Volume 4 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 4th. Session VERBATIM REPORT FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1975 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE M. JAMES RUSSELL Number 8

... March 7, 1975, Tape 223, Page 1 -- apb The Houe met at 11:00 a.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: Morning It is a pleasure for me to welcome to the galleries today Mr. Carl Hiscock, Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Labrador City, and Mr. Art Randell, the Town Manager of Labrador City. On behalf of all honourable members I certainly welcome you to the House of Assembly. STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Fisheries: HON. J.C.CROSBIE (Minister of Fisheries): Mr.

Speaker, on November 14, 1973, the then Minister of Fisheries of Canada, the Honourable Jack Davis, under the powers conferred upon him by the Fisheries Act, announced that effective immediately all commercial fishing vessels, traps and other catching units would be registered by the Fisheries and Marine Service, and that all vessels, skippers and operators would be licensed.

Among other details of the plan the minister also announced that the registration of vessels and the issuance of operators licenses would begin early in 1974, and would "start with the large vessels and the fleets which are already limited in size". There can be no doubt that the offshore fisheries to the limits of the continental margins, the herring fishery in our bays, and certain fisheries which have a limited and localized resource base such as lobster, salmon, crab and scallops should be managed and controlled. Licensing and a sound quota system may well be good means toward this end.

Fish stocks are most vulnerable to overfishing during periods of peak concentration which generally occur offshore during the spawning season or when certain conditions of the water or weather cause fish stocks to congregate. During the recent past close to eighty per cent of offshore ground fish have been caught by foreign vessels under internationally negotiated quotas. This means that only a portion of any planned overall reduction in total offshore landings would have to be borne by Canadian fishermen, while any cut back in our inshore fishery would come out of Newfoundland landings only. 744

March 7, 1975, Tape 223, Page 2 -- apb Morning The best information available to us at this time indicates that there is a direct relationship between increasing offshore fishing effort and between declining inshore catches. It has been shown that over the past twenty 74b

March 7, 1975, Tape 224, Page 1 -- apb Morning years, during the rapid growth of the international offshore fishery, the average annual total landings from the area of immediate concern to Newfoundland have more than doubled. During this same period the inshore portion of the landings has dropped to about half its original level and has virtually disappeared in the hardest hit areas.

This strengthens our conviction that any reduction in our inshore and nearshore groundfish fishing effort by small vessels would be meaningless as a measure to restore or conserve the marine resources, because even though this fishery contributes greatly to the economy of rural Newfoundland, it only amounts to less that 5% of the overall catch taken from the Northwest Atlantic. Further considerations are that pound for pound the inshore fishery produces fish at less cost and is generally more labour intensive, thus providing more employment to a greater number of people.

As far as product quality is concerned, properly handled inshore fish is second to none and better than most other fish. It is the intention of this government to foster the well­ balanced and orderly growth of both the inshore and offshore sectors of the industry. We believe this to be essential for the survival and well-being of the independent small and mediwn-sized processing plants which depend upon inshore catches for a major part of their fish supply.

In view of the fact that the uncontrolled expansion of the international offshore fishing effort has been shown to be a factor in the decline of the inshore groundfish fishery, it is the contention of this government that entry into the inshore groundfish fishery of Newfoundland should remain free of restrictions as long as the balanced growth of the industry as a whole can be ensured through sound planning of the offshore fishing effort.

If additional guidance should ever become necessary or desirable, this could be effected through variation of the financial assistance available to inshore fishermen for the construction or for the purchase of fishing vessels or catching gear. 74ti

March 7, 1975, Tape 224 Page 2 -- apb Morning This government intends to see the development of a successfulieconomically strong, professional group of inshore fishermen who eventually will enjoy the security provided by an income maintenance plan tailored to the needs of "bona fide" fishermen. Newfoundlanders have always been free to enter the commercial inshore groundfish fishery, and this government wishes to preserve this traditional freedom.

Our government finds itself in agreement with the view that the successful implementation of an income maintenance plan and of the various financial assistance progrannes will depend on their being restricted to "bona fide" professional fishermen. We maintain that it is in determining the eligibility to participate in this plan or these pro~rammes for fishermen, where equitable but rigid criteria should be applied to decide who is a "bona fide" fisherman.

Whatever may become the criterion, the amount of effort, or the degree of success, or whatever yardstick may eventually be applied, it should be applied to determine the right to participate in the professional benefits, and not to determine a Newfoundlander's right to earn or to supplement his income by fishing for inshore groundfish. In other words, there should be no limited entry into the inshore groundfish fishery of this province.

The question of "Whether you are a "bona fide" professional fisherman or not should be determined when it comes to participating in income maintenance plans or other schemes for the benefit of fishl!!rmen. The Federal Minister's words of November, 1973, that the progra11D11e would "start with the large vessels and the fleets which are already limited in size" cause us to be concerned about the possibility of a future extension of entry restrictions to smaller vessels and to the inshore growidfish, fishery. This government is opposed to the introduction of such entry restrictions under present conditions.

However, since the successful management of the resource requires detailed and accurate data concerning the activities of inshore and 747

March 7, 1975, Tape 225, Page 1 -- apb Morning nearshore groundfish fishermen, we support a system for the registration of people who fish, their fishing vessels and their fishing gear, which would permit any desired level of activity surveillance. I have today, Mr. Speaker, - MR. NEARY: Was that written by somebody over at Memorial University? MR. CROSBIE: No this was written by some genius in my denartment 1 which is full of geniuses. Mr.

S-peaker, I have written the honourable Romeo Leblanc today, and sent him a copy of this which outlines the government's position on the licensing of vessels and fishermen so that they will have our views. Now these views - do you want to distribute these? MR. NEARY: (First

part inaudible) We do not understand it. MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman needs this in baby talk. We will remember that. Mr. Speaker, I have five copies of the Storey-Alexander report which was prepared by a grour of people at Memorial University who were asked by the government and the Premier to report on the federal licensing policy and its implication to the Newfoundland fisheries. The report has already been released by the university but I do not know whether honourable members have copies. I have five copies to table in the House here, in case any member is interested. MR.

NEARY: That is why they recommended - MR. CROSBIE: Well, they make a number of recommendations. So these five copies of that report should be tabled, and it is quite an interesting and worth-while report. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the position of the govenunent as far as the licensing policy is concerned. We believe it should anply to the offshore fishery.

We believe that there should be no restriction on entry into the groundfish fishery inshore here in Newfoundland, and that the question of "bona fide" professional fishermen should be determined to decide who participates in programmes that benefit fishermen, but not to determine who should have entry to the inshore fishery 748

March 7, 1974, Tape 225, Page 2 -- apb Morning 'ffi.. SPEAKER: The honourable the Leader of the Opposition: HON. E.M.ROBERTS (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister's statement, and I think his

summary at the end was perhaps a much better communication than the statement itself, which, you know, does unfortunately tend to lapse into bureaucratic jargon as was so effectively nointed out by my colleague from Bell Island 1 but the oolicy enunciated in the statement, I think, is a very sensible - ~-- EVANS: (Inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: Speaking of bureaucratic jargon, the gentleman from Burgeo adds his piece. Mr. Speaker, the statement, I think, repnesents a very - well, the policy is a very sensible one.

I was not aware there was ever any intention stated by anybody to limit entry into the inshore fishery, but if there was then it certainly should not be tolerated. I think it probably is a straw man, but the fact remains that we must have in Newfoundland the right of unrestricted entry into the fishery. At the same time I think it is essential, if we are to have the income support programmes which we must have if the fishery is to survive, that only "bona fide" fishermen qualify. The income suoport programmes are going to require a substantial amount of money from the Treasury of Canada.

I think everv study I have seen on them,and everything I have been told, is that they are going to require, you know, heavy public subsidies. Indeed, we are getting them now. One of the most interesting figures in the fishery is that the fishermen of Newfoundland get back roughly twenty dollars for every dollar that is paid in by them to the unemoloyment insurance olan. It is a very good plan in that sense only, as there are obviously weaknesses ,in it. So, it makes sense to restrict the income support programmes which will require very heavy funding by the peoPle of Canada.

It makes sense to restrict them to "bona fide" fishermen. It may be difficult to lay down criteria as to what is a "bona fide" fisherman, but that can be done, that is not beyond the wit of the bureaucrats. 74~

March 7, L975, Tape 225, Page 3 -- aph Morning Finally I am glad to see that the minister has stated that licensing or registration is an acceptable thing . I think it should be because that is the only way we are going to find out exactly lolho is fishing, and hO'W much fish they are catchins, what gear they have, what kind of boats they have. And that is the basic information under which the policy makers will have to develop policy from here on. I th-1nk the policy is a sensible one. I have no hesitation in saying that there will be no ar~ument from our side on the policy as we understand it.

What we are concerned with now is the application of that policy, and making sure that the fishermen of this province have access to the proper support programmes by government, both federal and provincial, end that all of the peoole of this province have the right to go and fish if they wish. 7~0

l'arci1 7, 197 5 Tape 226 (Morning) PK - 1 PRESf.NTINC PETITIONS •~. SPE,\KF.R: The Hon. Member for Bonavista South . Mr. Speake r, 1 beg leave of the House to present a oetition sirned by 238 re~idents of the Cornnunity of Port nlandford . I am not sure, ~r. Speaker, to which department the oetition can he fon,arded from the House . The petition is askinR for the e-;tahl i.shment of a community antenna based on the fact that the television rece ntion in the cormunity of Port Blandford is very, very bad from hoth television networks in the r,rovince.

Mavbe it will be posrible for the Department of Transportation and Co=unications to takl' a look at this re<1uest fro1:1 these residents. And it may be necessary to forward the petition along to the networks concerned in the prov ince, for example, the CJON network an<l the CEC network. Maybe a hooster station or a relay station of some sort r-•ould al.so serve the same need to overcome the prol-l e;,,. $0, '!r. Sneaker, I sup~ort the petition knowing that the cc levisi on recention is verv bad in the area .

I suppo r t this rP..,uest of these resident,;. r hon .. cltac in some ~overnmenc department therr ~ould be 1T1Svbe a sort of fundinr, available to orovide assistance in the erection of II communitv antenna . <;c, T "10Ve, Hr. <;peal-er, that this net it ion be tabled 1.n the House of i\s!'emblv and be forwarded to the department to which it relates . t aqi::ume in chis case :It is the llepartment of Transnortation an,J r.offl'"lu:,ications. The llon. Leader of the "nT>osttion. IT"". f.. M. ~OBf.RTc;: (LF.AJ)F.I> OF nm OPPOSITlO~;): Mr. S;,eal<.er. if I r,a,· s,v n '-'ord in suJ'nor t of the netition.

First of all let me say that aF understnnd the n:-ocedure we do not need ,'.l mod.on anv more, T thin~ tho t>etition is rrceived and Automatically sent to che df'"a:-tment to •. hich It rel:ites . , think tne honourable member is right in su~~~sting that the appronriate department is the Deoartme.~t 751

'1:arch 7, 1975 Tape 226 (Morning) PI: - 2 of Transportation and Conununicat1ons. The subject matter of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is raised by a number of people in Port Blandford but it could equally be raised by a number of people throughout the province. There are a number of areas where our people do not get television reception even though the signal is available.

The difficulty,of course, is the geographic contours of the terrain because television signals travel in straight lines, antl if a community is down between some hills or if there is a hill in the way between the source of the signal and the community then there is no reception. Now the obvious answer to it, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that people of Port Blandford might wish to look into this, is to incorporate a small association under the Companies Act 1then to apply to the CRTC for a little licence. It has been done in Trepassey. It has been done in a number of communities throughout the Island.

They will need a little money $5,000, $10,000. I know that in the past, I think it was done through the nenartment of Community and Social Development that Trepassey was given a grant of, I believe, about $5,000 - the gentleman for Ferryland might be able to help on the point - that enabled them to purchase the equipment that they needed. And my understanding is that the CBC and CJON between them serviced that equipment, and maintained it, and if a tube burns out or something then they provide the replacements. But that is the answer.

I would think that we could take $1 million in this province and provide - at most $1 million and provide these little - all you need is a little receiver, Mr. Speaker, that can take the signal off the air and rebroadcast it in a limited area. There must be on the Island alone, there must be fifty co111D1unities where this type of arrangement is needed. I would suggest to the Minister of Transportation and Communications in supporting the point of this petition that this would be one of the most useful things which his department could do.

I am not going to get into a debate but there are lots of things that department does with public money that are not of anything 752

'!arch 7. I <')7 5 l'!,; - 3 tile the benefit to the neor,le of this province. Television is no lonp.eT a 11\eTely rec-reatiooal thin~, M'r . Speake-r . Television is one of the cost imnortant , cultural and educational tools that exist in this province today . Sot wou.ld sur,gest to the r.dniste.r that he might find a fe1,• thousand dollars and provide the people in Port Bla ndford ,or in St . Anthonv, or in the Dist-rict of St . Barbe South , in the middle oaTt of that district, o-r in par t s of Rermita~e, or in Fop,o, or in fiftv other olaces a-round the Island , /l'i 'f10_N. '!F.Mlll'R: '.'IR.

R~B&.~TS: l'lai.e Verte . And then, of course, Labrado r which is a little di.fferent l"roblem ·· nrovide the!le peopl e with the tele vision -receptions . Tnat is far ~~re r,ertinent than this talk of cable television, and that sort of thing. It can be done . It can be done within the policy which the CRTC have adonted . It has been done in the case of 'tl:epassey and Ca~e Rrovle . I think it should be done fo r Port Blandford, and other communities as well . 'lll. SPEAKER: The Hon. Mini.ster of Transportation and Communications . 7 5.J

March 7, 1975 Tape 2 27 ( Morning) PK - 1 HON. J. G. ROUSSEAU (MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION A..l-lD COMMUNICATIONS): Yes, I would like to rise in sunport of the petition, Mr. Spea~er. We will certainly take it under consideration, and give an indication to the people of Port Blandford of the various options that are there. We will certainly talk to the t~•o networks involved. We will certainly consider the situation which existed in similar circumstances in other locations in the province.

I hope very soon to be in a position to announce the appointment of a Direc~or of Communications in the department which, I think, will be a great help to the department. I would hope that within the next couple of weeks to be in the position to do that. I was up the other night in Hawkes Bay. They have a similar problem up there. I am sure 1as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested~there are other areas in the province which find themselves in similar circumstances. So I rise to support the petition, and suggest that we will give it consideration as to the various alternatives.

We will talk to the two networks, and we will also check into the feasibility of the grant situation that has existed in other communities. And we will certainly do everything we can to assist the people of Port Blandford in receiving a good television image. NOTICE OF MOTION MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. CROSIHE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Communications that a committee composed of the Hon. Minister of Justice, the Hon. Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations, the Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Member for Bonavista South, and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition be anpointed to prepare and report within twenty days lists of members to compose the Standing Committees of the House as laid out in Standing Order

(84) Subsections (

a) through (

g) inclusive. And when we come to Orders of the Day I am going to ask the consent of the House to pass a motion to appoint the committee so that the committee can recommend who should be on the various Standing Committee as now 754

Ylarch 7, 1975 Tape 227 (Morning) laid out in Standing Order (84) including the Public Accounts Committee. The twenty days - MR._ NEARY: Inaudible. PK - 2 MR ~ CROSBIE: The Standing Orders provide, Mr. Speaker, that this report be done within twenty days. It does not have to be twenty days. And hopefully next week the committee will report back. MR. SPEAKER: ANSWERS TO OU~STIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ORAL QUESTIONS The Hon. Member fo!" Bell Island. MR. S. A. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Rehahilitation and Recreation has the answer to a question that I nut to him a few days ago about the government's commitment to the '77 Summer Games? What the province will have to pay? H 0~. _T.:_p~ (MINISTER OF REHABILITATION AND RECREATION): I will certainlv ohtain the answer. MR. ___ N_EARY: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations inform the House if labour's appointee has vet been made to the Minimum Wage Board? And if so, could the minister let us have the name of the appointee? lfll. SPF:AKF:R: The Hon.

Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations. HON. E. '1AYNARD (}!lNISTER OF MANPO\-IER AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS): The appointment has not been officially made but we have the nominee of the Federation of Labour, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of routine.I ,,ould think of gettinp; the paper to cabinet which has to make the appointment. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Manpower could inform the House if anything is being done, or if any action has been taken on complaints of employees at the U.S. Naval Station at Argentia, about their pensions, and about their wages and salaries do'\\ffi there?

Could the ministet·give us some information on that? l'R. r-!AYNARD: There were no official complaints made to my department, Mr. Speaker, because the situation there does not come under provincial jurisdiction. It is a federal jurisdiction, and any complaints that l1ave to be made would have to he nassed through' the Department of

March 7, 1975 Tape 22 7 (Morning) PK - 3 External Affairs in Ottawa and on to the United States Government. I understand that the people involved have taken some action to pass their complaints on to the United States Government throuRh the M.P. 's in Ottawa. Mr. Walter Carter has been working on it. But the province, of course, does not have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the working wage, or working conditions at the United States Base in Argentia. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. 75ti

March 7, 1975. T:ipe 228(norninp;) RH - l MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier: Would the Premier be good enoup;h to tell us whether the statements made last week by the Minister of Public Works and Services, the Member for Humber East, with reference to the government's decision not to advertise in "The Daily News" do represent the policy of the administration or are they, as the minister said, his personal opinions? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: They are as the minister said them, Mr. Speaker, that they were his personal opinions.

I suppose a lot of people have personal opinions at various times, but as I said on that occasion that if it were the government's policy not to advertise in papers because of adverse editorials there would be no advertising, I suppose, whatsoever• But certainly it is not the government's policy to cut back in total on any publication and hopefully, if economics warrant it, the advertising in "The Daily News" will pick up again. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, would the Premier be good enough to tell us whether the administration have changed their position then and I understand from looking at "The Daily News" that there are no government advertisements, there are one or two only continuing insertions in it. Are they going to continue to refrain from placing advertising in one paper only, the St. John'B "Daily News"? PREIUER MOORES: No, I will check with the Department of Public Works, Mr. Speaker, and see what the exact situaiton is, gladly. I am surprised that the - NR . CROSBIE : We had ads in there yesterday.

PREMIER MOORES: We had ads in "The Daily News" yesterday. The Minister of Fisheries points out that there were ads, government ads~in "The Daily News" yesterday. AN HONOURABLE MfilffiER: Monday, over a page. PREMIER MOOR.ES: And in Monday, over a page. So, I think the statement is not correct as has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker . MR. ROllERTS: Mr. Spea ke r, would the - The Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission is a government agency but is not quite handled by the Departm ent of Suppl y and Services, Publ i c Works and Services. Would the 757

March 7, 1975. Tape 228 RH - 2 Premier undertake to lay on the table of the House, Mr.

Speaker, I realize he would not have it here with him now, a indication of how much advertising the government have placed, the government, I do not speak of government agencies because the Power Commission handle their own advertising and so do the University and so do the College of Fisheries and the College of Trades - they may be using public funds but they are under independent, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission are under independent authority - how much advertising the government, through the Department of Public Works and Services, have placed in the advertising during the month of January, February and March as to date - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Order paper.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the minister can say "Order Paper", I am merely giving as a question of notice whether the Premier would undertake to get that information for the House. PREMIER MOORES: If it is properly placed on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder then if the Premier would tell us whether he has received a letter sent by the Press Gallery Association with reference to the government's decision to refrain from advertising in "The Daily News"? PREMIER MOORES: What was that? MR. ROBERTS: A letter from the press gallery. PREMIER MOORES: What was the question, I am sorry. MR.

ROBERTS: Oh! Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether he has received a letter from the press gallery I assume sent by or over the name of their President, Mrs. Cashin, but I do not know who signed it- but a letter from the press gallery protesting the govern­ ment's decision to refrain from advertising further in "The Daily News"? PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who it was over or under but, yes, I did receive a letter. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, has the Premier answered that letter, and if so, would he indicate what his answer is, please?

PREMIER MOORES : I have not answered the letter yet, but I intend to, Mr. Speaker. 758

N.arch 7, 1975. Tape 228 RH - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier make his ansver public. PREMIER HOORES: I would hope that - that :fs entirely in the press gallery's hands and the communication with them - I assume that they will 0 I have no idea 1but it is their decision, Mr. Speaker. MR. ROBERTS: Finally, Mr. Speak.er, would the Premier indicate whether any other papers or advertising media in the Province have suffered from the acts which has fallen on "The Daily News" allegedly in light of their - PREMIER MOORES; Mr. Speaker, - MR. ROBERTS; 11r.

Speaker, I have not finished the question, if the Premier would allow. If Your Honour is ruling out of order, that is a different matter. MR. SPEAKER: Well, I shall permit the honourable Leader of the Opposition to finish his question. HR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

As I was saying, Sir, would the Premier indicate whether any other advertising media in the Province has had advertising withdra~m from it or reduced in it as a result of the policies stated by the Ninister of Public Works and Services which the Premier has confirmed is the administration's policy of reducing advertising allegedly in reference to circulation? PRr:MIER MOORES: The answer to that question is, Mr. Speaker, I do not know at this time. I will certainly check and find out, but the honourable Leader of the Opposition seems to be the one who is studying the ads these days.

Maybe he can answer his own question, but I will certainly deem to Urtd out. NR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier indicate, please, what arrangements the government have made to arrange to have public notices circulated in the areas of the Province where "The Daily News" provides the only regular daily circulation? MR. CROSBIE: That is an improper - 759

March 7, 1975, Tape 229, Page 1 -- apb MR~~RGAN: Ask your friend, Bill Callahan, boy. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Member for Bell Island: MR. NEARY: Is the Premier going to answer? AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously not. MR. ROBERTS: He does not know. Moniing MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is not going to answer that question I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: I would like to ask the minister if the agreement between the province and Ottawa, concerning the St. John's Harbour Arterial Road has yet been signed? MR.

S!_EAKER: The honourable the Minister of Transportation and Communications: MR. ROUSSEAU: It has been finalized, but whether it has been signed or not I do not know. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would he responsible for the actual signing. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. ROUSSEAU: No it has not been signed. MR.J~Y: Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to indicate to the House if there has been a change in policy? On December 11, I think it was, the minister indicated to this House that the government would settle for nothing less than one hundred per cent of the cost.

Has there now been a change in policy? what the change might be? If so, would the minister indicate MR. ROUSSEAU: The minister never in this House stated that it would be one hundred oer cent period. I also stated that we were prepared to talk to them. Now I am talking about one half of a special agreement, only the highways

section of it, the Harbour Arterial, because there is some other item involved in there which is not under my jurisdiction. But we said that we wanted to ensure that any monies expended on the Harbour Arterial were not to the detriment of any other roads programmes in the province. We are now satisfied that that is the situation and the cost-sharing agreement will be, I believe, seventy­ five twenty-five. MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) 760

March 7, 1975, Tape 229, Page 2 -- apb Morning MR. ROUSSEAU: ------- It will be announced jointly at a future date when the actual signing takes place. We were prepared to talk. I never said "one hundred per cent"; I said we wanted one hundred per cent and we certainly would have liked to have received it. What the final amount will be we do not know, but it will be jointly announced. I did suggest that the government were preapred to talk to DREE on the situation at that time. MR. N_EARY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the minister: Would the minister indicate to the House whether the province's share of twenty-five per cent and Ottawa's share of seventy-five per cent just includes construction? Or does it include the purchase of property along the route of the Arterial Road? MR. ROUSSEAU: Mr. Speaker, you know, when the thing is settled the details will be jointly announced by the provincial and federal governments. At that time all the information will be available. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, would the minister care to indicate if all the property has been purchased along the Harbour Arterial Road route? And if so, if it is not all purchased would the minister indicate how much it is going to cost to purchase the rest of the land? The rest of the right-of-way? MR. ROUSSEAU: ------- I think that would be a proper question for the Order Paper. I do not have the figures in my mind at the present moment. I know that all the property has not been purchased, but if the honourable member would like to put it on the Order Paper I will certainly undertake to get the answer. MR. NEARY: Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, the minister could tell me whether or not the government are in the process of purchasing property and have been purchasing property all along? Or did the purchase of property stop when the financing of the road ran out? Or has there been property purchased, you know, just about every month that passes? MR. ROUSSEAU: -------- Negotiations have been ongoing and it is included in the arrangements. So when the actual announcement is made with regard to the Harbour Arterial, I will ~ive the information tolhe honourable member, and in respect to that, if he would nut a question on the Order 761

March 7, 1975 Tape 229, Page 3 aob Momin!!: Paper I will certainly undertake to get the answer. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, l wonder if the minister could tell the Houee what steps his department is ta!cing to replace obsolete, worn-out highways equipment, especially anow clearing equipment? MR. ROUSSEAU: That is a matter which will be included in the bud.get. MR. S.PEAKEk: The honourable the Member from Fogo: MR. WINSOR: M.r.

Speaker, a question to the honourable the Minister of Fisheries: The other day the minister stated that there were a number of fishermen, I believ.e over 200, who had not been reimbursed for loss of gear caused by ice damage last Spring, and h.e also stated that a number were fraudulent and false. Would the minister care to say how many of the 200 claims now standing are fraudulent and false? MR. CROSBIE~ Mr. Speake];", the honourable gentleman should try and listen attentively when someone i,peaks in the House.

I never said that the 225 - odd claims that have not been accepted were r.ej ected because they were fraudulent or false. I said that there are over some 225 applications th.at have not been accepted and. will not be accepted because they were received after September 10, 1974, without any reasonable excuse. That is 762

March 7, 1975 Tape 230 (Morning) PK - 1 the reason why those claims, and they may total more than that - the last time I checked it was ,225 claims. It has nothing to do with those claims being fraudulent or false. MR. WINSOR: A sunplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now saying that none of that 225 will be reimbused? HR. CROSBIE: That is exactly the position, Mr. Speaker.

There are some 225 who will not be reimbursed, who hll.ve been written and told they will not be reimhursed, but to whom it has been explained that a letter was sent to every fishermen in the province last Summer, who we had as registered on any kind of fishery statistics who were told that every radio station, television station, and newsnaper in the province gave full details of the programme last Summer1 and the close off dates I and who wrote in months 1 in some cases a month, and in some cases three months, four months, five months after the end of the deadline saying that they lost nets, pots, and this and that and the other, and had never heard of the programme until this occasion - and when it was looked into there was no reason at all that we could ascertain why they were not in time, They had not gone to the Labrador I they were not fishing on the Labrador.

You know, we accepted quite a few who went to the Labrador fishing and were not back in time, and therefore it may be that they did not hear of it, or could not take any action on it. These 225 were rejected- out, out, out, out of time. They have been told this is why it i.s. Now ~•e did that with a great deal of reluctance. If there had not been so many, of if the progralllllle had not far exceeded what anyhody expected we would have reviewed the whole situation, and perhans tried to include more of those.

But these 225, or whatever the number is,were clearly out of time, Some of them, for example, there is a certain person who writes the newspaners 1 and so on and so forth 1extensive correspondence, This narticular case, for example, just to give an example of the reason why some of them were turned down, this gentleman made a claim hefore the deadline expired for, I think it was, a salmon net. A month after September 1n, or two months after Se~tember 10, he made another claim for lohster pots. Then two months after that 763

March 7, 1975 Tape 230 (Morn i ng) PK - 2 he made another claim because he lost two traps. So that if the gentleman has lost a trap, had lost lobster nots, and in addition to a salmon net one would think that he would make a claim for them altogether at the same time before September 10. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: So do not be so foolish. I just give that as an example, Mr. Speaker, of i,,hy claims are rejected. Now naturally we rejected his claim for lobster pots, and we rejected his claim for a trap.

I mean surely it strains crenihility to think that a man will claim for a salmon net before September 10, and forget to report that he lost a valuable trap, and lobster pots. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: ------ Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance could inform the House if he has received a request from the War Vetrans in Newfoundland and Labrador demanding a government statement that their years of war service be included as credit towards their civil service pension? on their request? And if so, what action has the minister taken MR. SPEAKER: The Hon.

Minister of Finance. RON. R.R. V. EARLE (MINISTER OF FINANCE): Mr. Speaker, several requests have been received over the past year or so. I syggest that the Hon. Member for Bell Island wait until the budget to get the necessary information on that particular aspect of things. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Hermitage. MR. R. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. the Premier. In view of the Premier's statement of last week, February 27, concerning the negotiations with Mr.

Craig Dobbin for rental space, I wonder would the Premier care to indicate when the Minister of Public Works intends to table the information which the Premier indicated would be tabled? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier. HON. f. D. MOORES (PREMIER): I will check on it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know. 764

AN H~~. ~fE'ffiER: ;-!Jl.. _SIMK>NS: Tai,e 230 (Horniuy.) PK - 3 Inaudible. The Premier is ~oinp. to check on it. A further ques t ion for the Premier on the same suhject . Would he indicate when the p.overrunent eXl)ects to call t he oublic tende1:s for proposals wit~ reference to the space it needs for the government? ~IR. ' 100RES: Shortly, ~..r. Speaker . AN H_(lN_:.. 'lf.'ffiEll.: '1't . SPF.AKFR: IR.~ Shortly! The Hon. ~ember for Bell Island . Mr. Speaker, I have a question for t he Minister of Transnortation and r.ommunications .

Would the minister inform the House tf there had been many protests nnd ob.1ections to the one dolla r a vear increase added to thr. cost of driver's licence-& in this province for this vear? And could the minister tell us who p.ets the dollars? Or what the total amount collected from this dollar is to lie used for? 765

March 7, 1975 . Tape 231 RH - 1 MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received some letters and answered them. The money will go, the Department of Finance would know, I do not know where it is going to go, but it will be used for the pick­ up of, towards the pickup of abandoned car wrecks around the Province. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance couJd inform the House whether or not the dollar collected will go directly as a subsidy to this company that is collecting the car wrecks or will it be paid back to the minister's Department of Transportation and Communications for the work that they are doing in collecting these wrecks and stock piling in various parts of the Province? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Hinister of "fi'inance . HON . J.R.V. EARLE: ~r. Speaker, the obvious operations of government are that revenues which come in from any source go into the Consolidate(! Revenue Fund.

I presume that that is where this would go. The expenditures of departments on various programmes are covered in subheads as the honourable member well knows and these will be revealed when the estimates are tabled. This particular agreement, as I understand it, will be tabled in the House shortly and all the details will be available to members. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Finance: Would the minister care to tell the House why this dollar is also being collected in Labrador where no service is being provided? MR. EARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I presume that you could say the same thing about sections of the southwest coast with which I am very familiar. It applies throughout the Province, through all areas. I think what is meat for one is meat for another. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, could the Hinister of Provincial Affairs or the Minister of Finance, Sir, whichever minister this jurisdiction falls under, inform the House if there have been any official complaints con­ cerning a directive from Mutual Life Assurance Company to the drug stores, that they can no longer offer discounts to civil servants on their prescription drugs? MR.

SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Industrial Development. 766

March 7, 1975. Tape 231 RH - 2 HON. C.W. DOODY: That question was raised a few days ap;o by some concerned public servant through Mr. Peddle, their representative of Treasury Board. We are involved with it, Sir. The r1.1111our had it that the public servants were not receiving the twenty per cent discount to which they were entitled from some drug stores who were in the discount business because of a government directive to that effect, to the insurance company. We looked into the matter and found it was completely unfounded.

What we would like 1and what we have said 1and the case is simply this, that where a discount is applicable, it is applicable to the whole bill, the whole prescription bill. If a prescription is five dollars, that twenty per cent comes off the whole five dollar amount reducing the bill to four dollars. F.i?,hty per cent is paid by the insurance cor.ipany and twenty per cent is paid by the client. He would like to see the discounts increased to fifty per cent, eighty per cent, one hundred per ceut free drugs if we could do it, but under the agreement, it is an eighty per cent- twenty per cent situation.

That is the way it is being operated. The public servants are not being penalized to our knowledge. If it is demonstrated that some drug store, as has been suggested, is gouging the public servants because of the insurance scheme, then we will certainly take steps to see that that is corrected. We have not any definite evidence of that as yet. HR. MURPHY: ~IR. DOODY: - --- }1R. NEARY: Inaudible. That is right. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services is so lippy, Sir, I would like to ask him if he is yet in the position to make a statement on day care centres, what the policy is? MR.

HURPHY: I congratulate the Member for nell Island for reading the newspapers, a big

article this morning. I gave a word to the News yesterday and he is chief clipper over there now. They gave him a new pair of scissors. We wj_ll be ready very shortly as announced in "The Daily News", Sir. MR. T\ARRY: lle is one of the reasons the barber rates are going up, too. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the l1inister of Industrial Development, Sir, no, perhaps the Premier, perhaps I had better put this question to the 767

March 7, 1975. Tape 231 RI! - 3 Premier. Would the honourable the Premier care to tell the House what his government's reactions is regarding a request made a few days ago from a group of employees of the Newfoundland Telephone Company, that that company be provincialized? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Nationalized. MR. NEARY: Provincialized. Well, would the Minister of Industrial Development or the Premier care to answer that question? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Industrial Development. MR.

DOODY: We met with these people, the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Reations and the Minister of Transportation and Connnunication. They requested a hearing. They felt that the company should be nationalized was the term they used 1although maybe if they had had the benefit of your advice they would have provincialized it instead. We indicated to them that this Tory Government is certainly not philosophically opposed to the idea of c~tionalization or the public owner- ship of various companies where it is demonstrated that that is in the public good.

We also told them that the evidence that they presented to us at that time was certainly not enough to justify immediate action. We will be certainly sympathetic to whatever position they brought forward to government who was adhering to exchange views. We have no intention at the present time of provincializing or nationalizing the Bell subsidiary in the Province, But as I said, the public ownership concept is not one that is repugnant to this government. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible.· MR. DOODY: Pardon? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Go ahead. Carry on. MR.

DOODY: Well, I just wanted to add that it was a group of people who were on an illegal strike with that particular company. We met them as a group of concerned citizens who were talking to elected members of government. We were not talking to them in their capacity as strikers or people who were out on an illegal strike. I would like to make that perfectly clear because we do not condone or sanction or in any way encourage illegal walkouts 768

~larch 7, 1975 . Tape 231 RH - 4 wildcats. MF .• NEARY: A supplementary, Sir: Would the minister care to indicate then about the other re<juests made by this group about an industrial enquiry into this dispute with the telephone company? HR. DOODY: No such request was made at the meeting unless they had a subse<1uent meeting with you and requested that - l!R. NEARY: - Minister of ~fanpower - MR. DOODY: Hell, the Hinister of }fanpower may have met with them but not at the meeting I attended. 1·1R. SPEAKER: 1'R. HAYNARD: The honourable ~finister of Hanpower and Industrial Relations.

Let me answer that very quickly, Hr. Speaker. I have heard through the media that there is going to a request for an industrial enquiry but there has been no such request received in my office up to this date. 11R. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Hermitage . 11R. SUfr!ONS; Perhaps, }~r. Speaker, I would like a question to the Minister of Justice. Pernaps the question I should be asking him first is what action he is going to take against all the fellows on his side who are obviously driving without their plates this morning, but that is another story.

I vould like to ask him instead .if he can indicate to the House when a magistrate will be appointed to Harbour Breton to succeed the 7-entleman who was moved from there last June or July, I believe. llR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: Hr. Speaker, I am not certain that I can give that assurance or date. Four additional magistrates were appointed to the magisterial service in December.

If the honourable gentleman from Hermitage has read the rec01mnendation of the Steele Commission, which was an excellent report and I have not heard a critical word from anyone about it, he will see that tiiere is a recommendation that the judicial council give very serious con­ sideration to centralization of the magisterial service. The main concern is that a magistrate is available whenever required. Where he resides may not be quite as significant. These gentlemen, the new magistrates 1will have completed their training in the Magistrates Court in St. John's by the end 769

March 7, 1975 . Tape 231 RH - 5 of June, probably before, but poscinr,s are usuallv at the end of the school year . I would anticipate that the judicial council will be in a position to indicate to me at that time as to where they feel magistrates should be posted. I do know that there is a variation in work load of the magistrates that is quite considerable. I suspect, in fact I more than suspect, ::hat: the work load in the Harbour Breton magisterial district is very, very minimal,which is a tribute to the people in ci,e Harbour Breton area . MR. S11-IMONS: A question for the Minister of Tourism .

I wonder would the minister indicate to the Rouse whether he has received a representation in the form of a letter from the South Coast ne~ional Development Association concerning their concerns on the River Pond Park and could he indicate whether he has received the correspondence and also , 1.ould he, in particular, indicate what the government plans are to complete this park, the park on the Harbour J>reton Road I am talkic.i a·bout? 770 ..

March 7, 1975, Tape 232, Page 1 -- apb Morning MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Tourism: ---·--- HON. T.V.HICKEY (Minister of Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I can only acknowledge receipt of an enquiry. The documents have been passed on to my officials for investigation and comment, and it is not back to me yet. Whenever I do get the information I will be glad to pass it on to the honourable member. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary to the second part of my question: Can the minister indicate whether construction will proceed and be completed on the park this year? MR._.!!_ICKEY: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot give any such undertaking until I am in possession of all the facts. It would be totally irresponsible of me to make any definite comment on that right now. MR. SIMMONS : The minister is undertaking to get the information for me? MR. HICKEY: Yes I am. ------- MR. NEARY: Could the Minister of Finance, Sir, indicate to the House when the government will be bringing down this year's budget? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Finance: MR._ EARLE: An announcement will he made shortly, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: I will accept one question now from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition and that will bring an end to the question period. ~R: ROBERTS: Thank you. Thev have not told the Minister of Finance yet, Steve. Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations: Has he any indication as to when the two parties to the trawlermen's strike will resume negotiations? And if so, may we ask when and where? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Manpower and Industrial --------- Relations: MR. MAYNARD: - - ---- Mr.

Speaker, my Deputy Minister has been in pretty well constant contact with both parties throughout the week. They have been having some individual meetings but they have not met together as yet. But I would assume that by the end of todav the Deputy Minister will be 771

March 7, 1975, Tape 232, Page 2 -- apb Morning hoping to work out a definite time and place for a joint meeting of the parties, and we will be further advised at that time. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House to approve a proposal that a committee be appointed in accordance with Standing Order 84(

a) to recommend to the House or report or whatever they do on the membership of the standing committees. That could be passed now with consent. MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed? MR. ROBERTS: for our part, we agree. MR. SP~AKER: Those in favour of the motion "aye", those against "nay", motion carried. MR. CROSBIE: Motion (1) • MR. SPEAKER: Motion (1), I think, was adjourned last day by the honourable the Minister of Justice. HON. T.A.HICKMAN (Minister of Justice): Mr.

Speaker, I shall not take much more time of the House in debating this very vital resolution, because I do hope that before one o'clock today this resolution can be dispatched to Ottawa. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was indicating the very real ground and evidence upon which we base our concern that Canada is not ~oing to the Law of the Sea Conference with the kind of enthusiasm and the kind of muscle and the kind of determination that the people of this province has been demanding.

I have before me the verbatim report of the press conference given in Caracas on August 28, 1974, by the Honourable A.J.MacEachen, the Honourable D.Jamieson, the Honourable R.Leblanc and Ambassador J.A.Beasley. The question was raised, in fact these gentlemen were under very severe pressure by the press to try to define Canada's position,should this Conference not be as successful as one desires,with respect to unilateral action. And may Ilin a more lighter vein and for the edification of politicians who want to become experts in double talk, indicate to you the way these two senior Federal Ministers handled 772

March 7, 1975, Tape 232, Page 3 -- apb Morning the press. This is one of the questions: "Evidently there is a long interval and there is a lot of internal pressure in Canada for some kind of action; do you think that if there is no treaty in the Spring or Summer of 1975, Canada can, in fact, take unilateral action?" The honourable Mr. MacEachen replied; "Well, I think that is a question that takes me quite far into the future, and asks me to anticipate or foresee what circumstances might be at that time.

What­ ever circumstances prevail, then the matter will be before us but at this point it is not the policy option that I would recommend. It may be that the circumstances will ~lter and conditions will change and actions will be taken elsewhere 1but that is for the future and the decision will have to be made on the basis of the circumstances that will prevail then. Maybe my colleague, Mr. Jamieson would like to comment on this point." Now, Mr.

Jamieson's connnent: He first dealt with pollution and then he said; "Now on the question of whether or not we would, as I understood your question, be prepared to enter into a treaty which is not all embracing and I think perhaps, I might refer that back to Mr. MacEachen." (Inaudible) MR.

HICKMAN: There is very little doubt that if anyone very carefully perused the statements made at that press conference, and the first question was a rather touchy one that they could not deal with, they were asked why they arrived at the end of the conference and what they thought they had accomplished by coming and it was quite clear that other than "getting the feel" as they said - and I do not quite know what they meant by that - "of the conference", it was a very pleasant trip and I envy them for going to Caracas to be there for the closing ceremonies.

But all through the statement that emanated from the Minister of External Affairs, it is abundantly clear to me that the progress that was made at Caracas is nothing like we in Canada and Newfoundland have been led to believe. ' - 773

March 7, 1975, Tape 232, Page 4 -- apb Afternoon Again, Mr. MacEachen: "You may ask them, 'what have you achieved' and I think that the answer to that is that if we examine any important issue before the Conference we will have no difficulty in discerning real movement on the part of states at both ends of the spectrum. What has been occurring here in Caracas has been a movement in two directions towards co111111on positions. We are closer together on some issues than on others." Now, you know, what does all this mean?

What does all this mean to the concern that is being shown and has been shown by the Government of this Province for the past two years with respect to the depletion of the stocks off our shores. Does it corroborate the suspicion that most Newfoundlanders, probably all Newfoundlanders but certainly Newfoundlanders who are at all associated with the fisheries, that because the fish production in Canada constitutes somewhere between two and four per cent of the gross national product that the Government of Canada and their public servants are not really losing any sleep over this issue?

I suspect that they are more concerned about pollution, as important as it is, on the high seas, more concerned about new rules of the road, new navigational aids than they are about acquiring absolute sovereign jurisdiction over our Continental Shelf. That is why, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the most significant part of this resolution is the second part which says: "This House declares that Canada should by proclamation take such jurisdiction in the event that the Law of the Sea Conference, which will convene at Geneva, does not so constitute and declare an international regime by December 31, 1975." This govenunent, starting with the federal-provincial First Ministers Conference three years ago, in the Soring of 1973, and the Premier's Conference in Charlottetown, have led the way in trying to convince the Government of Canada, who have exclusive jurisdiction in External Affairs, that a firm position is required at the Law of the: Sea Conference. 774

"'larch 7, 1975 Tape 233 (l'iorning) PK - l I get the impression that Newfoundlanders are not taken seriously in Ottawa when they start talking about fish, and declining stocks, and manap,ement of the Continental Shelf. We do rlot have to go back very, very far to recall that just a few years ago haddock was one of the most sought after,and caught,and landed specie off our coast. Our fishermen became aware of the destructive fishing methods being used by the Russians. Our fishermen became aware that the Russians Irere draP,ging over the spawning E;rounds.

We were bold to tell the people in the Government of Canada,whoever they were at that time, that unless this activity ceased,and ceased very nuickly the haddock fishery would be a thing of the past. No one paid any attention. The Government of Canada looked at the Soviet Union in fear and trembling and did not say a word. In 1965 there were 155,000 tons of haddock landings, and in 1971, there were 12,r:lOO tons. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

HICKMAN: Us simple Newfoundlanders who know something about the fishery, who will live or die bv it, an economy which will live or die hv it, have the greatest difficulty in convincing the alleged experts who dictate the policies as they relate to the fishery, the Government of Canada, those of us in this province, and in Eastern Canada are the last ones to he asked for advice. If we force the advice upon them. we seem to be treated as naughty Canadians who want to rock the boat. This is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that before 1:00 o'clock today this resolution will be on its way to Ottawa.

Because if it does not get out of here hy that tine I can hear the Minister of F.xternal Affairs saving . Now if I had only known that there was a resolution passed by the House of Assemhly in Newfoundland, unanimously passed, I certainly would have taken it along. I certainly would have given it great consideration but regrettably it did not reach my " desk before I left for Geneva. 175

March 7, 1975 Tape 233 (Morning) PK - 2 Mr, Speaker, I mentioned earlier that I had appeared on May 3, 1974 before the External Affairs National Defence Standing Committee in the House of Commons, During that very interesting, and may I say,a proceeding that I entered upon with a great deal of apprehensioni question arose as to whether or not the Government of Canada having acquired sovereign rights to the Continental Margin would be in the position to police and enforce the rights that we acquired.

And I was asked by a couple of honourable gentlemen from the House of Commons as to whether or not I thought this could be accomplished? I suggested it could.

I suggested it cculd be done by the close co-operation of the Department of National Defence. 1n fact, I almost suggested, but I was not quite willing to bring mvself to it, but I almost suggest that maybe instead of having the annual Bermudaian cruise in the interest of the National Defence of Canada that maybe, just maybe that these corvettes or whatever is used - they are used out here-now could be brought into service, and sent out on the Grand Banks, the Banquereau, and Mizzen, and St. Pierre, and Green Bank, and Flemish Cap to enforce and police ~nd maintain our rights.

There was one gentleman there who started hopping up on a point of order, and in a fit of righteous indignation and said this was an unwarranted attack uoon the Department of National Defence. I had not attacked anyone, I had only simply thought that it might be a good idea to use these boats because obviously the little boats that we have that had to tie up at 5:00 o'clock, and are not allowed to go out at night, and they are not allowed to go out on Saturdays, and on Sundays) are not capable of policing the territorial waters that we presently hav.e jurisdiction over.

I could not understand why this man was so upset. It tlurned out to be a gentleman named }r. Hopkins who was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence - he was firom Ontario 1 an expert on the Navy he had never seen aalt wate 1 but he j_s goin?, to. And he took - was he upset over this suggestion - that our defence forces would be used - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 776

~\arch 7, 1°75 Tane 233 (Horning) PK - 3 }fR HICIO!AN: He is an electerl memher - he Has the Liberal member for some constituency in Ontario, and he was a :Jarlamentary assistant to the ,,rfnister of National Defence. I do not understand their nrocuedure there hnt he insisted - and the Chairman did not quite understand why he was exercised-but he imsisted on havinv, his name nut on the Order Paner so that he could debate this horrendous sur,p.estion at a later date. Whether he ever debated it I have no wav of knowing. And mayhe he was quite right.

Maybe I digressed from the rules of nrocedure that are laid down when anpearing before a Standinp: r.ommittee of the llouse of r.ommons. And if I did he was ~uite right in so doing. But that was not what concerned me. It was the attitude that I sensed. Obviously in the position that he was in he would be articulatin g the attitude, the feeling of the Government of Canada.

De,mite some alleged announcement •, that had been made of late tt>at there vill he better surveillance and some fisheries officers will be nut on board of some of our ships of var I suggest to this House that anythinp that is done hv the Denartment of National nefence to enfore Canada's jurisdictional ri _qhts off our shore will be done ,,,ith ~omet hinP- less than enthu s iasm, and will only be done if public nressure continues narticularly from f.astern C.anada. AN HON . M'E"IBFR: Hear! llear! ''i'R. llir:KHAN: Someone sent me some newspauers from the State of '1aine last !lummer.

There ainin vou see an al.most identical situation­ r.ear belonr.in~ to their inshore fishermen, and their middle distance fishermen, heinp; dP.stroyed by foreip.n fleets. Again their federal government not respondinr, until it is too late. Now, nr4 Spealrer, in closinr I want to re-emphasize,because T l1one the reonle of Ne,-Jfoundland fully understand the imput that has 1>.one jnto this oarticular problem by tbe government of this nrovince durin1; the nast couple of vear. It started in 1973 when t ,e C<'mmi tt ee "a.s armoint:ed .

And ai: ! said yes terrl ay,i n 1973;si x months he fo re the <:ove rnment of C.an;1da had no ·irm po si t i on on i i: Then thev djc! come do~,n : i th a fit'lll ~osition OTI what i s call ed the sneci.es anproach. When our neonle took issue and said that is not 777

March 7, 1~75 Tare 233 (Morning) PK - 4 what we want, that we want the economic zone concepc 1back came the official t1osition - this is- April now of 197~ - this is a month before they head ~outh - sayin~ that the Denartment of External Affairs had again reviewed our pronosal, and that our distinc ·tion was more apparent than r eal . No, I am wronr,1that was in l'ebruary it came back • In April we went back with further representati on .

The appallin~ thin~ is tha t two months before this conference opened in Caracas those advisers who were going t o represent the Government of Canada at that conference still had no real conception as to what the economic zone concept was all ahout. They were subscribinR at that time to the species view v,hich would allow fishing to he carried on by forei~n fleets based to a larp;e extent upon the foreign fleets assessment o.f the sustainable yield on the banks off our coast . 778

March 7, 1975. Tape 234 RH - 1 Before they left for Caracas, there was a fairly firm commitment given to us 1and given to me in Nay1 that our position would be the one that they would put to the Caracas meeting, but even then they watered it down. There is still talk of traditional rights, traditional fishing rights of other North Atlantic nations. }'r. Speaker, this is not acceptable, I suspect l to anyone in this House. It is totally unacceptable to the Government of Newfoundland. It is totally unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland.

I would love to convince myself that the Geneva Conference will succeed in attaining what we want to see attained. I have very grave doubts that this will come to pass, but if it does not come to pass, Mr. Speaker, there can be no compromise insofar as the people of this Province are concerned as to what should then fl.ow from the Government of Canada. That is going to take some doing because the Government of Canada is not thinking in terms of unilateral action.

I was at a dinner in Fortune in 1971 and suggested that the time had come to take unilateral. action to extend our limits and there was present a federal. minister who immediately followed me and told me that as a lawyer I should ],now better than to insist or sup;gest that that kind of action should be tal:en 1'y the r:overnment of Canada.

Whilst there has heen some rer.ognition that the people in Eastern Canada are looking for a bit of Muscle on the part of the rovernment of r.anarla, that it is now becoming a politically sensitive issue 1 uhich it is and should be 1and I use political in t he broarl sense of the word. There still has not been any firm, unequivocal state1nent emnnatinr, from our Federal Government that unilateral action will be taken in order to protect the fisheries off our coast. If this happens, Mr.

Speaker, if we should ever get control of it, if the Government of Canada asserts its influence and its rights, establishes sovereignty over that area, we are going to be in the very delightful position in Eastern Canada where we are going to have to put on a crash programme to be able to harvest the resource that is left there. It will be left for us. Your will su<l<lenly find, I predict, that the gross national product insofar as fisheries are concerned will alter very greatly so that two to four per cent will suddenly go to ten per cent. 779

March 7, 1975 . Tape 234 RH - 2 When that happens, Mr. Speaker, when we control this, when we be- come the area where these species are landed, that also puts us in a position where we can start calling the shots as to where this food product is going to be processed. We are not in that delightful position that we should be in now because of the fact that our fleets, our foreign fleets are going on the Grand Banks, selling indiscriminately, selling sometimes at subsidized prices.

I find it difficult co reconcile the position of the Government of the United States where they say they will not tolerate any subsidized food going into the United States from Canada, but will enter into a treaty to accept totally subsidized production of food product from Poland, but they do it. It is an inconsistency, but whatever the reason for it is, as Canadians we have to,obviously, move with great caution and be sure that we comply with the requirements of the American people. Mr.

Speaker,! join with the other honourable members of this House and as the representative of the largest fish producing constituency in Eastern Canada in supporting this resolution. SOME HONOUR.ABLE MEMBERS: Hear! Hear! MR. SPEAKER (Stagg): The Member for Twillingate. MR. GILLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might say for the benefit of my honourable colleague from Hermitage that I did rise to my feet yesterday, but a little bit behind the honourable the Minister of Justice. Mr.

Speaker, perhaps this resolution is the most unique resolution or, I should say, proclamation, but at least it is a resolution as it is now, to come before this House in its entire history, it is a unique resolution in more ways than one. First of all, because of the manner in which it was compiled as we have it before us and because of the unanimity of it, because I am quite positive it will receive unanimous approval. In other words, this is not a resolution of the administration. It is not a resolution of the opposition.

It is a resolution of the people's House and therefore it is a resolution from the people of Newfoundland. That is one way in which it is unique. Another way in which it is unique is that this resolution is going forth from this Assembly, I hope and pray, 780

"March 7, 197.5 . Tape 23lf Rll - 3 not only to the Tlecleral Government or to the honourable the ~'inister of External Affairs in that government, hut to an international Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. I hope, if the resolution is not read at that conference, it will certainly be presented to it in some form pointing out to that conference the necessity of Canada gaining jurisdiction over tlte Continental Margin. 1'Jow, goinr, down through t11e resolution, the whereases, I see in numher six, it says, "And

whereas such resources, this is fisheries and minerals and others, still belonr, to the T'rovince of Newfoundland and Labrador." Now, I hope that that

section will not turn off the federal minister and he and his colleagues will not say to themselves, "Hell, if we accept this, it is a sort of acl:nowledginf, to Newfoundlancl that the resources do helong to them

whereas in actual fact we are trying to battle that thinf; out at the very moment." I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this

section should he usecl, at least in the international conference,to enhance the position of the Federal Government, of the Government of Canada because, as I understand, and here I am not a lawyer, but I do understand that constitutionally when we entered Confederation the Continental 'fargin ,li,1 belong to Newfoundlancl and conse')uentlv it still does. I hope this is correct . Nm,, actually, I clid not consider this resolution was presented for debate.

I thour:ht it was presented so that anyhody who wished to speak to it would offer liis two cents worth or 1 let us say~ his finger of powder in the old muzzle-loader, so that when it is finally fired, the boom will be heard throughout the entire Geneva Conference. The honourable '·lember for llonavista South was the first one to introduce a debate into the whole question, hut what we are trying to accomplish here, little Pewfoundlancl, or Canada through little Newfoundland I would say, is jurisdiction, jurisdiction which is the 781

March 7, 1975. Tape 235 RH - 1 administration of justice or the authority, let us say, over the territoty in question. I think if it is presented pro11erly to the Geneva Conference and if the Conference is made aware of what has actually happened in this little Province, let us face it, this is the part of Canada, in fact the part of the Atlantic Ocean, the North Atlantic at least, where the stocks of fish have been down through the ages, the greatest stocks, I suppose, in the entire North Atlantic. So, it is of grave importance to us.

It changes our way of life if it goes and furthermore, it reduces our economy to a, definitely to a have-not Province and therefore tends to reduce our people along the coastal lines to the depths of poverty. I think if this was presented, Mr. Speaker, properly to that Conference, that we want the jurisdiction over this area, we would like to have it, pointing out to them that naturally we cannot harvest, we definitely cannot say, - I know it has b~en said here by my friend, the Member for Bell Island, that we put a notice up "Keep Off". We cannot do that. It is not as easy, Mr.

Speaker, as we think it is or a lot of people think it is. We are not that naive to think that it is quite that easy. Here we are talking about an area which extends in one position or one location out to six hundred miles. It is not quite that easy. These countries are fishing there. They have a thousand ships. I understand that the Soviet Union alone has a thousand ships. They are not only fishing off Newfoundland. They are fishing off the United States. They are fishing everywhere. So they are fishing in the main for food for their people. Therefore, they are going to have to have food.

But if we get jurisdiction authority over the area and allow them to fish a quota which meets with the approval of Canada and that that quota cannot and not be ,exceeded, tt,en I think we will have accomplished something. The main object o~ this resolution is to get the 1urisdiction over the area. I do not think for one moment we could ever hope to drivf the foreign fleets o!llf the fishing grounds and say to them "You cannot fish there anymore." I do not think we could ever hope to accomplish that. Then we talk of con­ trolling it, policing it. I do not think that is the proper way to go about it either, Mr.

Speaker. I think I have to disagree with this method of using 782

n arch 7, 1975. Tape 235 RH - 2 the navy and the airforce or whatever ann of the forces that we have at our disposal. It was only t his morning that I heard Mr. Kissinger's remarks on the radio where violence does not go towards a pieceful settlement of any dispute. We know that. I think it might be possible, Mr. Speaker, to arrange some sort of a pro gramme with the foreign fli?ets. Just supposing, for arp;ument sake, they did consent to have a Canadian, an officer of the Federal Government or whatever you want to call him, on board each foreign ship. The Soviet Union h2s a thousand ships.

That is a thousand men who would get jobs. They would report each night by the radio to some central ship, say his shi-p perhaps 1 and that ship in turn would report the two to the authorities in Ottawa or in St. John's here, wherever the case might be, Halifax , would all be computerized and each ship would be told in turn, when he was overfished or when he had his quota. Some way could be worked out. There is no doubt about it.

If we are to survive, if this world is to survive and if we are to acquire the proper diet, the proper balanced diet and the protein which is necessary for that diet, if the area surrounding our shores is producing a great percentage of that protein, Mr. Speaker, I think surely goodness it is possible to come to some agreement with these countries and fish there so that everybody, New­ foundland)can get its share of fish as well as Russia, Poland, all the other countries. I think, of course, Mr.

Speaker, that we, I said this before, that we do have to provide the ships to take our men out where the fish is, not necessarily ships as large as the foreign fleets because they have so far to come to fish. If we have to take our men out there, we have not presented them with that opportunity, so we cannot say yet whether or not they are willing to go, whether they are willing to go and fish on the Hamilton Banks, whether they are willing to stay out fishing a month at a time. We do not know that. We know that they have not protested for it.

There have been no marches on the hill, no placards carried, no strikes protesting that their boats are too small, they cannot go out and get the fish where the fish is. L\N HONOURABLE MEMBER; Inaudible. 783

March 7, 1975. Tape 235 RI! - 3 MR. GILLETT: Absolutely! We have to have larger. We have to have boats that will harvest all of the species that are here to be harvested. You know, Mr. Speaker, just supposing we do1and I hope and pray to God that we do, get that jurisdiction and get it in a diplomatic way. Final success rests in the hands of our fishermen. We can pass all the legislation we want. We can get all the resolutions to Ottawa we want. We could even get the jurisdiction perhaps, and I hope we do, over this area, but finally, it is the fishermen themselves who have to make it a success.

Therefore, it is a co-operative venture and I say venture, although that word is not received very well in this Province tight now,by the trawler fleet at least, co-adventurer, but it has to be that and we have to have that co-adventure spirit, We have to have that co-operation but we have to also guarantee to a point the fishermen who go out there, that they will be protected, that their families will, they will receive a remuneration for their efforts commensurate with the work that they do. That we will have to look after. But in the final analysis, Mr.

Speaker, what we are doing today is tryinR to make possible for our fishermen a means of gaining a greater and a better livelihood, not because anybody is short of protein in Newfoundland, not because we are short of fish in Newfoundland because I doubt if you could find a quintal of fish in St. John' s today if you wanted to, but we are doing in and we are trying to do it so that our coastal areas will enjoy an even better way of life than they have today.

We are trying to do this so that our inshore fishermen can live traditionally as their forefathers did, so that our social structure will not be broken down1and in doing this, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that every fisherman and every fisherman's son and all those who love the sea will appreciate and understand. They have to have a great input, the fishermen themselves have to have a great input into this programme. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of Newfoundland will watch with great interest and great concern the proceedings at Geneva.

I would like to see somebody, say, the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Mines and Energy 784

March 7, 19 75, Tave 236, Pap,e 1 -- anh Morning take this resolution by olane todav to Ottawa. Not just send it on your telex, take it. Deliver it in nerson and also deliver,as either of these gentlemen is quite capable of doing it, very eloquently by - MR. MORGAN: ~IR. GILLETT: AN HON . MEMBER: MR. GILLETT: MR. ROBERTS: MR. GILLETT: Send a delPgation from the House. No, no. One oerson is enough. The Memher from St. John's - You might scare them. You might scare them. (Inaudible) No. In person to point out, if the Minister of External Affairs is not aware, to make him aware.

Put the words into his mouth that he sould use when he gets to Geneva. Do not leave it with him. Supposing we p,ot a resolution, for argument's sake, from the Northwest Territories. how could we relate to it if somebody from the Northwest Territories did not come and tell us exactly what the picture is. Between two and four per cent of the Gross National Product - ~fil. MT!'.._RPHY: Someone would have to find Newfoundland on the map. MR. GILLETT: If that had to p,o on the comnuter and the Gross National Product is1we learn it is, hetween two and four per cent, the computer would reject it.

But that is not the point. That is not the point,so therefore, we have to put into the very mouth of the Minister of External Affairs the words to use in Geneva. Nobodv can better nut those words i nto his mouth than those of us who live here, work here and those of us who love Newfoundland and everv last fisherman in it. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear: Hear: MR. GILLETT: --- - --- Thank you, "Ir. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Ounphv ): The honourable the Minister of Finance: MR. EARLE: Mr. Spea ker, this is one resolution which I am very happy, I think, in common with most members of the House to see on the Order Paper.

It is something which any Newfoundlander, and most certainly hath sides of the House~can be of one mind on. And

whereas anything that affects the fisheries is of such demanding importance to us, I think it is really compulsory to us almost,even though we were hesitant to speak on it at this uarituclar time. But any memher 785

March 7, 1975, Tape 236, Page 2 -- apb Morning representing a fishing district should have something to say on this important motion. The present turmoil in the fishing industry is one matter. But this particular resolution goes into an area which has far-reaching effects and far-reaching implications long after any disputes which may currently be in the fishing industry are forgotten and done with. Unfortunately, the basis of a lot of the present trouble in the fishing industry is really the sum and substance of this resolution.

Where the stocks of fish are being depleted, the earning powers of our fishermen are automatically declining and this is really a lot of the basis of the present dispute. Now I will not refer anymore to that because it should not be referred to at this particular time. But going back a little earlier into the history of this sort of thing, I do agree with previous speakers that Canada as such has never taken what, in my opinion, is a really serious interest in the fisheries.

It is true that there have been many millions of dollars spent federally and provincially in this province in assistance to the fisherles 1 but not on the scale, in my opinion, that the industry warrants. I recall vividly years ago, juat after we joined Confederation, I was in Ottawa on a delegation at that time from the Fish Trades and got into a very heated argument with the late Stewart Bates, who was the Deputy Minister of Fisheries at the time. We ended up by crossing swords to the extent that I said that we were not even speaking the same language.

The attitude in Ottawa at that time, and I am afraid it comes right through to today, was that the fisheries was something which, well, we have to pay attention to it but it is a bit of a nusiance. It is not of such great importance to Canada that we have to give it the attention that it should be given. This is honestly my feelings about it. Now I hope and pray that our present Minister of Fisheries will be able to change that attitude. I feel quite honestly that if anybody from this province can do it, he will. 786

March 7, 1975 (Morning) Tape No, 237 NM - 1 It is going to be a hard battle. lt is going to be an extremely hard battle to get the proper interests from the federal government in the fisheries. l think the ultimate insult to the fishing industry of Newfoundland is to have it coupled with the environment. The very fact that it is under the Environmental Department indicates in my mind that the whole thing is not regarded as seriously as it should be.

Now on the other hand, in comparison, the European Countries do regard this as a vital industry and this is where the problem comes in,controlling their efforts or trying to bring some rationale to the amount of fish taken. I recall very vividly back in 1959-1960 I was a member of ICNAF, the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and to understand the problems which are involved in International negotiations one has to be a member of an international body to see just how complicated issues can become. In the first instance you have the language problem and no matter how good the

interpretation is, the

interpretation which different nations put on what is said is sometimes er.tirely contradictory to what is intended. I saw this happen in Moscow1 and true 1there the

interpretation facilities were not very good, that it was sometimes a day or a day and a half before we got the translation of what was said the day before. But even at that, the

interpretation which was put on what was said was something completely unrealistic and I can well understand that a conference the size of what was held in South America last year will again be held in Geneva this year, has a great danger of bogging down in misunderstanding. Probably not intentional misunderstanding but misunderstanding which arises from a complete different view on the whole problem. Just to illustrate to some extent the importance that these fisheries of ours represent to some other nations of the world and here I have to agree with my friend from the other side 1 n. 787

March 7, 1975 Tape No. 237 NM - 2 from Twillingate, that it is not an easy manner to settle because it is of such importance to them. Meals of fish in many European Countries are regarded at least, if not a daily occurrence, several times a week. At the time I was over there in Moscow there was a plant which I visited had 3,000 workers and had seventy-two varities of fish. Their fleets ranged from all sections of the globe, over all sections of the globe. They bought them from the Atlantic, Pacific and from Artie and Antartic and everywhere.

They felt, naturally so, that having the equipment and the men available and prepared to put the effort into it, that they could range the world in their fishing fleets. Now years ago I recall when the Portuguese and the southern European Countries were the most active on our Banks and so on, There was not the same problem because these people came out to the Banks, fished far offshore and generally got quick loads and went home. I remember loading loads of fish in Fogo at the time when we used to top off the cargoes of Bank fishing fleets with dry fish which we had prepared.

They would come in, these Portuguese draggers and load up and go on, finish off the cargo with dry fish which they bought in Newfoundland. At that time, the fish which they had in their holes, I used to see many hundreds, thousands of quintals of it, was huge stuff. There was not a fish in the cargo under thirty inches in length 1hardly. It was tremendous codfish at that time.

Now gradually over the years, the size of the catch and the size of the product which is being taken off these fishing grounds has dilllinished to the point that it is almost uneconomic to catch it and it is really only the scroff and the leavings of the deep sea fishery that is now coming ashore and this is where the danger is, that what our shore fishermen are catching, with one or two exceptions, is very, very small fish. Fish beyond any economic 788

:-{arch 7, 1975 Tape No. 237 NM - 3 reason for processing. It is doubly expensive to handle. It gives a poor return to the fishermen and it is one of the major stumblinR blocks in developing our industry. That is why it is so essential that some form of control be put on these deep sea fishing fleets. 789

March 7, 1975 Tape 238 (morning) We heard a resolution this morning and we heard some comment from the Minister of Fisheries as to how this government was going to try to help assist and try to impress on the federal government how the shore fishermen should be assisted. It is a very worthy and commendable theory on our part, but it will only be a theory unless the fish are there to catch.

Now, I feel myself that also what was said about properly regulated or controlled fisheries insofar as having a group of professional fishermen is also an essential part of it because while we do not want to restrict the effort of every Tom, Dick and Harry IB-1 who wants to go out and catch a few fish - I do not think he should be restricted - the proper, real, professional fisherman should receive proper recognition. I think it is the only way that we will encourage the men to really get into the fishery.

On many sections of our coast, you have in every settlement a few really dedicated, thoroughly competent, good fishermen who demonstrate through their efforts that a good livelihood can be had from the fishery. Regardless of what the conditions are, these men very often make a good livelihood. Now, if we could built up a hard core of such dedicated, professional fishermen, '1 think our production effort would go up very, very substantially.

Not only would it improve the production effort, but it would improve the quality of fish that we are putting into our plants, because, as was said this morning, the shore fish when caught is of a much higher quality, much better quality, to improve the end product. This is what we need to encourage because Newfoundland will survive and the fisheries of Newfoundland will survive if we get a high class of fis~. a better class of fish, a better quality of fish than our competitors can produce.

This is where the shore fishery of Newfoundland is so dramatically important, so very important and why it should be encouraged. I do not intent to speak at any length on this, Mr. Speaker, because I know others want to speak on it, but, in my opinion, this resolution is of paramount importance if it does nothing else but 790

March 7, 1975 Tape 238 (moniing) IB-2 shake up the apathy of the federal government with respect to our fisheries. I believe in all the legal approacpes that could be taken; and this has to be done on an international scale, Surely to heavens, in an industry of such importance to us here ip tqis

section of Canada, we cannot afford to sit around for three, four, five, six, ten, eight, twenty years while all of this is being dealt with on a legalistic basis. As I started to say when I got up to speak, this thing goes back a long way. I was speaking this morning of hearing these very discussions fifteen and twenty years ago. Now, what has happened in the meantime? I know at that time the control of the mesh, the size of mesh was the great thing under discussion, the size of the mesh of nets. At that time, I recall very vividly, GeQrge Clark was the Deputy Minister of Fisheries in Canada.

Now, we were on the other side. They were talking about controlling the effort and inspecting the ships and all this sort of thing.

Clark said, "Canada is prepared to enter into an agreement to try to control and police the fishing effort." The Russian stood on his feet anci he said, after it was translated, he said, "How many men are you prepared to put at this job and how many ships?" Clark sort of stumbled and said, "Well, I guess we have two or three of these that we can send out." The Russian laughed anq he said, "We can have 1,500 sh:j_ps and 20,000 men if you want them on the Grand Hanks." So, really 1when Canada speaks of a fishing effort, we are not in the same league.

For us to talk of controlling this and driving these fellows off, it has to be done in some orderly, sensible fashion. Therefore, I think that Canada, our federal government, must take a really serious look at this, I hope that this resolution among the other approaches which are made to Ottawa, particularly by our very belligerent Minister of Fisheries, will have the necessary affect. MR. SPE'A,KER (DUNPHY) : The honourable member fQr Labrador Sou th. 791

March 7, ltHS Tape 239 (Morni ng) PK - 1 MR. n. MARTIN: Hr. Se1eaker, it was not my intention originally to speak to this debate since, as it has already been pointed out, it is a unanimous decision, I hope 1 to send this resolution to Ottawa. But I do not believe it would be correct for me to let it pass without addi .ng my name to the list of those who have supported it, and making that a matter of a record.

I think it is abundantly clear that if any action is going to be taken it must be done by the federal government, and as h~s been demonstrated over the years the federal government are not prepared to act without Pressure. And I think it is incumbent upon ever yone of us here through work in our own constituencies to ~et the public as well behind it. I would like to think that this resolution is merely the start of a larger pressure movement to try to finally move the federal government into action.

I would agree with the remarks made by the honourable gtntleman for Bonavista South when he said that we can hope to see very little come out of the Law of the Sea Conference. Nevertheless we would be irresponsible if we did not try at this point to in.1ect some kind of sense into the delegations who are going to attend that meeting. It is important that we get the resolution off as soon as possible. But I think we should be looking at some further action, some alternate means of putting pressure on Ottawa when, and if, as we suspect,that Law of the Sea Conference is not going to produce the desired results.

I believe it is also illogical for us to be talking about unilateral action. Because Canada as a nation, with our history of rather gutless diplomacy is not in any position anyway if we were to declare a 200 mile limit to defend, and protect, and control that 200 miles. The total numbers of men and women in our combined Armed Forces comes to something less than the numbers of policemen in the combined municipal and state police in the State of New York. I do not think that we would have very much luck in trying to keep the Russians away.

We are the only Arctic nation with ships that are not equipped to operate in ice. It is senseless to talk 792

}larch 7, l'l75 Tape 239 (Morning) Pk - 2 of unilateral action. I believe what we have to be doing at this point is to get together diplomatically on the diplomatic level with the United States and Mexico and take a trilateral stand on the protection of the enti_re North American Continental Shelf. I would .1ust like to reiterate that I hope this is merely the start of more political pressure to be put upon Ottawa by not the legislature 1but bv all members of the public. And hopefully honourable members here will take that back to their constituencies. MR . SPeAl<ER: The Hon. Member for Hermitage. MR. R.

SIMMONS: Mr. Sneaker, I would certainly like to rise and make a few comments about this resolution. Anart from my immediate interest in it I certain:y come from a constituency, or renresent a constituency which has a very real vested interest in this particular subject. First of all let me say that I certainly will be voting for the motion, and otherwise giving my unqualified support to the motion. I welcome it. And I welcome the atmosphere in which it is being debated. It is the kind of thing that deserves to have the unanimous supnort of the House, which I hope it will. And indications are that it will.

I share the sentiments expressed by my colleague the Member for Twillingate when he sugp.:est that perhaps instead of having this thing just wired to Ottaw, or mailed to Ottawa, or whatever 1 that nerhaps it ought to be taken to Ottawa. ~11'. BARRY: ~. SH1MONS: I will be there on Monday anyhow so - l'ardon? AN !ION. MEMRF.R: '1R. SIMMONS: Inaudible. The Minister of Mines indicates that he will be there in ()ttawa so he will have an O!)portunity to nut our case a little more stronp;ly than one can do i-.

y) etter. The !1inister of Social Services indicates that he would like a trip to Ottawa. Well 1all of us on this side would certainly like for him to have a trin to Ottawa or somewhere, or anywhere as a matter of fact. t-m. MURPHY: Inaudible. 793

March 7, 1975 Tape 239 (Morning) PK - 3 ~~_SIMMONS: I will lllOVe that. I would certainly move that for the honourable minister without no hesistancy at all. 1-ffi.. F. ROWE: MR. SIMMONS: When it hits the cold air it will go straight up. Not at all. I cannot think of anybodv more qualified, 1'-fr. Speaker, to talk about the offshore fisheries tr.an the Member for St. John's Centre. A man who must be eminently qualified tn the subject. 794

Har ch 7, 1975 Tape No. 240 NM - l He knows as much about the offshore fishery, Mr. Speaker, as - A,~ HON . MEMBER: Ina udible . · MR. SIMMONS: He knows as mucl1 about the offshore fishery, as he knows about another subject that we had to beat him and get after him and harass him in every way possible - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: before we )!:ot the information. Then he should be an expert on the fishery. MR. MURPHY: I think you left your head in the water too long. MR. SIMMONS : Anky Panky. MR. MURPHY: Inaudible. MR. NEARY : Anky Panky . MR. SIMMONS: Anky Panky . MR. MURPHY: Inaudible. AN HON.

Mt7'IBER : Mr. Anky Panky. MR. ROBERTS: We are your friends, Ank, You should hear what your enemies say, You should hear what your enemies say. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR •. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I am so interested in hearing the expertise of the Member for St. John's Centre on this subject that I do not know whether I should yield the floor to him, MR. MURPHY: Inaudible . MR. SIMMONS: I will yield the floor if you want to speak on the fishery and I can speak when you are finished. MR. NEARY: Bi g fishery problem down there in St. John's Centre. MR. SIMMONS: Do you want me to yield for a minute.

It should not take longer than that to tell what he knows about the fishery, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the offshore fisheryJof course 1is the life blood of the South Coast and this has been brought home dramatically during the past few months because of this strike situation, the trawlermen's dispute. People who live on the South Coast, many of whom were not directly involved in the fishery or who think they are not directly affected by the fishery 1have realized during the 795

.; March 7, 1975 Tape No. 240 NM - 2 past few weeks just how completely they and their businesses and their livelihoods are dependent on the success of the offshore fishery. We have heard a lot about declining fish stocks. We have heard a lot about the need to extend the jurisdiction as is outlined here and certainly that there be no doubt about where I stand on that, this is a position which I can support without hesitation or without qualification, But I would be less than honest if I sat down without saying that extending the jurisdiction is not of itself the answer insofar as Newfoundland is concerned.

We can extend it out there 300 miles to the Continental Margin or 600 miles, you go where you want out there, as long as this administration here in Newfoundland insist on persuing its present, I was going to say policy, but more accurately, Mr. Speaker, its present lack of policy with respect to the offshore fishery, the fishery generally, the jurisdiction over the Continental Shelf will not help our fishery one iota. It will not help it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr, Speaker, the answer was contained in a document which I keep for memories sake, The answer to the offshore fishery was contained in this document of November 1973 when it was announced at that time that the government has decided to establish a trawler programme at a cost of $60 million over the next three years. MR. NEARY: What year was that? MR. SIMMONS: 1973. MR. ROWE: The year of the by-election. MR. SIMMONS: Well, if you want to find out when the government first indicated its intentions in this matter, it did it in - AN HON. MEMBER: Come on. Mr. Speaker, can we get on with it1 MR.

SIMMONS: They do not want to hear it, Mr. Speaker. Because it hits too close to home. Because it puts the finger on what is the real issue insofar as the offshore fishery is concerned in this province, SOME HON, MEMBERS: Inaudible. 796

March 7, 1975 Tape No. 240 NM - 3 MR. SPEAKER-: Order, please! MR. ROWE: A mackerel molecule. MR. NEARY: The clown of the Tory Party. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, in March 1972 the Throne Speech gave notice of gove:.:nment's intention to introduce legislation to establish a trawler corporation to own or lease rights on a new fleet of trawlers. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Be quiet now. MR. SIMMONS: Then in April of the same year, Mr. Speaker, in April of the same year the Premier gave notice at Harbour Grace - -,: HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. HR.SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, I quite agree with the gentleman opposite that the Member for Bell Island is a statemnan. It is by accident that they recognize it,of course. I would look for either authorities if I wanted to know who the sta~esmen are in this House. MR. MURPHY: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Why do you not become friends with Anky Panky, the big hypocrite? AN HON. MEMBER; Inaudible. MR. SIMMONS: I have got all the time in the world, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this debate is really getting out of hand, SOME HON. MEMBERS : Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR, SIMMONS: Mr, Speaker, as I was saying the Throne Speech of 1973 gave notice of the government's intention to establish a trawler corporation. The Premier reaffirmed this a month or so later in Harbour Grace when he again, well he went on to say that, he went so far as to say the trawler programme was an established fact, 797

March 7, 1975, Tape 241, Page 1 -- aob Morning another example of where the facts are often deoendinp, on his

interpretation of what the facts are. The trawlermen on the South Coast, Mr. Speaker, do not think it is an established fact. The many people in the Cormnunity of Harbour Breton who have had to either lose their jobs at the fish plant or who are only working there part time, and I am not makinr. reference to the trawlermen's dispute per se, but I am talking about the period before that when they were working twenty or thirty hours a week because the fish supply to the olant was not sufficient to keep them going on a full-time basis.

They will not believe the Premier,neither in 1973 nor in 1975 that the trawler corporation or the trawler fleet is an established fact. Mr. Speaker, my point in making reference to these matters now is to say, let us not get so caught up in this particular resolution-and do not mis1.n1.derstand me, we ought to get completely caught up in this one insofar as it is concerned- but let us not use this as a scapegoat for the othP.r problem 1a t,lroblem which has been accentuated by this administration by failing to act on its own commitment of three years ago. Three years ago this was recognized. AN HON.

MEMBER: Ah, come on boy! MR. SI~ONS: Three years ago this government recognized that part of the solution to this problem, a very large part of it, lay in increasing, in improving, in stepping up our fish catching capabilities. We can have all the resolutions we want - _MR_._M_O_R_GAN __ : __ R_esource depletion. MR. SIMMONS: Yes, we are talking about resource depletion. The Member from Bonavista South wants to tell us that the reason we are not catching as many fish is because of the detling supply. That is partly true, Mr. Speaker. That is partly true, but I put it to vou this way, Mr.

Speaker, the Russians are catching fewer fish but they are catching a lot more fish than we are. And they are catching more because they have provided the additional fish catch capabilitv . We would be catching a lot more fish if the government of three years ago had lived up to its commitment and provided the additional trawlers 798

March 7, 1974, Tape 241, Page 2 -- apb Norning to supply the additional fish to those plants, Particularly along the South Coast. }!r. Speaker, it is a particular disappointment to me. representing a constituency which denends very heavily on the offshor e fisherv, a particular disappointment that the government have not seen fit to give attention to improvi11J1; the fish catch caoability of our trawler fleets by adding to the nU111beT of trawlers ~ursuing the fishery.

Our unanimity at this particular lllOment on the sub j ect of the resolution, our unanimity and support of the resolution which.I hope i will 'be unan11ilous when the vote comes, I hope every member will vote cor the resolution so that the Minister of Mines and Energy or ,omever conveys the sentiments to Ottawa, ~r. Speaker, I hope the itlniste r or whomever conveys that sentiment will be able to ~o with the additional strenp.th of a unanimous resolution behind him. Mr. Speaker , shall we call it one o'clock? MR. _1P£_Al<ER: It is noted that the Ronourable the Member for Hermitap.e adjourned the debate.

It now being one o'clock I do leave the Chair until three o'clock this afternoon. 799

March 7, 1975. The House resumed at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape 242(Afternoon) RI! - 1 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before we proceed with business, we have several groups in the galleries whom I would like to welcome today. From the A.P. Low Elementary School in Labrador City, we have eighteen grade five students with their teachers, Mrs.Wanda Saunders and Hiss Gagnon, and from the Holy Trinity Regional High School in Hearts Content, forty-two grade eleven students with Mr. Charles Way and Mr. Eric Legg, from Curtis Elementary at St. John's, eleven grade six students with Mr.

Meadus and Mrs.Martin, and from Gander we have seven boy scouts with M:r. Claude Hendrix here. On behalf of all the honourable members, I certainly welcome you all to the galleries today and trust that your visit here is most interesting and informative. MR. EARLE: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable minister have leave to- MR. NEARY: No, no, Mr. Speaker. MR. DOODY: It is an answer to a question you asked this morning. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable minister - if there is not unanimity then I cannot recognize the honourable minister. MR.

NEARY: Well, Sir, my colleague has the float. The Member for Hermitage, Sir, is addressing the House in the debate. MR. SPEAKER: MR. EARLE: MR. SPEAKER: MR. ROWE: MR. NEARY: beforehand. MR. SIMMONS: MR. EARLE; Order, please! Order, please! Row small can you get. Order, please! The honourable Member for Hermitage. Inaudible. You should have had the courtesy and come over and ask us Mr. Speaker, - Inaudible. Ml. •. NEARY: We are going to have a budget on Wednesday, we know that. We were told that this morning by the Minister of Fisheries. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, if I could pick up where I left off before lunch. BOO

March 7, 1975. Tape 242 RH - 2 We were discussing the resolution concerning the Continental Margin and the importance of all of us presenting to Ottawa, all of us as members of this House, presenting a united front to Ottawa in terms of our feelings about their extending jurisdiction, not only out to the two hundred mile limit, but to include the Continental Margin as well.

As we- recessed one o'clock, I was making a point that in addition to being very, very firm on this matter of the extended jurisdiction, we ought at all times to keep in mind that the having jurisdiction over the Continental Margin, of itself, will not be of much benefit to the offshore fishery in Newfoundland. Even if we achieve this and Canada agrees with our position,which I sincerely hope it will~and even if it can persuade the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva later this month to subscribe to that position, even if all that is so, Mr.

Speaker, and all that happens, unless we get more action, unless we get some fulfillment of the connnitments made by the present administration here in the Province, then we will not benefit one iota from the extended jurisdiction. I think it is a point that needs to be made and made again, Mr. Speaker. I have been, during the past few days, relieved, and relieved by the atmosphere in the House as we engage unanimously in a matter, get behind a matter in which we all firmly believe. I had not intended to take what may he interpreted by some as a partisan note in this particular debate.

I had intended to follow the precedent set in this debate by my colleague. the honourable the Leader of the Opposition and certain other people who succeeded him.

But in view of the fact that two or three of the ministers, in particular the l\inister of Justice, sought to spend most of his time parading and blaming, I ought to say, blaming others for the woes of the Newfoundland fishery, rather then leveling with the people of ~Tewfoundlancl and tellin!] them, telling us here in the House that the real problems we are having with the Newfoundland fishery now cannot alone be blamed on the lac!: of jurisdiction on the }largin or the declining stocks or any of these problems alone. These are factors, Mr. Speaker, and they are verf 801

March 7, 1975 Tape 243 (Afternoon) IB-1 important factors, and they are factors which are having an impact on the kind of fishery we are having these days, but the factor over which we have control. We cannot control at this particular moment the matter of jurisdiction as a province, We cannot control the fish stocks or the fact that they are declining. But there is an area in which we have control. It is an area of which this government has been aware of for a long, long time, has paid lip service to for three years or so in campaign promises and in Throne Speeches.

In the 1972 Throne Speech we had reference to it. In various !lections propaganda put out at election time, the Tory Party has given notice about its plans to improve the fish catching capability, but yet it has done nothing about it. We do not have that trawler fleet. We need that trawler fleet. If we had that trawler fleet that was promised in 1972, the offshore fishery, particularly along the South Coast of Newfoundland and on the Southern Shore and in parts of the North East Coast, that offshore fishery would not be as near to the brink of disaster as it is today. It is my sincere hope, Mr.

Speaker, that while we all stand here and mouth nice sentiments 1and sentiments that have to be stated about the need for Canada to take the position which we are taking in this resolution, I hope that we will not use this occasion to try and gloss over the other problem, the problem over which we do, as a province, have control, the problem of declining fish catches. Now, the obvious answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that the fish are not there anymore. Of course if they are not there, why are we all pepped up about this particular resolution Of course they are there.

They may be declining in numbers, but, as I said earlier, I believe, the Russians and the other nations represented on those Grand Banks, true they are catching fewer fish than they did in previous years, but they are still catching a whole lot more fish than we are. There is one reason why they are catching a lot more fish than we are. Because they are much more aggressive in their pursuit of the fishery. They are prepared to put their money where their mouth is and we are not. We will talk and we will print and we will shout and 802

March 7, 1975 Tape 243 (afternoon) we will bluff and we will do everything to tell people about what great trawler fleets there are going to be if they vote for the IB-2 right party, but when it comes time to put that $60 million that is talked about here by the Premier in his election promises 1or that was talked about by the Premier in April, 1973 over in Harbour Grace 1or the commitment that was made in the Throne Speech of three years ago, 1972, when it comes time to put our money as a government or its money as a government where its mouth is, nothing happens.

Then they begin to pontificate about what the real problems are and they begin to talk long and hard about their experience as conferences 1as the Minister of Justice did this morning. They begin to wax long and e)nquent about how if we had that Continental Margin jurisdiction, how w. would have all our problems solved. Mr. Speaker, let us not be fooled by that kind of argument.

It is an argument which is alright in its place,but if it is used at this time, in this debate to draw attention away from the real responsibility here, the real problem here, the problem of declining fish catches, a problem that has been ignored by this administration, a problem that has been accentuated, aggravated because this administration has not kept its commitment of three years ago to provide a trawler fleet, if, Mr.

Speaker, we allow the unaminity of the moment to gloss over what is another big issue troubling our fishery, we will achieve nothing because we will have, optimistically speaking, we will have jurisdiction in time over the Continental Margin with all its resources . I am at this moment in my comments addressing myself to the fisheries resources. I do want to say something in a moment about the mineral resources. J .. 303

March 7, 1975 Tape 244 (Afternoon) PK - 1 I was saying optimistically sneaking we will have jurisdiction in time if this resolution meets with the success we hope for it. We will have. We will have nothing more. We will be catching no more fish. There will be still just as many people in the fish plants in Gaultois, and Harbour Breton, and all the others we could name along the South Coast, and the Southern Shore, and on the Northeast Coast.

We will still have hundreds upon hundred; of people working part-time in the plant instead of full-time because there is not enough fish to keen the plants going full-time, because there are not enough trawlers out there catching fish. And notice what I said, Mr. Speaker. Not because the fish are not out there but because there are not enough trawlers out there catching the fish, not enough trawlers from Newfoundland catching those fish. Oh if we only had that trawler programme the Premier talked abont so often! If we only had it. He said three years ago it was a fact. Well it is far from a fact.

His version of facts maybe, Mr. Speaker. But we have had examples dJring the past two weeks that we should not tend to raly on the Premier's version of the facts 1 His version of the fact, and I quote him. He said in Harbour Grace in 1973 ''the tra1o1ler programme is an estahlished fact." ' Tell that to the people down in Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker, who cannot get a decent week's wages because they are working twenty hours instead of forty. MR. A. EVANS : We have not got an established market,though)have we? MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, I am looking forward as I have been for a year-and-a-half in this Rouse to hearing a speech from the Member for Burgeo-LaPolile. MR. SPF.AKER: Order, please! Again I remind honourable members that when a member is speaking he does have the right to be heard in silence. Even though the member speaking may be provoked somewhat it still does not give him the procedural right to make any comments with regards to a statement made by a member opposite. 804

March 7, 1975 Tape 244 (Afternoon) PK - 2 "R. SIMMONS: - ---- -- I was g,:Jing to be very kind, Mr. Speaker, as my comments ahout the honourable member are always very kind. I was going to invite him to give us his thinking on the subject of markets. I look forward - MR. EVANS: Inaudible. -- ---- MR . SPF.AKER: Order, olease! The Hon. Member for Hermitage is merely changing words around to get back to a point that he was not making before, and thus not being relevant to this debate. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the Member for Burgeo-LaPoile. MR.

SPEAKER: -- --- Order, please! MR . S IK'-IONS : Being near the weekend, Mr. Speaker, I will try and be charitable towards the Member for Burgeo-LaPolile. He did bring to mind, of course, another area, the area of marketing which does require a fair amount of debate on which I would be prepared to give him my thou~hts at any time. But right now I would like to pursue the point I was making. I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we can miss the boat on this one, in this discussion, in our atmosphere of unanimity we can n·ally miss the boat on this one.

I do not think the government are at all missing the point. I think indeed as apart from taking it, what is an admirable position 1in supporting the resolution as introduced by my colleage the Leader of the Oppositionl apart from doing that 1 which is admirable, I believe the government have another agenda here, another item on its agenda. I believe the government sees this as a beautiful scapegoat item. An item to detract 1 an item to detract away from its failure over the past three years AN HON. ~!EMBER: l{!l_. SIMMONS: MR. SPEAKFR: Inaudihle. Mr. Sneaker, Order, please!

I shall not look to the Member for Bonavista South to decide what is partisan. His judgment on that matter is fairly limited and well known. Partisan or not, Mr. Speaker, I must make the 805

larch 7, H7 5 Taoe 244 (Afternoon) PK - 3 '!>oint which concerns me as a member frmn 11. constitu~ncy whi ch deoends s o heavil on the offshore f1.shecy 1 I must make the ooin t chat t he nrob l ems ~Je are hav i~ in Harb our Rreton , and Gaul tois, and the other communities on that coast depend on fish plants in

part i cu lar . I alJI not, I stress, Mr. Speake r, alluding in any ay to the immediat:e proble ms created by the traw ler strike . It \JOuld be imnroner for me to be commenting on t hat at this partic ular time becau se n.egotiatio ns are in process, and I am not even indire ctl alluding to t hat. But I am talli::f.ng about the kinds of pro~lems which we had even in the absen ce o f a disp ute. The kinds of problems we had l ast Fall , fo r exampl e, when there was no tra~•lermen' s strike. 806

March 7, 1975 Tape 245 (afternoon) IB-1 And those problems, the problems of inadequate fish supplies in the fish plants on the South Coast. The onus, the blame for that kind of problem, and the spin off problems of lack of job opportunities and lack of hours of work, the blame for those problems must be laid squarely at the feet of the government for their failure to keep the commitment to provide that trawler fleet. Mr. Speaker, before concluding I would want to just say a few words insofar as the resolution affects and relates to resources other than the fisheries resources as such. Here again, Mr.

Speaker, it is essential that all of us get behind this resolution again insofar as it affects our mineral resources. I recognize and the motion recognizes that we already have a much more substantial claim here 1or I should say have established a much more substantial claim here,than we have insofar as our claim in the fisheries is concerned. The only comment that I would want to make here because I believe most of the rest have been made, relates to the wording of the resolution itself, the first part of the "BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED". I am not suggesting any amendments.

I believe the framers of the amended resolution are probably quite aware of the implications here. Just for the record I would like to mention that in the last part of that, the indented part of the resolution, if I might call it such 1where the word "maintain" appears. It reads, and I quote, "And that it maintain Canada's existing rights and jurisdiction over the minerals, etc." The point I want to make here 1 of course,is that I think we are all aware in discussing this resolution that the intent of the resolution is to set forth Canada's position in relation to the international situation.

I hope that the Minister of Mines and Energy or whoever seeks to elaborate on this resolution when it is presented to Ottawa, will use the opportunity to again point out our stand, and I believe it is the government's stand and certainly the Liberal Party's stand and Newfoundland's stand really, that although the context here says, "Canada in relation to the international situation" insofar, of course, 807

~(arch 7, 1975 Tape 245 (afternoon) as the rights and jurisdiction problem is concerned in Canada , it is first Newfoundland 's existing rights, Newfoundlan d's existing jurisdiction . r would gache ·r, and perhaps the minister could confinn this, that the use of the word "Canada" there i s intended vis-a-vis the international situation only and would in no way subtract from our stated and oft Stated position in terms of Newfoundland's particular rights insofar as offshore minerals. MR. BARRY: Toe fact that Canada owns them, does not mean that the federal government controls them. MR. SIMMONS: Right .

I think we are on the same wave leng th m-2 here, but just for the record , Mr. Speaker, l just did want to reiterate again our firm position insofar as Newfoundland's particular rights - I say particular andunique, unique because of the way of our comin g in to Canada in 1949 and the status of our govern ment or at the time of our coming in tbe status in relation to or in contTast to the status of the other provinces at the time they joined the union. Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion, l would just like to say that l wholeheartedly suppo-rt this resolution and I would certainly invite all members on both sides of the House to give it their unanimous consent and thus allow the Minister of Mines and Energy and the government of the province to put forward to Ottawa the strongest possible voice on this very important and crucial subject . 808

March 7, 1975, Tape 246, Page 1 -- apb Afternoon MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Social Services. MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, if I may and I will not keep the House very long on this. I do not come from a fishing area as such, but I might say that St. John's is just as much interested in a successful fishery ard protecting it as any