:t( Volume XL Frida'' iii<' Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND First Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honottrable Patrick McNicholas t7 Number 23 S L !Vi~y 1985

The House met at 10:00 A.M. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as most members are aware, my department has for some time operated a lobster pot bank programme. Under this programme we establish inventories of lobster pots at a number of locations throughout the Province for sale to fishermen who suffered losses of their own pots during the lobster season due to ice or storm conditions.

The intent of the programme was to provide our lobster fishermen with ready access to a supply of lobster pots so that, in the event of such losses, the impact on their fishing effort could be min~mized. In accordance with the terms under which the programme was established, these pots were sold at cost price, which amounted to $7 per pot. This morning I wish to , announce a significant change to this programme. It is no secret to anyone that many inshore fishermen have been facing financial difficulties over the past two to three years.

Lobster fishermen in many areas of our Province are included in this category. For the second year in a row, many of them are having their season delayed because of heavy ice conditions.

In addition, these ice conditions have resulted in some lobster 1. - Lll42 31 May 1985 Vol XL fishermen incurring lobster trap losses. substantial In recognition of these factors, and in response to representations we have received from fishermen, and from members of the House, my department has decided that, effective immediately, we will drop the price of lobster pots available under our lobster pot programme from $7 per pot to $3 per pot. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR.

RIDEOUT: It is my belief that this move will enable those directly affected to raise their fishing efforts to normal levels without undue hardships or further lost fishing time. I am also pleased to say, Mr. Speaker - and it is not incorporated in the statement that a couple of other conditions that were previously in effect on this programme have also been dropped. For example, under the older programme, fishermen had to experience a 20 per cent · loss of their pots before they are able to qualify for pots under this programme.

We have also dropped that condition as well so that fishermen can, if. they have any losses whatsoever, avail of the programme. Also, under the old programme fishermen could only buy pots through the programme at a certain time during the year. Under the new conditions, they will be· able to buy from the programme whenever it suits their needs • So there are some significant changes to the policy. Mr. Speaker, I would advise those lobster fishermen who have incur::ted trap losses due to storm No. 23 Rll42

or ice damag~ and who would like to avail of this programme, to contact our regional offices in their respective region. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the minister for providing me with a copy of this statement. Let me point out to him that, indeed, what he says in the statement is quite correct in that the fishermen along the Northeast Coast are suffering as a result of conditions that exist along that Coast and also as a result of some other problems that they have experienced in the past couple of years. Mr.

Speaker, the price of $3 per pot, I do not believe will be argued with by anybody. I think I suggested to the minister that perhaps we should let them go for $1 or $2, but that, I guess, has to be recognized as a starting bargaining position. I think the ' :: 1$3 , is okay. However, many of those pots have deteriorated as they are, I think, seven or eight years old. I think the member for Twillingate (Mr. w. Carter) was the Minister of Fisheries, as a matter of fact, when that lobster bank programme was implemented and - some of those first pots are still around.

But on behalf of the fishermen of the Province, may I say I am sure this is welcomed news. I say that to the minister quite sincerely and I hope we can see some more progressive steps taken from the suggestions of the Opposition. SOME HON. MEMBERS: ' I • tt Lll43 31 May 1985 -Vol XL Hear, hear. Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the information that has been corning out in the days following the federal budget, about the extent of the money which will be lost to our senior citizens, to our poor families, our lower income families, these indications that the Government of Canada will save, by 1990, approximately $6.4 billion. I would like to ask the Premier whether any estimates have been made as to what the federal budget will cost senior citizens and our lower income families in this Province? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, we have an assessment underway now through the Departments of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs on the whole impact of the federal budget, both directly and sort of indirectly, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) mentioned. So over the next week or two we will be in a position to indicate in more specific terms just exactly what the loss may be. There are some potential losses that we do not know will· accrue, of course, because we do not know, for example, on the transfer payments just exactly will happen.

There have been negotiations on that between the provinces government, No. 23 and the federal but we a+.e in the Rll43

process uf doing an assessment now and as soon as we can we will be able to give more accurate figures. It would be sort of inappropriate to try and pick a figure out now without having the full assessment done because there are some offsets there as well. We have to see the whole picture before we can give a sort of valid calculation on it. We are working on it, both the Departments of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Figures indicate that Ottawa will save approximately $260 million in the next two years alone on old age pensions. And although the child tax credit programme will cost Ottawa $40 million next year, by 1990-91 it is estimated that Ottawa will be saving $155 million a · year. I wonder would the Premier confirm whether he has received any preliminary indications that the loss to senior citizens, money that would otherwise be in the pockets of senior citizens over the next five years, will consist of a loss of approximately $1500 over the next five years because of the de-indexing contained in the federal budget?

Would the Premier confirm whether this is so? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I honestly do not know off of my head what the number Speaker, but obviously, indicated to the Leader . I ' It Lll44 31 May 1985 the top is, Mr. as I of the Vol XL Opposition (Mr. Barry), we will be getting those numbers. But once again we have to look at the full picture and see just what total disposable income will be available to all Newfoundlanders, do it that way, and also do it as it relates to the various sectors or age groups as well.

I do not have that number at my disposal right now but, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, we are doing a full-scale assessment of the budget and its impact upon the Province and once that is completed we will be able to provide the numbers. MR. BARRY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A supplementary, the bon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, considering that officials of the Government of Canada itself, according to recent press reports, are confirming that this budget will mean that Atlantic Canada is worse off, and that the budget impacts more adversely on Atlantic Canada than other parts of Canada, why is it that we have not yet heard the Premier speaking out, as we have see other individuals in Atlantic Canada, pointing out the negative impact of this budget on Atlantic Canada? Why is the Premier keeping so quiet?

And is this analysis by the Finance Department going to be another way of hoping that the problem will go away, and staying quiet until· some other issue comes up to deflect from this savage, atrocious cutback for Atlantic Canada, the federal budget? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker • No. 23 Rll44

MR. SPEAKER: .. The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, on Budget night, as I have indicated in a prepared statement that was issued to the people of Newfoundland by myself, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and the President of Treasury Board (Mr.

Windsor) , we expressed the view that there were some positive things in the budget but there are also some negative things in the budget relative to Newfoundland. so I have not been quiet on it. this House I have indicated in publicly that there were a number of areas that I was very concerned about, obviously, de -indexation on the senior citizens is one but, more importantly from a provincial point of view for development purposes, there were a number of other areas that were very important. One was the whole concept of regional development and how the federal government was going to approach it.

This week the Minister of Intergovernmental Af'fairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) and the Minister of Development (Mr. Barrett) were in Vancouver for a I \ ' ' ,' I development .' ·~onference and, there · was a statement given at that time, approved by Cabinet for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Development to make and, later on this morning, I can have that statement tabled in this House to indicate our-position on the whole question of regional development.

Because that is a very, very key point in ongoing joint development opportunities and development agreements for the Province, like the ones we have signed now. So we have not have developed straightforward been quiet and we a very firm , and position as it ~ Lll45 31 May 1985 Vol XL relates to regional development, which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) can table. On the question of numbers, we are in the process, urgently, of preparing the numbers.

I have expressed concern on the whole question of transfer payments, and the indication in the budget of the number of, I think, $2 billion for all the provinces by 1990. The whole question of transfer payments is of very real concern to the government. Over the next couple of weeks we will be taking each one of those areas and making representations to the federal government - if it is a negative impact, what the negative impact is, and to try to get changes made. MR. BARRY: Do you not know whether there is a negative impact on balance? PREMIER PECK FORD: I do not have the numbers.

You know, I am answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) while he is sitting in his place. I am trying to answer his previous question, trying to be fair and reasonable and straightforward and open with the Leader of the Opposit ion. In the preliminary statement that I issued, of which, obviously, the Leader of the Opposition has a copy, we expressed concern that there was on balance a negative influence upon Eastern Canada, particularly Newfoundland. What I want to do now is to quantify what that is. On regional development, and I am emphasizing that and transfer • ! .. No. 23 Rll45

payments broadly because based they they are so affect everybody, we are very, very concerned. And I will show the Leader of the Opposition just how concerned we are in the statement that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) made at the development conference in Vancouver this week. On the transfer payment thing, we are going to have to sit down with the other provinces, as well, later on.

But we will get an early indication ourselves through our assessment of what it will mean over the next few years and then we will be expressing our concerns and aggressively pursuing them with the federal government. MR. BARRY: A brief final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: The Premier, I think, has now taken a step further than he took in his statement on Budget night.

On Budget night, the Premier made the point of starting off with the budget having certain positive impacts on Newfoundland and then, and only then, going on to say, 'and also certain negative impacts.' There was no statement with respect to how this budget impacted on balance. Other provinces are saying on balance it is negative for Atlantic Canada. It is time that the Premier of this Province took the position, clearly and unequivocally that whatever the positive impacts might be there, on balance it is bad for this Province. Lll46 31 May 1985 Vol XL PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has his opinion and he is entitled to it, and we have ours. But we are in the process, as I told the Leader of the Opposition, of doing a full assessment on it. We have just signed a $180 million roads agreement, or will be signing it soon, we have announced three projects under it and we have other positive things that are happening between ourselves and the federal government. As it relates to this particular budget, there are a number of areas that deeply concern us.

One is the whole question of transfer payments over the next five years as we get into a new Fiscal Arrangements Act with the Government of Canada and the other provinces. The other area is the whole question of regional development and how . many additional agreements we can sign over the next few years to get our infrastructure up.

Another big concern which we point out in our paper, as the Leader of the Opposition will see - and I am sure he agrees w:ith me on this - is that the concept of attracting more money into investment through the private sector is philosophically a sound and good one for central Canada. What we want to see as part of the overall business · of development is investment in the private sector.

But the private sector in weak parts of the country is not as strong as the private sector in strong parts of the country and, therefore, we have always taken the position that we do in this paper, that you must have that No. 23 Rll46

ongoing programme, which they are now relaxing under the tax credit side - $500,000 and so on - and other measures that they have. But addi tiona! to that, on a part of that whole Canadian development philosophy, must be an ongoing regional development programme and we have said that and we will table the paper to indicate it.

So, yes it is in the field of the indexation of senior citizens payments, it is . in the area of regional development, it is in the area of transfer payments that we remain very, very concerned and we want to get firm numbers so that when we make our representations over the next few weeks and months to the federal government that we have our homework done and are ready to argue, from the point of view of actual numbers, of the impact upon this Province. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : . A supplementary, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier indicated that he had on budget night expressed some reservations. one of the reservations that got in print, to his credit, related to his concern about the increases in personal income tax and how it would affect low income earners. He will be aware that because of the piggyback way in which provincial personal income tax is calculated, as a percentage of federal tax, that the increases in federal income tax will trigger an increase in provincial personal income tax.

Keeping that in mind, and his concern about how these increases are going to hurt low income earners, I wonder would he make an undertaking to the House Lll47 31 May 1985 Vol XL to take the appropriate steps to provide for an offsetting decrease in personal income tax to offset any increases that are forthcoming by the federal budget increases? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I understand the hon. member's question very well and that is why it was in that preliminary statement. We are going to quantify that and see. That is one area where, as a province, we can assist.

If we just piggyback our percentage of the federal tax, if the federal tax goes up so much then our percentage in absolute dollar terms will get more, too. So that is one area we will have to look at as a Province, and it is a good question and one that we will address. That is one al terna ti ve that the Province can look at over the next few months as it relates to it. I appreciate the hon. member's question. On the question of the surtax on the rich, I do not think it affects us. But in the general personal income tax field it does affect us and that is what the hon. member was referring to.

I take his question in the seriousness in which it was made, and I can assure the hon. member that it is one area in our assessment that we will have to look at. You are taking so much disposable income out of an individual and, because we piggyback our percentage of that more amount, therefore there is room for the Province by itself to do something to alleviate the problem that is now being presented to us. It is a good question and I will ensure that it gets studied intensively. No. 23 Rll47

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member for Windsor-Buchans (Mr. FLight), I would like to welcome to the gallery Mr. Cecil Whitten and students from the Special Needs Upgrading Programme taking place at the Miller Centre. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: And I would also like to welcome thirty Grade VIII students, Mr. Sheppard, Mr. Budgell and Mr. Poole, from F. G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Windsor Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the hon.

Minister responsible for the Petroleum Directorate (Mr. Marshall ) , and the hon. House Leader. When will the House of Assembly get the legislation to implement the offshore agreement? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. gentleman has asked a question. The hon. gentleman is the critic for energy and this is the first question that he has asked me since the House opened. So I am very pleased to congratulate him on his new promotion to critic on energy.

The Atlantic Accord specifies that the legislation implementing the Lll48 31 May 1985 Vol XL Atlantic Accord will be introduced in the House of Assembly and the House of Commons within one year from the date of the Accord, which was February 11. I can advise the hon. gentleman that work is progressing with respect to the drafting of that legislation both here and in Ottawa, it is well underway at ~he present time, so it will be in within a year. MR. BARRY: Not during this sess 'ion? MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Windsor Buchans. MR.

FLIGHT: The minister seems to indicate that we are not going to get the legislation this session. There may be an excuse, I suppose, if the minister admits that we are waiting for full public discussion of the EIS before legislation is introduced. KThat is the thought on everybody's mind for all this waiting. So would the minister give an undertaking that there will be full public discussion on the EIS, or anything else relating to offshore, before the legislation is introduced? Is that why we are going to have to wait a full year for that legislation? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR.

MARSHALL: I know the hon. gentlemen there opposite, and his esteemed leader, do not like reading the Atlantic Accord because it causes them to rather swallow their tongues. It causes them a great deal of No. 23 Rll48

discomfort. But if the hon. gentleman wants to read the Atlantic Accord he will see that the reason for it is plain. It says there clearly that within one year of the execution of this very historic document, both for Canada and for Newfoundland, that legislation will be introduced. So it has really no relationship to the Environmental Impact Study which is continuing. The Atlantic Accord will be put within a legislative framework in statutes of the Legislature of this Province as well as the House of Commons. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans, a supplementary. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we realize on this side, as do most Newfoundlanders, that Clause 54 is a terrible giveaway and will, if permitted to stand, deny forever the full benefits of our offshore oil to Newfoundland, and maybe that is the reason that the legislation is being delayed. But -in view of that, Mr. Speaker, and maybe because of that, is it not time that the government gave the agreement some substantive form in legislation so that that Accord or that agreement can be properly debated? SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, they dug some deeply. I mean, the Leader of the Lll49 31 May 1985 Vol XL Opposition (Mr. Barry) has dug and dug and dug and dug. Clause 54 protects the refinery. MR. FLIGHT: Answer the question. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mrs. Carney) of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has indicated that Come By Chance will get preference, and she did that on March 11 in the House of Commons. So it is only another red-herring the hon. gentlemen always attempt to throw across.

Now how is this for a giveaway? The federal legislation - MR. FLIGHT: Talk about Clause 54! MR. MARSHALL: 'The federal legislation implementing the Accord will' this is clause 36 - 'permit the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish and collect resource revenues and provincial taxes of general application as if these petroleum-related activities were on land.' -That is some giveaway, is it not, Mr. Speaker? And how about this for a giveaway, Mr. Speaker?

If we want to talk about giveawaysr clause 37 says, 'On the basis of the foregoing, Newfoundland will receive the proceeds of the following revenues: (

a) royalties; (

b) corporate income tax; (

c) a sales tax; (

d) any bonus payments; (

e) rentals and licence fees.' And in case there is some other kind of tax that may be invented at any No. 23 Rll49

time - guess what, Mr. Speaker? - there is another clause which says, 'Any other forms of resource revenue and provincial taxes of general application.' How is that for a giveaway, Mr. Speaker? MR. FLIGHT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of order, the bon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my question was specific to clause 54, so I would like the minister, instead of reading all the other wishy-washy clauses, to get up and talk about clause 54. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: Now we understand, Mr.

Speaker, why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) battened down the hatches - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. MR. MARSHALL: and appointed the bon. member critic for Energy, but told him not to say anything until now, some twenty days after the House opened. Clause 54, Mr. Speaker? It is answered. It is a red herring from the hon. gentleman. We get all the revenues, Mr. Speaker, as if they were located on land.

Come By Chance is completely protected under the agreement, and LllSO 31 May 1985 Vol XL every possible, conceivable interest of the people of Newfoundland, not just today but for generations yet to come, not just for Hibernia but for 700,000 square miles, are protected forever and a day. The same revenues, Mr. Speaker, as if they were on land; the right to determine the way in which development will occur; joint management; a $300 million development fund; equalization benefits that are good for the people of this Province; enshrined in the Constitution; mutual and parallel legislation.

And the hon. gentleman's leader, with his friend Mr. Chretien and what have you, wanted to give it all away; all the revenues were to go to Ottawa after we had gotten our equalization payments. There was to be no joint management at all. There were to be three federal and two advisory provincial people. If you want to talk about a giveaway, look within yourselves. The people who were prepared to betray the interests of the people of Newfoundland should not have the consumate gall to get up and ask questions such as that in this House. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) • I wonder if the Minister of Labour knows, or if anybody knows, what is the main issue in dispute in the present No. 23 Rll50

strike/lockout situation between the breweries and the unions, a labour dispute, Mr. Speaker, which is long and drawn out and appears to be reaching a crises situation? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR . BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, there is no simplistic answer to the hon. member's question. There are a number of issues, some of them may be real issues, some of them may be smoke-screens • Some people think that the introduction of cans into the industry may be a complicating factor. One of the complicating factors, Mr. Speaker, is the change of affiliation of the unions.

I can advise the hon. member that while no actual face-to-face negotiations have taken place over the last several days, behind the scenes efforts are being carried out to try to remove some of the complicating factors. For instance, the change of affiliation of two of the locals at two of the breweries is causing looking getting some problems and we for a methodology them back to the table. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: are of The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, it is always with some degree of caution and prudence that I question the minister on a labour dispute because the process has to be followed, but I only do so when it appears that the industry is in trouble or that the strike having a negative impact on the provincial economy or that one LllSl 31 May 1985 Vol XL side or the other seems to be being treated unfairly or unjustly.

With that in mind, is the minister aware that the employees in this dispute feel that they are disadvantageously placed because of both inappropriate and inequitous application of certain provisions of collective bargaining regulations to the benefit of the employers? Has the minister discussed this point with the employees? I suppose what I am asking is is the dispute being played out with the rules equally applied for both sides? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD~ Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any unfair application of the rules.

I do not really know, maybe the hon. member wishes to clarify his question. But there is a strike, in one case, at one of the breweries; and at the other two breweries it is a lockout. But there are equal rights for unions and employers in the act. In the case of the strike it is legal, and in the case of the lockout it is legal. There are countervailing provisions in the law for that. But other than that, Mr. Speaker, I know of no other ways in whicn he might think that there is an unfair use of the regulations. MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that this is a very serious strike, as I indicated earlier, No. 23 RllSl

and it is reaching a crisis situation. Now we have an entire industry that has been brought , to a standstill resulting in the loss of millions of dollars to the provincial economy, loss of dollars to workers, and businesses closing. So it is a very serious situation. Sir, there are provisions in the act, in the labour laws of this Province for the minister to act in such a situation. I am wondering whether the minister intends to use the powers given him in this act to see if we cannot get this strike situation resolved, to see if we can get this industry back on the rails again? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Speaker, there are, indeed, provisions in the act that can be used by the minister to help resolve disputes. I know precisely, I think, what he is thinking about, he is probably thinking about the provisions in

Section 136. This is an industrial matter that has impl;j.cations for the whole of the industry. I appreciate, ·Mr. Speaker, his prudence in recognizing that we cannot negotiate in public and we cannot give details of matters, but I would go so far as to say to the hon. member that both parties are aware that if there is any purpose in the appointment of an industrial enquiry commission under the provisions of

Section 136, then one would indeed be appointed. But to this point, Mr. Speaker, there has been no indication that an industrial enquiry, which involves the expenditure of funds, would make any real difference to this dispute. But as soon as there is Lll52 31 May 1985 Vol XL an indication that something of that nature can be beneficial, we are ready to move on it, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries concerning the ever ongoing problem of the sealing right across this Province.

For the past couple of years state of the sealing industry has been affecting the income of fishermen, the income in the private sector. Now it is causing another very serious problem. Just recently out in my district a fishermen hauled his gill nets and had a very large number of seals in his gill nets which destroyed them. Is the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) aware of this problem and does he have a proposal to curb this problem before it gets any larger than it now is? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I am glad to see that there is somebody on the Opposition side of the House who is expressing publicly a concern for sealing and · the sealing industry. Because when the royal commission was here, Mr. Speaker, nobody from the Opposition appeared. MR. TOLK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. member for Fogo. MR. BARRY: We made it before you made yours, No. 23 Rll52

the first day in the commission hearings. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I knew when that question was raised by the member for Port de Grave (Mr. Efford) that the Minister of Fisheries was going to stand on his feet to make that point. But let me tell him that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) and I made a trip to Montreal in early April and made our representation long before anyone else in this Province did. So stay on the point. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of · order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: We know the hon. member is just trying to make a speech but just let me ask, seeing he did try to make a speech why did he not make it in Newfoundland? . We do not have to go to Central Canada to defend our sealing industry. We can defend it right here in our own Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Lll53 31 May 1985 Vol XL MR.

BARRY: It is the same sort of silliness that we had from the Premier when he refused to sign a federal/provincial agreement with - I think it was Mr. Pepin - the Minister of Transportation. He would not go down to Hotel Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, because he said it should be signed at the seat of government. so-called Atlantic Where was the Accord signed when there was a Tory Government in? They were very quick to jump down to the Hotel Newfoundland to sign an agreement. It is the position of this party, Mr.

Speaker, that it does not matter where an agreement is signed, it does not matter where a presentation is made. The Premier should be more concerned with what is in the presentation and whether it is of benefit to the sealers of this Province then that silliness of saying there is a difference in making the presentation in Montreal as opposed to making it here in Newfoundland. What nonsense! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr. Order, please 1 I have heard enough on that point of order. There is no point of order. The bon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I was very pleased to go down and rub shoulders with sealers and Newfoundlanders and everybody and present a position on behalf of this government to that commission. Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to No. 23 Rll53

-· the hon. gentleman 1 s question, he asked me if I was aware of the particular problem, no I am not. I am aware of a problem in general that of course if there is an over population, a growth without any control in the seal fishery, then you are going to have problems like the hon. gentleman has referred to. We are going to have problems with managing cod stocks because if the seal overpopulation gets out of hand, then it is going to cause problems in that regard, it is a problem as far as parasites are concerned in the cod stocks and the other fisheries.

So there is a whole big problem there that perhaps not very far down the road, Mr. Speaker. We are doing everything we can as a government, the federal government has been helpful and the Sealers 1 Association has been helpful, all trying revitalize the industry. But even doing all of that there is a big problem there that may have to be faced in the short term. There may have to be a cull of that seal herd. That is something that we addressed in our brief as well.

If the hon. gentleman has any particular specifics as far as losses or something in a particular part of his riding, then I would be quite happy to have a chat to him about it behind the curtain, and I will have my officials look into it. And if there is any way that we can help him, or help his fishermen, then we will be glad to do ~o, Mr. Speaker. PREMIER PECKFORD: rf the Royal Commission never came to Newfoundland they would be complaining. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Lll54 31 May 1985 Vol XL The bon. the member for Port de Grave, a supplementary. MR.

EFFORD: I am glad I got an answer, Mr. Speaker, to the question. It seems like every time you stand up you hear a lot of nonsense about a question. Would the minister consider putting a proposal to the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) to put a bounty on the hunting of seals which would help to curb the over-populated seal herds and, also help to supplement the income of fishermen? MR. FLIGHT: A good question. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. EFFORD: Also, right now it is very difficult for a fisherman who has not had a sealing licence in the past three· or four years to obtain a licence.

Would he also consider putting forth a proposal that all fishermen would be given easy access to obtaining a sealing licence? SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the idea of a bounty is not something new. It was not first brought to issue or brought to light here today. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we addressed that issue in the presentation that I made to the Sealing Commission a couple of weeks ago. SOME BON. MEMBERS: No. 23 Rll54

Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Prince Edward Island addressed it. There are other provinces that addressed it while here in our Capital City to make their presentation to the Sealing Commission. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated to the federal government that there is something going to have to be done and perhaps have to be done in the very near future, not in the long-term, to control that seal herd. We have told them that. If that takes a bounty, if that takes a cull, whatever form it takes, we have already made our position known.

We have already made our position clear. We have to do something perhaps over the very near future to try to control that herd. So we have made our views known to the federal government. We have made representation to federal government. We have done it jointly with the Sealers' Association and anybody else that is interested. We told the Royal Commission the same thing. Now on the matter of licencing, Mr. Speaker, it is something that would have to be addressed in a broader context. If there is no economic advantage for a fisherman to go kill a seal, then there is not much point giving him a licence.

Now if there is a bounty replacing a commercial hunt, then that is a different matter, and I would assume that tbere would be a kind of a quota that could be shared up between anybody that is a bona fide fishermen or not. But to give somebody a licence when there is no economic advantage to them killing something, that is one matter. B~t the matter of Lll55 31 May 1985 Vol XL licencing, extension, or giving more licences is something that we can very readily support as far as this particular sector of the fishing industry is concerned. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. MR. BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: During the course of answering either the last or the second last question, the minister spoke in terms of being happy to go down to the Hotel Newfoundland to rub shoulders with representatives of the sealing industry. I wonder if the minister and the Premier, who implied there was something bad about going to Montreal to make a presentation, is aware that the executive of the .

Canadian Sealers' Association were all up in Montreal making a presentation Kirk Smith, the director, Mr. Mark Small, Mr. Chesley Co ish, Mr. Harold Small and Mr. John Melendy - because they realized it was a matter of some urgency. Rather than waiting three or four months, they wanted to make the presentation as quickly as possible. I wonder if the ·Premier and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout) were implying there was something wrong about those Newfoundlanders going to Montreal to make a presentation to the sealing commission. No. 23 Rll55

PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr. To that point of order, the hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: There is no point of order. We hit a sore point. The Liberal Opposition are always arguing about things happening outside of Newfoundland, now, when a Royal Commission comes to Newfoundland,Othey take off to Montreal. The Sealers' Association was down at the Hotel Newfoundland ·and they were also in Montreal. We have hit a sore point. The Liberals now have a new approach. The way to address the problems of Newfoundland is to go to Montreal. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I must rule there is no point of order. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the bon. gentleman from Fogo (Mr.

Tulk) asked me a question about certain lights in the Musgrave Harbour area that had not been workinq so I had the officials in the department check this with the Lll56 31 May 1985 Vol XL Canadian Coast Guard and they advised us that the light in Lwnsden was repaired this week by an aides technician and that also the ranqe light in Musgrave Harbour was scheduled to be repaired this week. So I hope that information is of some benefit to the hon. gentleman that the work has been done. Petitions MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the Marysvale local school committee in Georgetown. This school is presently being threatened by transferring two qrades from Marysvale to Brigus school. Just recently this last year, or two years ago, _Georgetown had the same problem as the adjoining community where in one year they transferred students down to Briqus transferred them back to Georgetown, again transferre -d them back to Brigus and the same year transferred them back to Georgetown -Othree times in the one year.

Now the people in Marysvale and Georgetown realized that what is happening now is if these grades are transferred out of school in Marysvale, the school is goinq to be completely closed and there will also be a loss of jobs in the school. So, I present this petition on behalf of the people of that area and also to state the fact that if the school students who were No. 23 Rll56

transferred from Georgetown to Brigus were put back into the Marysvale school, which is only one mile away, this school would be able to be kept open. Also, it would be a great savings on transportation. I have here the petition to read. "We, the undersigned, demand that the elementary students in Grade IV and V remain at Our Lady of Peace School, Marysvale, and we do not wish to have our children transferred to Brigus." Also we have the same petition from the people in Georgetown. So I would like to present this petition to the House. Thank you. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon.

Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of that petition. Having gone to school in Brigus, I can remember those years, before the advent of school buses, very, very small children walking the distance from Georgetown and Marysvale to Brigus. Now that must be five miles. They would walk that Winter and Summer, Mr. Speaker, and, while I am sure there was a lot of cold and hardship suffered, I am not sure in the long run they were any the worse off for it in terms of health. But, Mr.

Speaker, those days are gone now and at least people have a choice as to whether they are going to walk, as opposed to having to walk to get to school. We now have the bus transportation system. Lll57 31 May 1985 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, the point is that we still have two communities, Georgetown and Marysvale, that are entitled to have school facilities provided, particularly for the younger children. Mr. Speaker, we would ask the Premier, the Minister of Education (Mr.

Hearn) and government generally to look very favourably upon this request by the people of Georgetown and Marysvale to let them have a school for the lower grades, for the smaller children, that will be close to the community where the children will be able to go back and forth for lunch, they will not have to spend as long away from their homes as they do with bus transportation being provided, where they leave very early in the morning and do not get back until very late in the afternoon. We would ask·, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier or the Minister of Education or somebody from the other side give an indication as to whether or not they find in this petition something they can support. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this petition to the House. When we talk about closing schools or transporting students from one school to the other, it is a problem for the school board involved.

I have been told by one of my colleagues that there is not indication from the board that they intend to close the Marysvale school. I do know that out in rural Newfoundland we have had, over the past number of years, a fair amount of movement from No. 23 Rll57

smaller areas to larger centers etc., for centralization reasons, and also because of declining enrollments. That is a big concern to the school boards involved, the loss of jobs concerned. I presume we are gradually losing some jobs in our school system because of declining enrollment, but usually with people retiring and so on, however, it does not mean the loss of actual people who want to stay in the profession. When children move from one school to another, quite often the teachers are also moved somewhere within the system and we do not have a direct loss of jobs.

I know it is a concern of parents, in particular, to see children moving from their own area to another area. It always has been. Sometimes the boards try to accommodate the wishes of all people, sometimes it is almost impossible under the system under which they operate. I will certainly have our people made aware of that, and wherever we can help out in those situations, we always do. Orders of the Day MR. OTTENHEIMER: Committee of Supply. On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Committee of Supply MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please!

Lll58 31 May 1985 Vol XL DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance. MR. MARSHALL: If I could, Mr. Chairman, before the Minister of Finance begins. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Yesterday, when we adjourned, I asked, for the guidance of the Committee, the time remaining in Committee of Supply, and I wonder whether we could have that addressed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The time remaining is five hours and fifty-two minutes. MR. BARRY: Five hours and fifty-two minutes. Now, will the Chair indicate whether the time in Interim Supply has been deducted? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, it has. MR. BARRY: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a matter of privilege. We would ask that the Committee refer this matter back to the Speaker, because we feel that this is taking time away from the Opposition which we should have to debate the estimates. We submit that the time spent on Interim Supply - MR. MARSHALL: You have asked the Chair - MR. BARRY: Well, I would like to suggest to that, if you do not mind - if the Government House Leader (Mr. No. 23 Rll58

Marshall) would just observe the rules and keep quite until I have finished - MR. MARSHALL: That is what I am trying to get you to do. MR. BARRY: - I just want to make the Chair aware of the problem so that he can properly convey it back to the Speaker. It is our position that the time spent debating Interim Supply before the Budget Speech does not come out of the time that the Standing Orders say applies to the estimates. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman rose on a point of privilege.

I assume he wants the Speaker called back so we can refer the point of privilege back to him. I move that the Committee rise and that the Committee Chairman (Mr. Greening) report that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has raised a point of privilege. MR. BARRY: Do you want to resolve it here. MR. MARSHALL: Fine, if you want to argue it further. MR. BARRY: No. If you are prepared to give us the time, finee If not, bring back the Speaker and we will have a -MR. MARSHALL: Lll59 31 May 1985 Vol XL No. I mean, the precedent is there. There has been a precedent of the House with respect to this.

The reading of Standing Order 116 (2) is clear. MR. BARRY: Clear my foot! MR. MARSHALL: We will go back and have a ruling in the House on it, then. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): The Committee will rise and report to the Speaker that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) has raised a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! The hon.the member for Terra Nova. MR. GREENING: The Committee rises to report that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has risen on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Terra Nova (Mr.

Greening) reports that the hon. the Leader of the· Opposition rose on a point of privilege. The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a technical point, but it is a point that is fairly important to the Opposition in terms of permitting us to do the job for which we have been elected, and which the Opposition must do, and that is to ensure that the estimates of government spending see the light of day and that they obtain a sufficient examination by this House to ensure that there are no expenditures for improper purposes No. 23 Rll59

and so forth. Now, what we are dealing with here is the amount of time to debate the main estimates now that the budget has been brought down. The Government House Leader (Mr. Barry) and the Chairman of the Committee has decided that the time that has been spent in debating Interim Supply should be deducted from the time spent debating the main estimates.

Now, the Government House Leader relies upon 116 ( 2) which says, "For the purposes of Standing Orderw - well let us read 116(1) first, wThe procedure in Committee of Supply shall be limited to not more than seventy-five hours to be reduced in accordance with the provisions of this Part." Okay, that is fine. Now, then we go on to 116 (2). wFor the purposes of Standing Order 116 ( 1) w Committee of Supplyw includes the Committee of Supply on the main estimates and on Interim Supply forming a part of the main estimates.w Now, Mr.

Speaker, we that Interim Supply before the Budget before the estimates would submit brought in Speech and cannot form part of the main estimates because the estimates were not even heard of when Interim Supply came in. The estimates were just a twinkle in the eye of the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) at that point in time, a figment of his imagination. There was no main estimates when the Interim Supply Bill was placed before this House, so how could that Interim Supply be considered as forming part of the main estimates? Now what this sub-section deals with, Mr.

Speaker, is the case where the Budget Speech is being held, where the estimates are before the House, but where government then comes in with an Interim Supply - Lll60 31 May 1985 Vol XL Bill because they know that the main estimates are going to be debated for two, three, four weeks or longer, and, in the meantime, they need to expend money to keep government going. So you debate Interim Supply at that point in time, and it makes sense, then, to take that away from debate on the main estimates, because we have the main estimates in front of us and we have all the information.

But to take away debate on Interim Supply when we have no idea what is going to be in the main estimates, Mr. Speaker, is a serious infringement of the ability of the Opposition to give to the estimates the scrutiny that they should have for the protection of the public interest. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that this House at some point in time, · in the deep recesses of history, four or five years ago, voted to - it is longer than that now, I guess, it is about seven or eight years ago. I think it was 1979, six years ago. It is bad enough, Mr.

Speaker, that a lot of the estimates were taken out of the House and put into committee. The little devils .are not up there again, but I am going to wait until they come back. The press of this Province is falling down on the job, Mr. Speaker. We were here in the House last night and there was not a single representative of the press to deal with the matte~s that were being brought up in the course of going through the Department of Social Services estimates.

So it is bad enough that we have some time put off in Committee which is not getting coverage from the press, is not getting the attention that can keep the public informed, but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to have the number No. 23 Rll60

of hours of debate limited by this type of legal pettifoggery that we are seeing from the Government House Leader. It is a pure matter of statutory

interpretation, Interim Supply forming a part of the main estimates. How can Interim Supply form a part of the main estimates when the main estimates are not even before the House when Interim Supply is brought down. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Forsooth, Mr. Speaker, I honestly thought the hon. Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Barry) eyes were going to pop out on the floor of this Assembly. I mean, the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition should understand that he is developing a reputation, really, of a paper tiger, and that is probably the reason why the press is not hear to hear him. Now, it is there and it is plain, Mr. Speaker, in Standing Order 116 ( 1) and ( 2) • Standing.

Order 116 (2) reads, 'For the purposes of Standing Order 116 (1)' which says it will only be 75 hours in Committee of Supply, •committee of Supply"', that is the definition of it, 'includes the Committee of Supply on the main estimates and on Interim Supply forming a part of the main estimates.' Now, if the hon. gentleman could contain himself the fact of the matter is, first of all, I would point out that Interim Supply, generally and by precedent in this House, although it is not necessary, Interim Supply is usually concluded and passed always before the budget is brought in.

Lll61 31 May 1985 Vol XL Secondly, we have the precedents of this House, now built up over the past six or seven years, since this measure has been brought in, that Interim Supply is concluded. That would answer fully and sufficiently, I think, the hon. gentleman's point without me having to embarrass him as to his incorrectness and his

interpretation of the statute. But the fact of the matter is, how can the bill that was passed on Interim Supply be anything other than Interim Suppy, forming part of the main estimates? For this purpose, for this reason, first of all it says, if the hon. gentleman wants to read the relevant clause, Clause 2, 'From out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may from time to time be issued by the Minister of Finance sums not exceeding six hundred and forty-eight million nine hundred and nineteen thousand five hundred dollars ($648,919,500) and the said sums so issued' - now, get this, Mr.

Speaker, get this the hon. Leader - ' shall be paid and applied by the several Heads of Expenditure in respect of the financial year ext"ending from the first day of April one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five to the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and eighty-six towards defraying the charges and expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland as set forth in the schedule. ' So what else is the Interim Supply but related to the main estimates? Similarly, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know the gigantic amount, I do not have it in the budget, the total expenditure for the year, that the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) brought before us, but say it was $2 billion. DR. COLLINS: Here is the gross. No. 23 Rll61

:.:~ MR. MARSHALL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, $2,452,883,500, and that other amount of $600-odd million is not additional to that, it is included in that $2.4 billion. We are not asking for $3 billion, we are asking for $2.4 billion. So it is clearly Interim Supply on the main estimates. It was known at the time. We meet this kind of argument in the House at all times when Interim Supply comes. We counsel the Opposition and we say that it is to be deducted from the time of the main estimates, and they know that. They get full and sufficient means of debate.

This government has been very open in giving full and sufficient means of debate. We have referred to committees which were established in order to make the budgetary process more effective, eighteen departments, we are going to have nine hours afterwards of Concurrence Debate, we had four hours in Interim Supply, and we are going to have a total of six or seven hours on Consolidated Fund Services. Mr.

Speaker, there is ample opportunity to do it, but also, and the point is this, the hen. gentleman's point of privilege, or order, or whatever it is - I think it is more appropriately a matter of order, but I am not going to get niggly about that - he is incorrect, this is Interim Supply on the main estimates and in accordance with Standing Order 116. ( 2) , that time of four hours and fifty-one minutes that the Clerk gave us is to be deducted from the main time in Committee of the Whole. SOME BON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. Lll62 31 May 1985 Vol XL MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The hen. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the frightful thing about watching the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) perform is that he believes his own bile. That is the frightful thing about it, because all of this convoluted talk about these dollars being part of the total bill we have to pay, nobody is begging that point, Mr. Speaker. We understand it if under authority through Interim Supply procedures you get certain authority to spend. We understand that it runs up the total bill that the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) has managed to run up - not guess very accurately, but keeps running up. We are not saying that it comes out of some other pocket or from the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, that is not what we are saying at all. We are zeroing in on two issues. The first is in 116 ( 2). Surely, the framers of 116 ( 2) had a reason for saying: 'Interim Supply forming a part of the main estimates' as opposed to havi~g said 'Interim Supply' , period.

And, as my hen. friend has so well made the distinction, it is a very · different situation when you have Interim Supply being brought forward here before the advent of the estimates to the House, and Interim Supply which interrupts the deliberation of the .main estimates because of a deadline . that has to be met to meet the financial obligations of the government.

The term in 116 ( 2) 'main' to qualify estimates these are not just the total estimates for the year, we are now dealing with the main estimates, as opposed to what was dealt with at another time called the Interim Supply, and the terms help to make No. 23 Rll62

the distinction one from the other, except in that very special case that my hon. friend referred to, where, during the deliberation on 'main' estimates, on the overall estimates, we interrupt that proceeding to devote in tangent, if you like, to divert ourselves to deal with an immediate pressing issue put to us by the government, the question of Interim Supply to meet deadlines in terms of financial commitments. For those reasons , Mr.

Speaker, I submit to you, we have the qualified phrase in 116 ( 2) • The drafter did not say interim supply, period, which would connote both cases of Interim Supply that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) referred to. The writer did not stop there. He qualified the type of Interim Supply he was talking about, 'Interim Supply forming part of the main estimates.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the first of the two points I wanted to make to you. The second one is that I believe we really ought to call spades spades.

This has nothing to do with who is technically right or wrong, this is another device, of which we have seen many in this session and in past sessions, ever since the gentleman for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) has been associated with the process, a muzzling process, smiling all the way, showing what a great, magnanimous person he is, and all the way laughing up his sleeve because he has managed to con the Assembly one more time, he has managed to muzzle some more; he has managed to see that the escalating debt is not held up to any more scrutiny than possible.

If he is so much for all this open government he is talking about, if Lll63 31 May 1985 Vol XL he wants to practice magnanimity, why does he not stand up and say, rules aside, Mr. Speaker, whatever your

interpretation, let the Opposition have the extra time that was chewed up on Interim Supply. In case there is any misunderstanding, let us be magnanimous. We want a full hearing of the public accounts of this Province. Why does he not do that? Because, Mr. Speaker, that puts the lie to what he is really up to. MR. BARRY: What is he trying to hide? MR. SIMMONS: He is trying to hide the bungling of the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) , who cannot even predict the deficit from day to day. Oh, he can predict it. It is a different prediction every day for that matter. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I appeal to him to use a little fair play for a change instead of standing on technical argument all the time. We need time to expose what this government is doing in bungling the accounts of the Province, bungling the fiscal management in this particular Province. Give us that time, even if it means allowing a broad

interpretation of the rules. Without that, .Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, as -I did a moment ago, that a narrow

interpretation of 116 (2) in all fairness suggests that we are not talking here about Interim Supply, but Interim Supply which would come during the normal course of debate on the main estimates. This has not been the case in this particular session, they proceeded in bringing down the budgeto So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, 116 ( 2) does not apply here. And I submit to you that the time remaining of the No. 23 Rll63

seventy-five hours ought not to have subtracted from it the time we spent on Interim Supply. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! I have heard enough on that point of order to make a few observations. Now, I want to thank the three bon. gentlemen for their comments • I think I understand quite clearly the point the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) is making, that Interim Supply was already decided on before the Budget Speech was introduced and that there could be two different entities. I would like to consider that.

I do not think there is an absolute urgency, we are not near our seventy-five hours at the moment, and I would take it under advisement, consider it over the weekend and rule on the matter on Monday. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. MARSHALL: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, no matter what just transpired, we are still on Consolidated Fund Services. Just let me make a point or two before we get back into the give-and-take across the House.

The first point I would like to make is that it is said, especially by our opponents opposite, that the public are very concerned about the level of public debt in this Province, that there is uproar out there, there is great consternation, everyone Lll64 31 May 1985 Vol XL is fearful about their future and the future of their children and all this sort of hyperbole and so on.

Well, now, I kept an ear out for the media and I had a quick look at whatever written media I could lay my hands on in the interval, and despite what I took to be a reasonably good debate on the public sector debt yesterday, I did not hear a word about it. I did not hear a single, solitary word. So where all this concern is I do not know, it must be buried under some rock or other. We went into the public sector debt, the direct debt, the guarantee debt is some detail yesterday and I think there were some interesting points brought out and even some points that might be subject to further scrutiny.

But certainly it did not ring a bell with the public insofar as the media presented public concerns, because, as far as I know, there was not a word about the thing. Now, of course, I am not too surprised on that, because I do not believe the public is concerned about the level of public debt or the way the public debt is being handled in the way that the hon. members imply. Obviously, no one likes debt, but there is not that public concern about how the debt is being managed, how it is being handled, what the future has in store for this Province in relation to its public debt.

They obviously would prefer we had no debt, but they are quite happy the way the public debt is being handled in this Province. I think it is a lot of hyperbole and a lot of rhetoric to have this point brought out whenever we get down to the financial matters of the Province, that the 'people out there are terribly upset and they want people discharged from their No. 23 Rll64

offices, they want government to fall and all this sort of stuff. Now, Mr. Chairman, getting back to some of the points we made yesterday, and this, I think, underlines what I have just said in regard to public confidence in how the financial matters of this Province are being handled, we found out as we went along yesterday that the public sector debt, in actual fact, is a declining quantity if you relate it to total personal income in this Province. I think that is a significant point.

In other words, in 1977 the total public sector debt was 87.6 per cent, if you relate it to the total aggregate personal income in this Province, where as in 1983 it was 69. 6 per cent. There was a significant drop, from 87.6 per cent down to 69.6 per cent. And if you relate that to what has happened in certain other provinces, and we tend to compare ourselves·, I suppose, most closely, usually, with the Maritime Provinces, if you relate that trend to their situation, you find that their trend is upward. Our tend is downward and their trend is upward.

I am not saying that we have reached the level that they have yet, we still have a greater percentage figure in this Province, but we are getting down to their level or they are getting up to our level, whichever way you want to look at it, and, in actual fact, it was a combination of both. Similarly, Mr.

Speaker, in the debate yesterday in Committee we found that if you relate the public sector debt to the Gross Domestic Product in this Province, that is the value of all the goods and services produced in this Province, we find that in 1977 the figure was 88 per cent, and in Lll65 31 May 1985 Vol XL 1983 it was uown to 68.9 per cent, again a significant drop. And if you compare it with our Maritime neighbours you find will that their trend is gone upwards. For instance, Nova Scotia went up from 43.7 per cent up to 53.9 per cent. Theirs was up, ours was down.

Then if you look at it on a per capita basis we have still a higher level of public debt per capita, per head of population than the other provinces. But our rate of growth in the last six or seven years was of the order of 6.7 per cent annually. The compounded rate of growth was about that order, 6.7 per cent. In the Maritimes it was around 12 per cent to 13 per cent. So our rate of growth on a per capita basis was approximately half what the Maritime Provinces have been showing. Now, I do not want in any way to imply that we are satisfied with the present situation. We still have a high level of debt.

It is controllable, it is being controlled, but we still have a high level of debt and it is a costly item in our budget, a very costly item. The cost in this Province, because of that high level of debt, is greater as a percentage of our budget than in the Maritime Provinces. It is a greater cost in this Province on a percentage basis of our total budget than the Maritime Provinces.

But if you look at the spread between the cost to us and the Maritime Provinces, over time you will find that that spread is narrowing and that is another index that we gett ing our debt situation under control, or we are handling it. For instance, the spread in 1981 between ourselves and Nova Scotia in that regard was 6.5 per cent. In other words, the percentage in our budget for our No. 23 Rll65

debt services charges was such and such a figure and Nova Scotia in their budget was 6.7 per cent less. In 1984 that spread has diminished to only 2. 3 per cent. In other words, the percentage costs in our budget is only 2. 3 per cent, not 6.5 per cent as it was in 1981. In absolute terms the percentage is still high in this Province and this is why we still have to maintain a very tight control on our public financial matters. If you want to look at it in absolute terms, for 1984 the public sector debt percentage, or ratio as it is called, was 16.1 per cent in this Province

whereas in Nova Scotia it was 13.8 per cent. So we still have a serious concern regarding the level of our annual cost of servicing our debt. But it is improving, at least if you want to compare us with other provinces. And if you want to use the other indicies I mentioned, we are still getting along reasonably well in that regard. We have to be sure, though, that we do not relax unduly and get into large expenditure programmes before we have in our hands the additional ·funds to handle them. In the present budget we have relaxed our capital expenditure somewhat because we could see that things are improving.

The economic activity in the Province has improved: it improved last year, we are projecting that it is going to improve again this year, and our near-term prospects for economic growth are, shall we say, more certain now, related to the things like the Atlantic Accord, related to things like the improving structuring of the fisheries, and certain other matters, so that with that near-term comfort we have been able to relax our capital budget Lll66 31 May 1985 Vol XL somewhat and in this time of unemployment that is important. Mr.

Speaker, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me something that I may not have answered yesterday. I believe this is right, but he can correct me if I am wrong in it. I think he asked me about the percentage of our annual borrowing, the percentage related to our total provincial expenditures. I believe that was the question he asked. I have those figures now if he is interested in them.

I might mention that there is not a smooth trend line in that, because what we borrow in any year, to some extent is related to our level of debt redemptions and these vary from year to year. · It has nothing to do with what is going on in any particular year. They might even relate to ten years ago - what did you borrow ten years ago and when do you have to pay it back? So our redemptions are not closely related to what is going on in our budget in any one year. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please ! The hon. minister's time has elapsed. DR. COLLINS: If the hon.

Leader of the Opposition wishes · to have those figures, I have them available. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Fortune Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the minister was talking when the Committee rose yesterday and he only shut up now because you came to our rescue. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is part No. 23 Rll66

of the tactic by the government to, first of all, take the 75 hours which, by itself, is not an awful lot of time to talk about the squandering of this government. But that aside, leaving out the pejorative terms, to talk about an amount of money so large as a couple, or $3 billion. So were sent me to scrutinize these amounts, and we ought to have fair time to do it. Seventy-five hours is not fair time, but that is what is in the rules. But, then, once you get the rules on paper then you have this ongoing perversion of the rules, muzzling in every way, every possible tactic.

They must have camp meetings over there on filibustering. And the net affect, Mr. Chairman, is that the people of Newfoundland are very ill serviced by the process we are now going through. MR. J. CARTER: Criticizing (inaudible) · just now. That is what we are going through. MR. SIMMONS: Now, Mr. Chairman, being a Newfoundlander who sometimes gets a little ~nnoyed · about the bad weather, I dream of good weather once in a while. But I have an extra reason for dreaming of good weather. I dream of it because I like the good mood that it puts me in.

But I also dream of it for an addition reason that some Newfoundlanders would not appreciate. I dream of it because with good weather we can transplant that obstruction to parliamentary democracy from here to Mount Scio. Mr. Speaker, that in itself ought to be an extra reason for the good Lord to give us some good weather. There must be some justice in that. Ll167 31 May 1985 Vol XL Now, Mr. Chairman, in listening to the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) just now, as painful as it is, but as necessary as it is, because you must understand. You see, you might, Mr.

Chairman, not appreciate what this gentleman is doing as Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins). You might not like what he is doing, you might not even understand what he is doing, but you better try and understand, because what he is doing is so diabolical, so threatening to the process of economic recovery in this Province that we have an onus, we have an obligation, on behalf of the people who sent us here to, at least, try and listen to his rhetoric, as painful as it is. Not only was it painful just now, Mr. Chairman, but it was very revealing.

Because, you see, he told us, perhaps for the first time, what the real problem is on the escalating debt. He does not see it as a problem. That is the problem. He does not see it, he gets up and says, 'what is the problem? Getting better all of the time, ' he says. 'So we have $3.6 billion in debt', he says. 'So we are running her up at the rate of $222 million a year.' Then he goes on to say, 'what is the problem with that?' Now, Mr.

Chairman, I say to you, there is the problem that we have in the portfolio of Finance a man who does not appreciate, who does not understand, and has admitted to this Committee today that he does not understand, the difficulties that are being imposed on the Newfoundland people by this scandelously high debt. I am not sure we are going to convince him. MR. J. CARTER: No. 23 Rll67

Who is responsible for the debt? MR. SIMMONS: Well again I am glad the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) asked that question because the Liberal administration can take responsibility for $900 million of it, and the Tory administrations, which he has been sometimes supporter, can take responsibility for the other $2700 million. So there is his answer right there. In twenty-three years the Liberals built up a debt of $900 million and the last twelve years the Tories have built up a debt of another $2700 million on top of that. So if you want to know who is responsible?

I guess he need basically look in a mirror, if he can find one large enough. MR. BARRY: And strong enough. MR. SIMMONS: And strong enough. Now, Mr. Chairman, question - MR. J. CARTER: (Inaudible). MR. BARRY: (Inaudible). MR. SIMMONS: I have a Actually, you see, that is another trait about the gentleman for St. John's North, he is brilliant at coping the other guy' s idea. Why does he not quit? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) just made that point, I thought rather eloquently, but making the same point the second time is never as eloquent. He must know that.

Now I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), if I can be distracted for a Lll68 31 May 1985 Vol XL minute from my love affair with the gentleman of St. John's North (Mr. Carter). I refer the Minister of Finance to a document that came out of the Federal Department of Finance. It was not suppose to come out, Mr. Wilson his federal cohort tried to sit on it and keep it secret, but it got out, because these things have a way of seeing the light of day.

In this document it indicates that the transfer payment from the federal government to · the Newfoundland Provincial Government, in respect of offshore, will be $8 million in this fiscal year, $8 million. Now in his Budget Speech, I believe, in the figures as well under the Department of Development or, I am sorry, under the Department of Mines and Energy actually, the minister projects a $30 million revenue from the federal government for the offshore development fund. I wonder if he would, when I conclude in a moment or so, explain that discrepancy?

I repeat, so that we understand what we are dealing with, that I have here a document appropriately labelled 'Secret,' a document called Table 1, Direct Impacts Of Budget Measures by National Accounts Component, in millions of dollars, the Department of Finance, Canada. And on the document, Transfers second under page of that the item: To Other Levels Of Government, it says, 'Newfoundland Offshore, 1985-1986, $8 million.' I say to him that, according to federal Department of Finance figures, is the total amount being projected, as being allocated for the Newfoundland offshore in the 1985 - 86 fiscal. MR.

BARRY: Have you released that to the No. 23 Rll68

press yet? MR. SIMMONS: No, I have just mentioned it here. Perhaps we ought to see that the press get copies of this particular document because it has got some other very revealing items on it too relating to the OIS, the old age security. In 1990 - 1991, for example, there is going to be a cutback of $1.6 billion in old age security payments, $400 million cutback in family allowance, $2 billion cutback in transfer payments in the 1991 year alone.

I can understand the Premier choosing his words this morning because he must be caught between partisan loyalties and some loyalties he must still feel to the people of this Province to defend a budget that is going to do that kind of thing to ordinary people. To the point at hand, because I wanted to see if we could get an answer on this specific point, the document to which I have referred says $8 million for Newfoundland offshore this year. The minister is saying $30 million. Is he aware of the discrepancy and/or can he explain it.

Perhaps I could get a response from the minister on that point if he were inclined to respond or else I will continue. DR. COLLINS: Go on, continue MR. SIMMONS: I was yeilding. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the minister has no inclination to answer that perhaps I could just elaborate on it for a moment. You see, this figure puts the lie to the kind of airy fairy Utopian rhetoric we are hearing about the offshore. Now you saw the trained seals this morning, Lll69 31 May 1985 Vol XL Mr. Chairman.

It is like at a hockey game where on certain cues you get certain choruses and chants going up and everybody is very enthused about it. MR. BARRY: The minister is not the great Gretzky of Finance. MR. SIMMONS: No, he is hardly the great Gretzky of Finance. Although I must say he skates magnificently. He does not score often but my Lord does he skate. Like Gretzky he skates in all directions. Most of the time backwards. Mr.

Chairman, I was not referring to the action on the ice when I referred to hockey, I was referring to action in the stands, the spectators, not the skilled practitioners of the sport, but those who come and follow and repeat particular chants sometimes knowing what they mean, sometimes not. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. SIMMONS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Under what rule has my time elapsed? There is no ten minute rule. There is a ten minute convention. If Mr.

Chairman can refer me to a Standing Order on that point then well and good. I understand there is a convention. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman. No. 23 Rll69

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Standing Order 118 ( 5), "Notwithstanding Standing Order 49, the Minister introducing his estimates and the member speaking immediately in reply shall not speak for more than fifteen minutes and every other member shall not speak for more than ten minutes at a time during Committee of Supply".

Now what the hon. gentleman is referring to with 'convention', when we have had before matters like Committee on Supplementary Supply the same rules have applied and I think that is probably where he is confused but that is definitely there in the rules, Mr. Chairman. MR. SIMMONS: I yield. I will be back for more. MR. CHAIRMAN: On that point order I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 118 ( 5). MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the member for St. John's North. MR. J. CARTER: Mr.

Chairman, at the out~et what I am going to say is going to sound like a compliment to the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons), it is not meant as a compliment and I do not intend it as a compliment but unfortunately it is going to sound like a compliment. That member, I think, and in the opinion of others, is responsible for $100 billion of Canada's present debt and given a few minutes I will elaborate.

Lll70 31 May 1985 Vol XL We must turn our minds back to December 17th or 18th, 1979, when there was a debate going on in the House of Commons that, unfortunately for the hon. member, was televised and a lot of people remember how that member got up and snickered and sneared and downgraded and down played, as I suppose he had a right to do because he was in the party that was in Opposition at the time, John Crosbie's budget.

Now, John Crosbie's budget, if implemented and if carried out over the succeeding three or four years, would have saved the country of Canada at least $100 billion, but instead that bon. member over there helped to defeat a well-meaning, conscientious government that was trying to bail Canada out of the morass that it was rapidly sinking into and promoted a wretched leader that got back and drove us at least $100 billion more in debt. So the hon. gentleman, when the final story is written, has to take some responsibility for putting Canada $100 billion in debt. MR. SIMMONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Greening) : A point of order, the hon. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Sir, you know, the gentleman from St. John' s North (Mr. J. Carter) is, as always, half right. The month was December, the date was 13, I was making a speech, the last speech before the Clark Government feel as it happened, but to my point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was proud to vote against that budget brought in by the gentleman from st. John's West federally, Mr. Crosbie. Time has No. 23 Rll70

proven us right because Mr. Mulroney, in choosing his Cabinet, had the ·good wisdom not to put that man back in Finance. DR. COLLINS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN : To that point of order, the hon . the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, we have complained about this a number of times but I suppose the opposite side are encourageable, they rise, they take up the time of the House, in this place in the Committee,- MR. SIMMONS: Listen who is talking now. DR.

COLLINS: they interfere with other people's rights to speak on clearly spurious points of order, do not make any mention of what rule that I am rising on the point of order, just to rise, call it a point of order, and then get into debate. MR. SIMMONS: What are you doing now? DR. COLLINS: Now I quite understand why the hon. member did it, he did such a disgraceful disservice to this Province when he was an MP by voting in the last Liberal Administration up there, which was a total, absolute, and utter disaster for this Province.

I quite understand why he is so sensitive, but never the less it is not according to the rules for him to rise the way he did. MR. SIMMONS: .Mr. Chairman. Lll71 31 May 1985 Vol XL MR. CHAIRM,AN: The hon. member for Fortune-Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, again to that point of order. Mr. Chairman, I assumed, I forgot that the gentleman from St. John's south (Dr. Collins) was in the Chamber, I would have been much more elementary in my explanation. But I forgot that for a moment and I apologize to him and to the Chair. My real point of order obviously was that what that gentleman from St.

John's North was talking about had nothing to do with this particular debate, it was completely irrelevant. I relied on the well-known intelligence of the gentleman who now occupies the Chair to dissern my point that it was completely irrelevant what he was talking about. I engaged in a similar relevancy hoping to get this Committee back to the subject at hand. MR. CHAIRMAN: To that point of order, the debate can be wide ranging. MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for St. John's North. MR. Mr. J. CARTER: Chairman, this shows how far the hon. gentleman's dementia has progressed.

This shows the extent to which the rot has set in in that not only did he do it but he was proud of doing it. Now he mentioned the fact that the hateful Smallwood regime had left us with $900 million of debt,

whereas $2700 million was added by No. 23 Rll71

the succeeding government. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that when we took over in 1972 we were left with the legacy of the Smallwood Regime, one legacy of which - he had only mentioned one of the legacies was the Stephenville Linerboard mill and that subsequently cost this government something of the order of $400 million to bail out, first to try and make it work as a linerboard mill, and finally to make it work as a newsprint mill. So this was one of the legacies that was left, that does not come into that $900 million, that comes into that $2700 million that the hon. gentleman spoke about.

So if he is going to use figures, I suggest, he should use them accurately. Now there is one other thing and that is that both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) and the member for Fortune-Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) are wallowing in error when they suggest that the time spent on Interim Supply should not be subtracted from the time spent on the budget. That Interim S~pply was part and parcel of this budget and I remember the Leader of the Opposition deliberately cutting short the debate on Interim Supply so that he would not be subtracting it further from the debate on the budget.

And as for the Leader of the Opposition's remarks on the press, or the absence or presence thereof, might I just remark that it is only a fool who quarrels with the cook. Only a fool will quarrel with the cook and the cook in this case being the press, the press who rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, decide to report this House. And I think it is very foolish and very shortsighted, Lll72 31 May 1985 Vol XL although I would like to encourage the hon. gentlemen opposite to continue in that regard, to criticize the press.

They are doing their job, they are doing it well or they are doing it ill, they are doing their job and I think it is very foolish to criticize them because they are the ones who write the bottom line. So on those few points I think I will sit down and let the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) continue his very englightening and informative dissertation on this very excellent budget. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Fortune Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Chairman, I thank you for your ruling about this debate being permitted to be wide ranging because I am going to have to indulge in a matter that I would judge not to be terribly close to the subject at hand but since my friend from St. John's North has made reference to it, it requires some elucidation. He talked about Lab liner board, why does he not tell th .e full story? Why does he not tell the role of John Crosbie in that when he was Minister of Finance? Why does he not tell, Mr. Chairman, that there are a couple of buildings that are still over there, those BOQs, those bachelor officer quarters, that Mr.

Crosbie thought, I believe it was John Doyle or somebody, had gotten too sweet a deal on. So he went out with good taxpayers' money and brought them back. He was going to get a better deal, so he brought them back and they paid $250,000 each for them. That 250,000, that 500,000 helped build up the debt we are talking about. But that is not the full story I No. 23 R1172

say to him. He the story. He mention it, but the taxpayer building for knows the rest of hopes I will not I will. It cost s$250,000 per those two monstrosities out there, those two building, okay, because, you see, Crosbie was going to save us, he was going to undo this wretch deal with this fellow Doyle who got a sweetheart deal with the former ·Liberal government so he went out, with the great courage that he is known for, and bought the two buildings back. You see, the idea was, Mr.

Chairman, he was not only going to buy them back - now let us give the man credit - he was going to sell them, you see, to make some profit. Do you understand? You are a businessman, Mr. Chairman, and if you buy something for $250,000 and sell it for $300,000, well that normally is a profit, unless you incurred a lo t of expenses along the way. So it was a good business proposition, obviously. So he bought them, using your money, $250,000 a crack $500,000 and then, you see, he put them up of sale. Now comes the crunch. He ran ads, called tenders, whatever, and, yes, he got takers, . Mr. Chairman.

He got no takers for one, but he got a taker for the other one, a Crown corporation bought it for one dollar. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.! MR. SIMMONS: So I say to the gentleman for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) that it did not run up the public debt by $500,000 just $499,999, if you allow that the other dollar from a Crown corporation was not public funding. Now, Mr. Chairman, those is the kind of red h~ .rrings we deal with Ll173 31 May 1985 Vol XL when the guy from St. John's North gets up.

If he wants to raise some more of them we can elucidate the Committee for you, he will tell that part of the story which is convenient to himself about how everything in the past or in the Smallwood period - the man he hates with a passion, he has made that clear. I remember one of his more despicable performances in this Chamber, and he has had some, like the day that he would not allow the cameras in. Now he has a sudden new-found respect for the press, all of a sudden today.

Remember on the last day that the former, former Premier, The Only Living Father of Confederation, his last day in the Chamber, it was the gentleman from St. John's North, the only man to their credit, everybody else over there were agreeable, except one man, he would not allow the cameras into the Chamber to record the last moments in this Chamber of the former, former Premier of Newfoundland. How is that for magnanimity? AN HON. MEMBER: Shame. MR. SIMMONS: There is your respect for the press.

He is not what I called him the other day, Jekyll and Hyde, he is Sybil·, the one with the sixteen personalities, you know, that book about Sybil. Sybil John Savory, Sybil carter. Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting. Perhaps if the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) will not answer the question I see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) is in Committee, perhaps he will answer the question? The question that I put some time ago, I yielded a couple of time to get the Minister of No. 23 Rll73

Finance to respond to the question and he chose not to, so perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would respond to the question. The question is: Why the discrepancy? In our provincial budget there is a projection of $30 million in revenue from the federal government for the offshore development fund. In some federal budget papers the projection is $8 million to the Newfoundland offshore. Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, or the minister administering the offshore development fund, I presume the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall ) , could one of these gentlemen bail out the Minister of Finance and give the Committee the explanation that he either will not give, or cannot give, to the Committee? I would yield if one of them would do that. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The explanation is so apparent that it really does not need any elucidation. I refer the hon. gentleman to that great document the Atlantic Accord and to

Section 42 of the Accord. This is signed now by both orders of government. I do not talk about levels of government, I talk about orders of government because we are sovereign - something the hon. gentlemen there opposite would not understand. But anyway it says, •The Fund will consist of a $300 million grant, cost shared 75 per cent federal,and 25 per cent provincial. Contributions to the Fund will be made•, now hear this, •over a five year period commencing April 1, 1985 on a

schedule to be agreed by Ministers on the basis of project Lll74 31 May 1985 Vol XL requirements." Now, we anticipate that we will be moving on that development fund, as a matter of fact, we are moving on it now, and our anticipation is that it, very likely, will be that there will be some . $40 million necessary this year in expenditures out of the fund. We are preparing for that. I have not seen the budget papers to which the hon. gentleman refers but - MR. TULK: It is about time you did. MR.

MARSHALL: - I am fully confident that if we need the money we will get the money and if the money can be expended, it will be expended. The money is there, I mean, we have comfort in the fact there is $300 million over a five year-period. Another point to be made is I cannot refer to the papers because, despite the orders of the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), I have not seen it, and I am not going to rush to see those papers over the weekend, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that part of it is going to be funded, as well, perhaps under the existing ERDA agreement and through other sources, as well.

But I know and I am certain that as much money as is needed and can be reasonably and rationally expended under that particular development fund, will be available this year. I have the assurance of the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to that. Maybe they are projecting that they think less will be paid out this year than we do, but we figure that we need that amount and we are working on the projects now. Actually, we will be making No. 23 Rll74

'' an announcement in due course with respect to that, because there is a proceeding, as the hon. gentleman knows, under the Atlantic Accord as to the announcement of the projects. They are going to be made jointly, so I can only tell the hon. member at this time that committees are meeting with respect to it and we are working very, very assiduously with respect to the implementation of this document. Now, aside from that question, and I know the hon. gentleman gets into the debate - the hon. gentleman asks relevant questions from time to time - but I do have to observe, Mr.

Speaker, not the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons) because I do not want him to attack me again today, but I have heard other members speaking in this debate today and yesterday, and when you talk about the point of privilege that the Speaker will decide upon as to the time that is necessary in the debate, I mean, for what the Opposition really has shown, aside from the illustrious member for Fortune - Hermitage in his penetrating questions and observations, we might just as well not have Committee of the Whole.

Because, all the bon. gentlemen are doing is getting up and regurgitating things and going over the same types of things. You would almost swear that they have taken the Hansards and are just reading back what one, Mr. Steve Neary used to say when he was in here as Leader of the Opposition. AN HON. MEMBER: Who, who? MR. MARSHALL: One army of of the succeeding array deposed leaders qf or the Lll75 31 May 1985 Vol XL Liberal Party. I think it is the immediately preceding one. MR. FLIGHT: He also deposed of a few people over there, did he not. MR.

MARSHALL: But anyway, I do not want to take up time, so I will show that I will not take my full time. I have answered the question fully to my own satisfaction and, I certainly hope, to the satisfaction of the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr.

Simmons) • Both he and all bon. gentlemen there opposite, who were prepared to conclude an agreement on the offshore with respect to the Development Fund, which was not a fuild or a grant, but merely a loan, can take heart in the fact that this fund which we , have, this non-repayable Development Fund, is being worked on and will be used to the benefit of all the people of this Province. The fact that the federal government, apparently, according to the bon. gentleman, have less than we have is totally irrelevant, because we will get as much as is needed to carry ou~ the projects. How is that now? MR.

OTTENHEIMER: Brilliant, that was brilliant. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN {Greening): The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. FLIGHT: We will have no more yielding, give it to him! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of yielding, it was a convention No. 23 Rll75

to ensure that either I or he got the floor. I yielded my position on the floor, but I now have another ten minutes if I need them. I only need to take only one or two to thank my kissing cousin from St. John's East for the openness with which he answered the question and, at the same time, to deplore the overabundance of faith in the federal boys which he has demonstrated in the last minute or- ­ so. I wonder where was all that faith when there were other regimes in Ottawa, where he wanted everything signed, sealed and delivered? Do you remember the occasion in 1982 when after having met with Mr.

Chretien, he came out of the meeting and he and the minister, Mr. Chretien, went on national television to tell people that they had the makings of an offshore deal? And then the Premier got into the act the following day and said, 'Not so fast!' The Premier did not want a deal at any price with the former administration, although the gentleman from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall ) and Mr. Chretien, in their wisdom and with their skill had arrived at a deal in principle, and they announced it on national television - in December, 1982, I believe it was.

But then, suddenly, they wanted all those sixteen or seventeen points in writing. Now then, today, notice how things have changed.

I come in today and I say, 'Look, I have a document here from the federal Department of Finance, in writing, and they are telling you in writing they are only going to give you $8 million; he says, 'I do not mind what they put in writing, I have a great faith that we are going to get what we need.' Well, he may have that kind of faith, but the Lll76 31 May 1985 Vol XL old age pensioners are not getting what they need from this government, they are getting $15 million less than what they need this particular year. People on family allowance are getting $20 million less than what they need.

Job creation, which was to be the great centerpiece of this government in Ottawa, is not putting in one extra dollar this year. DRIE is going to get $100 million less this year, and I could go on. Because, you see, Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman from St. John's East, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) has great faith in the federal government to deliver, despite what they put in writing, I do not have that kind of faith. And I say to him, in all kindness, that he ought to get on the phone and he ought to get on a plane and go up to Ottawa.

I realize, as a result of Question Period this morning it is slightly sacriligious to have those out-of-province meetings in far-away places like Montreal and so on, but we will excuse him for that and we will encourage him to spend a few more of the taxpayer's dollars and go off to Ottawa and say to his buddies in Ottawa, before they take him completely for granted, 'What is this all about? What is this outrage?

On the one hand, you people in Ottawa signed ' an Atlantic Accord in which you say the ministers will agree, and then, you fellows have obviously agreed unilaterally up there on $8 million.' Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, all the hopes that were raised, all the people out there who were lining up for those offshore jobs. Remember how we were told during the last two or three years that the only thing hanging this up was a couple of signatures on a No. 23 Rll76 .

piece of paper and that as soon as they got this agreement, things would begin to happen. My friend from Windsor-Buchans (Mr. Flight) who is temporarily out of the House, he is here most of the time, he is probably taking a phone call from one of his constituents, he and I were aboard a taxi last night and we spoke to a gentleman in this city that I have know for about twenty years, he has been in the taxi business for about thirty years, and he said to me, 'What is happening on this offshore agreement?' As a matter of fact it was what prompted my friend from Windsor-Buchans to raise the question this morning.

What is happening on this offshore agreement? He said, 'I remember day in ahd day out for two or three years you could not turn on the car radio but Mr. Marshall and Mr. Peck ford, • he called them in the taxi last night, he said, the Premier and the minister were on the radio all the time, and suddenly there is no talk of this anymore. And my point in concluding, Mr. Chairman, is that the hopes ·were raised and they are being dashed by the lack of initiative of the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr.

Ottenheimer) to get this accord implemented, to get on the road, and more particularly, to nail down the federal ministers and the Prj,me Minister to be as good as their word. And this document from their own department demonstrates they have not been nearly as good as their word in terms of offshore development. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening) : The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Lll77 31 May 1985 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, normally speaking in the House during debate, one side would follow the other. That is the convention.

It is not necessarily there either, I suppose, but nevertheless that is the sort of convention that there is equal time given to each side and one follows the other immediately. Now that is not necessary and it really is not as much of a convention in committee.

Quite often you can have hon. members in the Opposition, or on the government side for that matter, but it would more likely apply to the Opposition, where one member from the Opposition will get up and make some points, perhaps over just a few minutes, or perhaps taking his full ten minutes, and then another member would say, •well, now, before the minister presenting his estimates replies I want to add on another few points and perhaps he could roll those up into his reply.' So that is quite regular, to do that, and quite accepted.

However, I do rise, following the member opposite, despite that non-convention, shall we say, and despite the fact that the hon. members made no point at all that . needs a reply, or if he brought up half a point it has already · been replied by the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall). But despite all that I do rise, because I just want to have a few comments myself on the Atlantic Accord. The Atlantic Accord has scared the wits out of the Opposition. They never thought the Atlantic Accord could be brought off.

They themselves were so discouraged and so pessimistic about the tenacity of the Newfoundland people and the tenacity of the government of this Province in getting our justifiable deserts, they were so No. 23 Rll77

pessimistic, they had so little faith in that, that they were quite willing to accept a crumb or two. There was the usual sort of cap-in-hand type of approach that the Liberal Party has always foisted onto the people of this Province. They do not have any confidence in themselves, they do not have any confidence in the ability of Newfoundlanders to make their way, not their excessive way, but to make their rightful way in Confederation, they do not have any confidence in the people of this Province.

They are are willing to put forward a request, or even a demand, but then the minute it is not immediately met, they pull back and say, 'oh, well, we do not deserve it anyway, we will never get it, so let us just see what little thing we can get, something at all.

And if it is nothing at all, well, at least we said something and we are brave fellows.' Now, the Liberal Party has that so embedded in their psyche and it was so accentuated during twenty-two dark years of the Smallwood regime, the dark ages as far as Newfoundland was concerned, it was so embedded in their psyche during·· that day that, unfortunately, and I have a great regard for individual members opposite, but even their good character will not save them from labouring under that type of misapprehension, that terrible psycholqgical block for many years to come.

I think they will overcome it in time and I think the Liberal Party will rise to a level that is its historic deserts. If we go back in Newfoundland history long enough, we will find that the Liberal Party was a good party, was a party that had the Lll78 31 May 1985 Vol XL best interests of the people of this Province at heart, and so on and so forth, and brought forward good policies and so forth.

But it has fallen on so many hard days since Confederation, since the day this Province became a Province, it has fallen on such hard days now that it is buried under a psychological load of discouragement and pessimism that it is going to take years and years for-~ it to dig its way out. And that is the reason why the party opposite is so totally appaled by the Atlantic Accord. They said to themselves, 'they can never pull it off.' They were saying this back for years, 'they can never pull if off. Why do they not grovel on their hands and knees to Ottawa like we have always done and how we will always do it?

Why they cannot see the light and go up there and grovel before the people in Ottawa and take anything at all they want to give us? That is the correct policy for this Province.' Now that was Liberalism. That is the essence of Liberalism. That is written in stone.

When the PC Party and when this administration with the tenacity it showed over the hard, hard years when it was being lambasted from all sides, but which was bouyed up by the confidence it had from the Newfoundland people, when this government knew the fibre out there, and the encouragement it was getting from the people out there and stuck to its guns and would not shift except where it was sensible to do so we were not dog-in-the-manger, we were not rigid and hard and hidebound. We were willing to look at sensible compromises, which we did. We will look at the other side of the question, which we did.

But we were not going to give up. We No. 23 Rll78

were not going to compromise our principles. Now having gone through all of that and concluded an Atlantic Accord which is an example not only to the other provinces in Canada, indeed it is an example to the world: it is an example how offshore resources on Continental Shelves can be handled. Now this is a new area of international law. And people are looking to what the Newfoundland government concluded with the federal government as a tremendous example and as a tremendous model to follow.

Now when the Liberal Party saw that happening they were flabergasted, they were totally and utterly deflated, they were thrown into disarray. Now because of that they closed their mind against it and they looking at all sorts of spurious ways to niggle away at it. They misrepresent its provisions.

They pooh-pooh any possible benefits will come from it, you know, to put the offshore resources of this Province in a bad light as · the hon. members do ~ontinually opposite, to put those in a bad light for the economic welfare and the future of this Province is like saying, you know, Saudi Arabia is only a bunch of sand, there is no value out there. It is like saying that Alberta is just an old prairie out there where the wind blows. There is no value out there. It .is like saying that the North Sea is just a rugged piece of water, there is no value to that.

It is like saying that Norway is just a bunch of rocks, there is no value to that. If you want to say that the Grand Banks of Newfoundland will not be the abundant resource for this Province in terms of hydrocarbons as it as always been Lll79 31 May 1985 Vol XL the abundant resource for the fisheries of this Province, if you want to say that, it is logical to say the same thing about those other countries that I mention. And it is just as illogical to say that about them as it is to turn thumbs down on our Grand Banks which our friends opposite are continually doing. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN (Greening) : The hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, to help the minister make his point is like saying I was looking at the front end of the horse when he was talking. Mr. Chairman, he misrepresents so badly and so deliberately our concerns about the AA, the Anonymous Accord, as it will be called. Clause 54 is a shameful, knee-bending giveaway. Mr. Mulroney had you across a barrel.

By kowtowing to every gesture of Mulroney during the past couple of years, by making such a circus of this whole process of the offshore, the Tory Government in this Province ensured they would be taken for granted ·on it, giving away all the bargaining chips, and when the time eame, when the election was over, and when Mr. Mulroney had his 211 seats in Ottawa, the political clout had gone and then it was a matter of getting what crumbs. You talk about crumbs, it was a matter then of getting what crumbs you could.

And you got two things, I say to the government, you got exactly all the names are different, and the semantics are different, the words have been changed to protect the guilty and so on, but you have the same thing in essence that you No. 23 Rll79

had in December 1982. If you want to know what your achievement was in the offshore it was this, it was to cost this Province three years of development time at least. That has been your achievement. The word is not 'pugnacious', the word is 'stubborn'. You have cost this Province three years because you have two things in that agreement, you have what the gentleman for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) and Mr.

Chretien announced on national television December 1982 when they said, and he said it publicly, he had to take it back when his Premier ganged up on him, but he announced it publicly in December, 1982, they had a deal in principle. They had it in December, 1982. So why did it take until 1984 to ·get it signed? The answer is politics. The answer is the Premier had made up his mind, he even overruled his Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) publicly on the issue. He had made up his mind he was going to have no deal. Now, Mr.

Chairman, in the process of taking that stand the Premier set himself up for a fall, and that fall came the day he met Mr. Mulroney to sign the deal or the days leading up to it when they negotiated the fine print. Because the most insulting fine print of all is contained in Clause 54. That is the trade-off. Visua1ize the conversation between the two Brians, Mulroney saying, 'I will make you look good, but you have got to make me look good too. You have got to remember Premier Peckford that I have more seats in Ontario and Quebec and in the West, you know, than I will ever have in Newfoundland.

I have got to keep the boys in Central canada Lll80 31 May 1985 Vol XL happy,' just like he just kept them happy on the budget. We had the admission of the ministry on that this morning, that it was a better budget for Central Canada than for Newfoundland. Can you not visualize the trade-off that went on where the now Prime Minister of Canada said, 'I will make you look good back home, but for that bit' - to use scriptural analogy - 'for that bit of materialistic pottage you got to sell your soul. ' MR. FLIGHT: Clause 54. MR.

SIMMONS: Clause 54, 'You sell your soul Premier Peckford.' I will give you all the rhetoric to explain it to the troops so you can get up in the House and get the trained seals to pound their bench, just like back in another day in this Chamber or its predecessor Chamber down the road, every member of this House, Liberal and Tory, pounded their desk about a great thing called the Churchill Falls deal. Where are the Tories now with all of their hindsight? · Suddenly they have discovered twenty years later there might have been something wrong with that deal. There might have been something wrong.

No, he was not here at the particular time, he was not in the Chamber. The point I am making without talking about the merits, or demerits of the Churchill Falls deal, is that, at that point in time some people, irrespective of party - Liberal and Tory - had a particular perspective on the Churchill Falls deal which is since changed 180 degrees. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). No. 23 Rll80

MR. SIMMONS: Three hundred and sixty degrees. One hundred and eighty, I think. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. SIMMONS : Yes, you say 360 degrees because if you go 360 degrees you will be back where you are. I say to the gentleman from Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) he has only made 180 degrees yet, he is only half way there. One of those days he will do the other 180 degrees and he will be over here again but we make him a deal, if he comes over here we are going over there. Now, Mr.

Chairman, the difference about the anonymous accord, the AA, is that it is not going to take the purview of twenty years hindsight to recognize what a shell game it is because, Mr. Chairman, by the vehicle of clause 54 the now Prime Minister of this country pulled off from his vantage point a brilliantly political trade off.

That trade off consisted of giving the Premier all the rhetoric he needed, all the phraseology he needed about control and ownership and development modes and so on and so forth, gave him the materialistic pottage, but extracted the soul and said, "You can have all that rhetoric that will get your troops excited in the Chamber, the rhetoric that will allow you to go before the Newfoundland people in the short-term and say, 'I have got a deal,' but for that, • he said, "I want to extract from you one thing. I want to extract from you the essence of any benefits that will flow from the offshore.

I want to extract from you the economic prosperity because I want to give that to Ontario, I want to Lll81 31 May 1985 Vol XL give that give that That is Read it, to to what word Quebec, I want to Central Canada." the clause says. for word. I will not _ detail about what 9"0 into Chretien's clause said but I will answer to you this way, I will tell you this way what it said, it was so good that the gentleman from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) went on television and said that he agreed with it in principle. AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about De Bane and you on the fish plants? MR.

SIMMONS: Now we did a marvellous job on the fish plant, Mr. Chairman. Indeed we have succeeded in keeping Gaultois opened, Ramea opened, Harbour Breton opened, Grand Bank opened and Burin opened, despite the fact that the Premier was talking about closing them, despite the fact he would not let his minister come to Toronto - by the way that was an absolutely amazing sequence where the Premier had to be excused from the meeting to talk to the minister of the · day, the gentleman from Bona vista South (Mr. Morgan) , and the basic 'instruction was, 'Did I not already tell you to stay where you are?

I still mean it.' Here we were up in Toronto AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.) MR. SIMMONS: That is right. Mr. Chairman, I say to people who want to throw what they think are slurs across this House to be very, very careful. MR. PATTERSON: What do you mean 'very careful'? No. 23 Rll81

MR. SIMMONS : I am sure you would not know what I meant. MR. PATTERSON: Do you have something on us? Do you have something on me? MR. SIMMONS: Now, there is the mentality, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of if you got something on somebody. No, Mr. Chairman, I thank my maker, I do not have anything on anybody. I assure the member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) of that. I also say to him, if I thought I had something on him it would make no difference in the way I participate in this particular Chamber.

I said to the gentleman, friend to friend, that if he takes comfort from the fact that his mind may be in the gutter, then he has my absolute and unaborted pity and compassion. AN HON. MEMBER: I do not want your pity. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening): Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed: MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (Greening) : The hon. the member for St. John's North. MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably time now for a bit of personal abuse, which I would like to direct towards the member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Simmons).

I have in my possession, or at least I did have in my possession, something on the hon. gentleman which I will bring up right now, and that is a Lll82 31 May 1985 Vol. XL photograph, taken around, I think, 1904. It is a picnic somewhere out in Mount Pearl and it is in honour of one, Richard Squires. The facial likeness of the hon. gentleman to Sir Richard Squires is quite uncanny. AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right? MR. J. CARTER: Yes, it is. MR. SIMMONS: A slime sl.urperl MR. J.

CARTER: Now, I just wonder if that is the kind of past that the hon. gentleman has in front of him, because if he does, God help Newfoundland! MR. MARSHALL: Joey said he was the greatest Prime Minister. MR. J. CARTER: Yes. I likeness just hope that a facial does not denote a spiritual or political likeness, because I would shudder to think that such a past was in front of the hon. gentleman. But anyway, there it is. They keep suggesting that Churchill Falls was· a good deal. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, a Liberal deal. MR. J. CARTER: Now, you should refresh your memory.

Very little was revealed about the so-called deal on Churchill Falls until it was a fait accompli. The then Premier, whose name escapes me for the moment, agreed - and the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheimer) , who was the Leader No. 23 Rl.l82

of the Opposition at the time, did suggest to the then Leader of the Opposition that he would let him see the letter of intent, but it would have to be on a matter of privilege, it would have to be on a matter of secrecy, and he could not possibly reveal it.

And, of course, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the former Leader of the Opposition, would not allow himself to get caught up in that kind of a web, so he said, 'No, if I have to be sworn to secrecy and con£ identiali ty, I will undertake not even to look at it, because it may contain something about which I cannot keep confidential and still retain a clear conscience. ' So he did not look at it. But that is how secret the negotiations were, that is how secret the deal was • So Newfoundlanders generally knew very little about this pernicious deal until it was signed, sealed and delivered.

So hon. gentlemen should not use a selective memory when recalling the very bad, dark days, the dark twenty-two years that I wonder how I managed to live through, and the .rest of us who ha