants closed. That was January 3, 1983. Where did this all-plants-open policy come from in Newfoundland? Well, the member for Burin Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) knows full well where it came from. It came from a combination of two groups of people.

The people on the South Coast of this Province, who were determined that their fish plants would stay opened, and in November of 1982, when the Premier was still making those statements about plants would have to . close, it came from the Opposition side of this House. Hansard will show that. I know the member for Burin - Placentia West, when he gets up, will admit that those are the series of events that took place. We saw the Premier in January in Ottawa making points that the plants would have to close. In November the Opposition of this Province was saying no.

And the Premier recognized after the People's Conference in Holiday Inn that this was a good political issue, that it was a good political stance for him to take, to have an all-plants-open policy. So, what does he do? I think that meeting took place on March 25, 1983 and I believe that the Premier walked into this House - you can check the numbers - walked into this House on March 26, 1983 and that was the first time that we heard from the Premier of the Province, March 26, 1983, that he was now adopting an all-plants-open policy. That was the very first time that that was said.

I think it was March 25 or 26, 1983. Ll343 5 June 1985 Vol XL Now, what do we see~ Is it any wonder that the Premier, through sending those differen t signals to Ottawa, on top of having his Fisheries Minister up there making deals and the Premier vetoing them, is it any wonder that we ended up with an agreement in September of 1983 that was less than satisfactory, and we pointed that out at the time. It was less than satisfactory for the Newfoundland fishery. The Premier on one occasion, when he signed it, called it 'the greatest agreement since Confederation.' In -this Session of the House, I believe - Mr.

Speaker, will remember this because he pays attention to everything that is said in the House - the Premier in this particular Session of the House rose and said he was forced into that deal. So what we have here is the Premier has been sending all kinds of conflicting signals to people he is negotiating with and he ended up with a deal that was less than desirable. One of the policies in that deal - and, Mr. Speaker, I think my time is just about up and I am probably going to end and let that master mind from Burin Placentia West (Mr.

Tobin) stand up in his .place and defend his government - but the Premier has on occasion adopted an all-plants-open policy. When ·it suits him, he will allow FPI or the federal government or whoever happens to be around at the time, to close down plants. Now, I ask all of the members on the other side to stand and support this, I know they will, they will not be offended by the fact that the word 'Liberal' is in there, surely, because it was a Liberal policy in this Province that there be an all-plants-open policy. It was first delivered by ... No. 26 Rl343

-- ---- ------- · -- - the Liberal party in this Province. MR. PATTERSON: Delivered with treachery. MR. TULK: It is treachery?- MR. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. TULK: To keep all the plants open? MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please! The hon. members time has elapsed. MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak to this resolution that is put before the House today by the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) • I can honestly say, Mr.

Speaker, that as the member for Fogo was putting forth the resolution he tried to give credit for the all-plants-open policy to the Liberal party. Well, Mr. Speaker, have we ever heard it. The Liberal party in this Province, the Liberal party in this country, the Liberal government of the day and the House Leader for the Opposition, acting Leader today I would assume, knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party in this country and the Liberal government of the day have one policy as it related to the opening of the plants in this Province and that, Mr. Speaker, Ll344 5 June 1985 Vol XL was to close them.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I just want the member for Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) - and I promise him I will not interrupt him too many times - but I just wimt him to see if he can point out the difference to this House - and then perhaps there will be some intellectual honesty in what he is saying - point out the difference in this House between the Liberal party in Ottawa, the Liberal party in New Brunswick and the Liberal party in Newfoundland. Does he know there is a difference, that we are free minds down here?

Does he know that? Has he not recognized that yet? MR. TOBIN: To that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr. To that point of order, the hon. - the member for Burin - Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: The only difference I know is that this group here followed the Liberal government in Ottawa. MR. SPEAKER: There 1s no point of order. The hon. the member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the hon. gentlemen that No. 26 Rl344

the Liberal party in this Province stood foursquare behind the Liberal party in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. They stood foursquare behind Mr. De Bane when on July 4, 1983 at a press conference in St. John's. What did he say about plants, Mr. Speaker, about the district that I represent? Probably, Mr. Speaker, the bon. gentleman would like to know what he said. I will tell you what he said. AN HON. MEMBER: What did De Bane say? MR. TOLK: I do not care what he said. AN BON. MEMBER: You supported him •. MR. TULK: No, I did not. MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the hon. member did. MR. TOLK: No, I did not.

He was a kissing cousin with the member ~or Bonavista South {Mr. Morgan), remember? MR. TO BIN : He said, 'If management decides to merge Burin with Marystown, Grand Bank with Fortune, not reopen St. Lawrence, and a labour adjustment package including early retirement- MR. TULK: I would put Mr. De Bane on a raft and let him drift to England, or Ireland, or wherever. He was the kissing cousin of the member for Bonavista South. MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, what else did he say?

They came down here, the Ll345 5 June 1985 Vol XL federal Liberal government, the ~ crowd bon. members opposite supported, talking about all plants open as it relates to the restructuring agreement in this Province. Well, I guess we got to deal with the restructuring agreement when it was put in place. And Mr. De Bane came down here and said how happy he was to come down and deal with the issue, the issue, Mr. Speaker, that put Burin down the tubes, that put Grand Bank down the tubes. That was the issue they were so happy about. Where was St. Lawrence going? It was never to be reopened again. MR.

TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Gree ni ng): A point of order, the bon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I do not believe the member for Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) is intentionally misleading this House, I do not believe that at all, but for him to stand over on that side and suggest that the Opposition of the day was · in agreement with the federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. De Bane, when, in fact, the kissing cousin of the federal Minister of Fisheries at the time was the member for Bonavista South (Mr.

Morgan) , who happened to be the provincial Minister of Fisheries at that time, is misleading this House, Mr. Speaker. I know he is not doing it intentionally, but he is misleading the House and I have to point it out to him. I think it is out of ignorance that he is doing it, ignorance in the sense that he does not have the knowledge, rather than any desire to do that. No. 26 Rl345 •

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, does the truth hurt the hon. member for Does the truth ever hurt. MR. TULK: ever Fogo. No, No. When you tell the truth, I will sit here quietly. MR. TOBIN: He was going to open Ramea, Gaultois and Harbour Breton, merge Burin with Marystown and merge Grand Bank with Fortune. Now, does that not mean the closure of Burin? MR. TULK: Who was? MR. TOBIN: The federal Liberal government. MR. TULK: De Bane? MR. TOBIN: You were part and parcel to it. MR. TULK: No, no, no. We disagreed with him violently. MR.

TOBIN: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, when they used to vote against the resolutions that were brought to the floor of this House to condemn him for it. What else did he say? MR. TULK: You go back now and check Hansard, November 23, 1982. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Ll346 5 June 1985 Vol XL Order, please! MR. TOBIN: What else did he say? He said, 'The agreement also ensures that employees who lost their jobs as a result of plant mergers and could not find re-employment in the fisheries' - and what was going to happen to St. Lawrence? - 'and the employees at St.

Lawrence, which would remain closed, would receive severance pay.• Now, 'which would remain closed,' Mr. Speaker, I Which WOUld remain ClOSed I I that is what the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) did, aided and abetted by the party opposite on July 4, 1983. Mr. Speaker, probably the hon. member would like to know what the people of Burin said about the restructuring people of agreement, the district the I represent. "It is a monster." That is what they said about it. What did the clergy say, Mr. Speaker?

Reverend Chaulk, a very great, respectable and distinguished gentleman on the Burin Peninsula, said he was disgusted that Mr. De Bane did not announce the reopening of the Burin Plant. "It is utterly unbelievable- that the federal government is leaving the decision on the future of the plant to the new management." He agrees with Mr. Peckford's position. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he agrees with Premier Peckford's position that 'the plant should have been allowed to operate for a three-year period before any decision on further operations would be made.• Mr.

Speaker, that is what the people of the South Coast said when the Liberal Party of this Province was standing foursquare behind the Liberal Party and Government of Canada. When they No. 26 Rl346

were putting the shaft to 6,000 Newfoundlanders on the South Coast, that is where the hon. gentlemen opposite stood. But that is not where this party stood. Because on June 30 the Premier of this Province finally had to make known the position of the provincial government as a result of the action or inaction of the Federal Liberal Government of the day, the federal government that did not want to keep all plants open. What did the Premier have to say? This was on June 30.

He said, "The provincial government presented its submission to the Federal Cabinet Committee on Fisheries Restructuring which contained an all-plants-open policy for this Province." That was the position as it relates to the restructuring agreement of the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, what else did the Premier have to say that day? "After several months of negotiations, the Province and the federal government have now arri ved at an impasse insofar as plan t utilization is concerned." Mr. Speaker, why was there an imp asse as a result of plant utilization?

It was because the Premier of this Province and the government which he leads could not agree with the actions of the federal Liberal Government in closing plants such as Burin, in closing plants such as Grand Bank, in closing plants such as St. Lawrence, to put the locks on these doors and say to the people who were employed there, We are going to do what? - "We are going to give you your salary for one year." Mr. Speaker, is that not utterly despicable? Now, Mr.

Speaker, he went on to Ll347 5 June 1985 Vol XL say, 'As position offshore I have indicated, our has been that all plants currently operating in this Province should remain open. ' MR. DINN: Who said that? MR. TOBIN: The Premier of this Province. That is what he said, "We believe that each and every one should be given at least a chance, at least an opportunity to demonstrate their viability that no plant,' and I repeat 1 Mr. Speaker, ' that no plant should be arbitrarily closed without a reasonable chance to succeed an achieved profitability. ' Now, Mr. Speaker, what was the position of the federal government?

The position of the federal government was to remain adamant that two plants, the plant in Burin and the plant in Grand Bank should not have a future. Now that is what the Liberal government wanted, that is what the gentlemen opposite wanted, that ~s the philosophy of the party in this Province that you served and are now part of. And the member for Gander (Mr. Baker) should not smile at the fact that people are going to be thrown on the unemployment roles. He 1 Mr. Speaker, has gone through it, I am sure, in Gander as a member of the council, and it is certainly a very serious matter.

The plant in Burin and the plant in Grand Bank should not have a future. They were proposing, Mr. Speaker, that the future of Grand Bank should be decided upon by the management of a new company to be established after restructuring. At that time the provincial government's position was that all No. 26 Rl347

plants should remain open. And, Mr. Speaker, the government of this Province, even to try and accommodate, to try, at that point in time, to have the federal government come at least within the scope of solving the problem, at least within the scope of having an agreement, Mr. Speaker, that could be put forward whereby Newfoundlanders on the South Coast could continue to be employed. MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I heard about him. As a matter of fact about twenty years ago I had a little crackie who ran away and I never saw him until after April 2.

The bon. gentleman was part of this party that wanted to put the shaft to Newfoundlanders. As I was saying, the provincial government went so far as to suggest to the federal government, 'change your attitude, forget the fact that you want to close Burin, Grand Bank, and St. Lawrence, forget it. Let us at least give them a chance , let us give them a three-year period to see what they can do.' No, Mr. Speaker, the federal government would not hear of it, and on July 4 Mr. De Bane totally came out, disassociated himself from what the Premier had said, walked into St.

John's, said how happy he was to be here, and that the great contribution he was going to make to the Newfoundland fishing industry, the great contribution was to announce that Burin would be closed and that 500 jobs would be down the tube, that Grand Bank would be closed and another 500 jobs would be down the tube, and nothing at all for St. Ll348 5 June 1985 Vol XL Lawrence. Now, Mr. Speaker, today I checked with Fishery Products in Burin, and as a result of the Premier of this Province's effort, and nobody but the Premier of this Province can accept responsibility for it, Mr.

Speaker, the secondary processing and the refit going to Burin, nobody but the Premier of this Province. I hear the bon. gentleman for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), all you want to do is fight with Ottawa, you are not interested in the fishery. That was the cover of supporting the actions of the federal government. Well, Mr. Speaker, today in Burin, I think, it is 223 people that are on the pay roll. MR. TULK A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: I think the world of the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr.

Tobin) , I think he trys his best to convince himself that what he is saying is right. But I ask him to go back to a certain day in November, 1982 when th.i:s bon. member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) stood in this Bouse - it is in Hansard. Be can read, and if he cannot I will read it to him, and see who took the position that every plant in this Province had to be open. Now, for his own education, Mr. Speaker, call him to order and ask him to do that. I will supply him · with Hansard if he cannot find it himself. DR. COLLINS: To that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Minister of Finance, to No. 26 Rl348

that point of order. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite clearly made such a poor speech, when he was up on his feet before, that he feels he did not get his points in, so now he feels that he has to interrupt the right of another hon. member to make his point. I would say that there is no point of order and that the bon. member should be reprimanded, both for the bad speech he made, and secondly, for interrupting another member. MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The bon. member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: Newfoundland's care bear should know that what I was trying to do, and he is a jolly, good-looking fellow, he is a poor Finance Minister, he should know - MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) MR. TULK: Would the glare from Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) be quite? He should know that what I was trying to do, and what the House has a right to have done to it, on a point of order I rose to correct the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) and ask him not to keep pounding his desk. I will show him Hansard where he should be corrected. Do not go making political speeches, get up and say something sensible. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. Ll349 5 June 1985 Vol XL The hon. member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN:: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Premier of this Province on several occasions and, I think, one occasion was' March 23, 1983, and on another occasion he went public on June 30, 1983. What did he say, Mr. Speaker? MR. TULK: Go back to November, 1982. MR. TOBIN: Okay, but what did the Premier say? For example, I have proof here of what he said on June 30, 1983, and that was simple.

He said he had indicated our position to the £ederal government and that position was that we believed that each and every plant should be given at least a chance, at least an opportunity to demonstrate their viability, that no plant should be arbitrarily closed without a reasonable chance to succeed and achieve profitability. Is that not, Mr. Speaker, a policy of all-plants-open by this government? MR. TULK: I said that. MR. TOBIN: Okay, you are agreeing that that is the policy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Greening) : Order, please! MR. TOBIN: The member for Fogo (Mr.

Tulk) has agreed that on June 30, 1983, Mr. Speaker, this government had an all-plants-open policy. On July 4, 1983, just four days later, the No. 26 Rl349

federal minister, Mr. De Bane, came in here and said, 'The future of the plants at Grand Bank, Burin and St. Lawrence will be decided by a management board and the new company and the plants will remain closed at this particular point in time. ' Now, what is that? Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that -on June 30, 1983 this government's position was made perfectly clear that we wanted all plants open. On July 3, 1983, the federal Liberal minister came into this city and announced the closure of three or four plants. That resolution, Mr. Speaker, is something else!

I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson), that all words after the first 'Whereas ' be deleted and replaced by the following: "WHEREAS the government adopted an all-plants-open policy during the negotiations of the restructuring agreement;. and

WHEREAS fish plants are most often the sole means of the economic survival of fishing communities and the foundation of their social fabric; · and

WHEREAS it is necessary to provide time for fish plants to prove their economic viability through the restructuring process; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House commend the present administration for adopting a policy ensuring that all fish plants covered in the agreement remain open." SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Ll350 5 June 1985 Vol XL Now, that amendment, Mr. Speaker, is certainly in keeping with the resolution as put forth by the hon. member. MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): On a point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR.

TULK: I think Your Honour is perhaps going to need some time to make a ruling on whether the member has changed the intent of the motion. MR. FLIGHT: And he obviously has. MR. TULK: He obviously has dickered with it and tried to. Mr. Speaker, let me make a point to him: I do not mind commending his government as long as they adopt that all-plants-open policy and as long as we hear them stand up foursquare and say, 'Yes, we do.• Mr. Speaker, I would say the amendment is out of order because it changes the whole intent of the policy.

The policy was stated by this party and we are asking the government to support that. When they do, we will commend them. You may need some time, Mr. Speaker, to rule as to whether or not it is out of order. MR. TOBIN: To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Mr. To that point of order, the hon. the member for Burin - Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: There is certainly no point of No. 26 Rl350

order. The point of the motion, Mr. Speaker, that was put forth by the hon. the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), was that this administration adopt the policy of ensuring that all fish plants in the Province were open. Now, Mr. Speaker, throughout what I had to say in the debate, it was clearly indicated from all the statements issued that this government already has a policy, the restructuring agreement. The policy is there that all plants must remain open. That clearly indicates that what the bon. member was suggesting has been done and that means , Mr.

Speaker, that the amendment is certainly in order, the intent has not changed the motion whatsoever. It is certainly in order and I present it, Mr. Speaker, to the House. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I will reserve my ruling until tomorrow. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we certainly respect your ruling in this regard, but I do not think it would be out of order, against or at the least, in precedent any of way this House, if Your recess for just perhaps would wording of the certainly have that approach. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker.

Honour wished to a few moments and just inspect the motion. We would no problems with MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. the member for Fortune - Ll351 5 June 1985 Vol XL Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: I clearly heard the Deputy Speaker say that he was reserving on this matter until tomorrow. The only intervening development was an interjection by the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) , which had the effect of questioning Your decision. But, that aside, his suggestion was that you recess and then suddenly I hear the Chair indicate it is going to recess. Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that your first decision was a good one and I would urge you to preserve the impression of impartiality of the Chair to go with your first decision and not be intimidated by the gentleman from St. John • s South (Dr. Collins) • There is no urgency, we do not have to vote on this matter until next Wednesday. It has no implications for the time of the gentleman from. Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin), so we can proceed and we can await, with bated breath for your decision tomorrow, but there is no need for you to appear to be intimidated by the gentleman for St. John's South. DR.

COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I believe I rose on a point of order and I am not sure if Your Honour has ruled on my point of order. I understand that the hon. member opposite rose on another point of order which I do not think is quite proper until the point of order that I rose was fully disposed of. In my point of order I

preambled No. 26 Rl351

my remarks by saying I was not questioning the Chair in any way whatsoever. What I was doing, I was bringing forward a suggestion that if Your Honour wished to recess for a few moments to consider the wording of the motion - this is no~, in any way, against your original ruling - but if you wished to recess for ·· a few moments to consider the wording of the motion, we on this side would have no objection. That was the sum total of my point of order. 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, the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) did, indeed, rise on another point of order and he was right in doing so because Your Honour had already made a ruling that. -you would reserve your ruling until tomorrow. It was a good ruling, perfectly acceptable to this side and you have the right to do that. Then the Finance Minister (Dr. Collins), the member for St.

John's South, rose in his place and, in essence, questioned whether he should have made that ruling or not and as the member for Fortune - Hermitage said, you do not have to be bullied by the Finance Minister over there, who is not good at anything anyway. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. TULK: He already said that he would reserve his ruling. Ll352 5 June 1985 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair will recess and make a ruling this afternoon and, if need be, I will repeat it again tomorrow. MR. SIMMONS: Bullied again. Recess MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair has ruled that the amendment to the motion is in order. The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I want, first of all, to congratulate my esteemed colleague from Fogo (Mr. Tulk) for having the foresight to put down this motion, a motion that incorporates good Liberal policy. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to have a close look given that it took ten minutes of our valuable time for the Chair to decide if the motion was in order.

I am sure the motion required some scrutiny on the part of all members before they rush in to support it or to oppose it. I would want to have a look at the wisdom embodied in the amendment put down by my friend from Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Tobin). In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I shall plunge on to say, first of all, that I found rather interesting what the gentleman No. 26 Rl352

from Burin - Placentia West was saying on the subject of plants being opened and who was for it and who was against it. In particular, and perhaps in this respect I help him to make his point, I have no difficulty doing that. He needs all the help he can get, but he, at two or three points in his speech, he kept saying, "And what was the policy of · the Federal Liberal Government?" These were the essence of the words he put out several times, what was the policy, and he would scream into the microphone that it was the policy of the Federal Liberal Government to have plants closed. Many times he said that.

He said it in this Chamber, and he said it outside this Chamber, so we can only believe that he believes that to be the case. Now, Mr. Speaker, he quoted at length from a number of documents and missals that the Premier has sent up to Ottawa. I thought it passing strange that he omitted to quote from one document in particular, a document that for him would be most instructive because it would put the lie to his newspeak approach. You know Orwell, Mr. Speaker, Orwell's book 1984, how e.verybody was to mouth the official · line no matter how big a lie it was.

But in that vien I find the gentleman from Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) engaging in newspeak because, Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that the gentleman from Burin Placentia West, and others on the government side, do not pay more attention to one of their government's own documents, a document that I regard almost as my bible on the fishery. I refer to a document dated May 5, 1983 entitled, 'Restructuring the Fishery, a Detailed Presentation Ll353 5 June 1985 Vol XL by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to the Government of Canada, • and that document in commendable detail, Mr.

Speaker, in commendable detail, sets out the problems facing the fishery at that time, May '83, and incredibly they have not altered appreciably since then, but it addresses the issue of resource utilization and the processing sector ·and marketing and allocations and so on and so forth. What I find of particular interest in the document, in terms of what has been said by the gentleman from Burin-Placentia West, are a couple of sentences on pages fifteen and sixteen of the document.

On page fifteen the authors of this document, and I assume it had the endorsation of the Premier because it was sent with a letter from him to the Prime Minister of Canada of the day, Mr. Trudeau, and the document on page fifteen points out that Price Waterhouse had predicated their figures on five existing plants being closed, the plants at Grand Bank, Burin, Gaultois, Fermeus e and St. Lawrence.

Price Waterh ouse, the Toronto firm that had be e> engaged by the task force to do some studies had predicated their deliberations on five plants being closed, and the document from the Government of Newfoundland correctly reflects that point. But then, Mr. Speaker, on page sixteen: here is a statement that I wished the gentleman from Burin-Placentia West would have had the courage to quote, and it should not take an awful lot of courage, Mr. Speaker, to quote from a document put out by the government which you support, dated May 5, 1983. Here is what the Government of Newfoundland is No. 26 Rl353

saying to the Government of Canada on May 5, not only the month but the day is important because I will mention a couple of other days in that month shortly, on May 5, 1983 the Government of Newfoundland is saying to the Government of Canada, and t quote directly from the document, "We were encouraged to learn that, · notwithstanding the Price Waterhouse analysis, the Government of Canada has no fixed po·sition with respect to plant closures.

We understand that the federal government is prepared to give consideration to various means whereby an effort can be made to upgrade as necessary and to continue the operation of marginal plants through a joint effort by all parties." Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the Government of Newfoundla~d saying that on May 5, 1983 it understood, and remember that at this particular point in time it was much excited about attacking the federal government at every turn, it said very few good words about the federal government on any particular subject, but here is a document, Mr.

Speaker, in which the Government of Newfoundland is quite candid is saying, 'We understand the Government of Canada not only has no fixed position on plant closures but is prepared to enter into an effort to keep those plants open.' That is what the Government of Newfoundland is admitting to be the position of the federal government on May 5. Now, Mr. Speaker, how can the gentleman from Burin-Placentia West, and others on that side, stand with straight faces and go on with this nonsense about some great big plot to close down fish plants? Ll354 5 June 1985 Vol XL MR. DINN: DeBane did it. MR. SIMMONS: Now, Mr.

Speaker, I hear the gentleman from Pleasantville remind us of Mr. DeBane, who was the Fisheries Minister at this particular time. Well there were a couple of Fisheries Ministers at this particular time, one was by the name of DeBane, the other I am not supposed to mention by name, I will mention him by riding, he is the member in this Bouse for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan), and on May 5, Mr. Speaker, this is the understanding of the provincial government of the federal government's position. Now, I take you two days later, May 7, because on that day . those two ministers sat down and they signed a piece of paper.

You have to assume that they were doing it on a mandate from their respective governments to negotiate. I understand in recent conversations with the former Minister of Fisheries, (Mr. Morgan) , the gentleman for Bonavista South that, indeed, was the case, and I would be surprised if it was not the case. Be was the full-fledged Minister of Fisheries in the administration, as was Mr. De Bane on the federal side.

So two days after this document is p;epared, or is dated, at least, the two ministers on behalf of their respective governments signed an agreement, an agreement, which among other things, provides for the closure of some plants. Now, Mr. Speaker, if, not by my here say, but if by the statement of the Government of Newfoundland, one of the parties, it admits freely that if it knows the other No. 26 Rl354

party the Government of Canada has no dark plot to close plants on May 5, what can you construe from the fast that two days later representatives of those two governments, this government and the one in Ottawa signed a document agreeing to the closure of certain plants? You can only construe that the two governments entered, coming at it really from the same motivation that, where possible, they would keep plants open.

You can only construe that both of them coming at it from that motivation and with that objective in mind, made an agreement which their ministers judged to be within the mandate given them by their respective governments. Now we all know what my position on the issue was. We know what the gentleman for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) position was. Let us put the politics aside. He was not out aiding and abetting the process. He was not saying, let us close down Burin. I was not saying, let us close down Burin.

We both represented the same consti tutents in different orders of government, I federal, and he provincial. But there is no need of a lot of partisan nonsense on this because , he was doing his best, as I understood it, to ensure that the plant was kept open. I _was doing my best. But two ministers went into a room with a mandate to negotiate. And what came out the other end was as unacceptable to me, as I believe it was to the gentleman for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin). Then we know what transpired sinceG We know that there were subsequent initiatives to keep those plants open for an interim period.

Ll355 5 June 1985 Vol XL Now, Mr. Speaker, the government in Ottawa is changed. The tone of urgency of the fish plant issue has been wound down, it does not have the urgency it seems to have had any more with those governments. We heard all of the rhetoric about how those plants had to stay open or else. Now we are hearing that somehow FPI is going to make all of the decisions. Well, Mr. Speaker, I give notice for our side here that we are not going to stand by and let FPI make decisions which fly in the face of the spirit of that particular agreement.

That agreement was hard won by people on both sides, irrespective of the partisan politics involved. It is an agreement that reflects the needs of parts of this Province which depend heavily on fish plants, and I am thinking of communi ties like Ramea, Harbour Breton, Gaultois, and so many other communities that I could mention, where the social reason was written into the agreement as the justification for keeping those plants open, if everything else failed. If economic viability •,mre not a sufficient criterion for keeping them open, they ought to be kept open for other reasons.

I stand by that, and the agreement is foursquare behind that. And we cannot, Mr. Speaker, under any circumstances allow a dismantling of that agreement. And while I say that, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the present Provincial Government has allowed some dismantling of it. I know and I appreciate the sentiments of the newly appointed Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). I think his heart is in the right place on this one. I do not say that in any condescending No. 26 Rl355

way. I think his heart is in the right place on this one and I think his head is in the right place on tnis one. But I say to him that he is going to come to the same grief that his predecessors before him have come to, not because of lack of will on his part, and not because of lack of commitment or lack of understanding on his part. He is going to come to grief on this one for ·the same reason the gentleman for Bona vista South (Mr. Morgan) came to grief.

The rug is going to be pulled out from under him, because sooner or later he will come to realize that the Premier of this Province is the real stumbling block when it comes to improving fisheries administration in this Province. He is the person who sent confusing signals to the bureaucrats in Ottawa. And no politician in Ottawa, not Liberal, is on the favouring the closing plants. No politician. not Tory, record as of any Some bureaucrats, who were giving instructions to Price Waterhouse, who have always had the attitude in Central Canada you should close down everything East of Montreal anyway.

And it is the same bureaucrats who are serving the Tory Administration in Ottawa, so do not expect different advice from them. One of the things that rankled me more than anything else during my period in Ottawa was the attitude that somehow if there was not a million people in a given spot, it was not worth keeping going. The attitude is that somehow if it did not exist in the Toronto Montreal - Quebec triangle or corridor then it was not worth addressing, the attitude that they had to tolerate concerns about the less-populated parts of this Ll356 5 June 1985 Vol XL country.

It was not a partisan attitude in the political partisan it was the old Central attitude, that the people sense, Canada in the West have been rankling under, that we have been rankling under. Now for a while, Mr. Speaker, it got packaged differently. When we had a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Tory government here, it got packaged in the sense of being big, bad, federal Liberals versus good, pure Tories in the provinces. But the water has changed on the beans now, Mr.

Speaker, and already we are beginning to see, we saw it last week in the statement of the Solicitor General, the gentleman from Nova Scotia, Mr. MacKay, who says publicly that the budget of the government of which he is a 13upporter and a member is not as good for Nova Scotia as it is for Central Canada. He said that publicly in Halifax last week. They are beginning to twig to something that we have understood for a long time down here. There is not a question of Tory versus Liberal very often, it is a question of the mentality that you are fighting up the .re in Central Canada.

I digress but I wanted to make the point that the people now, Mr. Fraser, the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, they will get the same advice from the same quarters as Mr. De Bane did and Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Breau, briefly, and other ministers got from those people. Nor is that kind of advice the sole property of bureaucrats in fisheries. Indeed, I would say that in fisheries they tend to have,. perhaps, a slightly more enlightening approach because they do have a number of native sons of this Province in positions of No. 26 Rl356

'- · influence. But when I was making comments about this Central Canada mentality I was thinking also of DREE and Transport and other depar-tments of government like Treasury Board, for example. The hon. gentleman from Burin Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) and I could tell, again, partisanship aside, he and I could tell a big long story about one Mr. Bailey.­ I am talking about Petit Forte, and that particular bureaucrat, · okay. . Well, again, I say, partisanship aside, what a story we could tell there about how a bureaucrat decided what was best for Placentia Bay, without consulting anybody.

Indeed, I sat in on a meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Pepin, who was then the Minister of Transport, and heard him give a direct instruction to his bureaucrats. This particular bureaucrat went out, and when he was finished with the instruction, he had the boat going in the opposite direction because, in his wisdom, he thought it might save somebody a few dollars.

He had forgotten, like a lot of bureaucrats forget, that sometimes dollars and cents are not the only qualifier, that there are other considerations for people who live in Placentia Bay and who, traditionally, have a connection from a medical standpoint, from a education standpoint and from a shopping standpoint, a connection to Argentia, as opposed to the other side of the bay, Baine Harbour. Mr. Speaker, I fear that very soon with the stated philosophy of the federal Tory government about private enterprise solves all our problems, and I agree, it has the potential to solve a fair number, but not all of them.

But I Ll357 5 June 1985 Vol XL believe and I fear with that mentality, the Central Canada mentality is going to become married with it fairly soon and we are going to be the victims down here. Mr. Speaker, I started to say that the gentleman from Baie Verte White Bay (Mr. Rideout) is going to come to grief and I hope he does not. He is a person I have known for a long time and admire greatly, he knows that, but he is going to come to grief if he does not keep his eyes wide open on the antics of the Premier on this particular issue.

The Premier has said many things on many occasions and very few of them very consistent. It depends on the mood of the moment. There is a transcript, there is a serum in Ottawa, I mentioned it the other day, and the Premier is quoted, in January 1983, as saying, 'Some fish plants will have to close, • in one of his candid moments on national television. What a place to be candid! And it was that signal that the bureaucrats - MR. TULK: Is that when he talked about the negative fallout. MR. SIMMONS: Yes, exactly, and he went on to say that there would be some negative fallout and so on and so forth.

But it was that signal, that unguarded moment, that sent a confusing signal to those bureaucrats with the Central Canada mentality I talked about, that they latched onto and every opportunity they got they shoved a piece of paper in front of the gentleman from Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan) and Mr. De Bane and others about fish plants closing. That was what we were fighting. It was not a partisan fight, it No. 26 Rl357

was a fight that summarized of Canadians against Canadians. I have already the Atlantic the Central so much on this had an all be Now, Mr. Speaker, there is more that could be said resolution, but I have indication that my time has expired so I will clue quickly as I can. up as Mr. Speaker, the ·motion that the gentleman for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) · has put down is a good resolution because it allows us to get on record, as a House, in favour of the plants-open policy •. That is going to be much more of a weapon than perhaps we see it to be at this particular point in time because the onslaught is going to come.

That is the whole point of what I have been attempting to say in the past twenty minutes. The onslaught is going to come. There is going to be all kinds of sweet talk about how their other solutions, .like the thing they just bamboozled the people of Cape Breton into, all kinds of sweet talk.

But the bottom line is going to be if we ar~a not very guarded as a House, as a collective membership, the bottom line is going to be that just as the people from Cape Breton got bamboozled out of their heavy water plants, and maybe they should have gone - I will not get into the merits of that, I do not know them well enough - but I will just draw a parallel for you, just as they got bamboozled into thinking that they were going to get some kind of a plum if they agreed to that, we are running the danger of getting bamboozled into allowing some of our plants to close on the basis of a lot of sweet talk from Ottawa, not manufactured by Mr. ·Mulroney or Ll358 5 June 1985 Vol XL Mr.

Fraser, manufactured by the Central Canada mentality I talked about just now, an easy to pedal approach to politicians from Central Canada, a politician from Quebec like Mr. Mulroney, a politician from Ontario like Mr. Wilson, easy to ·pedal, because it is not a problem that they have to live with day in and day out that, we, who live on this rock, have to. So, I send a signal, Mr.

Speaker, and I make an appeal to members of this House, whatever the final wording, that we agree on one thing, that we, as a House, work together, we are unanimous, on the need to be on the record in terms of an all-plants-open policy and have that as part of the mandate that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) can take to Ottawa and continue saying again and again and again, that we can accept _nothing less in Newfoundland for social reasons, for political reasons, for reasons of basic humanity.

We can accept nothing less than this and so he can pull out of his briefcase the resolution from this House and say, 'Here is what our House passed in June, 1985 on this issue.' Both parties, all parties, hopefully, on a continuous basis on this issue of all-plants-open even if it requires some dollars out of the public purse to achieve that, at a least for a four-year period. We are not unreasonable, we are not saying for ever and ever. We are saying let us look at it again in four years but from my perspective now, Mr.

Speaker, in knowing what I do about the South Coast where many of those plants are located this resolution, more than any resolution - we can discuss about offshore, about electrical rates or about anything else - MR. TOBIN: No. 26 Rl358

And the amendment? MR. SIMMONS: I have not really had a chance tonight. I say to the gentleman in all kindness, I did not really dismiss the member I said that I really had not looked at it. So I just chose to talk to the general subject at hand and I would