Volume 1 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 1st Session VERBATIM REPORT Thursday, June 29, 1972 SPEAKER: TlE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 42 ...

June 29, 1972 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Tape 1099 J~f - 1 PETITIONS: ---- · MR. A.M. DUNPHY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leF.ve to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Gallants. Gallants is situated approximate.1 v thirty miles fro111 Corner Brook on the Trans Canada Highway to the east and about twenty--five miles from the next nearest tawn, Stephenville Crossinr,,to the west.

The prayer of this petition is that the citizens of Gallants wish to obtain a fire truck or some adeCJuate fire-fir,htin!"'. equipment for the communitv of Gallants. '?ow Gallants is a very heavily wooded area, at least it is surrounded hv rlense woodlands and there is always a threat of forest fires in th~ area other than fires that happen throup.h accidents within the howes. There are a considerahle nUJ11ber of homes there. It is not a larr,e community but this petition is endorsed or signed hv anoroxir,ately seventy neople frow that community.

T think not only should this fire apparatus. fire-fi~htin~ smr,arat111< be placed in Gallants for the protection of the r,eople there. life and limh, hut also for the protection of the ~orest nearby, The information I have from the Forest urotection Association; that last vear ]0.71 was an extremely good year and we lost 6,1n1 acres of timber land.

I will go back a little further to what was a rather rough year for forest fires and therewereone million, in 1961 therewereover one million acres of prime forest burnt and it seems a shame that for the sake of the amount of money that is involved here, I do not think this would exceed anymore than s12.ono. It was only prior to last October the former administration were goin? around givin? out fire trucks, money to purchase fire trucks, like they were roing out of style. Unfortunately the little Town of 3524 .~• ..

June 29, 1972 Tape 1099 .TI-f - 2 r,allants was not included in that scheme and they are still without this equipment. So I be~ for the people of Gallants to the department concerned which can do something along these lines. presumably Municipal Affairs, and that this petition be placed upon the table and referred to the department to which it relates. !'!Jl. S .A. N)lARY:. Mr. Speaker, I support the petition as presented by the honourable member for St. George's on behalf of his constituents in Gallants. There is nothing that I can add to what the honourable member has alreadv said.

He presented a very stronp case and if the barricades come down in the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Sir, I would be very happy to see the Minister of Munidpal Affairs place the matter of a fire truck for Gallants high on their list of oriorities. Sir. we have seen a lot of petitions presented in this honourable House in the last few weeks,mostly concerning highways,and I am sure that the honourable Minister of Highways,who is back in his seat today and I am very happy to see him here, Sir, I hope the minister is well on the road to recovery.

I am sure when he returned to his office he must have had a terrific stack of petitions down there from the people. MR. F.R. STAGG: Mr. Speaker, the community of Gallants has historically preformed the very great function on the West Coast of a timber cutting community brought about largely through the efforts of the late Jim Collier. In the last three years Gallants has not been as thriving as it was before but we hope that with the cutting of wood for the linerboard mill at Stephenville that it will thrive again. It is said to he one of the most scenic areas of the province and a.s the honourable member for St.

George's pointed out it is very vulnerable during the forest fire season and a fire truck for this area would be a ~reat boom to future development there. So I support this petition wholeheartedly. 3525

June 29, 1972. Tape 1100 Page 1. MR.BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Garden Cove, Placentia West. The prayer of the petition being that the residents of Garden Cove hereby petition the House of Assembly to widen and pave the four miles of highway connecting their community with the Burin Feninsula Highway, it being now very rough and narrow,in places impassable in early spring, Mr.

Speaker I take pleasure in supporting the prayer of the petition, I think that enough has been said on other occasions in the House,when petitions for paving have been presented, to need that very little be said at this time. But, I think, it is obvious to us all that people who live in areas where roads are unpaved have as their highest priorities the obtaining of pavement for their roads. I would ask that this petition be laid on the table of the House and referred to the departmen.t to which it relates. MR.Tl:IOMS: Mr.

Speaker, I rise in support of the prayer of the petition, from the residents of Garden Cove, for the reconstruction and paving of four miles of road which will hook them up to the main highway. I feel sure that this is a vital necessity to this community. I am quite sure all members on this side of the House supports this petition as I believe every member of this House will support the prayer of the petition. I sincerely trust and pray that our Minister of Highways may see fit to bring the prayer of this petition to reality, MR.DOYLE: Mr.

Speaker, I take leave of the House to present two petitions from two different groups from the town of Trepassey. The first petition. The prayer of the first petition is that this House oi Assembly have an area known as Northwest Trepassey excluded from the boundaries of the town of Trepassey. Apparently,Mr. Speaker, Northwest Trepassey was taken into the town without any consideration being given to the services it could or would receive. Northweat is a two mile area, has a total of ten homes and is 3526

June 29. 1972. Tape llOO Page 2, situated some six miles from cen-tral Trepassey. It is not included in the town's proposed water and sewerage system or any other proposed plan either now or in the future. The prospect of building homes at norty--west Trepassey is remote, as serviced lots are available only in the centralized area of the town and are fo.r sale by the Newfoundland & Labrador Housing 6orporation, The petitioners therefore p-cay that this House accepts the petiJion and have the ilrea knovn as N.orthwest Trepaseey reDIOved from the municipal district of Trepassey. 3527

June 29, 1972 Tape 1101 (afternoon) PK - 1 MR. T. DOYLE: The second petition, Mr, Speaker, is signed by ninety- nine residents of Trepassey who are members of a committee who are called "The Action For Trepassey Area Committee.'' Briefly the prayer of the petition is as follows: As part of a ten year Southern Shore Regional Plan, 1968 to 1978, which was commissioned by the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing and prepared by Project Planning Associates,the municipal plan was drawn up for the Town of Trepassey. In the opinion of the petitioners,no one in Trepassey including the Town Council was consulted.

No one represented Trepassey in any of the planning stages. The Town Council,the official representives elected to govern the affairs,had no knowledge of any plans being formulated and were being presented with the completed plan before they were even aware of its existence, One main result of the municipal plan is that land in Trepassey is so tied up that we cannot get an acre to build on. The ninety­ nine people who signed this are a sample and I am sure,as the people who presented the petition to me said,that they could get almost everybody in Trepassey to sign it if need be, I would like to say , Mr.

Speaker , before asking that these two petitions be laid on the table of the House,that in my District of Ferryland there is quite a problem with housing generally,as it relates to the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I have had discussions with the honourable the minister on this matter. He is well aware of them,and these are just two examples of what my constituents have been talking about and about which I will have something to say when the estimates come up. I pray that these will be laid on the table of the House and referred to the department to which they apply, 3528 Cr.

June 29, 1972 Tape 1101 (afternoon) PK - 2 REPORTS OF STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES HON, H. A. COLLINS: (MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING): Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling here the Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation along with the financial statement for the year 1971. MOTIONS HON. T. A. HICKMAN (~flNISTER OF JUSTICE) : Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Law Society Act." HON, DR. A. T, ROWE (MINISTER OF HEALTH): Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask permission to amend The Mental Health Act, 1971. QUESTIONS HON. J.C. CROSBIE (MINISTER OF FINANCE): Mr, Speaker, I have the answer to Question No. 119, asked by the honourable member for White Bay South on the Order Paper of June 27, HON, E, M, ROBERTS: (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Mr. Speaker, an answer to a question to the Minister of Highways. In so doing may I say how glad we all are to see him back in the House.

Indeed I think it is his first appearance in this Hoose of Assembly, He was with us for the one-day assembly and is back again now, We are delighted to see him and looking so well after his illness. I suspect the minister hes the answer to the question because he and I discussed it just before the House met, But I wonder if he could tell the House, Sir, about the situation in Port au Bras up in the District of Burin . The Community Council there have asked me, in fact they say they have no satisfaction from their member, they have now asked me to ask, Mr.

Speaker, why this morniDg all the care on the Southside of the community were moved so that the read could be made ready for paving and then eleven o'clock this morning the project was cancelled, 3529

June 29, 1972 Tape 1101 (afternoon) PK - 3 MR. ROBERTS: I would like for the minister to tell me whether these facts are correct and if so what they mean. 3530

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1102 NM - 1 DR. FAR.RELL: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the honourable member for White Bay North; first of all I would like to thank him for his very kind remarks and to express my appreciation to him and his col1ea~ues for their patience and forebearing during my absence from the House, I would like to let them know that Che Departments of Highways and Public Works will have available any inforrntion that may not have been available to them during my absence from the House.

I would also like to say about the Port aux Bras situation, that it will be paved and the contractor moved in·today but there were some difficulties which turned up since then, We have ironed them out since that time and this will go ahead. MR . ROBERTS: I thank the minister very much, Sir. I know the community council there, >fr. Dillon wil+ be delighted to have the information. 1'1ay I ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development, 'fr. Speaker?

Have the government accepted or rejected or have they taken any action and if so, what action with respect to the offer by Bowaters, made after talks with officials of the government and members of the government 1 to cut wood at Main Brook in Hare Bay, which is in my own constituency,at Tommy's Arrn,in the District of Green Bay,and possibly other places throughout the province,cut wood for use in the government's Labrador Linerboard Mill at Stephenville. ~S.ROSIHE:_ Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is an offer in that sense of the word.

There have been continuing discussions with Bowaters and other logging contractors on the Island of Newfoundland in connection with the purchase of wood, the proposed purchase of wood for the Linerboard Mill at Stephenville. No agreement has yet been entered into with 11owaters. It is a question, as the honourable gentleman knows, of price and other requirements. We will be reviewing the situation tomorrow generally in connection with the Linerboard Mill. This will be one of the topics to be discussed then but there is no contracts entered into with Bowaters yet but there has been considerable negotiations. 3531

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1102 NC - 2 MR. -~O!ERf:~ Supplementary to that question, I apologize for not havinp, the opportunity to give the minister notice as I normally would on this matter, but I only got the information myself just before the House met. Can the minister tell the House whether there will be a quick decision. I say this because the Bowaters people have informed me that unless a decision is taken quickly, it will not be possible, in their opinion, for them to cut the wood, the amount of wood, the 70,000 cords which has been the amount under discussion.

Can the minister tell us whether there might be an early decision on this matter. MR. C~OSBIB: There will certainly be an early decision on it, Mr Speaker, if we are in a position to make an early decision. I will not know that until tomorrow. As I say, it is a question of what Bowaters want, the terms and conditions, suggestions that we should put up money for equipment purposes and other purposes, In other words they are trying to make as good a deal for themselves I suppose as possible, That is the way you would put it. I do not expect that there will be any long period of time before a decision is made. MR.

ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, a furthez question for the honourable gentleman with respect to the Linerboard Mill: Last night the Premier stated in the committee that the cost had gone to $180 million. Is that correct? MR. CROSBIE: Anything the Premier says, Mr. Speaker, is necessarily correct, ·but on that exact figure it depends on how you look at the cost of the Linerboard Mill. The figure given in the Budget Speech is $159 million some odd, which includes working capital. We will be reviewing the latest figures tomorrow.

I think the indication is that it is going to be higher than $160 million but I do not think it will - I think ~180 million is too high, 3532

MR. CROSBIE: but it will be something in excess of $160 million, We will be dealing with the whole thing tomorrow, but it will not be, $180 million is still out, I certainly hope we will not reach that. MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, seeing that we are dealing with the Linerboard Mill,may I direct a question to the honourable Minister of Economic Development1 Is there any truth or fact to the fact where I have heard quite a lot of publicity given,that a 30,000 ton ship has been loaded at Goose Bay and now finds itself unable to enter the Harbour at Stephenville?

If there is a delay I think the statements or at least the ones that I have heard, that the ship was costing $200 a day would be very much out of line, It would be closer to $3,000 to $5,000 a day. But can the honourable minister inform the House Lf the ship can get into Stephenville or not after departure from Goose Bay with the wood. MR. CROSBIE: Well, Mr, Speaker, I think I said sorneth:l.ng on this the other day. 'lhe position is that there is dredging required at Goose Bay and at Stephenville for the satisfactory use of these ships, of which the one the honourable gentleman mentions is the first.

There has to be dredging at Goose Bay to hring the depth,by the wharf,to thirty feet, so the vessel can take a full load of wood while at the dock. The situation at Stephenville is,the federal government have agreed to do the dredging at Goose Bay and at Stephenville, Now I will have more up-to-date information tomorrow.

But the position certainly was several days ago that the dredging at Stephenville had not yet started and unless that gets started,removes a dog leg, I think the term is, That is in the way and there is some other work whei:e the vessel cannot - MR ROBERTS: In other woi:ds, the Pi:emiei: was not cori:ect. MR CROSBIE: The Premier was partially not correct. 3533

June 29, 1972, Tape 1103, Page 1 -- apb MR • • CROSBIE, cannot get into Stephenville Earbour and that is correct. It is therefore essential that this dredging be started immediately. AN HON. }fEHBER: MR. CROSBIE: -------- AN HON. IBJ-ffiF.R · Ml. CROSBIE: Where is the dredge now then? She is between Goose Bay and Stephenville, I presume. When she gets to Stephenville ••. When she gets to Stephenville, then I will have to go out and swim in with it. AN HON . ME}{BER: 1'1R. CROSBIE: ------ - -- - - AN HON. ~MBER· 1"R. CROSBIE: (Inaudible) I would certainly try.

That is dedication, (Remainder inaudible) The honourable gentleman will have to ask the Government of Canada about that, We have been requesting that that this dredging •.. Who owns the ship? "R. CJlOSBIE · ----- ----- He have the sh:fp on charter. If we are i:-;oinr to move suffici.ent wood fro111 Lahrador to Stephenville, it has to start now, On thif' T can pive e. fuller report on tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, the position is this, the Federal Government has been requested by us to do this dredging. The request was made a considerable time ago.

We have been in touch with the Department of Transport constantly on this. How long it will be before that dredging is done, I do not know. I hope it will not be very long. MR. ROBERTS , What is to be done in the meantime? ----- ·--· MR._ CROSBIE: We will have to see when the ship gets there. I will have to tell the honourable gentleman tomorrow. I am not in daily touch with it. MR. ROBERTS: Can the minister find out the cost per day as well? MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman will do his best. MR. ROBERTS: Bless him! MR. NEARY: Mr.

Chairman, in view of the alarming report in today's "Daily News" concerning the C.N.Dockyard, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Premier. I would like to ask the Deputy 3534

June 29, 1072, Tape 1103, Page 2 -- apb Premier if the government have received a study conducted by W.G. Pearce of London, Ontario, who was the C.N. consultant? If the government has received the report, would the Deputy Premier inform the House of what actionJif any, or what representation,if any, the Government of the Province have made to the Government of Canada or to Canadian Natfollal Railways, to eideguard the jobs at the C.N. Dry Dock here ii, St. John's and to 1;:nsure the future of the dock as being essentit,~ to both local shipping and to ocean going ships? MR. W.N.ROWE: No answer? AN HON.

MEMBEI!_: Do not know who is the Deputy Premier. MR. SPEAKER: It seems the honourable member should direct his question to a person rather than the Deputy Premier, MR. NEARY: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the Deputy Premier is the Minister of Justice. AN HON. MEMBER: There is no such animal. MR. HICKMAN: I tried to make the position clear the other day to honourable gentleman, Maybe the honourable member for Bell Island was not present in the House at the time. There is no such office in this province as that of Deputy Premier.

There was an announcement,about August 1969, that there was to be a Deputy Premier. I know of no legislation ever brought before this House to create that office. My second portfolio is that of President of the Council. If the honourable gentleman has any question to direct to me in that office,I will do my best to answer it. The other position is that it was announced by the Premier that when he is absent from the Province, as President of the Council I assume the office of Acting Premier,if I am within the province, MR. ROBERTS: Will he be absent today? MR. HICKMAN: No. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, there must be some minister in the House. 3535

June 29, 1972, Tape 1103, Page 3 - apb SOME HON. Mfil.'IBERS1 Ask us, ask µs. MR. NEARY: Well, I would like to direct the q1,1estion to the President of the Council or Actin~ Pr&Jllier, which ever bat he is wearing today, ·1,s President of the Council, Mr, Speaker, all I know of the information that has been referred to by the honourable member for Bell Island, of wh.1.eh the paper very carefully !J~id ''it has been learned without any substantiation.. .. " 'lhat is what has appeared :tn the paper. I have no knowledge of any such repor;-t being pr-ese~te:d to the Government of this Province. I would assume that if itweredone as an internal matter by the C.N., they would 3536

June ?.9 . 1972 Tape 1104 Jlft . l not feel inclined to 1>ive it to us but if it is P-iven to the nrovince or if' it is in the hands of thf' province ohviouslv any policv decision bv the Minister of Transport to instruct his Crown Agency, CN . to close nown his docl-:yard would be treated wi t.h ;, great deal of aL1rr, and protestation from this adrninis tr.~ tion. The honourab1 e mer,J,er for P,ell Island can rest assured that if the hon. Mr. Jamieson so then directed Canadian National, the Government of Canada will hear from the Province of ll!ewfounr'land. MR. THOMS: Mr.

S"eaker, T woul r1 1 ih! to direct a cmes t i nn to the Minister of Hiphwavs. We are nuite 11,rnpy to see the minist e r b:ick in his seat. In view of the fact that the Newfoundland Saf €' tv Conncil -! s extremely concerned because to rlate the yellow markinrs rlo not an-pear on the Trans Canada Hiehwav and also because of th e fact that I asked the question in this Honse on rAonday, Jun e 19, at which time T was told that thP markinr-s on the Trans C;mada Highway were unclerway, could the 1'1inister tell me if this work is beinr carried out on and at what date doer; he exuect the comnl etion of this work. DR.

FARRELL: 'fr. 5oel'!ker, T woul rl UJ·e r:ore c1etail. T•'hat is he referrinp to? ~fR. THOW,: The Trans Canada Hi ~hway. DR. FARRELL: The vellow lines, white lines? The yellow lines are bein):! done at the rate of thirty ·-one miles a dav and they are well east of Grand Falls at this time. This is my latest information. The white lines will be done when the yellow lines are comr,leted. The yellow lines are lines which separate opnosinp.: traffic anc:1 the white lines are lines which separate traffic p.oinµ in the same direction.

I think it will be rather late in the year when all these lines are clone this year bnt they are p.oinv. as fast as they can. MR. DOODY : -- ·---- - 1"ay I answer some questions, Mr. Speaker? I have my usual large collection of nuestions from the honourable member for 3537

June 29, 1972 Tane 1104 .JM - 2 Bonavista North and since he has pone to such P..reat trouble in researchinr the ouestions and since the staff, Sir, of the neoartment of Mines, Agriculture and Resour.ces have gone to such great trouble in findinp the answers 1 I think I will read those questions and the answers,if that is acceptable to this honourable House. MR. SPEAKER: ------- Ry leave of the Honse. M!~ __ DOO~Y_:_ This is riuestion 109 on Tuesday's Order Pan er of June 27.

It savs on question (1) 11 Since January 18, 1972 have the Government received any reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Newfoundland Constabulary concerning any acci~ents involvinr a motorized snow vehicle or all-terrain vehicle which resulted in in _iury or death or property damage exceedinp. the value of $200.00? 11 The answer is no. l')uestion (2) says, "If so,-" No, number (2) is not applicable.

Oues tion 110, the followin~ information an<l so on, (1) 11 Since .January 18, 1972 have the Government received any reports macle by any c'!rivers of a motorized snow vehicle or all--terrain vehicle which was involved in any accident which resulted in injury or death or property damar;e exceedin!! the value of $200.(10. 11 The answer is no. Question number 111 (l),hHave the Government issued or arran~ed for the issue of salmon licences to any tourists who were or who may be passengers aboard the vessel 'St.

Ninian'who are non-residents of the Province of Newfoundland, and if so, what type or types of licences II were issued or have been arranged to he issued to said persons? I would assume that the honourable l'lember meant complementary licences rather than licences. The answer is no. So number (2) is not applicable. Question number 112 and this I think, Sir, with no degree of levity,really deserves to be read into the record because it is a matter of p.;reat concern to a lot of people in Central Newfoundland. "What is the total number of moose licences issued for the current 3538

Tape 110'• neo.!lon for the moose manarement :.irC'a which includes or is in the vicinity of the colllfllunities of Sandy llrook and Radger. showin 1" t he nul'lher,s of moose U cences issued to J'er s ons for each c.or.ununitv located in or servecl t,v that monse 11ana r eo1ent area? " Now th<' r,eon1e in l'lY departm ent ant! iryself are not nui t e m1are of what is me~n t liv serv.ed hy the moose manaizement area hecn11se all, of course. a re ns in ~e.wfoundland are open to :,nnl ication s from residents fr(ll'l 3539 .,.. • 3

June 29, 1972. Tape 1105 Page l. all of the province. So, I would assume that the honourable member meant people who lived in the i111111ediate area. Of the three hundred moose licenses that were issued, breakdown is as follows: Twenty-two for St. John's. Four for Mount Pearl. One for Portugal Cove. Six for Manuela. Two for. Kelligrews. One for Witless Bay. Seven for Bell Island, One for Bay Roberts. Two for Carbonear. One for Clarenville, The honourable member for Burin might take this, one only from Grand Bank. One from Catalina. Two from iittle Catalina. Two from Gander, Three from Lewisporte.

One from Twillingate. Twelve from Botwood. One from Norris Ann South. Two from Trinity, Bonavista Bay. One from Moretons Harbour. One from Beadman's Bay. One from Triton. One hundred and twenty-eight from Grand Falls. Forty-six from Windsor. Two from Badger. Five from Bishop's Falls. Two from LaScie. One from Baie Verte. With great respect for the member from Gander, one only from Peterview. There are 186 or more from the immediate Grand Falls - Windsor area may be about thirty or so from St.

John's area, I think that a lot of people had the impression that a great many people from this particular area of Newfoundland had an excessive number of licenses in that draw. I am glad the question was asked because it is important that it be on the record. From Badger, we had two only drawn from Badger. But, No. 113, this is one that is to provide a

schedule of quantities, kinds and values of all skins or pelts or fur-bearing animals exported during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for both (

a) the holders of fur exporters' licenses or resident of the province of Newfoundland (

b) holders of export licenses who are not residents of the province of Newfoundland. the total value of the resident license holders was $82,000.8S •. The non-resident license holders is $1,184.00. The breakdown by pelts is here and we are only too happy to supply it to the honourable member if he so desires this infonnation. 3540

June 29, 1972. Tape 1105. Page 2. Question No. 115: Nobody. Question No, 116: None. Question No. 117: February 12, I went to Toronto and Ottawa for a meeting of the Agricultural Ministers in Ottawa. I spent my time, most of four days, waiting at th.e various ai.rport lobbies trying to get back to Newfoundland because there was a strike of people who controlled the traffic of aircraft. . I never did m1ainage to meet my counterparts of the other provinces. It cost the province the airfare back and forth plus the per day in the lounge which they very generously allowed peopl _e such as I.

On April 23, for two days I attended in Ottawa meetings relative to the Gros Morne Park. That was a $204 air fare and $40 per day in the lounge, which of course more than amply covered my small needs. May 7, I went to Ottawa with the Premier and other honourable members of this Hou.se and members of the government. We were there for three days, The usunl per day was allowed me, whi~h I think I may have received and I also got my air fare paid back and forth, May 24, in company with the Deputy Minister of Mines, I went to Halifax.

I rose at an ungodly hour, six a.m. and .returned at two oclock the following morning, $88 air fare, there was no per~iem as I understand,because I did n.ot spend any money. 3541

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1106 NM - 1 money. On June 2 I went to Sweden. I enjoyed that very much. It was a two week effort, all the expenses were paid hy the federal government . They mailed to me a return tick~t, first class on Air Canada all the way, and I hope all the honourable members of this House join me in the pleasure I received from this opportunity to participate in international decisions at a high level. Would the honourable member for Bell Island pleasP forp:ive me for just one moment? It is not very often I get the chance.

I want to share in the knowledge and pleasure that my resources are beinp: utilized to advantage. AN Hf'N. MEMBER: It depends on which resources. MR. DOODY: All of them, Sir, they are all available to the advantage of this province. Any time that you need - which you probably do not. Your wants are simple. Your needs are few. Let us leave it that way. I was there for eight or nine days. It is a little bit vague but - I could have stayed for two weeks but the honourable Premier suggested that I come home quickly, ao I did. AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have any encounters with pollution?

MR ._ P-_OODY_:_ I am having them daily, Sir. correct them, I am doing what I can to The point I am trying to make was that in Sweden, I believe that is the important one that everybody was concerned about, and Uncle Ottawa came through nicely, It did not cost the Province of Newfoundland one cent and what is even more important is that it did not cost the Doody family a cent. On June 17, we went to Halifax, the Premier and my humble self,and we discussed the oil resource thing with the Atlantic.Provinces.

These are the full details of my sojourns on behalf of the province to date, Do not think that this is the end of it, Thank you,Mr. Speaker, for your tolerance, endurance. 3542 r.-

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1106 NM - 2 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR SPEAKER: On motion of the honourable Minister of Justice, a Bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Judicature Act,"be now reaa a first time. "fil. RORERTS: Could we have a word of explanation? '!R. HICKMAN: Are you serious? 'IR. ROBERTS: Tam nerfectly serious, MR. HIC~K!1AN: Mr. Speaker, as a word of explanation, the great princirile in that Bill is that last year when the Circuit Court.\ were fixed, for some inexplainablereason, I am sure a typographical error, the Town of Grand Bank was omitted, That has been rectified.

On mo_tion, a Bill, ··An Act Further To Amend The Judicature Act,' read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. On motion of the honourable •Unister of Labour, a Bill, ''An Act Respecting Termination of F.mployment of Substantial Numbers of Persons ln rertain Industries, read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. 'ln motion of the honourable ''inister of "!unicipa] Affairs and !fousi.ng, 'l Tlill, ··An.

Act Respecting Tenancies Of nesident:lal -Premises,· · re:i<l :i first time, ordered read a seconc1 time on tomorrow, •'1r, motion of the honourable Minister of Supply and Services, a Bill, ''/In \ct To Provide Var Equitable PHrchasf!S 'lv Government," read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. t"Jn motion of the li.onourable 'll.nister of Huni.cipal Affairs and llousi.n~. a Bill, "An Act Further To Amend The City Of St. John's Act,'' read a first t:lme, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

On motion of the honourable Minister of Labour, a Bill, ''An ,\ct Further To Amend The Workmen's Compensation Act," read a first time, o nlered read a second time on torr:o rrow. On ll'.otion that the Eouse po into Committee of Supply, ''r. Speaker left the Chair. 3543

June 2CJ, 1072 Tape No, 1106 Jleading XIV - Fisheries. ~'Tl.. J!-QBEB:TS: (14-nl-Ol) Hr. Chairman, I would like to begin the Committee's work this afternoon. I have a number of technical maybe not technical but very <letailed questions, I am afraid I do not have them written down, but if the "1inister of. Fisheries could make a note I would imagine he would have to ask his officials to get the information. They will be there for forty minutes,so pert-aps we could have it today. I think it would make the debate much easier. and much more to the point.

I am sorry I could not •ask for them last evening but to he honest Thad not thoup,ht of them last eveninf!, I was so overwhelmed by the Premier's defence of the $2.fi million purchase price that these did not occur to me until I rot up this morninf!. for breakfast. T. wonder if the minister could get for the committee, Sir, and let us have a list or a table or whatever it should be, showing, since the flOvernment took over the plant at Burgeo, the amounts of fish which have been sold, the quantities of fish. These questions all relate to the arrangement with Carbiou Fisheries.

The amounts of fish which have been sold, the price that have been received per pound, it could be on an average, it maybe,I realize, a little different. I would like for him to tell us to whom the fish is being sold, if they know that. I mean,! do not know if they know or not hut if they do know 3544 -- !,'

June 29, 1972, Tnpc 1107, Page 1 -- apb MR. ROBERTS: I would also like the information, Sir, if it could be broken down into the various categories, such things as the I. Q.F. fillets, cod blocks, red fish, ocean perch, the layer pack, whatever torm the production of the plant takes. I wonder if the minister could also get for us and let us have, Mr. Chairman, the arrangements on the freight. Who carries the fish from Burgeo to Gloucester or wherever it goes? Who carries it? Under what arran~ements are those expenses and that sort of thin1? Similarly. the insurance. I assume the fish is insured.

By what company, what agent? Again at what cost for all of those thin~s1 They are fairly technical questions, Sir, but I think this is information to which the committee is entitled, and I have no doubt the minister will try to get the information for us. Also, the minister may be able to let us know today, we were not told last evening, whether it is estimated the plant will make a profit or not this year. I realize it is only an estimate. The plant made a gross profit of $200,000 in the last full year of operation, if I remember the Premier's figures correctly.

It did not make any money last yeat or I assume it did not. We do not know that for a fact, but in due course we will get the balance sheets and the profit and loss statements and we will know for sure, Could it be indicated whether they expect the plant will make a profit or make a loss thisyear7 I think that is information. There is nothing in the estimates that would indicate one way or another, indeed there is nothing in the estimates other than the amount which is carried in Economic Development, which by agreement we are discussing now, for the capital payment.

I would like to know also, how much money has been paid to Mr. Jack Windsor, because the Premier indicated that the $2.6 million, the purchase price included the six months salary for Mr. Windsor, I have no desire to pry into the gentleman's personal affairs,of course, but it is public money now. Every other public money expenditure is voted 3545

June 29, 1972, Tape 1107, Page 2 -- apb in the estimates somewhere. Also, could the minister give us some details of the purchase price? We really did not follow last night's explanation, Maybe it is our fault and if so, so be it, we confess. If the minister could give us the information as to exactly what the price is that has been paid for the plant and so forth and so on. Apparently the government has also purchased all the ancillary enterprises. I think the Premier told us that. What do the government intend to do with them?

Is the grocery up there, this $100,000 gross profit operation, is it now being operated by the government? If so, will it continue to show a profit? What plans do the government have? Will they be turning it over to a co-op? Will they be trying to sell it? You know, there is any amount of information that the committee are entitled to. I asked at the start of the session, start of the committee meeting,in the hope the minister might nip out and perhaps make a phone call or two and have the information. I really think it is very germane to the debate and I think it would be very useful if we could have it.

Thank you. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express a word of appreciation to the Minister of Fisheries,on behalf of the fishermen in Torbay who fish out of Tapper's Cove, for the wonderful cooperation they received recently when they were forced to dump their fish in Torbay, due to lack of markets. I am told, Mr. Chairman, that the dragger arrangement,from the Burgeo fish plant operation, is not the solution to the problem, I think the minister indicated that he did not believe himself that this was the long-range answer. However, it does take care of the immediate situation.

I want the minister to know that the fishermen in that area appreciate his efforts and that the minister was available, Sir. The minister was one of the rare birds on the opposite side of the House at the present time, in that he did answer his phone. The minister did answer his phone and he was available and he did the 3546 . .~ •

June 29, 1972, Tape 1107, Page 3 -- apb best he could. This is very much appreciated by the fishermen in the area. Sir, last night, when the coD111ittee was talking about the strike at the Burgeo fish plant, and I do not intend to dwell on this, Mr. Chairman, because I think the matter of the strike at the Burgeo fish plant has been pretty well covered. The Minister of Social Services and Rehabilitation in refering to the strike at Burgeo, made some sort of a foolish statement about the government reversing its decision as far as social assistance to strikers in future is concerned.

The point that he made, Sir, about allowable incomet was probably a valid point. Ottawa picked it up that strike pay could not be considered as allowable income, and any grade III student in Newfoundland should know that. But, Sir, under the Canada Assistance Plan, the strikers in Burgeo could not have been denied short-term social assistance based on need, on proven need. This is the statement that the minister made that disturbed me very much, Sir. He implied, he left the impression with the co11U11ittee that the new Tory Government would not assist strikers in future with short-term assistance.

This in my opinion, Sir, is contrary to the Canada Assistance Plan. "We were well aware of the situation in Burgeo and we would have come to the rescue of the strikers there, Sir, providing there was need." Now, we heard I think, Sir, where there is a strike at the fish plant at Bonavista. If these strikers at the Bonavista fish plant do not get strike pay that would be the equivalent of short-term social assistance, then, Sir, they would be entitled by law for short-term assistance based on proven need.

I am willing to forecast now, Sir, that if that strike is a long-drawn-out dispute and it is not settled in the next few weeks,there will be families in Bonavista or Port Union, wherever the strike is taking 8547

June 29, 1972, Tape 1107, Page 4 -- apb place, there are families who will be forced to come to the Department of Social Services and Rehabilitation for assistance. When their entitlement is calculated, Sir, the strike pay will be deducted from their entitlement. "No allowable income.~ Strike pay is not allowable income. I was rather disappointed to hear the minister make that statement. I think it is wrong and I think the government should reconsider.

Now, Sir, when the Minister of Fisheries stands in his place to answer some of the inquiries that have come from this side of the House, I wonder if the minister would enlighten the committee as to how he feels about the Salt Fish Marketing Board, which was a great Liberal concept.

Does the provincial govermnent intend to set up a fresh fish marketing board 1 or does the provincial government intend to approach the Government of Canada to have fresh fish included in the marketing under the Salt Fish Corporation, by changing the name of the Salt Fish Corporation so that it could market all the produce of the sea in Newfoundland? I would also like to hear the minister's views, Sir, on ocean harvest insurance. I am thinking about the insurance plan that farmers of Canada have. I think the minister vaguely referred to this in his introductory remarks.

The farmers in Canada have a scheme whereby they are compensated, Sir, for any crop failures or losses that they might have due to weather conditions or any other disaster that may take place. The fishermen do not have this, Sir. I do not know if a formula could be worked out, Sir, whereby the fishermen could have an insurance scheme similar to the farmers in Canada, but it seems to me that they should have some sort of protection, Sir, against failure. Maybe the answers to it is the guaranteed annual income.

I do not know, but I would like to hear the minister go into that matter a little more deeply, because I think it is quite important to the fishermen of this province. I think all the other matters have been covered 3548

June 29, 1972 Tape 1108 (afternoon) ~!R, NEARY: by my honourable colleague, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for White Bay South. We have covered the management contract and we have been told how the fish is heing sold, the government are taking all the chances. Mr. Lake is four percent FOll. We have been told that the fish plant is an old fish plant, that a list of the physical assets, The honourable the Leader of the Opposition has asked a number of technical questi.ons that we hope to get the answers to this afternoon.

So, Sir there is not much more to say under this heading PK - 1 XIV - Fisheries, But I would just like to get back for a moment to the sale of the Burgeo Fish Plant. As I stated last evening, Mr. Chairman. the amount of money paid to Mr, Lake, $2.6 million,is much too much, Sir. It is ten times more than was paid out hy the Department of Social Services to repair 300 or 400 humble,poor,little homes on Bell Island that had rotten windows, clapboard falling off, holes in the roof. sills falling out from under the houses. Ten times more. Sir, all of them.

Sir, everyone of them Assistance in that department is hased on need, Sir, and need has to be proven. So. '1r. Chairman. it is ten times more. Ten times more. S:lr. No crocodi1, tears from the Minister of Finance, when we lash out, Sir, ~2.6 million of the taxpayers money of this province. Mr. Chairman, the red herring that the members tried to drag across the issue last night was; it went to the people of Burgeo. Mr. Chairman, it did not go to the people of Rurgeo. It did not go to the people of Jlurgeo, it went into the pocket of a millionaire fish merchant in this province. That is where it went, Mr.

Chairnan. not to the people of llurgeo. That was a pretty high price to pay. Sir. when they could have had the plant, they could have had the plant and have had all the assets for ahout $600,000. ~~ M0_0_R!:.~_ Mr. Chairman, just a very few brief words on the queries that the honourable the Leader of the Opposition had to ask, the 3549

June 29, 1972 Tape 1108 (afternoon) PK - 2 MR, MOORES: amount of fish sold between March 20 to May 20, which was 991,000 pounds, the price per pound average was thirty-three point six cents, MR. ROBERTS: Come on now - 991,000? MR. MOORES: 991,000 pounds of fillets that came from - those were the sales, the shipment of sales. The landings were 3,6gl,OOO. The average price per pound was thirty-three point six cents. The type of fish sold, we can get a breakdown on that, It was not available, obviously,linless you check the plant records. The carrier charged $1,75 for fillets, $2.40 for IQF, MR. ROBERTS: about it.

Was that dollars, I am sorry, I do not know that much MR. MOORES: Two point four cents per pound, MR, ROBERTS: One point seven five per pound for - MR. MOORES: That was the regular rate and that varies ,between "Carlston"and"Blue Peter',' the"Caribou"and the rest, I mean those are the boats that are available, The insurance was carried by Lloyds of London. MR. ROBERTS: ,,, the agents. MR, M09RF.S: Of Lloyds? I do not know, It is Lloyds policy direct With the company right now. The salary of Mr.

Winsor, we do not even know, for the simple reason that it was included in the price that will be paid for the plant, This was a service that was being provided, the service was manager of the plant. As we are not involved in the deductions and so on, this was why this information is not available now. We can get it if it is important. I would like to make a few comments on the management of the plant and the sale of the fish, which we have heard so much about.

On the sale of the fish and the management of the plant, we heard last night 1 too from the member for White Bay South 1 that it was an unsavouey spectacle how the plant was being managed, from the honourable Leader 3550 1,'

.Tune 29, 1972 Tape 1108 (night) PK - 3 MR. MQ_O~ES_: of the Opposition, it was curious that we would have this kind of a management arrangeTTtent. nut I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, where are we suppose to r,et managers for fish plants for a six month operation, when we hope to have it resold? You do not go out and get competent managers, if they are competent they are already working in other plants,unless that is oart of the agreement of the sale with people who have the ~apahilities to do the job. It is our intention to resell the plan~ hopefullv for as much as we paid for it.

It is our intention in the r1eantime to get the best management personnel we can and that, in this case,was a management person who h11s heen reporting directly to the government . has not been reportf ng to tAr. Lake, who has done an excellent _iob and which was part of the agreement itself. That was the hest anil only way that the plant could have been managed properly. The second point I would like to mention is on the commission per sales. It is a four percent FOB c.omrnission. That is one percent less than any other broker on the !'.astern Sea Boards of the lJnited "tates.

After that the commission agent, the broker, whoever he may he, ~as to look after his transportation, the sale of the fish, all that 11 bro~erage house has to do in the reselling of the fish 1 delivered FOB Glou•~estor or Tloston wherever the case may be. Jt is as well, as good a deal as any fish plant in this orovince has. Now to talk about cushy deals, to talk about sweetheart agreements 1s unadulterated nonsense because either (

a) they do not know what they are talking about on the other sfde or (

b) they have not researched it to find out what the facts are. Four percent sales commission is low. The freight rate is competitive and it is shopped and, secondly .. the management had to be found if the plant was going to be operational. Just a few other points, Mr. Chairman, because I think this has been dealt with and until we get the final facts and the final figures it cannot be dealt with in finality. But there are a few other things· why did we buy the supermarket? 3551

June 29, 1972 Tape 1108 (night) PK - 4 MR. MOORES: If we did not buy it, it would close. And, therefore, as the supermarket was a very intricate part of that community,that is one of the reasons why we bought it, plus the fact that there was no one else to operate it after. It is not the government's intention to make the profits that were made in the past. It is our intention to operate the plant as efficiently as possible until a buyer can be found.

One statement that the honourable the Leader of the Opposition made which surprises me is that it is $1 million too much, having said approximately five minutes before that; he would wait until ~e have all the facts. It seems that the facts and political influence are not necessarily the same things, Mr. Chairman. When the final facts are available, they will be submitted and then opinions can be legi~!mately found and until all the final facts have been established I think we are possibly talking in great depth about something where we are basing our conclusionson our opinions rather than on the facts available.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, before we press on I would just like to make a few brief remarks on the fisheries. First I want to commend the honourable Minister of Fisheries, his brief outline of his policy in his department. Yesterday,unfortunately,I was asbent from the chamber but nevertheless,the reports which I did hear and received were very complimentary indeed to the honourable the minister.

He, as Minister of Fisheries,now is following and improving upon some of the ground work and the policies laid down by his late father and I think he should feel justly proud in that position to be able to improve on the old, and it is a good thing, He is very fortunate to be in that position, This Burgeo transaction, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to belabour the committee on this subject. But as I see it, you had at Burgeo the beginning of it, you had a newly elected or formed union who decided to go into Burgeo to test its strength. That is on one hand. 3552 , .

June 29, 1972 Tape 1108 (night) PK - 5 HR. WINSOR: On the other hand, you had a strong and hard-nosed business­ man , w ho is not too enthused or too willing to have a union come in to his community and tel l him how to opera te his business . Now maybe ther e is r:oom fo r bo th in our society. But as a consequence, }fr. Chairman, we a l l know the results. I t was not the J.eader or the un ion ~•ho really suffered nor the owne rs of the or:f.gi .nal plan but the unfortunat e reople of Burgeo .

J::o we s aw a community , a prospero us community slowly die. lt w,is dvinP. as a matter of fact, the huri.al was almost ready to be "er foT'llle<I. However. S.ir. we know what hanpene cl. I would only say ~hi s in re f errinf! to the Burp.ea t ransaction , that I doubt very much 'f 3553

June 29, 1972 Tape no. 1109 Pagel - MRW the government of today had won the same majority in October as they won in March, we would probably not be debating $2.6 million here today. I do not think the government would have approved of it, Now, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say on· Burgeo, I think it has been beaten about. You cannot beat the thing to death at this point. There are a few points I would refer to in the minister's estimates but I am only going to deal with one now because as we get down to item by item, I think we would have a better opportunity to deal with them.

This is quality control, I am very much concerned with quality control in our fishing industry. Perhaps it has to begin in the fishing boat. If that is so, then I would urge the Minister of Fisheries to engage,if it is the responsibility ( I do not know.

Perhaps it may be the responsibility of the Federal Department of Fisheries rathe _r than the Provincial) of the Federal Department of Fisheries - perhaps the minister could reply to that when he replies to the questions asked him by the opposition, If we have to regulate or enforce some control in the fishing boa~ that may be a major problem, Because, Sir, not all fishermen are too anxious to do anything outside of their general or routine operation, However• if the fish a-re caught by the longliners or inshore fishermen the problem sometimes does not apply to the boat where we get the degrading of the fish, it is between the boat and the .time it is ready for shipping.

I was glad the other day when the minister announced that he was taking an inventory of all community stages, Now community stages were very good, It was an excellent idea at the beginning, When the concept was put into practice.the community stage was usually primarily for salting fish, Today a lot of them are used just for holding units • Sir, I would strongly urge the minister to give some consideration to installing in those community stages ice-making machines in order that fish when it is brought in can be iced and kept in ice until it is ready for market or ready for the buyer or the collecter whichever does the 3554

June 29, 1972 Tape no. 1109 Page 2 - MRW collecting. Because, Sir, it is very important in the marketing world today that Newfoundland as well as other countries produce a top knotch qualitv if we are to maintain our markets a~ we are enjoying today, dnd in thts respect, Sir, the market for fish was never better. The p1i.;e w,1., never better, The hon. minister's appointment to the Port;f ol Io ,Jf r'i.;,1eL 1es is a very, very fortunate time indeed. Never in our his tor, nas tn,· fishing industry been so bright, both in price but ur.fortunat~l:,, n-.·, in yuantity. However, that remains

an act of God and we t1ave very Little• control ,iver how much fish ia produced. We hear a lot ot ·nnservation and I am all fot it, who entorces the conservat.i.on·/ ,J,u 1H1.ngs about the measures? How can we produce more fish? Those: are the tn 1111is that I do uot th.ink we -:an resolve nor will tl1e ne} t Miniuter of Fist1eries resolv, them, am sure the present Minister ct Fisheries ,,as a sincere desire to improve what he can improve upon and brin~ auoul au industry that is,as we all know,the life-line or the bread and butter oi. a g1 ~at many of our ,~ewf clllnd landers.

Sir, I am 1Jery happv to not-, in t11e estimates of the JJeparrment of Ftsheries that tiie l1011011rable miniiner is following along Lhe same lines as we did previously. ile lb engag.:,d or is following the programmP of l)1>unty1 increase bounty, provicting slipways and service stations, This is Vl't'f ~OCHJ, It is a good progrdmme, Unfortunately we did not have or unfortunately it came Ill a bit too Jate but nevertheless there is certainly room tl1ere fot: improvement. Thee""' are just matters in passing, Mr. Chairman. As we go through item by item, there may be a little more information we can have. MR.

MOORES: Mr. Chairman, just one correction, if I may on the figures I gave, The average price per pound is 41.1 cents and not 33,6 cents. MR, HICKEY: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into this debate and drag it out, I did not intend to, However, as I thought my friend from Bell Island,as per usual,misinterpreted what I said last night and raised the point again today, I prepared a ministerial statement. I did not think it was necessary to make it but I prepared it just in case, I find !]555

June 29, 1972 Mr, Hickey, Tape no. 1109 Page 3 that it is not proper that I present it at this time,so tomorrow I will present that statement which will refute categorically what he has said, which will confirm what I said last night and I now give him notice,if he wishes to get a transcript of what I said last night and compare it with my ministerial statement he may do so. It is just a little bit too much how things are being misinterpreted in this House. I think it is about time to put a stop to it. MR. HOWARD: I have sat here and listened to the comments from both sides of the House this last day or so.

I just want to speak on one point concerning the Burgeo Fish Plant. I have heard honourable members from the other side of the House state that there was no hard bargain when in fact the honourable gentlemen's government of the day had seven months in order to do hard bargaining and all they gave was lip service to the people of Burgeo. There were 350 workers out of work. This entailed several hundreds of people. I think myself that $2.6 million was very little to pay for the welfare of the residents of Burgeo. MR. CHEESEMAN: Mr.

Chairman, before this item passes, there were a couple of questions raised from the other side which I feel compelled to comment on, in fact the comment was asked for. The first question was from the hon, member for Bell Island. He was asking about the Salt Fish Corporation. I am not sure, Mr, Chairman, whether the honourable member had intended that it should be my opinion that he was seeking for the Department of iisheries, However, I will endeavour to perhaps cover both aspects of it,if I may.

The reason I say that is because the length of time I have been in this position has not really given me an opportunity to be able to view it from both sides of the fence 1 as it were 1 in the depth that I would like to before coming to any kind of firm conclusion. The concept of the Salt Fish Corporation when it was set up is, of course, pretty difficult to argue with. The terms of reference were to maximize the returns 3556

June 29, 1972 MR. CHEESEMAN '£ape no. 1109 Page 4 to fis hermen. I think that,a s I say that would l,e a pretty difficult concept! to argue against. However, I believe that once this r espo ns ibility is taken on then the onus rests wit h that organization,re gardle ss of which organization i t may be,to make certa i n that this is carried out at all levels. The weakness that I see i n the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation today, viewing it from where I sit at the moment and I am sort of reinforced if you will or influenced if you will by my experience outside, is that I believe there must be greater involvement by the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation 3557

June 29, 1972. Tape 1110 Page 1. where the action is, if that is the correct term. I do not believe that it is intended nor was it ever intended to be a marketing organization. If it were, then as long as the markets are good and the demand is good,it is doubtful how great a benefit that it serves to the industry, If the salt fish corporation were brought into being to stimulate, to increase production and this sort of thing,then I think that they have a larger role to play than is presently being played.

Now, there are of course a number of opinions about this in some areas of Canada, The honourable member will be well aware exemptions were granted,certain types of fish were taken out of the jurisdiction by a·greement with the province entering. Others exempted completely and said: "No, we~ not want to do it," Perhaps some of the effectiveness may have been lost without that total 1mity. However, I think that I would prefer to sort of reserve any final judgement,! am only expressing an opinion at this point.

But I do nevertheless feel very strongly and I hope in fact we will have the cooperation of the Salt Fish C~rporation in making sure that the figures do not continue to drop as long as the markets are staple and the demand as high as it is now. Then I would hope that the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation would endeavour to influence more the production of fish than has been the case in recent years. Now, the honourable member also asks about any intention to go into or our intention to go into fresh marketing. I think I can say a flat "no" to that. I am speaking from a deJ1artment point of view.

It has not received any indept study by this government but I feel quite certain that as far as government is concerned at the present time that the marketing of fresh fish is well in hand. It is going along well. Markets,as the honourable member and the honourable member 3558 !.'

June 29, 1972, Tape 1110 Page 2. for Fogo has pointed out,markets are good. Things are generally good. With the exceptions of the comments that I made yesterday, in my opening remarks,that we should perhaps try and diversify our marketing to get away from too much dependence in one area. With that exception I see nothing wrong with the marketing situation as it is at the moment. On your ocean harvest insurance,this is a concept of course that has been kicked around for years and the answer has always been invariably the same. A man takes"x"bags of seed, he goes out and sets it into•x 11 acreage. The product i:;rows to a certain height.

An Act of God, wind, rain, hail whatev~r the case may be comes. The man's efforts are destroyed. It is pre~ty hard to measure that in terms of the Atlantic Ocean. You cannot put a fence around it. You cannot bar it up, You cannot plant it and grow it or at least you cannot in terms of the broad Atlantic, perhaps in inland waters you can do it. Perhaps in inland waters the concept could be carried through. Rut I believe it is an area that requires a great deal of study and a great deal of expertise which I am afraid that I personally at this point in time would not have. I can see many problems.

I can see the tremendous benefit that it could be and perhaps in time - you see one of the options in insurance for fishermen and the unemployment insurance for fishennen when it was brought in was actually almost a bounty for production rather than an insurance against loss, because you have to have a reasonably successful fishery in order to gain any rea~ benefit. But even in concept it was more or less self-defeating.

The man who suffered a loss or bad voyage or whatever you like to call it, he has nothing to qualify on, Certainly I do not think we have reached anywhere near a perfect stage in aid to fishermen in this area yet. It may,as I say 1 I do not think, certainly we have not arrived at the proper point in time or the most desirable point yet. Now, just 3559

June-29, 1972. Tape 1110 Page 3. one comment more and it was in relation to only the investment and the cost in Burgeo. I would like,only in the context of comparative values, if you will. This is not meant to be anything more than a statistical fact. In that sense it is not an easy thing to sell a fish plant. In ~ecent months or even in the last year and a-half or so things have brightened up considerably. But two years ago, you know, the fishery was not all that bright. There was some connnent publicly about investment in fishery.in this type of thing.

Just as an example, the department or government had been involved in deals recently on a fish plant in St. John's where there are other outlets. I think this is important to bear in mind, where there are other outlets, where employment is not as acute, or unemployment is not as acute as it would be in a one-industry town. But a plant defunct, closed, for three years was sold for $1,700,000, On the face of it that looks pretty good. I understand that there was something in the order of another million dollars pumped in to bring that to the level that these buyers wished to do.

But in order to get them to buy them, I think this is the important thing, it cost the government in terms of subsidy, $1,842,422, The only point I make is that if that type of action or that type of subsidy was warranted in St.

John's and that type of value established for a defunct operation, one which had been tried and closed up, with ultimate discouragement, I suppose,when anybody looks at it, You can almost say at that point it is a fire sale kind of thing. ~ut if it were worth at that point $1,700,000 and itwereworth the government's imput of a further $1,842,422 to conclude that sale,then I suggest the price at Burgeo is very low. Let me also say, in terms of why governments do things like this; the social problems that exist, the areas which 3560

June 29, 1972. Tape 1110 Page 4. need help, I would turn to the LaScie fish plant which,as my friend,the honourable member from Fogo will be well aware, is in government control. In the period from 1962-1963, that is ti:<' fiscal year 1962-1963, through to 1970-1971, it has cost the government of Newfoundland $1,217,757,87. Again I only bring this up to say that there are situations and circumstances under which I do not think that pure relationship between the ph':'Sical asset and the values or prices at the time can be measured that accurately. However, as I say I only say that for the record.

Now the honourable member for Fogo,in his comments,made reference to quality control and the steps that must be taken. I did in fact mention this yesterday and referred to the changing times,exactly what the honourable 1,1,,mber had said himself and which, of course ,I would expect him to say.the chanP,ing s ene in the fishery, the changeover from the salting, the salt-bulk of fish in many of these stages and holding units or communitv stages or whatever you would like to call them. There is a need for a total new look because of the number of these facilities involved in fresh fish.

I can assure the honourable member that this is being very seriously looked at by the department at this present time. Hopefully we will be able to come to a satisfaction conclusion in this regard. This I think too, the honourable member went on speaking of quality control hut rather linked it with the upgrading of community stages and this type of thing. But I think the two are sort of interlocked. As I say,I can assure the minister that that is being seriously lookec at. MR.NEARY: ~r.

Chairman, before the minister takes his seat, I wonder if he could inform the commtttee if McLean's Advertising, McLean's Public Relations or McLean's Associates whatever they are called are 3561

June 29, 1972. Tape 1110 Page 5 . they doing any work for the department of Fisheries or the fish industry? MR.CHEESEMAN: There are no existing contracts in the Department of Fisheries and I cannot see any involvement. I cannot answer that one specifically. I cannot see any connection that it would have with Burgeo 'but to my knowledge, no. On motion total subhead 1401 carried. 3562

June 29, 1972 Tape No. lllJ. NM - 1 '·1R. ROBERTS, (14-02-n2) 'fr. Chairman, on this item, one brief question, Could the mi ni•;ter tell me if, well I uill make it since January 18, if the Dep11rtnent of Fisheries 11ave spent any f11n<ls either with '1r. George Mrl.ean or 1,,ith any firm? Has that questi.un been asked? It has been answerPcl then. For my mm benefit, were any funds spent with them? 'fP.. CHEESE"IA:,: "lo, the question has been answered. I do not - -- --·- - - . -- --- thi.nk the two cmesti ans are compatable, that iR in exact terms.

MJ!.. ll.OBERTS· 'J'l1ey are different questions, in other words. ~1R. CHESSEMA:~ · Yes, that is correct, but I believe that the Premier made reference yesterday,in answer to a question,that there was a question tabled i.n the House with reference to HcLeans partic:l.~ation and th.at.the answer was beinr provided. The question that the honourable member for Bell Island asked was if the Department of Fisheries was - that: is in these estimates, and I said that no contracts existed. MP.

ROllE~TS: 1·'.ell, has any money been paid by tlw Department of Fisheries to I-Ir. l.fcLean since January or include in that any firms in which he is the principal,since January 18. MR. CJ-1ESSE~1A11: I thjnk I answered the question. The question was asked in the House, it was tabled and the informntion is being provided. t{R. ROBERTS: But I am only asking for Fisheries now. We have asked for nll departments. !:iB-•. CHEES_!'.IIAN: Yes, that is what I was sayinp,, that there have heen, and that the information is being provided.

MR ~-~OBERT~ Okay, so there have been monies paid to Mr. !1cLean and again including his firm,by the Fisheries Department and it will be swept up in the overall totaL But we are on Fisheries now, 1,,hat services were rendered in return for this and what amounts, not to the cent, but what sort of amounts were there? 3563

June 29, 1972 Tape No., 1111 NM - 2 MR. CHESSEMAN: Well .the answer again is in the course of preparation, I do not know what point but I think the information that the honourable Leader of the Opposition is looking for can be provided this afternoon. MR. ROBERTS: What I am looking for is simply •.•• well CO!Jld the minister tell me whether he,either in his previous incarnation or as the minister, has authorized any payments to ~r. McLean. MR, CHEESEMAN: Yes and that is in the process of being compiled . In answer to a previous question, we will provide the information this afternoon.

MR, ROBERTS: I want to know for Fisheries, I mean the other question deals with everybody. MR, CHESSEMAN: Yes, it will be for Fisheries. MR. }lOWE (WM.)Now what did he do for it? Well does the minister not know? He has only been in there for two months. MR, ROBERTS: No, he has been there since the start. MR. ROWE: It is not satisfactory, that is the problem, I think. We will keep asking them, Mr. Chairman, we were quite willing to allow this matter to rest until the minister came up with some lnformation.

We want to be reasonable over here,until we were -ubjected to that kind of nonsense over there from the honourable Minister of Provincial Affairs.

What I would like to know and I am sure the honourable Leader of the Opposition would like to know is what Mr, McLean or his firm did for the money, however much it might be, that was paid to him from the Department of Fisheries!I Now the minister has been minister for the past couple of months and before that he WAA acting,for the Premier I think,in the department, Does he remember it or has he forgotten it over the last two or three months, what the money was paid to him for? Is it a promotion or what? 3564

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1111 NC - 3 MR. MOORES: Mr. Chairman, if I as previous Minister of l?ishcries, or before the honourable gentleman took over, we will t&ts afternoon supply exactly what Mr. McLean has done for the department and exactly what it cost before this afternoon is out, if that is satisfactory. MR. RBWE (WM.): Can you control these guys over here while you are at it? MR. ROBERTS: That would be quite good, they cannot control arrogant Ank, but who can? Can we have it then understood that if there are any remarks or debate on it, Mr. Chairman, that they may be made on the total of this department.

Because we may want to say a f'ew words. Would that be in order? MR. MARSHALL: Oh yes! MR. ROBERTS: Okay that is agreed, fine. On motion total subhead 1402, carried. HR, ROBERTS: (1412-01) on that, Mr. Chairman, the salary appendix,_ it is not printed in the salary appenix, could the minister just read us what it covers1 MR. CHEESEMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, you are referring to Fisheries Development Authority,salaries, I believe. The Fisheries Development Authority consists of a chairman at $20,540 - is this the information? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, because normally it is in the appendix but that page is not there. MR.

CHESSEMAN: No, it is in the backup notes. Two members at $40,000 and that obviously is $20,000 each, Three secretaries totalling $17,760 for a total of $78,300. MR. ROBERTS: But the vote is $105,000 - MR. CHESSEMAN: No, excuse me, I was just pausing, I thought you were writing it down. MR. ROBERTS: No, I will get it from Hansard. 3565

June 29, 19 72 Tape 1111 NM - 4 MR CHEESEMAN: An engineer at $15,750; chief co-ordinator at $16,000; co-ordinator of field services at $10,000; an administrator at $12,000; a clerk at $5,000; two stenographers at $8,000; totalling $145,000.

Allowances for increments and adjustments, $6,250; a total of $151,300 and savings due to late recruitaent, $46,300; for a total of $105,000. ~- ROBERT_S: How many of the positions are not now filled thenP Obviously there are some new positions being established, maybe the minister could indicate which ones are new and which ones are not filled and perhaps he could give the committee the names of persona appointed to the new positions which have been filled. MR. CHEESEMAN: That information can t-e supplied without problem now I think,but I am sorry I do not have that information at my disposal.

MR, ROBERTS: The only other question I ask, are the commissioners the commissioners and the chairman, Mr. Russell, Mr. Dustan, Mr. Prince - Mr. Dustan being the chairman, Mr. Russell, Mr, Prince,being the members of the Authority, they all get the same salary do they - about $20,000 or is there a slight difference? MR. CHESSE"IAN: Yes, $20,000 roughly because the chairman is rated at now, $20,540 and the others at $20,000. MR. ROBERTS: So it is near enough to the same. "1R. CHESSEMAN: Mr. Russell performs actually a dual capacity. MR. ROBERTS: So does Mr. Dustan. MR. CHESSF.MAN: Mr.

Russell, as you probably know,is Chairman of the Loan Board and then he came in as a member. MR. ROBERTS: But he is only paid under one head, MR. CHESSE~1AN: Oh yes! MR, ROBERTS: Well, Harry Dustan is just an invaluable fellow in these Crown Corporation. MP. CHF.SSE!-~N: He has a tremendous fund of knowledge, 3566 ...

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1111 NM - 5 MR. ROBERTS: That is the total salaries paid to each of them. There will be no increases paid to any of them this year. ~ffi.. CHEESEMAN: You see, these people are on a fixed salary basis at this point. Mr. Prince came in from another position, Mr. Russell salary having been established, he was appointed. MR. ROBERTS: He came from the Povernment of Canada too. MR. CHESSEMAN: That is right and Mr. Dustan of course had been on contract. ~~ BcO!E_R_:I'S; So they are all fixed. Any plans to raise their salary? MR, CUE_ESEMAN: In the case of Mr. Dustan, he is contractual.

He is beyond normal retirement age, He is only on extended time. In terms of Mr. Prince,he came in at an agreed rate and on an agreed base. Mr. Russell, as I say,whose salary had already been predetermined in the previous capacity, was merely transferred or added to his duties as a member of the fisheries Loan Board. So there is no immediate intention of makinp. an adj~stment. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you! '1R.

ROBERTS: (1412-02~02) Could the minister indicate, that is rather a large increase, it is about four times as much, could he give some indication of what professional fees, you know what sort of thing they have in mind? MR. CHESSEMAN: The number,,. MR. Rp~ERTS: I thoughtYour Honour had carried (02), this is (1412-02-03). On motion (1412-02) carried. MV.. TIOllERTS: (1412-02-03) Ditto Your Honour, MR.

CHESSEMIW: Professional Fees - $50,000, provision is made for consultant fees in respect of studies deemed necessary in connection wi.th the continued use of community stages, the viability of seasonal plants, the Lewisport Haulout and the Fogo Island Development Survey, I think the biggest single chunk of that is this recently authorized 3567

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1111 N'1.,. 6 ~IR. CHEESEMAN: Fogo Island Survey, MR, ROBERTS: Is there any federal recovery on that? MR. CHESSEt!AN: Jes that is fifty-fifty on the Fogo Island part of it which .would be, it is considered to be $25,000 to $30,00~ The federal would pay fifty per cent and we would pay fifty per cent. MR. ~OBERTS: So that leaves about $36,000, $37,000 to come. 1:!R, CHEESE~1AN: That is right, 11R.,ll)BERTS: I am all for all of them. MR. ROBERTS: (141203-01) This is the major developmental programme. It is about the same as last year, substantial federal contributions.

Could the minister give us any list? It is a federal-provincial programme. MR. CHEESEMAN: ~eneral expenses - $900,000, provision is made for fishery development projects on a cost-sharing basis with the Industrial Development Service Branch of the Department of the Environment, following its proposed programme 1972-1973. Conversion of stern trawlers and beam mid-water trawling for a total cost of $140,000. These of course are estimates in anticipated cost.

Survey of new fishing grounds - $20,000; conversion of long liners from mid.water trawling - $60,000, securing contractually trawler for dutch beam trawling - $100,000, commercial scollop farming - $30,000, herring and mackeral drift netting - $70,000, inshore fishing demonstrations - $125,000 3568 ....

June 29, 1972 Tape 1112 (afternoon) PK - 1 ~R. CPF.ESEMAN: survey seed weed, eels etc., $125,000, shell fish development surveys $105,000, new product further development and consumer development programme $115,000, fishing,technical upgrading on site,ohservation of new gear techniques etc., $10,000 for a total of $900,000 and by formula the cost to the province is $266,250, federal contribution $633,750. MR. ROBERTS: That has been an on-going programme for a number of years. MR.

CHEESEMAN: These are the - well, I mean these are the items, conversion of boats and MR, ROBERTS: The items may be new, but the basic federal-provincial­ MR, CHEESEMAN: Yes these are tied into the basic programmes, On motion item 1412-03-01 carried, MR, ROBERTS: 1412-03-02 - Mr. Chairman, I should know what it is for but I confess I do not, apparently it is an on-going thing. This is the Stephenville Plant, but why $1,000? What is it for? Did I ask the wrong question? MR. CHEESEMAN: No. There is an interestin, stoey here.

The International Fisheries and Fish Meal Limited, $1,000 - the government have a contractual obligation to the company, for reimbursement of losses, if any, sustained in the operation of the herring purse sieners, "Harmon I"and"Harmon II'.' The government have also a contractual obligation to provide living accommodations for the manager of the plant, MR, ROBERTS: And this is what this is, is it? MR, CHEESEMAN: First of all, this involves the government.

The boats "Harmon I"and"Harmon II" are owned by the government, My knowledge is that they are given free to the International Fisheries, They are to maintain the boats upkeep and insurance, Any losses are to be paid by the government, If there are no losses, the government have no recovery as far as part of the profit. 3569

June 29, 1972 Tape 1112 (afternoon) MR. ROBERTS: Is this a statutory agreement or a - MR. CHEESEMAN: So I understand, yes, MR. ~OBERTS: So it went through the House here. PK - 2 MR. CHEESEMAN: This was part of the International Fisheries Agreement. The reason for the cost is that in addition to that,this providing accommodation for the manager is a rental agreement, $90 a month is allowed for rental. MR. ROBERTS: Who is the man, Sir? MR. CHEESEMAN: It is just changed, there is a new one, the last one is gone,! understand. But anyway that is the explanation. MR.

ROBERTS: He is keeping these things buried in the estimates, you know. On motion 1412-03-02 carried, MR. _\i_,N: ROWE: 1412-04-01 - The LaScie Fish Plant, of course,is a matter which is somewhat dear to my heart, being situated as it is in LaScie,in White Bay South. For a number of years,! think the honourable minister read out for a number of years the losses sustained by that plant and the annual subsidies, necessary by the government to keep the plant operating.

It is an invaluable asset obviously to the LaScie Area and provides several hundred people with employment every year and also,of course,allows a great nurnber of fishermen and plant workers to get unemployment insurance for a great part of the year as well. Now last year I understand the plant,for the first time in history perhaps,not only broke even but made a certain profit as a result of their operations. Could the Minister of Fisheries, if he has the information there, give us a general outline as to why that happened. ijhy was there a sudden upsurge in profitability of that plant?

I am delighted to hear it1 obviously. What is the reason? Was it diversification or was it more efficient management? ·· You know, some of the reasons for that. Also I notice that the revised estimate is a quarter of a 3570

June 29, 1972 Tape 1112 (afternoon) PK - 3 MR. ROWE..!.. W,N. million there. Perhaps that is erroneous, Now if you could give us the actual amount of profit or loss. I think there was a profit for last year, And also I would like to ask the question about the $50,000 which is being estimated for the operation of that plant this year.

I am wondering if the minister thinks that is now going to be sufficient, in view of the fact that the fishery in that area is well over a month behind any other normal year 9 because of the ice conditions suffered on the northeast coast this year, I think the LaScie Plant,which ordinarily opens in late May or early June, usually in late May,was not open until three or four days ago or a week or so ago this year, fo,r, the taking in of fish, Of course, the worry was that the larger fish were not going to be available, the large fish usually being available early in the y~ar.

The large fish were not going to be available this year, they would have to rely on small fish and if the overall effect of the weather, the climatic conditions this year would he well nigh disastrous . in respect of that plant and the annual subsidy needed, or this year'F subsidy would be perhaps an astronomical figure, Generally if the minister could answer those questions. Generally speaking could the minister give some indication as to what the long~range future of that plant is?

It has always been a matter of concern to me, because I used to hear mutterings from various politicans, not necessarily belonging to the honourable minister's party but various politicans talking about the subsidy necessary to keep that plant in operation and mumbline about how they should be closed down and this sort of thing. This used to disconcert me and disconcert the people of LaScie, b'ecause I am sure the annµal subsidy which is provided to that plant would be more than exceeded by the welfare and the relief measures which would have to be taken if that plant were in fact closed down, 3571

June 29, 1972 Tape 1112 (afternoon) PK - 4 MR, ROWE, W,N, I would like to hear an overall policy from the government on the long range activities of the fish plant in LaScie as well as the specific questions that I have asked. MR. CHEESEMAN: Right. Well, Mr, Chairman, I think in my closing comments under 1401, I did make reference to LaScie and read out the list at that time, Of course, the honourable member for White Bay South was quite right that there had been a long period of sustained losses up and down.

Depending On the season and generally speaking in that area the production is very closely linked to weather, This is the problem in this current season. Now first of all theS250,000,which was in the original estimates last year, in effect was $213.00, In other words, there was nothing one way or the other. That was brought about mainly by market price, the value of fish, the increased value of fish. A reasonably good collection year and a slight diversification in that the plant also produced last year,for the first time~in any quanti~y,frozen mackerel which found its way actually to the bait service.

I understand that this year even more emphasis will be laid on that, The $50,000 - because of the present market situation when the figures were put in originally, you know, all things being equal at that time, there was no reason to believe that the LaScie Fish Plant would be in any different position this year than last year. Now the fact, as the honourable member says,that the season is somewhat delayed this year. may cause that figure to change.

Hopefully the supply of fish and the market prices and everything will again bring us to a point where we will break even or at least not exceed the $50,000 which has been in the estimates; but that is anyone•~_guess at this moment. I understand last week,although I do not really have confirmation ·of this but I understand that one of the areas on the Northest Coas,t, the honourable member for Fogo may be perhaps aware of this, but I understand that there was some fish from that area shipped down through 3572 ....

June 29, 1972 Tape 1112 (afternoon) PK - 5 MR, CHEESEMAN: LaScie, a week or ten days ago, I am not sure how much but if that sort of situation, if the situation prevailed here that allowed that sort of situation to go on again, it could have an influence on the thing.. So it is really almost impossible to say, but hopefully we will come close to this picture. Now as far as prospects are concerned and,as mentioned before,it is difficult to sell fish plants, you do not sell them every day and you do not sell them in a short season area such as LaScie, or even less frequently.

It has been necessary to have a management contract over the years, ,his has been the pattern established in the government.

Right now I think I am quite safe in saying that our philos9pey would be that we should sell, if possible, or lease, if possible, on a more long-term basis,the LaScie operation,provided we are satisfied that it is been taken over for the right purpose, not only the right prit:e or the reasonable price but as long as it serves the need which it has been serving since 1962-1963, So I do not see that there can be a great deal of difference, The suggestion was made that it oould be a large producer of bait perhaps and we are talking up in the millions and millions of pounds when we say that, when we take the demand all over Newfoundland and for that matter in parts of Eastern Canada where mackerel is a high demand bait item and, again, like ourselves the fishery comes and goes.

But there are certainly possibilities there and with strong market prices, there is no reason why LaScie should not continue pretty well on it~--- course. MR. WINSOR: Mr, Chairman, in case there is a misinterpretation there; lhe minister made a statement that LaScie fish plant should be sold or leased,Would he make a clear statement that in any event the LaScie Plant will not be closed, it will still operate, MR. CHEESEMAN: Oh, yes, But I qualified it even when I said it, that provided we were satisfied that it was going to be a right use 3573

June 29, 1972 Tape 1112 (afternoon) MR. CHEESEMAN: But it is quite obviously that - MR. WINSOR· It might be interpreted - ~-- CHEF.SEMAN: But quite obviously that will be contended. PK - 6 3574

June 29, 1972, Tape 1113, Page 1 -- apb MR, W.N.ROWE: I thank the honourable minister, The way I interpreted it was that there was no possibility of its closing. I could see where the honourable Premier could possibly get that misunderstanding. My understanding of it is that the plant will be kept open whether it is under government control,whether there is a management contract or whether it is sold or leased. The idea is to keep that plant operating in LaScie. MR. CHEESEMAN: Yes, I only said that it might be more desirable if more long range, MR. ROWE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On motion, 1412-04-01, carried.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, before you pass on, I know this is not debatable, but on 03, are there negotiations still going on with the Department of Transportation to take over that service or would the Minister of Highways be in a better position to ••• MR. CHEESEMAN: I think, Mr. Chairman, first of all the ferry service was transferred out of the Department of Fisheries, because of its non-application to this particular department and what has transpired since, On motion, 1412-05-01, carried. On motion total subhead 1412, carried. MR. WOODWARD: Mr.

Chairman, I assmne that I am under the right heading in this respect, but seeing that Labrador South does not ·have a sitting member in the House, and when we think in terms of the personal community of Labrador South , and when we think in terms of fishery development and assistance, there have been a number of complaints over the years from people over the fact that there is no fish plant in Labrador South, There have been occasions when Fishery Products have collected fish in the Forteau - Anse _kclair and hauled it into the plant there. I do not know if there have been cases when 3575

June 29, 1972, Tape 1113, Page 2 -- apb they have hauled fish as far south as Port au Choix. In this case here, where there are a number of fishermen on the Straits of Belle Isle section, from Brig Bay going into the Cook's Harbour Area, who do fish on that particular part of the coas~ there is a big demand. Some of them are bringing the fish from the fishing grounds in the Pinware Area over to Flower's Cove and that particular area, then trucking it into the plant at St. Anthony. The people are of the opinion that this has been a great injustice.

When you take a look at the coastline, the number of people involved, I do not know the economics of putting a plant in there, but this is a great fishing area. Primarily it is cod fishing and a number of our people in the Straits of Belle Isle utilize the fishing grounds. I am wondering if the honourable minister has given any consideration to looking into the possibility of providing a fresh fish plant for that particular area.

Maybe he would care to comment on this,or if he has done any research in that respect, I am sure that the people of Labrador South would be as anxious to hear what is happening as far as the development of that part of the coast is concerned. If there is a programme for Labrador, Sir, I wocld appreciate hearing the minister's comments. MR. CHEESEMAN: This of course - Labrador is no different than any other part of Newfoundland. The requirements and the necessities of that area are under review in the same way as every other area.

I indicated yesterday that we have already dispatched someone to the toast of Labrador to do an inventory. Here again we come back to the same thing that I mentioned earlier to the honourable member for Fogo, The changing aspect, the salt fish production and the fresh fish production and what influence exactly this is having and in fact going to have and whether or not the availability of fish on the Labrador, in what particular area and what species are going to be able to be utilized, I think are matters for ongoing study. It will be kept before the department,rest assured. 3576

June 29, 1972, Tape 1113, Page 3 -- apb On motion, 1413-02-01, carried. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I notice 1413-03-01 is down $200,000. This is the bounty for cod nets, AN HON. MEMBER: Inshore gear replacement? MR. ROBERTS: No, it is inshore fishing gear bounty 03-01, It is down by $200,000 from the revised figure for last year. Are there many changes in the programme? Do we expect fewer nets or just what? MR. CHEESEMAN: Mr. Chairman, the fishing gear bounty makes provision for the payment of subsidy on certain types of gear.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition will be aware perhaps ·, 'that the greatest bulk of that has been in gill nets 1 in fact. Obviously, over the years it would not continue at the same rate, you would be more apt to lose, run into loss which would be covered under replacement rather than bounty. This would be what the anticipated normal purchases or use in this current year would be. On Motion, 1413-03-01, carried. MR. THOMS: Mr.

Chairman, before we carry this subhead, could I,in view of the fact that the storm damage programme has been cancelle4 or at least for this year there was none because it was not continued from last year and the insurance programme,! understand from the minister, is not in effect this year, should we experience some damage to inshore fishery gear, is there any recourse for our fishermen to get payment or part payment for their lost gear? MR. CHEESEMAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, just to sort the matter, there was no programme last year.

You will see that the item that came up, the amount of money was voted in effect I believe June 27, was the beginning of that payment for loss of gear by a number of fishermen in certain areas. As I explained yesterday, and I thought l had covered this one fairly extensively, when l was trying to put figures. together in the first instance, it was my hope at that time that we would in fact be able to persuade Ottawa to enter into an insurance scheme which again,as I stated yesterday, regretfully we were 3577

June 29, 1972, Tape 1113, Page 4 -- apb were unable to do. We are having some consideration, not of insurance as such but rather some sort of replacement of major loss. It is not the major loss that concerns me, That will be taken care of by somebody. It is the day to day loss, The fisherman with the five nets, as I mentioned yesterday, to him it is a major loss.

Ottawa's attitude and apparently the philosophy of the past has been; "Wait until something major occurs then we will try and cope with it." Then again, as I said before, I think this results in a lot of inequity, The $200,000 was in originally as the anticipated contribution the province would make, Quite obviously, it is not insurance in the sense of real insurance,as it has to be used in some form of replacement, But hopefully, if this money is required there would also be some federal contribution. Trying to get an equitable distribution of claims would be the biggest concern in the area. MR. W.N.ROWE: Mr.

Chairman, if I may just ask a supplementary question on that. The honourable minister says that negotiations with Ottawa came to nothing,apparently,on an insurance scheme. About when would that have been? When did Ottawa give the minister a final word that they would not participate in such a scheme? MR, CHEESEMAN: No, I am sorry. What I thought I had conveyed - I have had correspondence with Ottawa in February and then subsequently conversations in Ottawa six or seven weeks ago. Both times this idea of inshore gear insurance was brought fo~ard and the Department of the Environment, the Fisheries

Section of the Department of the Environment and the minister were not at all happy with the prospect of an inshore gear insurance, The honourable member may or may not remember that in fact some years ago it was tried and there was not the great anticipation that was anticipated at that time, The regulatory control of the thing and the 3578

June 29, 1972 Tape 1114 JM - 1 claims and everythin~. They just looked at it and said at that point that it was an unworkable proposition, and thc1.t could very well be. It is a very complex proposition but that does not nevertheless necessitate the elimination or the elimination of the idea. I think the need is still there regardless of how difficult the solution.

But the point is that what Ottawa have said is that we are not in favour of what they have indicated to us, is that we are not in favour of an insurance programme but we are prepared to look at the possibility of some form of major loss programme set at a certain level coverinp so many nets or so many fishermen, this type of thing. But as I say, that is major again ar,~ my real concern is with the smaller losses hecause,as I said earlier,I think the ma1or loss, Sir, one way or anot•wr will always be lool<ed after. T am not sure, does thnt clar1 fy it? '-'P:.. ll~i_F;_ (W'._N): Yes.

The reason I ask or had 11ursuecl this in such n &;,shi.on, "r, ChaiTJT1an, is that I believe, I may be suhject tn correction rm t I i.s as I am speaking entirel" from memory. hut in the Throne ''r,ee c h J?i.ven in the session iust nrior to this one,which reallv .1r.:ounted to an ele<'tion documPnt, there was mention made of an insurance s,·'w"' e . 'low I do not know if it was specific to the point of taJ kinp ah mt insui:ed gear or whether it was generally for everythinr affectinp: the ffalieries or what it involved reallv. As I say,I am sneakinp: frail' P1ernorv .

I am now surprised to hear that havin :;:- made the statement in the "ineech from the Throne, the goverrment 's statement of policy and intention. that after such a short period of time the minister. now comes into the House, and I am not blaminp the minister,as he was not even in the adminstration at the time, the minister now comes into the House and starts talkin11: ahout how difficult such a scheme will be to get imnlemented anc get Federal participation. lie has nbt said nothing will happen. There may be a major loss programme, he ,tarts talking 35"19

June 2Cl, 1972 Tape 1114 about how difficult and complex it will be,when two or three months ago anyone who was interested in this sort of thing, fishermen surely must have had their expectations raised somewhat because the statement made in the Soeech from the Throne was couched in fairly positive terms I think,anc again I am speaking from memory. I think it did involve. it did mention the involvement of the Government of Canada. AN HON. MEMRF.F: I have the reference here now. .. --·- ·- ·· ·-· .Tt-f - 2 I have it here now, Mr.

Chairman. 'Legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible date to estahlish in conjunction with the Federal Govern~ent an inexpensive shared-cost insurance progr81l'llle coverin1> losses of fishing gear.·• Now that to me.

Sir, is a verv positive statement, 'Legislation will be introduced in con1unction with the Fereral Government , as if at that time the Federal Government, this is not stated in so many words it can only be implied or inferred, as if to state that the Federal Government 11ere in agreement with the Provincial Government on this and it was just a matter of bringinr in the leii:isl.ative authority. Now we hear the minister cominr in. a couple of months later statinp that there is really no possibility. I am not putting words in the minister's mouth, what Tam saving or my

interpretation is th i,.t the minister is sayin p. that there is really no possibility of gettinr. an inexpensive shared-cost insurance programme covering loss of fishinii: gear. Is that what the minister :ts sayinp. now? '-IR .• CHF.ESE~AN: Well, !-fr. Chairman, in reading the total reference, of course it says legislation will be introduced at the earliest oossible date to establish in conjunction with the Federal Government an inexnens:tve cost-shared insurance programme. New to be truly technical,of course,if you want to be that then it says at the earliest possible date.

The earliest possible date must of necessity be at the time when you have reached an agreement with Ottawa but 1 as I say 1 that is ·beinr highly ¢echnical. The situation here is that the loRic, I believe, of the 3580

June 29, 1972 Tape 1114 need is there. I do not think there is any doubt and I do not think anyone in this House or elsewhere would argue it.

To me it was, is and will continue to be logical that Ottawa should participate in this and as far as I am concerned,from a personal and a department point of view, we shall continue to ,ursue,to try End sell Ottawa on a form of participatory insurance or a form of participatory gear ren]acc~cnt loss, some form where the benefit will accrue to the inshore FisheTT!1en. 'fo,:,, More th~n that, the only indication,as I say,we have is that they do not favour such an insurance. l~. -~0.!i_E(W.N.): :Mr.

Chairman, apain I must say I am not tryin~ to implicate or bJ ame the minister in this but I am tryinp.: to implicate or blame the govern1:1ent that broup.:ht in this Speech from the Throne there in the last sP.ssion of this Jlou<ie of Assembly. I do not know who wrote it. Mr. McLean,perhaps he did,I do not know. "!ayhe we will find out what Mr. McLean did when the minister gets the 1mswer to our earlier question. I know it was not ~!r. Goldfarb. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to state :if'.ain for the record an-1 for the benefit of members of the Rouse who mav he interested in this and for the benefit of the press that the Throne Speech,as delivered on Wednesday, March 1, 1972,just nrior to a provincial election in this province stated, ,·Legislation ,:,d 11 he introduced at the earliest possible date,'' which implies lep.:islation is drafted, ready, it is just a matter of introducinp it at the earliest possjhle date, in con_1unction with the Federal Government an inexpensive shared-cost insurance programme coverin!! loss of fishing gear.'' This to me, Sir. is a positive statement that legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible date, There is no mention of an agreement wiJl be attempted to be reached at the earliest possible date with the ' JM -- 3 Government of Canada~ 11hat would be the

interpretation that the honourable minister put on it. What I am saying is that this was a misleading statement and I am very surprised and even shocked to hear the minister 3581

June 29, 1972 Tape 1114 JM - 4 come in now, without blaming the minister, to hear the minister come in now and s~ate,not t~at negotiations are still continuing and some result is likely to be reached shortly or in the near future but comes in and with really a negative statement says that the Federal Government really do, not want to look at the type of programme which he would like to see and we would all like to see in the province.

This to me, Sir. was a gross misleadinp of the public of this province, 11Legislation will be introduced in con.junction with the Federal Government to establish an inexpensive shared-cost insurance programme covering loss of fishin11 p,ear. 11 I hope, Sir, and this is not the first e·xamplc of this , I hope, Sir, that the press of this province,who have a duty to infom the people of this province what transpires in this House.will e:ive the proper coverage that this particular item does deserve. It was a misleading of the public of Newfoundland just before a provincial election was to take place. MR. TIIOMS: Mr.

ChaiI'1!1an, I would like to get back to my orif!inal quel'ltion and ask the Minister of Fisheries, at the present time if one of the fisher!'len in any of our communities in Newfoundland does lose his fishinp gear _is there any programme. whereby he can be partially paid for the loss of this gear L I know in my own district I have three people at the present time who lost fishing gear last year and one man to the extent of $4,000 ..

Is there anything that his department can do to help out these fisher.men? ~- CHEESEMAN: I am sorry, I think I have followed all of the commentary, but there were a number of people last year that were excluded from the programme for various reasons other than by areas,the sort of inequities that in fact I was referring to previously and there was a time limit set. When this present admin:l!stration came in there was not sufficient amounts of money then left in the vote to pay the claims which had been filed within the legitimate time for filing. So an additional amount of 3582

June 29, 1972 Tape 1114 money was then voted to cover the claims which had been received within the specified time and. were considered ler,itimate and for claim,aml a further amount of money was voted in order to cover these outstandinp claims and that was the end of last year's programme. Now that is the actual position as of now. JM - 5 ~m. THOMS: Mr. Chairman, say for example a fisherman in Bonavista North, in Hesleyville 11oses $4,000 worth of gill nets,what is the proper course of action for him to take to be reimbursed for the cost of these nets? MR.

CHEESEHAn: Well again bear in mind that these negotiatj_ons, as I have stated and as I have ind1.catec1 in answer to a auestion frow the honourable J!ouse Leader, this is not yet finaJ ized. As far as we are concerne<l it is a question which we are still pursuing but at this noint we have an amount in our budget. Last year there was $1. 00 token vote in 0 I believe that was the amount, $1.00 token vote in,and the loss was done on a storm damage basis where the storm was considered of sufficient importance and the loss was great enough to warrant it.

This vear we have $200,000 in, so I would hope that whichever way it goes,whether we have to pay it from this fund without benefit of insurance or use it for insurance 1 that legitimate losses caused through storm damage where a major loss is concerned,because that is the area we are in and that is the area that I am not particularly happy about,that it would be met on the same basis. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Chairma,n, I woultl think myself that the honourable Premier,whowas acting Minister of Fisheries at the time,has a duty and a responsibility to explain to the people of this province, the fishermen of this province why the legislation that was mentioned in the Throne Speech in the last session of this legislature 3583

June 29, 1972 Tape No • 1115 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: will not be introduced. Sir, he was the Acting Minister of Fisheries. The honourable Premier and his administration made a solemn promise to the fishermen of this province, Sir, and now we hear that the legislation will not be brought into the House in this session or in the foreseeable future. I think the honourable Premier should explain to the fishermen of this province why it will not be done. This is an unfulfilled promise, Sir. It is a promise.

The fishermen of this province have put their faith and their trust in this government and they are entitled to an explanation, Sir. MR. MOORES: Mr. Chairman, in that Throne Speech that was referred to by the honourahle member for Bell Island~"legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible date to establish, in conjunction with the federal government,an inexpensive shared-cost insurance programme covering the loss of fishing gear.• This amount in the estimates is what we think it will cost and which is put there for the protection of the fishermen.

The reason that the insurance gear policy is not being implemented is because the Liberal Government in Ottawa have turned it down. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we know what the Rpeech from the Throne said, and the Premier read it accurately. But as my friend and colleague the member for White Bay South said, the words used in the Throne Speech imply clearly, they make it obvious, they make it clear.Your Honour,that there had to be an agreement with Ottawa but they gave a clear implication that an agreement had been reached. That is what we are going at.

It is a clear implication, when it says, "legislation will be introduced." 1f it were not that, "at the earliest possible date," very firm words. It does not say, "my government" or ''my ministers feel that there should be such a programme'"and they will get on their horse and go to Ottawa and when they get to Ottawa they will say, "we think there should be such a programme, join with us," That is not what it says. What it says :Is that legislation 3584 ..... , .

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1115 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS~ will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. Now what I want to know is when Ottawa, first of all on what bas:t.s that statement was put in. Was there any indication from Ottawa? Now they are on dangerous ground and I merely say that I perhaps know a little more than honourable ~entleman might think about this, I would like to know the reason it was put in, not a statement, not a statement.

These are considered words, The Speech from the Threne is not a speech in debate, it is not the sort of thing that in committee or in the House we are speaking off the cuff and without preparation, The Speech from the Throne is a considered, a thoroughly considered statement of the government's policy, There are no words used loosely in a Speech from the Throne,I would hope, Why it said legislation will be introduced, why it said that, why it did not say that, "my ministers are convinced that such a programme is necessary, of vital importance." It could say that very easily.

The ministry believe that if they do they are right. It is of vital importance. It makes the flat,categorical statement, "legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity," implying that the Justice Department draftsmen have done the Bill and it is merely a matter of it coming in. MR. CHEESEMAN: Inaudible, MR. ROBERTS The minister is nit picking,of the · worst sort. It says legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, right? Obviously that is obvious, nothing will be introduced before it is possible.

The Minister of Finance cannot walk on Hogan's Pond before it is possible, not yet, but he is working on it., AN HON. MEMBER: He is afraid he will meet you. MR. ROBERTS: Afraid he will meet me, he hetter be afraid he meets me. He better be afraid he meets me. But, Mr, Chairman, it is serious 3585

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1115 NM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: because if the ministry cannot give us the reasons why they put that in, if the Minister of Fisheries cannot stand to say that, then the clear implication is that there were no reasons, Now at the same time I would like the minister to say when Ottawa indicated to the ministry to the administration of the government of this province, when they indicated that they would not, "I know the answer to it as well," says my friend from Fogo, First of all on· what basis was this put in? Who in Ottawa held out the hope there would be such a programme?

What reason did the ministry have for even thinking there would be such a programme, let alone why did the statement say "legislation would be introduced? Secondly would the minister be good enough, Sir, to tell the committee when Ottawa intimated, it is the top . of page four in the Throne Speech.

The Premier read i~ correctly but we will read it ar,ain. 1'Legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible date to establish, in conjunction with the federal government, an inexpensive shared-cost insurance programme covering loss of fishing gear." That was a commitment, right out on television, that was thenalf million dollar session, the famous session.

The day when we knew, some of us knew more definitely than others, there were some men present who knew for certain that House would never meet again, There were some of us who merely suspected and in the event, as the whole world knows, the House only met the one day then we had another democratic exercise. Great fun, it was great fun. There is a story that will come out about that in due course. But that is another story. Now we are talking about this. The statement was made, It was made.

Now the minister comes in and says, "thare w:1.11 be no legislation, the vote is not, to be used for that it will be used for storm damage, if it is used at all. There will be no legislation because Ottawa will not hear of it"and the Premier /!ets up and 3586 ,.

June 29, 1972 Tape NO. 1115 NM - 4 '11{. ROBERTS: says it is the Liheral Government in Ottawa. WelJ it is true the government in Ottawa is made up of the Liberal Party, it is now and it will be after the coming del",ocratic exercise but ar.ain, that is another story. MR. :r-iOORf:S: Inaudible, MR. ROBE~TS: Right! Right! Right! Right! Never any predictions of victory because I knew, My surveys were ;ust about as good as the Premier's. MR. MOORES: Well why work so hard. ~1R. ROBERTS : Why work so hard? I am working hard now, Sir, and so are my colleagues.

It will be four years before we get a crack at them ,opposite, We. are going to go on working hard. If the Premier could get all his colleagues to work hard we would he doing well. Now, as I was saying, not the Minister of Fisheries, he workF hard, I agree. Now we are told hy the minister that there is to be no programme, Ottawa will not agree.

Well what I want to know is Hl,en Ottawa said they would not agree, When? l will not accept, I will have to accept hut I will not rest content with an answer that the information was commuti.icatcid at the May meetings, I will accept, I mean if a member makes a statement I must accept it but I can tell him that I will not rest content and in an appropriate place and in an appropriate time, I can take that matter further,if that is to be the answer, because I want to know if the information ~ere communicated before this, Furthermore,! would like to know, in any event, oil wha~ basis the whole thing went in, My friend from Fogo~who was Minister of Fisheries for two or three years, Acting Minister for a couple of years. can say a few words on it but it is no.t a new subject• It has been on the go for how long, this inshore progPamme~' 8ack to the time when Richard Cashin was Parliamentary Sec~etary to the honourable Mr, Robichaud, then the 3587

June 29, 1972 Tape No. 1115 NM - 5 MR. ROBERTS: Minister of Fisheries, now the Governor of New Brunswick. This type of programme was on the go as was the catch-failure programme. I want to know, you know, it never came to fruition before. We heard the Speech from the Throne and said, "they have done it, they have pulled it off." Now it turns out they have not pulled it off. Well I would like for the minister to tell us on what basis they thought that that statement w<:,uld go in, because unless the minister can tell us that reasonably and convincinr,ly, then it is obvious that this statement is not correct.

That leads to serious implications, Sir. So let us hear from the minister,because it• is an important point. The statement was made and now all of a sudden it is gone to ruins. We want to know why it was made. Maybe the Premier will answer, he was the minister at the time - but somebody on the government side. Pretty well anybody will do, anybody who can speak for them over there. Why was it made and when did the news come from Ottawa that Ottawa were not prepared to engage in such a programme? MR. CHESSEMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the conversation or the points have gone back and forth.

I had hoped the position was clear. As far as I am aware, the subj,ect of inshore insurance was one of the items which this government took as priority, The need for and it was a subject that had been communicated to Ottawa. As to any point in time, when to identify a day or a date, . I am not sure that I can do that. I will check the files,however,and see. Sut the fact of the matter is that the $200,000 is in there. Now insurance goes by many names.

If we want to bring in a contributor, assuming that the government wished today to ~ring in an insurance policy and made the fishermen part of it and in fact did charpe 3588 ...

June 29, 1972 'l'ape No . 1115 NM. - 6 a premium,as was projected, then perhaps the province and the fishermen could go it alone, I do not feel really that that is fair and equitable. I believe we need this other pc;i:tion too and I have indicated previously that,for my part, I do not intend to see the matter stop there or consider Ottawa's decision or indicate it ,because we do not have a flat denial, again to my knowl:-edge. No, we will not. The fact is that they are not happy with this type of programllie and in 3589

June 29, 1972. Tape 1116 Page 1. my last conversation with the officials in Ottawa they were still looking at and exploring the possibility of some form of aid towards gear loss. So I do not think that we can sort of close the door and say that it is irrevocably out at this point. But the $200,000 :1.s in there and the government could make a decision to charge the in­ shore to•a premium but I am afraid the premium would be relatively high without the federal government aid. MR.WINSOR: Mr.

Chairman, I recall having gone to Ottawa on at least two occasions, one as late as December 1971,on that same matter,to try and get Ottawa's participation in the insurance scheme for the fisherman. I was informed by the minister, through the minister, through his deputy-minister 1 that they would not be participating in such an insurance - as late as December. I was flabbergasted when I heard the Speech from the Throne read by His Honour, reference ,to which has been made here now,that the present government would bring in legislation to bring in such an insurance. Mr.

Chairman, it is a misleading statement and I would say, without any confirmation at all, from Ottawa, that such a participation would be entered into between Ottawa and the 'Erovince of Newfoundland. I tried when I was minister of Fisheries,on two or three occasions, and was turned down, I cannot see where the present government got any encouragement at all from the government at Ottawa,that they would participate. So, Mr. Chairman, the storm damage as mentioned here now,does that include the damage by longliners or does it include only the inshore fishermen?

Because there is a vast difference between the storm damage of inshore fishermen and the loss of nets by longliners. Could you clarify the two? Does it apply to longliners as well as inshore fishermen? MR.CHEESEMAN: Well, obviously the losses of the inshore fishermen are by many causes. There are times when storm damage is claimed when in 3590 ( ..

June 29, 1972. Tape 1116. Page 2. effect nets are lost for other reasons. Trawlers, the gear is being hauled out of the water by boats going by 0 This is a continuous problem with them, But, as far as our allocation of funds this year what I said~was 1 that the previous administration put in a dollar token vote and paid a per proportion 1not in total but a per proportion of storm damage lost, We have put in $200,000 and will pay on the same basis.

Now, hopefully that is the maximum, But as far as I am concerned I think we must still,in the interest of our fishermen,pursue thi.s with Ottawa and get some form of a programme built into this $200,000 wnich we have,to bring the contribution by fishermen to an absolute minimum requirement. MR.WINSOR: I think the difficulty there,Mr. Chairman, is participation of the fishermen themselves.

That is why the programme failed a few years ago, That is why Ottawa decided not to participate because they could not get the participation of the fishermen and they saw a great lack of interest in such an insurance by the fishermen, I am very happy to know that the minister is contemplating that, but if the need arises that there is an amount there which can take care of storms, it is very gratifying.I am sure it will be gratifying to the fishermen. MR.ROBERTS: Mr.

Chairman, that is well said by both the minister and the gentleman from Fogo, that,you know, if we do have a storm or losses are sustained,there is a fund or a vote or a subhead or whatever it is called,out of which the damage can be paid and it will be paid on the same basis as in previous years. I think all of the fishermen .who may be affected by that will be very glad. A good thing, a very good thinR . indeed. But the minister neatly slid away from the question.

So we will go back at it again, He really will have to answer it because we are quite prepared to keep asking him• We want an answer, Let us once again review the situation so that the minister, if I did not make myself 3591

June 29, 1972. Tape 1116 Page 3. clear perhaps I can this time. As my friend and colleague the member for Fogo, the dean of the House, he has been here longer than any of us, probably will be here long after most of us are gone, as he said this matter is not new, Indeed while he was acting minister of fisheries, as recently as December last, seven months past, he was in Ottawa asking Ottawa for a fisheries gear insurance programme. The new minister made it a priority. Well, so did the old ministry.

It is not new, it is not a new idea, As long aso as,to my certain knowledge it 11aa 1963 when Richard Cashin was parliamentary secretary at Ottawa. He aaid it was under discussion then. It was under study it is still under · study. Ottawa would never say no to an~thing. The honourable gentleman opposite who went off to Ottawa with their long-range planning and such got a good reception. The Minister of Fisheries got a good reception. They probably took him out to lunch. If they did not take him, he took them out to lunch then. He got a good reception. They are studying all sorts of things.

After we are all dead and gone they will still be studying them. Ottawa will never say no. Just keeps rolling on,like old man river. When they do not say "yes" the honourable gentleman can deduce they have said "no." There are very few times in history when Ottawa has ever by word or by deed said we will not agree with that or we will discontinue this programme. Some will get lost in the mire,which is just between the Confederation Building up there that houses the finance department and the treas