•. Volume XLI Wednesday Province of Newfoundland FORTY -FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Number 17 4 April L990

The House met at 2:00 p.m . MR. SPEAKER Oi"der, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of FishE!ries. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, On March 30th, of this past week, my Federal counterpart, the han. Bernard Valcourt, released the final report of the Harl~is Review PanE!l on Northern Cod. This Report, which was anxiously awaited by the fishing industry at large, addressed a lAJhole range of issues surrounding the management of thE! largest groundfish stock in waters adjacent to our Province on which our fishing industry and economy are critically dependent.

Over the past several years, thc:~re have been major conCE!rns raised · ovel" the health of the Northern cod stock. It was in this context that the Harris Panel tAJas given a broad mandate by the Government of Canada to acldi"es s a wide• rangE! of issues relating ·to thti:~ managti:~ment of this resource. Obviously, conservation conce1"ns must be the overriding factor in the management of any given fish stock.

In this context, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had taken a special interest in the work of the Harris Panel and hoJ.ds the view that the Panel 1 s final report provides a solid framework in which Governments, the fishing industry and the public at large can focus on those critical issues !"elating to thti:~ managemen ·t of the Northern cod stock. The conclusions contained in the final repol"'t: of the Harris Panel provide L1 Apl"il If. , 1990 VoJ. XLI convincing evidence that major public policy decisions must be takE!n to safeguard the pr·udent management of the Northern cod l"esource.

Indeed. one of the strongest conclusions in the Repor·t. is that 11 failul~E:~ to tclkE! appropriate steps to reduce current J.evels of Fishing mortality tAiil1 rnost probably h•ad to a significant continuing decline in the spalAming biomass. 11 The pan e 1 f u r thE' r r e c o rnrn e n d s . i n the strongest possible tr:H'ms. that the:~ guiding principle must bE• the:~ imperative necessity for an increasti:~ in thE! size of Lhe spawning population. By implication, Mr.

Speaker, acceptance oF the Pane1 1 s key recommendation that, as a matter of urgency, the fishing mortaJ.ity be rc:~duced to a fishing lTlOI"t.ality level of at least 0. 30 ilrllnediab~ly and to the leve1 of 0. 20 at LhE! earliest feasible date, means furthel" reduc l:ions in thE~ Nol"thE·l~n cod quota fi"Oin its exis l:ing level of 190,260 tons. The report provides convincing evidc:~nce that: a reduct.ion in Lhc:­ fishing rnol"tality is Cl"it.ica1 and that continuing to fish at current levels will not lead to Lhe desired goal of increasing Lhe size:~ of the spalAming biomass. Ml".

Speaker, the Report in question confirms many of thE! consel~val:i.on and fisher·ies managti:'rllE:~nt concer·ns tAJhich the Pl"ovince has l"a".i.sE•d relative to the Northern cod stock. In this conLext, the Province believes that it wou1d be totally inappropriate for both orders of GoveJ~nmE!I1L t:o ·ignor·e t:he strong conservation message which is conveyed in the Harris Report. There is Speaker, reductions, No . 1 '7 little doubt, Mr. that Further quota tAJhich t.~Jould f1ot~.J ·Fr·om rn

acceptance of the key recommendations of the Report, t~.Ji.ll haue a major social and economic impact on the Prouince 1 s economy ouer the foreseeable future. Howeuer, in the absence of these conseruation measures. we run the risk of contributing to a significant decline in the exploitable and spawning biomass of Northern cod which would clearly not be in the longe1n term interest of our economy, our fishing industry, our people, and the resource itself. It is in this light, Mr.

SpE!akeln, that the Gouernment of Newfoundland and Labrador is particularly concerned over a principal conclusion in the Report that "the population, the biomass, the spawning population and the spawning biomass of NorthEH'n cod a1ne currently in decline and that the fishing mortality rate is currently at the leuel of 0.45 or higher. 11 Gouernment • s initial inclination is that all 29 recommendations of the Harr·is Panel Report should be accepted in their entirety. I will repeat, Mr .

Speaker, GouernmE!nt • s initial inclination is that all 29 recommendations of the Han ·is Panel RE!pOI"t should be accepted in their entirety. However, Gouernment is cognizant of the fact that all interest groups shouJ.d bE! giuen the opportunity to reuiew the report in detaiJ. and make their uiews known before the Federal Government proceeds with implementation of the Report's recommendations.

It is for this reason that: the Province has asked that the NeiAJf ou ndland and Labrador Fisheries Advisory Council m•:!Ed: at the earliest possible date and present its views to Government on the final report of the Harris Panel. The Counci]. is made up of a cross-section of thE! Pr·ouince • s L2 April 4, 1.990 Vol XLI fishing industry and the Council's advice will be given every consideration by the Province in formulating its formal response to the Harris Report. Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion, I t~.rish to indicate that the Report of the Ha1"ris l~eview Panel tAlill have major implications for this Province and its fishing industry :in the yea1ns ahead. I, therE!fOI"E:!. call upon Uris hon. House l:o congratulate Dr . LE!sliE• Han·is and his Panel on the complE!tion of a solid, conservation-oriented report. MR. RIDEOUT : Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader oF l:.hE! Opposition . MR. RIDEOUT : Thank you, Min. Speaker.

First of all let me thank the Minister on behalf of the Members on this side of the House for providing us with a copy of the statement a few minutes before he r t:~a d it in the House. Let ITIE! bE!gin, Mr. SpE!aker, by repeating the line that the Minister repeated twice on page three. 1 G6vernment's initial inclination is that aLl 29 recommendations of the Harris Report should be accepted in their entirety. • Now, Mr. Speaker. t.hat is the Government's inclination. It: is not yet the Government's posil7.ion, it :is not yEd: l .. hE! Gouernrnent's fir·rn position . 1 do hope that it will be.

I can understand that there should obviously be consultation . This is a very imporl:ant: docurnenl: : For the future of thousands of NetAJfoundlanders and hunclr·eds of communities in this Province, Ml". No . 1 '1 R2

a Speaker. Let us be clear exactly what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. To reduce the fishing mortality immediately to 0. 30 as Dr. Harr·is recommends we do immediately, it means that we immediately move from a TAC (total allowable catch) of 199,260 tons, as is the case today, to a total allowable catch of 1'78,000 tons immediately. That is what 0. 30 means. And to moVE! ·to Dr. Harris's recommended level at the earliest feasible date, as he puts it in his report, of 0.20 means that lAJe as quickly as possible move to a total allowable catch of 125,000 tons. So it must be clearly understood, Mr.

Speaker, just in case 0.30 is not or 0.20 is not that what it actually means is immediately going from 199,000 tons to 1'78,000 tons, and then as quickly as possible thereafter to a TAC o~ 125,000 tons in the effort to save this stock so that the biomass will regenerate and rebuild and hopefully get back to levels, I believe as Dr. Harris says, where we can have sustainable total allowable catches of about 300,000 tons or so a year which has been, you know, lAdth some variance the figure that most people believe can be sustained. Mr.

Speaker, there are a number of other very significant recommendations in the Harris Report that the Minister has not chosen to respond to yet. He certainly did not in this statement. For example, the very important recommendation that there be a significant increase in the financial resources allocated to the scientific effort and to the surveillance effort. I believe necessary it !Aii11 be that the L3 April 4., 1990 absolutely scientific Vol XLI effort be dramatically irnproVE!d and increased, and at the same time it will be absolutely necessary that surveillance be increased as wel1.

SornE!thing has to be done to respond to the problem of seals. The announcement made by the Minister of assistance for harvesting, both Ministers, I guess, is a welcome announcement but there has to be something more than that and hopefully it will be a positive approach in the sense ·that l:hore will be economic reality to the harvesting of the seal herd and bringing it into proportion with the rest of the ecosystem. Jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, is addressed in the Harris Report. Dr.

Harris makes some very specific recommendations about what Canada must do to ensure. that Canada, as quickly as possible, obtains the ability to be able to manage the trans boundry stock, particularly as it relates to l:.he Nose and Tail of the Bank. One other area, Mr. Speaker, in the Harris Report that must be addressed, not only by the GovernrnE!nt of Canada, but must be addressed on an urgent basis by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that, Mr. Speaker, is harvesting technology. Dr.

Harris, as the Minister knows and as the Government knows, has madE! some significant recornmendations as to mesh size, harvesting technology, a better conservation oriented technology, so ·thc:'re ar'E! still a lot of areas, very, VE!ry important areas, of thE! Han'is Report, Mr. Speaker, l:hat this Government must take a position on, · and I think it lAii.11 bE! incumbent on this Government to do it early and do it as quickly as possible so that the Government of ' Canada understands the seriousness of the resolve of this Government No . 1 '7 1n

to have the Harris Report implemented in its entirety . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Oral Questions MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT : Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in Hansard December 5, 1989, was making reference to the recommendations of Judge Mahoney in dealing with the allegations surrounding the Minister -of Social Services.

The Premier comme~nted on Judge Mahoney 1 s observations that certain actions taken by the Minister of Social Services on behalf of his brother, to quote Judge Mahoney, 1 may have been ill--advised or imprudent 1 • The Premier made this particular comment in response to that, Mr. Speaker. He said, 1 I have no hesitation in dealing with it and saying that such actions do not conform to a standard of behavior for Ministers that is acceptable to this Administration. 1 Now, Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Premier said the position taken by the Minister of Finance in the House on Tuesday night in debate on the resolution to rescind our approval for the Meech Lake Accord, was silly, that it was an embarrassment to the Government. Mr. Speaker. in view of the fact that such positions taken by Ministers. the Minister of Social Services in the past and the Minister of Finance yesterday. is LLJ. ApriJ. 4-, 1990 VoJ.

XLI si11y or an ernbartnassmr:'nt to the Government or cannot. be tolE!rated in this Administration, will the Premier do the right thing and begin to fling Ministers who break his code of ethics and his code of conduct out of the Cabinet? MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Premier. f.BEMIER WELL§.: The han. the Minister of Finance ~id not breach any code of ethics, did not breach any code of conduct. As a matter of fact, Mt". Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that in my judgement the Minister of Finance is the best Ministe1n of FinanCE! this PI''OVince has seen since ConFederation, no hesitation whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER WELLS: Now I ask the Minister to restrain his modesty and not argue wit~ me for the time being about that opinion. Mr. Speaker. the Minister· in !:hE• fuJ.l flight of political debate here made a statement that was ill-advised, was totally contrary to Government policy on an issue and everybody knows it. The Minister, with complete integrity and competence and honesty and understanding of the position, acknowledged that and apologized. In those circumstances, t:.his phrase of flinging people out, I am not going to fling anybody anywhere.

I am going to expect and will require an appropriate level of pE:'rformance , but I arn not going to fling anybody anywhere. What the Minister did in apologizing is entil"!:;!ly acceptable and appropriate. No. 17 R4 -

MR. SPEAKER : The! han. the:~ Leadr:~r· of the Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: -··-·--------·-·- -·-·--Mr. Speaker, it is not a laughing matter, I can assUI"e the Pl"emier. Others will comment later in the day on the competence:' of the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the Premier in commenting further on Judge Mahoney's Report said in the House, 'However, he and all other Ministers are fairly warned that such actions are totally unacceptable a~d in future will result in a request for an immediate resignation.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Prc::Hnier again, in view of such categoric statements by the Premier, how can he continue to keep the Minister of Finance in the Cabinet? MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Premier . PREMIER WELLS: With complete confidence in his ability, with complete confidence in his integrity, with complete confidence in what he is doing. There is no comparison between the two s ta te!mE! nt s . I do not know how or on what basis the Leader of the Opposition is trying to show sorne kind of a connection.

If he thinks the people of this Province are going to fall for that kind of a totally unfounded suggestion and expect that the Minister of Finance should be asked to resign, I can assure him that ·the pr,~ople of the Province are rnuch smarter than he gives them credit for. ThE!Y undE!rstand what thE• Minister of Finance said. They do not accept it any rna r e than I a c c l':~ p ·t L5 April 4, 1990 Vol XLI it or the people generaJ.ly '.in l:.his House accept it, but they are quite prepared to recognize the circumstances in lAJhich it lAJas said. to recognj.ze Uw s:incel"ity of the apoJ.ogy of the:!

MinistE:!r of Finance, as Pr.:~rnier Bourassa did when I spoke wit:h him about it. He said, 'Do not. lAJorry about it Clyde, I understand. People in diffen~nt cil"curnstances 1nay 1nakE! that kind of a statE!HIE!nt in the• heat of debate at any tirne. I perfectly undE!rstand it.' Now if Prc::~mier Bourassa can unclel"stand it, I arn having grave difficulty understanding what. is behind the Leader of the Opposition's position. Does he just. want to create difficu1ty Ol" trouble? It is difficult enough, hE~ does not have to add to thE! d:i.fficuJ.ty fol" the Province in what he is doing. MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the LeaciE~r of thE! Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT : Mr. Speaker, rny job·in life al: the moment is not to make J.ife pleasant for the Prem"iel~. so hr:• should not question why we ask questions. Mr. Speaker, the MinisLE!I" of Finance took a public verbal lambasting from the Prernter yestE!rday in this House, pub1icJ.y, live too, by the way. the lii<E~s oF IAJhich I have never seE!n a PrE•rrd.E•I" or a Leader of a Government do before.

TherE! have bE•en SCIITIE! good ones done in the House in the past, particularly prior· to 19'72, but I do not Lhink the likE!S of it was eVE!r donE! t:o a Minis t.el" sitting in his seat. and taking "it, as was donE! by the Pr.:~rrd.er to the Minister of Finance yesterday. NolAJ, Ml". Speaker, lAIOUlcl thE• Minister of Finance tell the House, whether or not hE~ :intends No . 1 '7 RS

to voluntarily resignation to the the Premier does intestinal fortitude MR. SPEAKER : offN' his P1n10:~rnir:~r since not have the to seek it? The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of resigning on this issue. If some matter comes up where we have a very serious disagreement of opinion, that may be the case. But this is not the case. I fully support the Premier in my chastisement: I deserved it. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition . MR. RIDEOUT : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Chastisement is a nice little boy 1 s word. Mr.

Speaker, The Minister of Finance was publicly humi 1 ia ted and pub1 i c ly scorned by the Premiel" in this House yesterday. Would the· Minister tell the House, how he can continue to be effective as a Minister, particularly as a Finance Minister, when the Premier has publicly declared his lack of confidence in the judgment of the Minister of Finance? How can the Minister continue to be effective in that Government? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Spec:J.I<er, in the sam10:~ way as I have been effective in the post in the past eleven months. MR. SIMMS : Mr. Speaker .

L6 April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI MR. SPEAKER: The han . the Leader. MR. SIMMS: Opposi.t.ion House Mr. Speaker, my qur:~s tion is also to the Premier. The Premier has admitted himself :in this House that the MinistE!r of FJ.nance has been an embarrassment to his Government and to the people of this Province. He has made silly statements on his Meech Lake position, but not only that, I remind the Pl"E!mier. hE! has bungled his Budget. The people in the Province are totally confused over· the payroll tax issuA in particular. and he rE!fUSE!S ti.rn(:! after time to anstJ..JBI" questions in this House.

Many of his statements in the past haVE! bet:.~n declal"ed to bE! unaccE!ptablE:! ..... his Budget statements of last y(~ar I recall, and on and on it. goes. so my question to the Pl"lo'mier· is. how long is th.e Prern:i.er gotng to tolerate this? And if he will not ask for the MinistE•r 1 s rE!signali .on because of his position on M~:•E!Ch Lake, what about all the others things: his bungling of the Budqet and his other unacceptable positions? Wh10:~n ts l:h'" PI"C"III"ier going to ask for the M:i.nister's resignation? MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Pre~ier . PREMIER WELLS: Let me correct the misstatement the hon.

Member used as his Foundation, that I said the Minister of Finance was an embarrassment to me. I never said any such thing. I did say the comment, the inappropriate, unfortunate comment, the Mintster made in the full flight of rhetoric in this House was an embarrassment to the Government. The Minister acknowledges it. Not No. 17 R6

only will I not ask for the:~ MinistE•r 1 s resignat.J.on, I wou1d not accept it if he tendered it. Because, Mr. Speaker, he is too valuable and too competent a Membeln of this Government, and this Province needs his talents and ability too seriously to conside1n for one mornE!nt accr:~pting his resignation. And as For the comments of the hon. the Member for Grand Falls (Mr. SJ.rnms) about his bungled Budget, he is the only one, or a few opposite, who think it is bungled. This entire Province is confident that t:he Minister had a splendid performance in his Budget, and did what: was right.

And he is talking about the payroll tax he mentioned in his question. Mr. Speaker, the MinistE!r and the Government with that payroll tax did the greatest kindness to the people of thi~ Province that we could ever do in managing our financial affairs. In the end, it will be clearly seen to be as such. Now I know the hon. Members opposite are very concerned that l~he GovernmE!nt has scored a great many points in tE!rms of its administration and its political achievement with the Budget, and they greatly regret it. I am sorry about that.

We did not mean to do them so much harm, but we had to put the interests of the people first. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader . MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the old song 1 Oh Lord It Is Hard To Be Humble. 1 That is IJJhat the Pr·~~rnier sounds like to me. Mr. Speaker, the Premier in his L7 ApriJ. 4, 1990 Vol XLI response talked about how cornpetc::~nt his Minister of Finance rr:~ally is, Wc::~ll let US SN' how competent he is. My supplemE!ntary question goes t.o the Ministe1n of Finance.

Twenty days haVE! passed no1JJ s-.i.nce the Minister of Finance brought down this great Budget and his Budget Speech, on March 15. G1noups and organizations around this Province, I say to the Minister, and businesses, are totally confused with his statr:~rnents. Aftc::~1n twenty days, I want. to ask this question: Has he figured out yet who has to pay the pay1noll tax? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Spea 'l( er, we haVE! figui"NI out and IJJe have announced in the past the general principles underlying this tax.

I wi1l be making a statement shor·tly in the HouSE! to clarify a few litt.1e points whoi.ch are yet to be made. MR. RIDEOUT: You · said that three weeks ago . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader . MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . IF ever evidence is needed with respect to the cornpEd::ence of thE:· Minister of Finance, we just: ~H?i:'llnd it I bE!lieve. Let rne ask this, a supp1ernentary to the Minister of Finance.

Were any of thE! following, school boards, municipaJ.i ties, hospital boar·ds or Crown corporations included in Lhe Minister 1 s caJ.culations of $15 million revenue this year from his payroll tax? A simple question: Were any of l:hose included in his calculations? No. 17 R'l

Ml~. SPEAKER: The han. -the Mtnister of FinancE!. DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speak,:>r, lAJhen I make the statement, all will be revealed . MS VERGE: Mr-.-"s p e'a k e I" . ~~ --~2P- E A.~ ... ~ .. R : The han. thE! Member For Humber East. MS VERGE: ·--····· .. ···- My question is for the Minister of Finace, as well. Here we are, eighteen days after the Minister delivered his Budget Speech, we are four days into the ne1.u fiscal year, and the Minister has been unable or unwiJ.ling to explain to employers in this Province, public sector and private ·sector employers, whether or not they will have to pay th~::~ payroll tax.

How does the Minister expect these employers to plan? How does he expect these employers to budget?. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. KITCHEN : Mr. Speaker, I have no further comment to make on this matter until my statE!mE!nt is made in thE! House. MR. SIMMS: How incompetent! How incompetent! MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Member for Humber East.

MS VERGE: 'Mr-:--·s·p ·e·aker, wi11 the MinistE!r of Finance admit what is obvious to any informed analyst of his Budget, that his revenue figure for recE!ipts frorn thE:' ne1.u payroll tax include levies on school LB April 4, 1990 Vol XL.l boards, dn colleges, institutes, Memortal University, hospital boards, senior citizens'homes and all Provincial Crown corporations? Will he confirm that? MR. SPEAKER : The han. the Minister of Ftnance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr.

SpE:~akel", the othE!I" night. 1 mentioned about the Fearmongering that goes on opposite, and I am sure the Mt,!lrlbel" opposib'~ is rnE!rely promoting fear· amongst the pE•ople in the Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! DR. KITCHEN: Businesses, Mr. SpeakE!r, knolAJ what the tax is, and for other organizations, this will be cleared up shortly. MR. RIDEOUT: You have had three weeks to your ansWE!I"S s Ll"aigh L, boy! is wrong with you? get Whr:lt MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous! SOME HON. MEMBERS: -- ----·---·-·---·---- Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: This is the Minister of Finance who delivered the Budget Speech, 1.uho is personally responsible For revenue raising - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I ask l:hE! hon . the question . supplementary. No. 17 Mernber It l:o gel .. :is to a R8

MS VERGE: Mr. "spE!aker, I caLl. on the Minister oF Finance to answer this question. Will he eliminate the realistic fears of public sector employers, of school boar·ds, of the School Trustees Association, of colleges, institutes, Memorial University, hospitals boards, senior citizens 1 homes and admtnistrators of other Crown corporations that they will have to pay the payroll tax? Will he eliminate those fears here and now? MR. SPEAKER : The han. the Minister of Finance. DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have had no call From any schoo1 board, university, municipality or any of these the Member mentions.

I do not know where she is manufacturing these things. There is a manufactur·ing industry going on over there, one oF the best ones they have ever created. MR. WINDSOR: Mr . Speaker . MR . SPEAKER : ThE! han . the Member for Mount Pearl. MR. WINDSOR : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it J.s clc::~ar the answers to questions which were previously refusr:~d by the Minister of Finance the Minister still does not know. He is trying to find a way around the fact that he bungled the Budget, that 1.ue caught him off guard in trying to broaden the RST base.

We exposed him on his Budget leak and he has not yet found a way to find $15 million without taxing institutions, because he did not know he was doing it. L9 April 4, 1990 Vol XLI Can the Minister te11 us, since he has tried to sneak $5 m:i] '1ion of fee and licence increase in the Budget, what itE!ITIS thE!~~E! fE•es and licences are, IAJherE! tho~;e drE! applied in the Budget? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Min. Speaker, thE! fees and J.:i.CE!nces are prE!tty well known now. We do not know for sure - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh my, oh my, oh my! DR .

KITCHEN: We know how much the Department of Justice is going to be giving us, but what has not bE!en IAJOinkE!cl out is how much l:he spec:~ding tickEd:s are going to be increased and things of l:hat natu1ne. They a1ne being worked out, and I am not going to announce here now, Mr. Speaker, how much these things ar~:· going l:o be increased. What 1.ue have agreed to is an assessment in fees from these various DepartmE!nts. MR. SPEAKEr~: The han . thE! MembE!r fol'' Mount Pearl. MR. WINDSOR: Mr.

Speakc::~ln, the Minister of Finance has just adrn:ittecl l:hat he put into the Budget an addJ.U.ona1 tax oF $5 million on the people of th'i.s Province and hr:~ does not E!VE:~n know h01.u he is going to apply it. He just aclrn:ittecl that :i.n the:' House. I have never seen such incornpetE!nce. In view of that fact, Ml". SpeakE! In, rnay I ask the Minisb'!r of Finance this: In view of the fact that he does not: know which fees and licences are going to incr·ease, he No. 17 1~9 .,

clearly does not understand his payroll tax, in viet.u of the fact. that the ProvinCE! of Manitoba is now repealing that tax because they found it lAJ<.,1S a disincentive:1 to business and industry, and in view of all the sneaky things the Minister tried to do, like inclneasing priCE!S on J.iql.lor, like personal income tax going up by $20 million and gasoline taxes going up by $4- mi1lion, will the Minister now admit that he is incompetent and resign? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance . DR . KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I would like to respond to this question about Manitoba.

Manitoba has not repealed the tax. What happened was there was a change of government in Manitoba and when the Tory Government half got in in Manitoba, what' they dec:ided to do was to increase the exemption. There was a $100,000 exemption, and so they moved it up to $300,000, and in the second year of their ITiandate they went up to $600,000, and now, I be1ieve, they either propoSE! or have b1nought it up to $1 .2 million. But they have not repealed the tax. When the Member oppositE:~ says they have repealed it or are going to repeal it, he is misleading the House. MR . POWER : Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Th-eh·~ --t-he Member for Ferryland . MR . POWER: Mr . Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I have heard the Premier in his vehement emotional denials of the comments of the MinistE!In of FinanCE!, his short and LlO April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI curly comments, which I am sure will live in infamy when the Meech Lake is ultimately decided in this country. I lAJant to ask \:.he Premier if he concurs with some other comments made by the Minister of Finance in his speaking here on Monday night.

Does the PreiTiier agree with the Comments of the Minister of Finance whE!n he says that as far as Newfoundland is concerned we are sti11 a colony, we haVE! ~~OnE! from being a colony oF Britain to a colony of central Canada? The Minister of Finance went on to say that we need a nE!W confederation with new rules. I t.uould like to ask the Premier, does he agree with those comments of the Minister of Finance? MR. SPEAKER : The han. the PrE:'mier . PREMIER WELLS: Taken out of context, no.

In the context in which they were given and with the explanations, as I understand them, and I wi11 go back and read Hansard and sE•e j.f. it is otheru..rise, bu t lilY recollection of what I saw in H a n s a r d i s t h a l: t h e M i n i s t E!

I" lAJ a s explaining that having ceased to be a colony administered by Britain, we became a Province of Canada only to find ourselvE~s in such economic circumstances that we are effectively an economic colony, having to sett1e fo1n such equalization and transfers as l:h1~ two huge provinces, with 60 per cent of the Members of the HouSE! of Commons, wiJ.l agrE:1e to J.et us have . Now that, as I understood it, was the thrust of the comments of the Minister of Finance. Now, I have not used economic colony in quite the same words, but I unders l:and thE • mE! taphor the Minister was using, and I No. 17 RlO

appreciate th'at those are the circumstances in which it is used. But in principlE! it is not at all unlike the concerns I have addressed, that Newfoundland and the smaller provinces of Canada cannot effectively address our economic disparity because we do not have the means of impacting on the exercise of national legislative and economic decision-making power. That, I understand, is what the Minister was saying. If that was is it is, then I agree with him. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Member for Ferryland . MR. POWER: M1n. SpE•aker, a supplementary just on that point.

I mean, if the Minister of Finance says that we are, and I suppose the Premier has the samE! problem I have. I read Hansard, I read what the Minister said in his speech, and I can only assume that what he said is what he meant, and he said that we have gone from being a colony of England, Great Britain, to bedng a · colony of Canada. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. gentleman is supplementary and should the question immediately. on get a to The han. the Member for Ferryland . MR. POWER: Mr.

SpE!akE!r, the question :is, quite simply, if we are still a colony of somebody, whomever it happens to be, is the Minister of Finance's and the Government's position today that we made a lot of bad mistakes, and that we did a very poor job of negotiating b1:1ing part of the Confederation of Canada in 194-9? Lll April. 4· , 1990 Uol XLI MR. SPEAKER : The han. the PrE!mier . PREMIER WELLS: ·Th!i:1·····-answ·e--r:··-·- is no, Ml". Speaker. When we negotiated the Terms of Union in 194-8 and 194.9, we cou1d not alter then the Canadian Constitution. That was the Constitution of the whole of Canada.

Now we ar'E! in thE• procE!SS where we can cause chang~!!s t:.o be madE!, and any GoVE!InnrnE•nt in th:Ls Province worth its salt would rnake sure that any changes in tJw Constitution tA.d.11 not k1::!ep us foreVE!In in that economic co1onia1 status. And that is what this Government is doing. There was nothing we could have done in 194-9 in negotiating the Terms of Union to alter the Senate structul"IO! of Canada, or Newfoundland's position in the Senate. Newfoundland's position in the Senate was provided in thE!

BNA Act in 1867, when four seats werE! provided for, and in the change in 1915, I thoink it was, when it was increased from four seats to six seats. Now thE!rE! lAJas nothing lAJe could clo tJ.Jith that in 1949, it tJJas provided for in thE! BNA Act and IAJE! couJ.d not negotiate that kind of an amE!ndment. But tJJe can notJJ, M1~. Speaker, and that 'is E:'Xactly lAJhat the Government is doing. MR. SPEAKER: rhe han. the Member for Ferryland . MR. POWER : Ml".

Speaker, I arn g1ad to hE•aJ" the Pl"emier say that, and I am glad to see that this whole process of the Minister of Finance is not sirnp1y a rE!Ctifying of a L.:i.bE·ra1 rrd.s t:ake in 1949, and ol:hel" L'.'ibeJ~al mistakes in 1967 OJ" 1968, when IAJE! did Upper Churchill. No. 17 R 11

Let me say ·to the Premier, and ask him this question, quite simply. If 1.ue are to build a new process in Canada, if we are going through the process of having a new confederation with new rules and v.Ji th new regulations, will the Premier please tell me if the Minister of Finance, although he ·apologized, still means what he said? And I gathered from the applause the Minister received after his comments that there is a large number of the Liberal caucus who bel ieve it.

How can you build a new Canada if it is going to be based on vindictiveness, spitefulness, revenge and the process of getting even? - I got you, you got rne. You got mE! by the short and curlies before, now I have you. How do you build a new Canada with that set of rules, Mr. Premier? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER WELLS: The answer is self-evident to most people who would look at it, but ·for the han. Member I will explain again. The answer is you cannot, and that is why I expressed the opinion I did about the Minister's comments. That is why the Minister explained.

That is why I spoke to Premier Bourassa. So we are not proposing to build it on that basis, just the opposite. However, it does not suit the Member's political purpose at thE! moment to have it understood in that way, and I regret that. And I regret that he keeps trying to make it this difficult and make it appear that way when it is, in fact, not the case. I cannot accept responsibility for the irresponsible comments and actions of the Member. MR. POWER: L12 Aplnil 4-, 1990 Vol. XLI One final supplementary, Mr . Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: 1·-he· ······h o n-~·-·-·t)l e Me rn be r' f o r Fe r r' y 1 a n d on a final supplementary. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, it: 'is not my cornmE!nts which are irresponsible, it was the Minister speaking in debate in this Legislature on beha1f of the LibE!ral Governrnr::1nl: of Nc~wFoundland and Lab1nado1n. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

POWER: I wi11 ask the Premier one more time, iF he wants l:o SE!nd a message to all French and Eng1ish speaking peopl~". in Quebec, and ~11 the rest of the people in Canada, will he send them a clear message, a distinct message, a final message that he does not agree with the Minis tE•r of Finance, and ask the Minister or: Finance to . ? res1 .gn. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PI~EMIER WELLS: Mr. SpE!aker, I do no l knolAJ of any more effective way to send a clear message than what I have done. Now, han. Members opposite want to see some blood upon thE! fioo1n.

I understand their normal political bloodJ.usts, but J.E!t me ·tEd .1 thE!rn they are not going to see that kind of blood on the floor, because thE!re is no justification for it. The MJ.n"ister of FinanCE! has, w>it:h great integrity, great honesl:y and great understanding stood and said 'I was wrong. I t.uas prope1nly chastised . I accept lhe c'hastisr::~ment. I apolog-ize.' Not.u No. 17 Rl2 ·.

hon. Members opposite someholAJ l.o~Jant to see him hung, dralAln and quartered. Well I, Mr. Speaker, am not a butchE!r. I am a political leader, not a butcher. MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo . MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Traditionally, over the past number of yE:~ars, sevE:~ral fish plants in this Province have received Government guaranteed loans to gE!t l:hern through the season. T he Minister has alrE:~ady announced that some plants lAJill not rec1?ive guarantN~d loans.

Can thE:~ Minister inform this House if any loans have been approved, and is he now ready to table the list of guaranteed loans to fish plants? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I am no l: going to table he1ne now things which are under negotiation with the Government. We have tabled here recently the list of payouts we made. Almost all of them were guaranteed loans advanced by people opposite, under very dubious circumstances, I might add, very dubious. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! DR.

KITCHEN : Well, we had to pay $40 million last year for bad debts which thE!Se people set up in their political crassness. one more thing, Mr. Ll3 April 4-, 1990 Let me say Speaker, in Vol XLI answering this question. WE! had the estimates of the Finance Committee yesterday morning and thE!Ine was onE! Mernbeln flnorn the Opposition lJJho u..Jas thE!l"e, Min. Windsor, who asked some questions. Another Member was then~ from thE:' Opposition l.o~Jho never opened his mouth. That. t;.Jas the proper time to examine the Minister of Finance on his EstimatE!S and his Budget and thE!Y did not show up. What a sham, Mr.

Speaker. What a sham! MR. RIDEOUT: This is the proper time for you to write your resignation. MR. SPEAKEf~: The hon. the Member for Fogo . MR. WINSOR: The Minister excited and awhile. get: s ca1nried a l ittle away one ~ bit in Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister. fhe Fogo Island Co-op has requested a loan for quite some time now. I have questioned the Minister outside the House on, I think, l:hl"!:'t? occasions.

Can the MJ rl".i.s'lE!r teJ.l us the status of that loan, and is it in any way tied to a lnE•qUE:'St made by a plant- in tht::- aroa, in ·Twillingate, which lAJe understand has had their request turned clown? Was the Fogo IsJ.and Co--·op request for a loan tied to thal:. in any way? MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, discussing thE! at this stage. AN HON. MEMBER : They are t he No. 17 1 will aFfe:d.rs affairs not be of plants of th~:! R13

ProvinCE!, boy . MS DUFF: M"r--:-sp-8 a k e r . MR. SPEAKER: The han . the Member for St. John 1 s East. MS DUFF: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. Now that he has perhaps had a 1ittle timE! to consider my question of yesterday, which was answered by the Minister of Social Services, or unansWE!red by the Minister of Social Services, I would like to ask the Minister oF Finance if he is able to tell us what the net cost benefit to the Province is of the influx of refugees who have arrived in recent months. Not the cost, but thE! net cost benefit to the Province. MR.

RIDEOUT: You haVE! had twenty-four hours to get the answer. Do you have it? MR. SPEAKER : The hon . the Minis tr:!r of FinancE! . DR. KITCHEN : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table this response. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Member for St. John 1 s East. MS DUFF : I appr-E!ciatE• having thE! rE!sponse. When I read it, I may have some further questions. Does that mean that: the Minister has, in fact, done, or had alrE!ady done some of thE! calculations that would give us that answer?

Is the Ll4 April 4, 1990 Vol XLI Minister saying now that this does answer my question, and that the calculations have been done on the net cost benefit? MR. SPEAKER: The .. _ han. the Minister of Finance. DR. KITCHEN: I b.Jill say yes, Mr. Speaker, bE!Cause I did not rE!ally ~lE!ar' thE• question. If she wants ITIE! to say yes, I will say yes . MR. SPEAKER : The han. the Member for St. John 1 s East. MS DUFF: I would have to say t:hal:. lAJas not only incornpetE!nt, but arlnog<Hlt and ignorant as well, when a spee1.ker' is asking a question.

Assuming the answe1n is yE•s, and that the answer will indicate that certainly if there is any net ~ost to the Province it will be considerably less than the figurE·s which have been publicly stated again last night, I would 1ikE! to ask the Minister is any effort being made to encourage any of these highly qua1iFied refugei ''!S to stay in this Province so that the Province can reap th10:1 ben(:!f:Lts of· their contribution as fully participating Canadian cit<i zens, because I know the statement has been rnade that part oF our problem is that we only have them as transients and we cannot reap Lhat long-term benefit.

MR. SPEAKER: ThE! han . the Mini stein of Sod.a1 Services . MR. EFFORD: Mr -:- Speaker, wi t:h Federal here in St. message we No. 17 in all our· meetings immigration officials John 1 s, l~hE! one clear have set Forth as a Rl4

Government, and as a Department and Minister of Social Services, is that lJJE! do not t;.Jant anybody. any refugee claimant coming into Newfoundland to leave Newfoundland under pr•~ssure. They a11 have the opportunity to stay in Newfoundland as long as they wish. We arE! providing them with the opportunity, if they so desire, to stay in Newfoundland or to move to any province they lAJish in Canada. Nobody is being for·ced to do anything against their lAiill or their wi s hE! s . MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride . MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance on this year's Budget. I waited to ask this question after the estimates were done, because I know the Minister would have been briefed fairly well and up-to-date on the Estimates in this year 1 s Budget. Mr. Speaker. if l:he hon. Minister would look at Statement ii.

Roman numE!ral Page II. under Provincial Taxation. he will see that Retail Sales Tax has been increased by $35 million, petnsonal income tax by $20 million, gasoline tax by $2 million, corporate income tax by $9 million, tobacco tax has a $1 million increase, mining tax and royalties $2.3 million, and the new health and post-secondary education tax is increased by $15 million. MR. SPEAKER: Order. pleasE•! DOE!S the han . Member plan to read the Budget? L15 April 4, 1990 Vol XLI MR. R. AYLWARD: I am just trying to point:. oul: the incrE!aSes in Uds BuclgE•t. Mtn. Speaker.

These increases I just read out, it has been explained what: they are for. But thN't~ is also a Heading in this patnt of thE! Budget which is 1 other 1 and increases taxes by $3.2 million under the Heading. 1 other. 1 Would the han. Minister tell us what taxes he is taking from the people and trying to hide away in this Heading? MR. SPEAKER: --~ ·-The han. the Minister of Finance . DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker. had the ME!I'IlbE!r' been at the Estimates hearings yesterday he would h~Wf! been able to answer all these questions.

Let me just say. since he t;.Jas not there, that these items have increased for var'ious reasons. l:he main reason being that tAle E!XpE!Ct some inflation this year. As you know, the Retail .Sales Tax increases as inflation increases, and so do the other· ques ttons as well, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired . Notices of Motion MR. SPEAKER: The han. thE! Leader. Order, please! MR. BAKER: Gove1nnrnent House fhank you. Mr. SpeakE!r.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow rnove, pursuant to Standing Or·der 50, that the debate or further consideration on motion No. 12, the Constitutional resolution No . 1 '7 R15

standing in thE! name of thE! hon . the Premier and any amendments of that motion, shall not b~~ further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolutions, amendments, clauses, sections,

preambles, schedules, titles relating to motion No. 12 shall not be further postponed. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Petitions MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Member for Lewisporte. MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 240 residents of the town of Horwood. Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition: to the hon. David S. Gilbert, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Horwood:

WHEREAS the Government of the Province of Newfoundland has seen Fi l: to pave the road betWE!811 Roger's Cove and Boyd's Cove; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland saw fit to pave the road through the community of Horwood; and

WHEREAS the dirt road has deteriorate, a hindrance to tourism as well as the good health of the people of the community; BE 11· RESOLVED that the Newfoundland Government pave the 3.3 kilometers of road on route 331 -10 to the intersection of route 331. Ll6 April. 4·, 1990 VoJ. XL.T Mr. Speaker, this 3. 3 kilometer stretch of road has detE!r'iorated to the point that the originaJ. bedding of the road is now plnOtJnuding th1nough thE! sur·face.

I have met with the local service committee, and in the opinion of the committee, the signaturE!S of whom appear on the top of page one, the road has deter·ioJ"atc:~d to the point that the aVE!rclge darnage to privately ownc?d motor vehicles using the road can bE• considE!rably higher than the Provincial average. And in there opinion, this is result.ing in a recluct.ion of the number of vehicles that are, in fact, using the road to gE!t to the comrnunity of Honuood.

They conclude, thE!Int::~fore, l:.ha l:. the condition of the road is a hindrance to tourism and an hindrance to the development of that particular area. Mr. Speaker, I realize the financial conditio .n this P1novince is in, and I realize the deficit that we inherited . onl.y t.lAJeJ.ve months ago of somewhere in the area of $5 billion. I rea 1 i z e that as a res u 1 t o I~ l: he fi scaJ. restraints that t.ue hav e had to impose, not all oF U11 o! 1noad work that we wouJ.d like to see done in Lhis Pr·ovincc::' can be done .

I arn surE! all Members or:· the House of Assembly would li.k E! to see every strE!tch of road in Newfoundland paved. fhat. is just not possibJe. However, Mr. Speaker, I can ~ppreciate the concerns oF the residents of Horwood. I can assure you their concer·ns are genuine and thE!Y are ver·y rea] . I therefore with no hesitati on add my signature to the peU tion, to the other 211.0 . I wo u 1 d ask L he hon. Minister if he t.uouJ.cl have l·ds officials look into this matter . No. 17 rn6

Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. MR. GILBERT: ni an k you· .. ;··-M r . speaker . I hesitated the ME!rnbers opportunity would close if you would because I was giving on the other sidE! thc:1 to speak first and I the debate on it. So like to speak - MR. SIMMS : (Inaudible). MR. GILBERT: No, you may speak now . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as I speak to close this debate by view of thE! fact that the Opposition chose not to support this petition, - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

GILBERT: You were given the opportuni t:y to stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would just like to remind the hon. Minister there is no order in petitions. The hon. Minister can now speak and that does not rule out somebody from the Opposition speaking later. He might be confusing it with another debate. fhe hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. MR. GILBERT: Ll'l April 4-, 1.990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker, we tAJi.l1 put. it. Lhis way. custom d:l.ctates that t.~H:! u..Jou1d deliver a petition and then someone speaks on the Oppos:l.te side and then it closes.

ThaL has been the custom in thE! six YE!ars that I have been here. However. Mr. Spc:>aker. I am glad to speak in support of my collea<)Ue thE! ME!mber for' Lewis portE! (Ml". Penney) and the peU.l:ion from l:hE! people of Horwood. No doubt thc::1y haVE! concerns about their road as do many people in Newfoundland because we have somewhere in the vicinity of 2600 kilometers of gravel road :in this Province which we inherited when we took ove1" the GoVE!l"rll'flE!nt fror11 the previous Government that had been there for seventeen years.

No wonder Members opposite would feel embarrassed and would not want to get up to support this petition because they had seventeen years to do something about it but they did not. So that is the reason I u..Jas tAJa:iting. I was expecting them to get up and at least support the petit:ion but. they were too embarrassed and I can understand why.

When you gE•t a situation where th!O:' roads u..wrE! left in the condition they were in this Province by the previous Government, I can understand why they would be embarrassed to speak to transportation issuE·s Ol" speak to petitions fl"Om people anytAJhere in this Province. And the people taken advantage o1dest Form attention of petitioning it. in the world, petitioning centuries. So their concerns. No. 17 of I of HOl"tAJood havE• suppose of Lhe getting thE! GovernrnE!nt by The o1dest Form people have been Government for I can recognize I knot.. .. J that l:he rn7

current Member has worked very hard on behalf of the people in his District and is very concerned with the roads throughout the District. As he also alluded to in the petit.ion he realizes the financial restraints that we are under in this Government after the seventeen years of misrule that we have been subjected to. You will hear Members opposite talk about political patronage when the 1noads budget is announced.

And we tE!ll them we have tried to initiate fairness and balance in the two years that we have here to do away with the unfair treatment that the people of this Province were subjected to under the seventeen years, in other words, votes for roads. So this is the sort of thing we hear the Members say when the roads budget was announced this year.

And I point out to him that the reason the $30 million is not more for local roads is the fact that his colleagues and fri.::1nds in Ottawa, the fellows who wear the same jacket, the blue jackets in Ottawa, haVE! cut back on the Federal transfers to this Province by something like $100 million in the last four years. So tJJith that in mind that :is why the money is not available to pave the 2,600 kilometers of gravel road we have in thE! Province.

So I will certainly take the petition from your constitUE!nts in Horwood under consideration and ask my officials to place it on a high priority when they are establishing the capital roads project budget for next year. MR. R. AYLWARD : Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: 'rl1 'el1on·~· t he MernbE!r for Kilbride . L18 ApriJ. 4-, 1990 UoJ. XLI MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Sp eaker . I had every intention oF speaking to this petition prE!SentE!cl so fairly ably by the Member for Lewis porte (Mr. Ramsay), Mr.

Speaker, and I c.un glad to be hE!re to support hirn and to support h:i.s constituents in the Town of Horwood on this road, Mr . Speaker. I just tJJant to give a little bit of advice to the new Member for Leu.dsporte, tAJht::!n h1:• gets up to prE!Sent a pE•tition, Min. Speaker, his constituents expect him to get up and fight for their rights where they u.1ant their ' road paved, not to gE!t up ancl tiny to make excuses for the Government, who for sorne rE!ason dtd not do "it this year in their Budget. Mr. Speaker, for the hon.

M.::Hnb1':!r 1s own advice, and wh1':!n I get . a copy from his constituents they will know also, if ·they do not alrE!ady know, Mr . Speaker, this road t~as announced to be paved during the last election. It . t~as not a promise it was money cornrn:i.tl:ed in the last election, Mr . SpeakE!r, to pave this road and the Min :i.ster who just cri ticiH~d 1ne and l:he former Government For not doing this work, canc~::1lled yoUt·' money for your constituents when hE! prepared his Budget last year, Mr. Speaker. That is the re as on why the road for Horwood is not done, and when I get a copy of that petition, Mr.

Speaker, they t~rUl have transcripts of this Hansard to know exactly why the road is not paved and why the road is deteriorating so bad, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to suggest Lo the Member that when h1:! is presE~nt.tng petitions, and do not bE• afraid, do not be shy to criticize the Cabinet Min:i.ster in your Government, Mr. Speah'r, il:. is No. 17 R18

your job as the Mernber for Lewisporte to work on behalf of your constituents and come out: strong, fu11 bl.ast agc:,..:inst U1E! Minister lJJho had cancelled the funding for the paving of the road to Horwood which was already announced two years ago. Mr. Speaker·, there have bE!en two different budgets prepared under the Ministership of the present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He had tlAJO opportunities to provide the funding that was already announced and already put in place in the Department of Transportation some two years ago, yet he refused to include this in his budget. Mr.

Speaker, thts is a result of the present Government reducing the former Govenrment' s capital works program for the Department of Transportation from $50 million a year, which we had, to $30 million a year, which is not adequate to keep up with' the needs of the improvement oF highways in this Province. The funding should be higher, the $10 million surplus that the Premier has now should be used, Mr. Speaker, For· maintenanCE! on the highways and capital money should be put :into new projects and new paving of roads throughout this Province. And I do wish to support. the han. Member for Lewisporte, Mr.

Speaker, I support him very strongly and I support his petition very much so. And I will let thern know, Mr. Speaker, that the money lAJas in a budget and it was taken away by the present Minister of Transportation. MR. SPEAKER : BeforE! proceeding with c aJ.l i ng the Orders of the Day, the Chair would likE! to make a ruling on a point L.l 9 April 4, 1990 Vol XLI of privilege that was raised by the han. Member For Ferryland on the closing moments of the sitting on Friday, March 30, 1990.

I must say I was quitE! conceJAnE•d lAJhen the Member r·aised thois pooi.nt of pr·ivilege, and undE!J"standtng the highly charged situation at thE! time, I expect the ME!mbeln had every right to J"aiSE! the point. ol­ priviJ.ege. I have examined Hansard and r'1':!ad carefully aLl oF thE• mattE!rS and dec:l.sions rE!l.atE•d thereto, because every hon. Membc~r knows in such mat t ers of privilege, all au t horities emphasize that the word of han. Mc:)mbers must be accepted ·in such matters.

The DE!puty Chairman explairH'!d his circumstances at thE! ttrno ancl the Premier commented that he had 111ade no repreSE!ntati.ons to the Speaker. And I can categor·ica1ly and emphatically state that I was not approached, or received in any way, shape, or fo1nrn, any representation fro1n any Mornb(•r' in this House on thE! day in question or· any other day ··· and par·t.:i .cularly that day - respE!C U.ng to the decisions that:. lJ..J(•r'E• 111ad"' concenling the motion to movE! Hw resolution to Cornrnil:tee or· l:he matter of Division.

In co nclusion, allow me to say that pro c edures for dealing with these matters are clearly laid out in our Standing Orders and past practi ces, as lJJell as those of the House of Commons, and are to be deaJ.t lJJith in this House, in l::.hE·se chambers. That is whore reprE!Sentati.ons are madE!, and that. is where they arc:) discussed - and nowhere E!1SE!. And I lAJant to emphasize and accentuatE! thE'! fac l::. that in my attempt. to ma i ntain t.he dignity and respect for the Speaker's office and its No. 17 R19

impartiality, or· practices acceptable. no other procedures u..Ji11 be tolerated or I am therefore satisfied that: no prima facie case of pl~ivilege• has been established and in accordance with Beauchesne paragraph 31,

section one, page 13, and I quote, 11 A disputE! arising betlAJeen Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege. 11 The hon. the Member For Ferryland. MR. POWER: Just for a moment, let me thank l:he Speaker and say that I concur with the Spe!aker 1 s ruJ.ing. I am satisfied that things were done properly, and my intenU.on was not in any way to demean the Chair or U1e offices of the Chair, but to make sure that things were done properly so that the Chair could do its job, which is very important to the pro~ess. Thank you. MR.

SPEAKER : I thank the Member . fhe hon. the Member for Burin Placentia West . MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate, I guess, I - MR. SPEAKER: Let me just call for the Orders of the Day first. Orders of the Day MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Government House Leader. L20 ApriJ. LJ., 1990 Vol XLI MR. BAKER : Motion 12, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Motion 12. ThE! ME!rnbE!r Fol" Burin - Placentia West adjourned the debate, but bE!forE:~ tho Member begins, I wonder if he would mind if I checked with the Table to find out his tirn!i:~. MaybE! the han. Member knows. MR.

TOBIN : I think I haVE! about a hal.f hour leFt, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Speaker, thE!re arE! a couplE! of things I want to say in thE! few moments that I have left - I think it is approx'.imat1::'ly tu..Jelve rntnutes - as we debate thi.s, Mr. Speake•r. But I think what has happened here today is somE!thjng that:. has bE!f:•n a great insult to democracy as we have known it in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago the Government House Leader stood in this Chamber and after five short days of debate on this resolution, he has no1.u introduced a motion for closure. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is shameful.

Tht1 acl:ions or:~ l:he Government House Leader today is shameful. After Five days oF debatE! in this Legislatun• on something that is going to changE! the structure of this country. Something that could probably see Newfoundland no J.ongE!r being par l: of Canada and part of the United States of America as the Premier has sugges l:ed, after Five clays oF debate, for the Government House Leader to stand in this House today and invoke c1osurE!, Mr .

Speaker, to deny the Mli:'lrlb~::1rs of this Legis1ature thE! ri.~~ht to debate something as vital and as important to us as the country of Canada as we now know it, No. 17 R20

something, Mr. Speaker, that could seE! Canada changed dt"astically. And for the President of Treasury Board to stand in this House today and to bring in closure is unbelievable - heavy handedness like we have never seen before, total disrespect, Mr. Speaker, for democracy. It is funny, Mr. Speaker, when you see the countries in Eastern Europe making such progress that the Minister, the President of Council, or the Government House Leader would today make such a regressive step in democracy in this country as we have known it. Mr.

Speaker, why does the President of Treasury Board, why does the Government House Leader not want to come here next week? What is the rush? What is the t"ush, Mr. Speaker? Why, after only five days of debate, on something as important to this nation, to this country. Mr. Speaker, we could conceivably be the Province that will destroy Canada, that will never see Canada again as we have known it. This is the Legislature thal:. tAiill make the ultimate decision as it relates to Canada. The President of Treasury Board today, Mr.

Speaker, has brought in something that thE!Y haVE! been fighting for in Eastern Europe and have obtained in the last few years. Why does the President of Treasury Board not want to debate this, say on Monday of next week? Why does the President of Treasury Board t..uant to rush through and not get into next week and debate it, Mr. Speaker? I am sure t..ue could have very hot and heated debate in this Legislature next week. The President of TrE!asury Board could have a very hot and hr::!ated debate in this Legislature nE!Xt wer:~k, Mr. L21 Apr·il 4, 1990 Vol XLI Speaker, if he wanted to debate this issue.

But instead of that he has decided to bring in closure. He has decided, Mr. Speaker, to rnug the Legislature thE! pJ.ace that will make the ultimate decision as to whether or not Canada stays ·together as L\Je knoLIJ it. As to whether or not, Mr. Speaker, we are a part of Canada. As to whether or not we as Canadians, Newfoundlanders living in Canada, will be entitled to thE! satTIE! typE! of benefits. Whether· or no l:. we wiJ.l. be entitled to the same typE! of revenues from Ottawa over \:he next number of years. Whether out" social programs will stay in tact, Mr. Speakr:~r.

Whether pE!Ople LldlJ. be able to qualify for l.l[C. WhE!ther ther'E! wi11 bE! such a program as family allowances and old age pensions, Mt". ~:>peaker. That iS LIJhat the Minis tE! I" of Treasury Board is trying to rnuzzl.e here today. That is what l:he President of Treasury Board is trying to· rnuizle here, bE•cause without a Canada thE!rt::' wiLl. bE! no social programs. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Without a Canada, \:here tAli 11 bo no Mr. Valcourt and Mr.

C1nosbie and these corning to Newfoundland, as thE! media tndtcated today, to rnakE! a major announcement on funding for the fishing industry. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. TOBIN: Pardon? Well, I do not know probably it is . But the without No. 17 a bottom Canada line is we will l:.ha t not be I~ 21

able to do it. If we are not part of Canada we tAJi.ll not be part of their programs, we will not be part of medicare, we tAJill nol: be part of the social programs that we have known. Your constitUE !nts who are getting laid off in St . John's South wi11 not be entitled to any unemployment insurance if they are not part of Canada. That is what is being debated here today . The fundamental structure of this country as we have knotAJn it. AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible). MR. TOBIN: Pardon? Mr. Speaker, it is fact. If there is no Canada your constituents lAJill not get social programs . That is a fact, M1~. Speaker.

That is what you have to consider, whether you want your constituents to continue to get social progr·ams or not. Whether you want the Government of Canada to be able to put something like 60 per cent of our revenue into this Province. That is tAJhat we are talking about here. Mr. Speaker. Whether or not there wi11 be a Canada Assistance Plan, which is cost--shared 50-50, that is the issue that is at stake in this Province today. Today, Mr. SpeakE!r, we have a GoVE!rnmE!nt which has refused to put the Meech Lake Accord to the people of this Province. Now we have a Government, Mr.

Speaker. who would like to muzzle the Opposition, want to muzzle the peoplE! who want to stand in thEdr places and defend the rights of Newfoundlanders to speak on behalf of our constituents. After five days. Mr. SpE!aker. something that wi11 be deciding the future of Canada has now beE!n cover·ed by a L22 April 4, 1990 Vol XLI blanket. We have been muzzled. The Government House Leader, Mr. SpE!aker, has triE!d to muzz1E! us, triE:'d to make sut~e l:hat WE:~ clo not debate it. It is ab solutely shameful to see closure brought in on this issue after five days of debate. When tAJe debated it, Mr.

Speaker, in the previous Government it was on the agenda for three months . For three months we had the abi.1ity as legislators to debate the Meech lake Accord and now aFter five days we have the President of Treasury Board standing in his place invoking closure . AN. HON. MEMBER: You want public hearings. MR. TOBI J~:!: Yes we want public hr::•arJngs on Uw Meech Lake Accord. fhal:. is lAJhal: WE! want. Is that. what you lAJant.? We want public hearings on the Meech Lake Accot~d and we wan t the rights of Newfoundlanders to be defended-. Mt~ -. Speai<E!r. WE! do not: want to be muzzled.

My constituents did not send rnE! hE·re to be muzzlc:>d by the President of Treasury Board and I doubt: very much iF l~he Member fo1n St. John's South's (Mr. Muq>hy) const:i .t.uent.s sent him here to be muzzled. MR. MURPHY : We are not muzzled, boy. MR . TOBIN: You were muzzled on the Fishery because you never opened yout~ mouth. We had to fight thE! bat.tlc"! for the St. John's fish p1ant. You were muzzled on the fisheries, Mr. Speaker. The people of St. John's South were wondering whE!re you werE!. It was the Member For Grand Bank (Mr. Matthc:>tAJs) u..Jho carr·ied the day for the ~3t.

John's fish plant. rhaL is tAJho cat 'T.ied the day, Mr. Speaker . No. 17 R22

Does the Member for (Mr. Walsh) wanL to be the Meech Lake Accord? MR. WALSH: I will talk minutes. MR. TOBIN: to you Bel1 Island rnuzzl1~d on in th1n10~e He is going to speak in three minutes. He wi11 h~t. us know then if he agrees l.1.lith closure. It is a very important issue and why the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, why he wants to get clear of the heat of thE! debatE! in this Legislature is beyond me. Why can we not d101bate it for the rE!St of thE! week and come back again next week and debate it, up unti1 Wednesday or Thursday?

Will the President of Treasury Board forget about closure and say to us that he will come back next and debate this resolution? Will he let the House come back next week and debate this resolution? As I said I can assure the President of Treasury Board that there will be lots of heat in this Legislature next week to debate this resolution. The debab-, L•.r.ill be hot. We wi11 ensurE! that thE• debate is hot, heavy and heatful. What we have seen today is an attempt to muzzle outright thE! Members of this legislature in bringing in closure.

Let me say to the nE•wer Members, to the Members in the backbenches, I hope in all sincerity that you realize the actions of the President of Treasury Board. I hope you realize that what he has just done is asked this Legislature to invoke closure. After five days he has invoked closure in this Legislature, denying me and you, and all other MernbE!Ins, the right to participate in a deba·te on an issue that Lo..Ji.lJ. decide the futurE• 1..23 April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI of Canada. MR. SPEAKER: ThE! hon. g10~ntJ.eman's ti.rnE! is up . MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, by leave . In closing let Tnf:' say I hopE! thE!

President of Treasury Board will withdraw his decision to invoke closure and let us debate. I will ask him to consider it. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Member for Mount Scio -Bell Island. MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Contrary to the fears and innuendoes and everything eJ.se t h a t h a v e b e e n c o n j u I" e d u p b y my friends, I suppose, I Lo..Jas going to say learnl'::1d, but that would nol~ b1:! correct - my friends i.n t.hE• opposition.

Allow me to assure all of you that on June 24.th, whE~n the sun comes up over Signal Hill, there wi 11. b !'::' a Canada , the I" e w .i.ll be a strong Canada made up Qf Canadians who care! It is har'd to bE-lievE!, Mr'. Speaker, that people IAJould come to speak in this Chamber, knowing full well that: the fabr·ic of l:his country is madE! up of pE•ople frorn all lands. Asians i.H'E:' as welcomE! here as they have been for the last 100 years. Ital.i.ans L'lrE• welcome here as they have been for a 100 years, as are the I~ us s ians, as are the Irish, as are the Scottish and as are the French!

We are all Canadians, first and foremost. fhe only problH1n w1:• have today is wi t.h the proponents and those tJ..Jho have to, in any IAJay they can, defend Meech Lake. Whether t:hey are defending Meech Lake because they believe in it or No. 17 1(23

if they are toeing a political line, I can assure you that all thirty-one on this side of the House support it because we believe in it, not because someone in Ottawa is telling us what to say and when to say it . All thirty-one on this side of the House believe it and are willing to defend it, not becauSE! we .have to, or because someone in Ottawa is telling us to do it. Mr. Speaker, one of the major concerns I have with thE! MeE!Ch Lake Accord is not as much with the Accord, as it is with proponents of the Meech Lake Accord.

These are the people who have a moral obligation to pres en l: the facts to this country and to thE! pE!Ople of this country and defend the Accord on its merits and its justification - why the Accord should take place. The problerri with it, Mr. Speaker, is that they cannot defend it on those merits or justification. They have to create unfounded fears just as we heard in the last few rninute•s from the han. Member who was speaking. It is the proponents of ME!E!Ch Lake who are creating the fearmongering and concerns in this country.

The Toronto Star. on January 14-th. probably surnrned it up bE!St, when it said: 1 8ut in its excesses. Meech Lake contained the seeds of its own demise. It forced Canadians to take a final stand against the dismantling of Federalism. Sadly, the Accord has also generated fresh discord in Quebec, where politicians have come to view it as a litmus test for federalism, and that is where the problem lies. For them the fact of rejecting the Meech Lake Accord, a document. for' them spells the rejection of QUE!bec. and they warn against the I_ 2 4- April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI Province 1 s humiliation. Mr.

Speaker, there is no one in l:his country who is trying to do that. Ther·e is no on1=:! :in this country who dOE!S not bE!l:i .eve, not. only in the province of Quebec, but in l:hE! people of Quebec. We all do and wo all support them. In fact, lhe Toronto Star goes on to say : 1 The most knowledgeable critics of l::hE!

Accord are just that- · Critics of the Accord - Not of the pE!Ople oF Quebec, not of the Province of Quebec, a document, The Acco1nd, that is what th!i:~ crJU.cs a1nE! speaking about 1 • They do not r e j e c t Q u e be c no r. do the y r E! j e c t its Five original demands, they simply rejE!Ct Prime MinistE•r Sinian Mulroney 1 s muddled rE!formu1:i zal:.:ion of Quebec's aspirati.ons J.n t.o a pact that would eviscerate Federalism forever . Mr . Speaker, n o o n e i n t: h i s P r o v i n c e . n o o n ~~ i n this House, on Lhi.s side is rejecting the people of Quebec. MS DUFF: Tel1 them that. MR.

WALSH: And that is exactly what d o i. n g • t h e h o n . M E! rn b e r r· o r John's East. I am te '.lltng that. We do not I 0 E!J E•ct them people. It is the Fears comments like th~ t . that creating the fears! SOME HON. MEMBEfiS : Hear. hear! AN HON. MEMBER : What about women's rights? MR. WAL?H: 1 am St. l:hern as a and :i. s We will come to women's rights and then maybe we u..li11 gel: qu:i,~t F1norn the hon. Member. Mr . Speaker, one of the other problems l:ha t 1.v1:! face, of course, is thE! d:lst:inct society clause. The Fact that that cJ.ause is in the body of thE! No. 17 1\2 4-

Constitution rather than in the

preamble. There is only one reason why that would be there. It is because this distinct society clause, is not a mere recognition of the historical rights or historical facts dealing with Quebec, but rather a clause that is to have a ln~:!al impact on the division of powers and the Canadian Charter Of Rights. Ml". SpE!aker, QUE!bec will gain substantially new powers under that distinct society clause, and those new powers will tilt the scales in Quebec's favour. We have heard. Mr. Speaker. in this House about the Senate.

And I have listened to Members on the opposite side of thE• House refer to the fact that we should abolish the Senate. Mr. Speaker, we have discussed in the last number of days and a number of my colleagues have covered the facts very well, and we have wondered- aloud whether or not they truly understand the powers of the Senate. And, Mr.

Speaker, for their sake once again I will remind them that the Senate has the identical powers as the elE!CtE!d House of Cornrnons excE•pt - now listen closely all of you that are either there or in your common room - one; money bills must originate in the Commons, second; it can only hold up a constitutional amendment for 180 days and it cannot veto them. Mr. Speaker. I was proud on behalf of other Newfoundlanders and other Canadians in the labour force and people who are in dE:~prived arE!aS that the Senate was willing to stand and hold up Bill C-21 as long as it did.

No one in the labour force spoke out against the Senate be cau s .:~ it was carrying out exactly what it was permitted to L25 April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI do. Only Brian Mulroney got mad with them for that. Mr. Speaker. I also hope that tAJhen the GST Bill arrives in the Senate that the Senate will have the courage to take the exact sarne stand and hold it up as long as it can as IAJe11.. M1n. Spc::~aker, tAlE! satAI the same thing happen with the free trade debate.

And at that time I think thE• Prime:~ Minist•:or of this country did a grave disservice to all of us when he stated that the Senate was a bunch of nominated p1:>ople highjacktng the most fundamental right of thE! House of Commons. The Pr·ime Minister admitted it was constitutionally okay but undE!HlOcratic. Min. SpE!akE!r. that is like saying 1nixed emotions. tAJatching someone go ovE•In a cl:iff in your new Cadillac and not. sur•:> how to react. It makes no sense. Mr. Speaker. thE~ Prirne Mird.st:E!In of this country has sent a message loud and clear to all Canadians.

It tJ..J:ill either be exactly tAJhat h1:> wants. tt tAJil.l be exactly what he preSE!nts or it IAiill b1:! nothing at all. Ml". Speake!". th<:lt: i_s not_ l:.he leadership that this country requirE•s at this ti. rn~'!. 1-t requires someone who is tJ..Ii1l:ing to speak not for onE· par·t of Canada, but for all Canadians, and he is not doing that. If our Prime Minister could 'only find a t~Jay to get himself back on the hightnoad, t:his country would be:~ "Ln much better shape tha~ it is today. And it. is his kinds of cotlli'nE!nts that are causing us our problems. Mr.

SpE!aker, the proponents of Meech Lake are a1so the sam•:! people who rE•luctantly. as I have heard my colleagues on the opposite side, th~:!y are cllso thE! apologists for Meech Lake . fhey look at us and they say you cannot No . 1 '7 1~2 5 -.

expect perfection. Well, Mr. Speaker, the critics of Meech LakE! know as well as anyone elSE! that we know and they know that we cannot have pt::'rfE!Ction. We mE•reJ.y expect that constitutional reform wiJ.l not do serious and irreparable damage to this nation of ours. Mr. SpE!aker, that is what we are after. Mr. Speaker. they say we agree that Meech Lake is seriously Flawed, but let us pass it now and we can fix it up later. Mr. Speaker, that makes absolutely no sense. I trust that the proponents and the apologists who put that forward are not used car salesmen.

That sounds like someone who is willing to sell you a vehicle without brakes and say, weJ.l not to worry. you will be all right, either before th• :> accident or after. The same logic. It is stupid logic. MR. TOBIN: How many · votes did you get the last time? MR. WALSH: Almost enough . The changes in MN!Ch Lake, Mr. Speaker, will be irreversible. Meech did not address, For example, the concerns of women. they did not address the concerns of women. AN HON. MEMBER : What does the Member for St . John's East think of that? MR. WALSH : We are afraid to ask the Member for St.

John's East (Ms Duff) what her thoughts are on that, but we will certainly see her down in the line ups watching her friends being towed off to jail because of the lack of funding. but we have L26 April 4, 1990 Vo 1 XLI not yet hE!ard her speak on what her thoughts are on the lack of concerns for wo rnE· n in Lhe ME!!:•ch Lake Accord. Mr. Speaker, also native groups. Native groups have also been lE•ft out. And that, Mr. Speaker, is not correct. These are the people who helped build this countr·y as weJ.l. These are the people who were here to greet us when we arrived. Mr.

Speaker, now they are being left out and that is just not corr·ect. Their conceJ~ns and their needs must be addressed. They have to be addressed. The native groups, Mr. Speaker, are our founding families. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to deal tAJith the myl:hs as well . rhe myths of Meech Lake are very simple. The first myth is the fact that QuebE!C was J.eft: out of the Constitu·tion in 1982. rhal Mr. SpeakE!r. was onE• of thE! biggest myths that had been put forward by none other than the Prime Minister of our country. The stateTTJE!nt, Mr.

Speai<E:•r, says that we have denied thE! people of Quebec their rights . The people of Quebec are still a part of ~his nation and wiJ.l continue to be a part of this nation. Our FE!deral Government speaks for the Quebec people as well as for the Qu•:>bec Provincial Government, not the Government alone, they speak for the pE!Ople . Mr. Speaker, these proponents and apologists for Meech Lake seem afraid to adrn:it, I suppose publicly, l:hat Canada at that point in time tried very hard. the people of Ce1nada and l:he Government of Canada tried very hard to bring Quebec into the Constitution . Mr .

Speaker, in 1982 Quebec was lead by a separatist Government and Lhal:. :is something that they For·gel:. to tell No. 17 R26

...,._ us . One of the amazing things about the 1982 pact that was trir:'d to be created: Mr. Levesque at that. time was able to complain about only three things in the 1982 package. Three major complaints. His first complain was that it included mobility rights. Something that is indigenous I guess to any nation. Any nation that is frE!e will allow its people to go fl~om one province to another or from one state to another in ordE!r to find work, or in order to J.ive. That was one of Mr. Levesque's main complaints. That lAJas one of the items that helped keep Quebec out of the 1982 agreement.

His second objection, and this was probably the most unbelievable one of all, was that it guaranteed minority language rights to anglophones. It guaranteed minority language rights to anglophones Those in his own Province, some of whom may have even voted For him, and he objected to that. Mr. Speaker, what has come from· that, of coursE!, is one of the major problems that we have in ter'ms of the fE!ar and in tE!rrns of the problems that have been created by the PrE!mier _of Quebec and by the Prime Minister of this country, and that of course, Mr. S pea k e r , wa s B i 11 1 7 8 .

The B i 11 that said no more anglophone or English signs to be placed in the Province. That, Mr. Speaker, polarized the nation behind the fact there may be more in Meech Lake than we are fully aware of. There was a third objection as well, Mr. SpE•aker, and the third objection was it did not allow Quebec compensation when it opted out of any amendment transferring power to the Federal Government 1.27 April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI and that was his t.hird concern, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER : How many votes did you get. night. MR. WALSH: Not quite enough, for the Members. major last hon . Mr.

Speaker, there is some references and heck1tng to thE! fact that I may not haVE! l~eceived enough votes in a particular campaign I was involved in last night. Mr. Speaker, I would Lik'?. to inform every onE· that l:.h~:! residents of rny own District voted for me overwhelmingly but, unfortunately, I tAJas rej ec l:~:!d by some people from other Districts. Now, Mr. SpeakE!r, cornJng back to the more serious matter' at hand, and I welcome the light-heartedness from the other side. Corning back, Mr' .· SpeakE!ln -· SOME HON. MEMBERS : (Inaudible) . MR. WALSH: Mr.

Speaker, I can apprec:ial:.n some commE!nts about M1~. Chretien o1~ someone else from th1::! other side, but I am amazed at some of the people it is corning from. Mr. Speaker, the QUE!bec peoplt' arE• not outcasts in this country at this point in time. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am having dif f iculty hearing the speaker. MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, thE!Y are not outcasts in this country. In 1982 they received right.s over thE!·.ir natuJ~aJ. No. 17 R27

resources, they received a guarantee of equalization payments. There are many, many items that the Quebec Government and the QuebE!C people recE!ived in the 1982 agreement . The sad part at that point in our history was that a Separatist Government lead that province . And the peopJ.e of Canada cannot be asked today to atone for the sins, failures or inequities of a Government that sat in that province at that time, and that is what Meech Lake is asking us to do. And, Mr. Speaker, that is simply not Fair and not being hones7. Mr. Speaker, tAli th respect to the Accord Mr.

Bourassa truly believes, and he said this often enough in word and in action, that For him it will be all or nothing. Mr. Speaker, as Canadians we must reject this approach. We must reject this approach on behalf of all Canadians including those that live within his own province, we have to, Mr. Speaker. As my colJ.eague for LetAJisporte said so well the other day, we have to avoid the possibilities of reacting to fear. We have to avoid the fact that people believe we will not have a Canada on June 24th. But, Mr.

Spea-ker. we wiJ.l have a Canada on June 24th, and the fearmongering that is being created by the Opposition here and by the GovernmE!nt through the Prime Minister is just not being fair and honest with the people of Canada. He said last night, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing wrong with negotiation, there is nothing wrong with taJ.k, but as hE! said in the words of John Kennedy, let us never negotiate out of Fear, but never lc?. t us fear l:o negotiatE!. L28 April. 4, 1990 Vol. XLI Mr . Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister of this country to be wiJ.ling to call a First Minister's Conference.

I asked him to be wi11ing to br'ing the Pt"€:!trd.ers of this country together whether il is in an open session or in a closed session, but take the initiative, take the J.eadership, move back to the high road and try to help solve impasses that now exist. I call upon the Pr ime Minister to do that. for thE! sakE· of all Canadians. And, Mr. Speaker, it is rny prayer that he will do just that. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this great country of ours must be willing to begin from a J.evel playing Field. That is IAJhat . tAle have to come back to, Mr. Speaker.

We havc;o to come back to a level playing field where we can all, once and for aJ.l, qr·asp i'lncl truly understand, not IAJhat thE! Meech Lake Accord is putting forward. but I suppose grasp and understand and put on paper what is fair and just in ordE!r to rnE'E•t. the needs of all Canadians in this country. And that, Mr. SpE!akE!r, is not being done at this po:i,nt and time in our history . And instead of clearing the waters. the ME!E!Ch Lake Accord, as :i.t exists, only muddies those wab:1lns even further . Mr.

Speaker, when you -1ook acr'oss Canada at the number of people who have come forward and expressed their concerns about Meech Lake, I think the Premier 1nefer1ned thE! other day to the Fact that there were somE! 700 letters rE!CEdved on one given day. Mr . Speaker, I have sorne excerpts here, from sorne of those J.eti :E!rs. From a lady in Monl:rte'al, Mr. SpE!aker, IAJho refE!rS to the PlnerniE!r and his stand on behalf of this No . 17 R28

Province and on behalf of 78 per cent of Canadians who are having a probl~~m with Meech Lake. A lady from MontrE!aJ. says, 'I u..Jas vE~ry impresSE!d, like so many others, by your tough and brilliant stand against the Accord. I hope, thanks to you for standing up for Canada, Pr'ime M.-i.nister Mulroney and Premier Bourassa will be guided to come to a better understanding of the neE!dS of every province and not show favori U.srn to one or two, but keep Canada strong.' Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the House I will table these afterwards. A second one, Mr.

Speaker, and I do not know if I should read this because it might be more flattering than the PrE!rnier would want at this time. Another one from Montreal says, 'once every twenty-five years or so we see a leader emerge, ' and he goes on to list some of the leaders such as Kennedy and ChurchiJ.l, and he also says, 'I believe you will see your narne in the Canadian history books of the future because of your positions today.' Another one, Mr.

Speaker, from Ontario. 'On NovEwtbE!r 10 I listE!ned to an hour long radio phone·-in shou..J program originating in Toronto and the question was, do you approve or disapprove of Mt". Well's stand on Meech Lake? Of the forty or fifty calJ.ers only one disapproved and all others were strongly supportive.' Those, Mr. SpeakE!r, are the kinds of -reactions, the kinds of speeches, and the kinds of letters that are coming in to th.::' Premier. Mr. Speaker, let us go forward and tr·y to cement once and for all a situation in this country that allows Quebec to be a full and equal partnE!r.

ThE!re is no onE! in this Province who does not want L29 ApriJ. 4·, 1990 Vol XLI that goal, there is that does not support we all want to have probJ.em, Mr. Speaker, no Canadian that: goa1, that. Our is that 1.n the directions we are travelling, that cannot, not happen. We have to strong and powerful stand. currE!n l~.ly or w:i.11 take a As a Canadian, and as a bot"n Canadian: some of my colleagu~~s on the other side, contrary to popular belief, I lAJas bor'n a Canadian. In this Province my roots are strong.

My strugglE~ has been long and therE~forE! my agE! 'is showing but allow me to assure all han. co11eagues that on SE'PtE!rnbet" 14-, 194-9 in Corner Brook I Ci.'llm! into this wor1d as a Canadian but one whose roots arE! deep in this Province. I have beE!n lucky, Mr. Speaker, unlike some other people u..Jho have had to go sornewhE:~rE:~ EdSE! to find employment because of the economic conditions of this Province. · l have been lucky to have been able to make a choice. When offers u..Jere made to leave N1:>wfoundland I was J.u c ky and fortunate enough that I d:i.d not have t:o.

I l:.hank the people I have bE!E•n associ.al.ed with over thP last l~.lAJE!nl:y 01~ twenty-two years of my work - life that I was lucky enough to make that choiCE!, t.o bE! abJ.e to stay here. Mr. Speaker, to me being a Canadian is more than just being a resident of any one particuJ.ar provinCE!. To mE:~ being a Canadian means that wherever I travel in this country, not onJ.y tAJ:i1l I be welcome, but I havE:~ an opport.unity to work with and reE!l comfot~tabJ.E! with the laws of this country.

UnFortunately, not French speaking, I haVE! trouble lAJ:iLh thE! language in Quebec, needless to say, but not to~.Ji th the language and No. 17 1~29

the fact that they speak French but with my own inadequacies in that I do not speak French. Being a Canadian to me is also something that I arn plnoud of, proud by the fact that my children will be able to enjoy the fruits of this country. We have many, many -.institutions in this country that we are proud of. MCP, Mr. Speaker, is probably one oF the best. It is at times whE!n you arE! sick you are glad you are not living somewhere else, either in thE• continental United States, in Europe, or any other part of this world. It is at times like that, Mr.

Speaker, when you could have had a lifet-.ime of resources built up and lose them over sickness over a period of one or two years. It is being part of that kind of country that is important to me as well. Mr. Speaker, on June 24 those institutions wi 11 s ti 11 be there, just as when th1::. sun rises over this Signal Hill Canada will still be here. Mr. Speaker, one of the other most important things about this c o u n try a n d abo u t be i n ~~ a c i t'i . z. e n of this country is thE! fact that we are all equal. It does not matter where we came from, Mr . Speaker .

It does not matter whether we have a French background, an English, an Irish, Scottish, Asian, European. It does not matter. This country, Mr. Speaker, is made up of all of us, all of us who t.vish and all of us who belieVE! that t.his was thE! place for immigrants to come to live, but also the place for us to stay. Mr. Speaker, I have a Few minutes left, but I tAJiJ.l just advise the next speaker, I do not intend to L30 April '1·, 1990 Vol XLI go into overtime or to stand and speak for thE! sakE! of f't:Uing rny time but, Mr . Speakt~r, I lE:'aV( '! the House with this thou~~ht: M1~.

Speaker, this countlny be1ongs to all of us. This Canada is made up of residents of every provinc e of this country, the Northwest Territories included . Mr. Speaker, this is our' Canada. We are Canadians, a11 of us, in l.hii> Province, in Quebec, in P .E .I., in Ontario and in British Columbia and, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a part of this country. I lJ..Jill end with the sam1:> stah~rnent I opened with, Mr. Speaker: LE!t us not live in fear and let us not promote fear.

Let us not l.eavE• the impression in anyone' s mind, not just in this country, but jn other parts of the worl.d, lE· t-. us not lE!ave a thought that tAJe haVE! to make rash decisions based on fear. Mr . Speaker, let all. of . us remember, as I sajd in rny opentng stat.E!ITIE!nt, on June 24th lJ..JhE!ll thE! sun rises over Signal Hill, it will be the beginning of the sun that will cross this entire country. Canada wi11 st j] 1 be here, we, as Canadians, tAJi]l sti11 bE! hE!re and this countTy w:i.Jl still be strong and still be proud and still. be united . Thank you, Mr . Speaker . SOME l-ION.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Por 't. au Port. SQ .ME HON. MEM...§ ! _R~ : Hear, hear! MR. HODDER : Mr. Speaker, I jus l:. tAJant to say a No . 17 1no

very few words on this resolution, more to show my support for the Meech Lake Accord. Most things have been said, I think. I doubt very much that there wi.11 be agreement on this issue on both sides of this House but I ·truly believe, Mr. Speaker, that history lAiill prove we, over here, are right. I truly believe that Members on that side of the House are walking out of step with the rest of Canada. Many of the speech~::1s I have heard in this House over the past week, I really cannot take as being always sincere and from the heart.

I did sit in this House when many Members who spoke, spokE! another way on this particular issue. I cannot accuse all Members of flip-flopping on this issue, but I can accuse somE! Members on that side of the House. I do not know how many times closure has been inuoke·d in this House since 194-9 but I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it has not been invoked more than ten or fifteen times since Confederation.

In rny recollection, . since 1975, I can only recollect closure being brought :into the House on a couple of occasions and I arn surprised that the Premier, on an :issue which is so dear to his heart, would bring in closure after five days of debatE!. Mr. Speaker, I actually suspectE!d that perhaps we would sit throughout the Easter holidays. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) . MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, Members will laugh . Ul April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI Yes, I have a ticket in rny pocket: and I leave shortly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

HODDER : But I am not going to FJ.or'i.da, to start lAiith. Mernbelns on that s·.ide of the House should know that. in our deliberations L\Je suspE!Cb'!d, that. is all I arn saying. that the Premier might go on through. We did not want to, in thE! sensE~ that many Members on that side and this side had made arr'angE•rllE!nts. But none of us suspected the Premier would bring in closure at t:his early date.

About a week ago, when we were deliberating this particular issue, no one ···· no onE• on our side suspE!Cted that closure would be brought in, no one suspectE!d that Lhe Prernieln would bring in closure this ~~alnly in the debate. We thought he may bring in closure perhaps in Jun~~ sometime, or at the end of May, but nobody suspected that he u-Jould do this. DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible). MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I sat herE! and listened to every On!~ of l~hE! debatE!S, and thE! Minister of Finance who very rarely ever speaks, has the gali to hecl<le.

I have listened to that genl~.h'1nan and have never said a tAJor'd in lh:i.s House of Asst::'rnbly, so I LlliJ.] ask to be heard in silence. Mr. Speaker. we on l~his side of the House feel that pub]ic hearings should have l::llc!E:'I'l he1d throughout the Province before this motion was rescinded. What we a1ne seeing now is c Jos u lnE!, that. the Government lAJi.1l use its brute for'ce to push Ud.s resolution No. 17 IDl

through and the people of this Province will never have had input as to what is happening, and what the Meech Lake resolution is a11 about. That 1·1as been said many, many times, but I think it is even more important to say now in light of closure. Mr. Speaker, the process shouJ.d be public hearings first and then a debate on the resolution aftE!rwards. Why should we consider pushing this resolution through bE!fOrE! we have heard from the people of this Province?

Just to tell you what I know about this particular issue and perhaps to talk a little bit about the history of it, after the QUE!bec referendum campaign, which I think many oF us remember - I remember wherE ! I was when I heard the vote and the answer in the referendum campaign. I think for many of us in this House, and many Newfoundlanders and Canadians, it was one of those ·times where everybody remembers where they were at that particular t:lme. , But, Mr. Speaker, thE! PrE!mier at that time, Rene Levesque, said if they rejectE!d Levesque 1 s call, thE!

Government of the day would pursue constitutional reform aimed at ensuring that Quebec 1 s needs would be met in a united Canada. And that was one of thE! promis1?.S held out to the people of Quebec to vote against suvereignty association. Mr. Speaker, two years later, in 1982, after the First Ministers 1 meetings, the patriation practice had left Quebec out in the cold . There was only one reform in that 1982 Accord that was aimed in any way at Quebec. That was that the Charter specifically gave English languagE! rights to the Anglophone minority. 1_32 Apr·il 4-, 1990 Vol XLI So, Mr.

Speaker, what you had was a Quebec referendum, you had a promise by the PrimE! Minister of the day, PiE'I''r~'! E1.liot r1nucl~~au that if QU~'bE!C r•ejE!CtE!d thE! call For sovereignity association, that: . the GovE•rnrnent of t.hP day, which was the Liberal GovernJTll~nt in Ottawa, would pursue constitutional reform aimed at ensuring that Quebec 1 s needs and aspirations would be mE!t within a unitPd Canada. Mr. Speaker, two yE!ars lato1n thE! concerns of the QuebecE•Jns had bc!en Forgotten. The ProvinCE! of QuebE!C was humiliated, and in a sense Quebec was left out of Canada.

It had been signed without Quebec 1 s participation. No1AJ I do no t l.:h:i.nk anybody on that sidE! of l:he House would disagree with what I have said so far. But, Mr. Speaker, what wa s the reaction of Quebec after 1982? They felt they had been betrayed. They withdrew from federal/provincial negotiations; they werE! not invo1ved in federal/provincial negotiations right up until the time of the Meech Lake Accord . rhey boy col b?d the constitutional con ferences, and they invoked the override clause to insulate its 1egislation from the Charter of Rights . Mr. Speaker, if han.

Members IAJould think one bit furthE!r, the fE!eling of betrayal after 1982 was not lim ited to thE! Party QuE•bE>cois, it was limited to Quebec nationalists and provincial Libe rals . Everybody felt betrayed. Mr. Speaker, if you J.ook at the votE! the Conservatives - remember, Quebec was a Li .bE!ral provincE· Federally ·- got in Quebec and the totaJ. reversal that happened :in Quebec because of the 1.982 Accor·d, you can see, somewhat, ho~;.J the No. 17 1n2

people in Quebec will what we are doing here House of Assembly today. react to in this Mr. Speaker, that is why I say that what we are embarking on here is a very serious matter. Mr. Speaker, it is there for us to see. We see what the reaction was. Quebec withdrew from federal/provincial negotiations, she withdrew; she boycotted the Constitutional conferences, and she threw out the people who had betrayed her, the federal Liberals. Mr. Speaker, the Accord is not a free-standing constitutional initiative, it is an effort to undo the damage that was done in 1982 and it tries to fulfill the promise of 1980.

And this is what the Prime Minister of the time, Pierre Trudeau, said: Quebecers will not be satisfied with crumbs from the table, because they want a brand new constitution. Those were the brave words at another . time, ten years ago. Now, Mr. Speaker, ten years later, we are about to do the same thing. They voted to stay in Canada. We promised them a say within Canada. Mr. Speaker, I do not think LI.Je can bre!ak a second commitment to the people of Quebec, and that is what the Meech Lake Accord t.uas. That is why all the emotion about the Meech Lake Accord today.

It is the second commitment to the people of Quebec. It has been signed and it has been held out as a symbol of reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, the d~::~mise of the Accord will have catastrophic consequences for the people of Canada, thE! people of Quebec and the people of Newfoundland. Mr. it L33 Speaker, looks what tJ..Jill happen, and very bad now, April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI particularly what is happE!ning in this House, what t,o..lill happen once the Accord is broken, once the Accord is not ratified? w·i11 Quebec dtsassociate itsE!lf as thE!Y did in 1982?

I say that the break notJ..J would be much deeper and much more divisive and much more irreversible l:.han it was in 1982. Mr. Speaker, intergovernmental affairs will be paralyzed, constitut.~l.onal tnefolnlTI stymied and we will be back to a situation where any Further reconciliation would become more remote, and I think that would lead to the break up of Canada. The Premier said in this House that his proposals wouJ.d put b1nead on the tables of Newfoundlandt~Jns. I say thE! courSE! on which LI.JE· haVE! embarked lAiill take bread fr·om us. I say that from t.uhat I have seE!n.

I spent some time in Ontario just a few weeks ago when the Sault controversy was on, when towns in Ontario were voting to beconw unilingual, which was a . slap in the face to Quebecers. Anybody who follot.us the national sCE!n•:> wi11 unders Land that l·:.hts is thr:! game we arE! p1aying heine. As one:> of my col1eagues said the other day, it. is a very high ga111e. rhe PrE!rnier says it ~i.s not a gal'riE!. Perhaps it is not a game, pE!rhc'tps that is an unfair way t.o phrase it, but, Mr. Speaker, ther·e are high stakes in what we do here today.

I be1ieve that we on this s i.de arE! right, and I believe that we on this side will be shown to be right. I beJ.ieve Membetns on t.hr~' Governrnen t' s side of this Hous1~ at this present timE!, some day wi.Ll hang their hc::,ads in shame. ~~dny thought the Quebec Government of today, the Bourassa Government, would demand more. Few believed No. 17 R33

they would take as little as there is in 'the Accord. Mr. Speaker, some people have said that because of the distinct society clause Quebec is on a fast track to sovereignty association. But, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is the only province which has in Canada, one of our founding peoples, a Francophone majority, a dominant Fre!nch culture and, sornE!tirnes WE! forget, the Civil law. Its system of law is not the same as the British common law. If that is not distinct, what is? And how can we not acknowledge such a truth, an obvious truth? It is more likely that national unity will be affected if we fail to acknowledge these facts. In the

preamble of the Accord there is an acknowledgement, a companion clause which recognizes the presence of English speaking Canadians in Quebec as part of Canada 1 s fundamental c harac teri s tic, and ultimately the

interpretation rests in the courts, in the Supreme Court. of Canada. And I do not have to remind hon. Gentlemen that six of thE! SupremE! Court of Canada wiJ.l come from outside Quebec . Mr. Speaker, as has been said again and again, over and over, the course already take into account Quebec 1 s distinct nature in constitutional

interpretation, so all the Accord says is what was already l:here, and what the Courts are already interpreting the law on the basis of. The other thing that has not been mentioned a J.ot in these debatE!S, and it . is anol:her point that is a sore point with TTIE!, is when Members opposite say that we are not abJ.e to handle our own resources, that we are not abl1':! to handle our own fishery. Nobody 1_3/j. Apr·il 4, 1990 Vol XLI ever asked jurisdiction limit. that we over the have a 200 rn-i le• Ml" .

SpeakE!Y', if you J.:i.ve in western Newfoundland and you are part of the Gulf rE!gion, and you see that you are being adrninistE!rE!d frorn the Mcd .nland by people who are not aware, in t'''r'ms of that, Mr. Spoaker, I th:i.nk IAJe can better handl1 :' aspects of l:.he fishery than the Federal Government. Tl·li:!rli:' ar·u many aspects of the fishery that can be handled better.

There arE• people in Ottawa, thE!rE• ar·e pE!OpJ.e in the Federal Government right notAl , and people in tho Departmont of Fisheries, lAJho do not hav~:! any idea about thE! fishery cr'isis l:hat is going on in NewFoundland, nol the least idea of the situat ion in this Province, and they 11E'~J1:0r wilJ..

So I think the inclusion of the fisheries in the Constitution, so that annual constitutional conferences would be hel-d in whtch fisheries reform would be discussed until a resolution was found, I think that IAJas a cJ.ausE:' t h a t r e f 1 e c t s d E• t e r rn i n a t. i o n .:.t n cl could lead to reaJ. reform. Mr. Speaker, the other Ud n~1 in this debal:.e I arn sur·prised at- is the Prernier 1 s proposal which the Premier of P.E.I. said tAJas Like somE !thing from Mars, and wh ich no Premier in Canada, including l:.he PrE!rnier of Manitoba, agn•1;•s w:i.th.

It is surprising to rne that th1:­ people of NewfoundJ.and hav~ :· not. -· I have not seen it. I do not know if The Evening TeJ.egrarn has printed it. I think they should. But the people of Newfoundland aro not aware of what it says Ol" tAJhy it says it, and I am surprised that in this whole debate some of the things that are being said have nol: gotten out. I Fet>l passionately about this and I havo No. 17 R3 4

talked to people hE!rE• in St. John 1 s and in my district. And when you start talking about the Meech Lake Accord, the reaction that comes back is sometimes a bigoted reaction, but more ofl~E·n a reaction like the MinistE!r of Finance 1 s reaction: They got us. we got thmn. I do not eve•n want to say the words. but that type of reaction is the typE! of rE!action which was articulated by the Minister of Finance in this House of Assembly. it is the type of reaction that. I get very often From Newfoundlanders who are supporting the Premier. And the foolish thing about it. Mr.

SpE!aker, is they are also against bilingualism. and t:he y do not know the Premier is for bilingualism. Mr. Speaker, it is like shadowboxing in the dark when you try to argue Meech Lake with somebody on the street. because they say. 1 We support WE!lls. 1 The last conversation I had went: 1 I support the PrE!mier. I think somebody they knew app1ied to be a stewardess on Air Atlantic and did not get to be a stewardess on Air Atlantic, and it. tJJas a bilingual probh'm they had. 1 I said, the PlnemiE!r is for bilinguali.sm. Mr. Speaker, I do not think bilingualism will work in this province.

I should say the FrancophonE!S of the Province, whom I represent, do not support the Premier 1 S stand, and they support the Meech Lake Accord. The few times the Premier has talked to them, he kept talking about bilingualism. But they are something like the French in QUE!bec, they want to preserve their language and culture here, and bilingualism does not help that. Most of them are bilingual; they want to learn to read and they lAJant l:.heir children to learn L.3S April 4. , 1990 Vol XLI to speak. And if you can reaJ.ize what a minority in a majority si t.uation i.s, then, Mr.

Speai<E!r', you perhaps can sympathize with the Francophones of Newfoundland who are a minority amongs l:. us, and the French in Canada, who are a minority amongst Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I did hear one oF my colleagUE!S stand up and name of f'" , and I will not do that, a List of peoplE! who oppose thE! PrE!rrr.i.E!r, and the list goes on and on, incl.ud-Lng most of the Prerni~;:,rs, aLl of thE! Premiers, as far as his proposal is concerned. I tJJ:i.:ll not go on a n d o n , b u t e v e n s o me of l: h E· leadership candJdatE!S in t.hE! federal leadership race today.

But tJJhen you look at that and you reaLiZE! the political situat-ion and what a hot game we are playing here, and when you reaLi.H! l:hat Quebec 1 s Grass Domes U.c Product. is larger than that of Denmark, as I read the other day in The Gl.obe and Mail, and if you look at. what is happening in Eastern Europe lAJith minorities, Mr. 5peakE!r, that is something else. If you look at. a solution to some of the problems in Russia today, the Meech Lake Accord type oF constitutional framelAJOr'k wou1d be I:Hd:t:.E•In fol" Russia than a strong central GovernrnE!nt, and Mr. Speake1". that is how they may end up. Well, Mr.

Speaker, if Quebec l~O!aves Canada, there lAJi,1l. no 1·:. be nine provinces, it will not be long before we wi1l find ourselves out in the cold. And, Mr. Speaker, look at the attitudes in the different provincE:'S. I do not agree with what Prime Minister Bourassa said about Ne~J.~oundland the other day anymore than the ME!rnbers on the other' side, but i.f you look at the at·.ti tude On tal"io has, it is not much different. Then you have the west which keeps No. 17 R35

saying, let the eastern whatevers, freeze in the dark. And everytime I talk to a westerner and I say I am from down east, Oh, WE! do not rnean you. But lAJhen you look at the problems in Canada, you will see that this is a situation which can have various grievous consequences. Mr . Speaker, I think I have said enough. However, I lAJill say that we can talk here on this side until we are blu1:1 in the face.

I suppose bE!Cause of the fact that t.his Premier is the only Premier who is in step, and a11 the others are out of step, and most constitutional experts, I am wasting rny time trying to convince Members on the other side that they are wrong. But, Mr. Speaker, they are wrong and history will prove them wrong. SOME HON. MEMBERS: - ... ··-·- Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: ·The -hon, ·--the Member for - I will read the - dOE!S he want to speak? MS DUFF: Mr. Speaker . ThE! han. the Member for St. John 1 s East already spoke in the debate . MS DUFF: NO·~-r- ··--h ave not . MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker .

She has not spoken on the resolution. I arn just lAJondering if Your Honour recogniZ1:;!d l:he Member· for Fogo (Mr. S. Winsor). That is all we are asking? M B_· S P E B.J$.. ~ .. ~ : L36 April 4-, 1990 Vol XLI Yes. MR. SIMMS: You did. You have to speak, Sam . MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this House on thE! motion put fol"th by the Premier and amended by Mr. Rideout, the Leader of the Opposition.

In 1987, Meech Lake, a constitutionaJ. amendment that would change the focus of Canada forever, was ratified by ten Premiers of all political stripes and the Federal Parliament. All three parties, the LibE!ral Party, thE! NDP, and thE! ConSE!rvatiVE'' Party, all agreed that ME!E!Ch LakE! was perhaps thE! most mociE!rate proposal that had ever been put together in the past thirty years. Mr. Speaker, this House rat:Hied that Meech Lake Accord, and the PrE:'m:Ler introduced his amendmE!nt to change it. What is most unique about il: . is cont1"ary to lAJ\1aL l:.hE! PrE!rrtier has said.

He lAJa~; certainly the only one in his party who campaigned during the last election saying that Meech Lake ·wouJ.d be rather changed if he was elected. I noted yesterday the Minister of Justice, in proclaiming and singing l:.he praises of the Acco1nd, said that only condition one which he lJJould run for E!lE!Ction wouJ.d be j_f the Premier would change Meech Lake. What a farce? Everyone knOIAJS Uw only reason why the Minisl:.er of Justi.ce ran was that: hE!, as everyone in the Province, Fully knew the PrE!rrd.er lAJould be defE!aled in Humber East, and he thou9hl: hE! would be the Leader of the Party.

No. 17 R36

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WINSOR: I think the Minister of Justice had a crack at it in 1982. I think he even ran for President of the Party at one ttme, and now he has the audacity to come in this House and say the reason he ran was becauSE! of his strong bE!lief in Meech Lake. What hypocrisy! ThE!n, yestE!rday in this House, the Minister of Finance did the completely unspeakable•, he told the people the real reason why the Premier and this Party opposite oppose Meech Lake -- the real reason why the Premier and the Party oppose Meech Lake. It slipped out of the bag.

In the heat of debate, they like to say, it slipped out of the bag. I can remember on television some time ago, when the Premier made his famous speech in OttaLJ.Ja, when he took on the Prime Mirdster and won the admiration of all Newfoundland because he was bucking the federal system, the little guy taking on the big guy, the man who t;Jas sitting 1night next:. to the Premier, just one seat back, was none other than l~he Minister of FinancE!.

The Pre!Tflier said yesterday in trying to chastise him and, I think, take a little bit of pressure off, the Minister of Finance is a great finance man but he is a poor constitutional advisor. According -to the las l:. two Budgets, and his defence of thE!ITl, the Minister is not a great Finance Minister either. MR. FLIGHT: Oh, he is. MR. WINSOR : According to the questions he answered today, the old Krazy Glue L37 Apri1 4, 1990 Vo1 XLI was in place, but on his tongue . MR. EFFORD: Hw about the next t ime ~ou come and ask for - MR. WINSOR: You will take care of it.

The Premier feels sotnehow, and hE! has convinced his pE•opJ.E• LJ.r:i.th him, that Senate reform will be the be-·-al1, thE! E!nd---a11, it is going t. o b lo! t h e p a n a c e a l~ h a l:_ t~li 11 c u r e all the il1s of this count1ny. HE• told them that; he has convinced them. MR. NOEL : We have said otherwise . make things up. MR. WINSOR : Do not You havE· said othE!rwj se. He has convinced them l~haL the Senate is going to bE! the one thi.ng, if LJ.Je do not have Senate reform tAlE! 1~d.ll have regional econom i c di.sparity forever , it_ tAli 11 ens h r· in e i ·t, entrench it.

I rernE!rnber back in 1967, LJ.Jhen anothE!r Liberal burst into this ProvinCE!, and onE· oF Uw big platfor·rns in his l':!le?.ction, it:. too, actua11y, was a jus t soc:iE•ty and l~he 1?l'.imination of l"t::•qional economic di.sparity. I LJ.Jonder who that LJ.Jas? Does anybody r!O'ITH)ITtbE!r? Pierre El1iott Trudeau, his mentor. AN HON. MEMBER : The last good Prime Minister in this country. MR. WINSOR : fhe last good Prirne Minister in this country, was he? I wondE•r if it. is a coincid~-:.nce t_hat. hE! resurfaced again with his book whilE! the debate on Meech Lake is in p1ace and thE!

Prerrd.er just qot elected? I wonder if there is any connection between the two? No. l 7 R37

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is worried about the distinct society clause as it pertains to Quebec. He says the distinct society clause would enshrine forever in legislation that Quebec has special legislative rights. The only th~lng, though, is that no one else in the country, except for the Premier and a gl"aup of people he calls constitutional experts, maintains this belief. The majority of people in this Province say that no legislative powers are taken away from the FedE!ral Government. It also goes on to say that he is concerned ·that the Federal Gover·nment might interfer in our school systems.

Fol" example, :in the pl"Ol:ection of separate schools in Newfoundland, Quebec, and Ontario, special guarantees for English language elec tor·al ridings. Quebec. the recognition of NE!W Brunswick as a bilingual province, and so on. So it is already thE•re, special status. AN HON . MEMBER: Why do they need more if it is already there? MR. WINSOR : In tE!rms of fedE!raJ. progr·ams. the Premier says we should not have the right to opt out of nati.onal cost-shared programs. MR. GRIMES: Who wrote that stuff for you? MR. WINSOI~: You, when you were President of the NTA.

Federal programs, cost-shared programs, he says, the Province should have a right to fo11olAJ the national program, even if it is not in thE! best intE!rE!Sts of thE! Province. The Pr1:~mier knotAJS and knot.us fuJ.l lAJel1 that things J.ikE! L38 Apl"i.l 4, 1990 Vo1 XU ACOA. equalization and so on. ar·e left intact and th~::~re lJ.Jill I:H~ no dete!rrent to this country. to thJ.s Province, to this L.r,~gi$1atul"e, if it is put in place. What thE! Premier is rea1.ly do:i.ng with all of this is trying to d~~flect frorn thE! rE!al isstH~s that face this Province.

The Harris Report, perhaps the most significant document: Lhat is going to be in Newfoundland's po1it:i.ca1 history for the next number of years, in this Session of the House, I think it got f:ivE! rninul:es today, a maximum of ftve mJnutes. The most significant report to ever carne before this -House got f:iv~::~ minut.::'s, and lAJe have sp<:!nL the last three weeks discussJng Meech Lake and not five Newfound1anders outside the poli .t:ical arena have one bit: or intE!rest in it. I visitE!d a longliner down on l:he waterfront yesterday . MR . NOEL: And you got a1l wet. MR. EFFORD: From Port de Grave? MR .

WINSOR: No, not frorn Port de Gr'ave, fi"OI"IJ Fogo. It brought in 1,200 sea1s. Do you think they askE~d rr1c:~. HolAJ are you getting on with Meech Lake? Do you knotAJ tAJhat l..h(!".iJ" concerns we1"e? SOME HON . MEMBERS : What? MR . WINSOR: The price of pelts. ThE:~ pric~::~ oF pelts just jumped from stx dollars to nine dollars, but Lhal- is not: viable if you have to go a hundred and f:ifty rniles l:o get thern. No. 17 1na

AN HON. MEMBER: They dropped . MR. WINSOR: Six to nine. AN HON. MEMBER : Six to nine is not a drop. MR. WINSOR: No. the drop was from seventeen dollars last year down to nine; now. they have just gone ·from six to nine. The Minister of Social Services says you cannot makE! any money at it. MR. EFFORD: 'yCi~u--" -'5'h'ou 1 d n e v e r h a v e 1 e t Greenpeace into the Province. MR. WINSOR: Well. maybe that is the case . So. these people were not concerned about Meech Lake. To the average Newfoundlander on the street.

Meech Lake is some kind of thing that people talk about and argue about. but it has no r·eal meaning. fhe Premier knows the average Newfoundlander is not concerned about Meech Lake. That is lAJhy he is going to rescind Meech Lake approval without having hearings. MR. SIMMS : To cover up all the problems . MR . WINSOR: To cover up all the Province 1s problems. MR. FUf~EY: Did you turn down splitting the resolution? MR. WINSOR : AlJ. the problems in this Province. the fishery in crisis. the forestry and thE! Minister. too.

I L39 April 4-. 1990 Vol XLI suspE!Ct, in crisis. a crumbling econoll'ly and then, of cou1nse, l~h1:! incompetent Finance Minister we discove1ned; and thE!n the cure·~-a].l, the one that was going to solve all the probl~::~ms, the Economic Recovery Team. Thert::~ is a Jist . MR. SIMMS : Just run through them. Okay. Increases in um~mployiTIE!nt, tax increases, gasoJ.ine tax, catastrophe in our fishery, increases in electricity rates, forced amalgamation, Beaton Tulk - I wonder who that is; Bill 53 - AN HON. MEMBER: You took care of that . MR. WINSOR : I took care of Beaton fulk, yes. AN HON.

MEMBER: And 1 John 1 took care of him after . MR. WINSOR: John took care of hirn after . promise of improved labour relations; What:. IAJas it NAPE said today? I think it IAJas 1 Next U.1W:! it tAiill bt~ a big strike, bE!Cause everyonE! wi11 go out LhE! onE! time. 1 lAJas it not? Proulise to cul: out political patronage. Who IAJas just appointed to Lhe new corporation out in Gander, I wonder? promise never to tolerate conflict of interest, promise to bring home every rnother 1 s son, promise to eJ.irninate pork barrelling, and the list goE:~s on and on and on.

I am glad the Minis·ter asked l~hes~::~ questions, bE!Cause we have some idE!a of thE:! problems facing this Province. No. 17 1n9

The Economic Recovery Commission, what a farce! AN HON. MEMBFR: (Inaudible) your district got . MR. FLIGHT: What about your Distict? MR. WINSOR: Yes. Thr:~ Mr:~mber lot of that, what in the last year. a little bit about SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order. please! seemed to rnakr:~ a our District got Let me tell you the District. The Chair is having difficulty in hearing the speaker. MR. WINSOR: Let me te1l you about: the District. Since 1972. on the straight shore

section we had 10 mi1es of unpaved road left in the District. The rest of it all paved by a Conservative Administration. My friend Frorn St. John's West, from LumsdE!n, will reca11 quite vividly having to drive gravel roads from Lumsden on around the loop to Gander paved during the PC Administration. MR. SIMMS: I wonder tJJhy they did not mention that? MR. WINSOR: No. they did not mention that. Water and sewer they think. I seem to recall, and my friend from Lumsden tAJill tell you, that during the PC Administration the community of Lumsden - MR. SIMMS: In a Liberal District? L4-0 April 4-, 1.990 Vol XLI MR.

WINSOR: Ye -s. And not only that, votes LiberaJ. so1idly, too. And thE! Tory Governrrli:>nt dtd a cornplE• to watE!r and selAJel" job, onE! of Lhe best in the Province. a model for the Province. The Town of Carmanville, numerous - B N -·-~-QN_, __ ~_l_~!i_~K : Had a good Member then. MR. WINSOR: Who was Winsor? disaster disaster that, That struck, happened MR. FUREY: One term. MR. WINSOR: Cap lain was when in 1979. in in 1979. What was that, one term? MR. FUREY: Enjoy it. MR. WINSOR : Ea1"l l:he The Do not worry ·about it. take care of that. 1 IJJi 11 Musgrave Har·bour. Car·manvi lle, Tilting, watE!I" and sewer·.

An $11 million ferry For Fogo Island. The -FE!rry did not lAIOJ"k out, bu l:. everyone tJJa s de 1 i g h ted tAli l:. h i. l: at thE! tiiTII'::~. ThE! Minis lei" has j LISt now announced th,;:, $25 million to $28 milJion -Ferry. We are sUlJ. not sure it is going to work, because of heavy ice conditions. We are still not sure. AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible). MR. WINSOR: --·-------·---What tJJas that? No, no. We do not know the ice conditions in the Sound. Very extreme ice conditions on times, and we are still not sure if it is No. 17 j~lj.Q

going to provide reliable transportation. Members opposite like to flick across at us all the t"i.me, Look what w~:1 are doi.ng ·Fol" Fogo District, as if nothing had ever been done for it. MS DU~£: That is why they voted Tory. MR. WINSOR : In fact' my friend from s·t. John Is East says, that is why they votE!d Tory, they recognize that the Tories had given them something. It was the previous Member who could not deliver anything. What the Premier has now done is set up this Province against the rest of Canada.

Th.:1 body of people out there, for the most par·t, think that the difficult Umes Newfoundland :is experiencing is because of the strained relationship that exists between Ottawa and this Province. We heard the Premier two days ago moaning and groaning that Ottawa had excluded him from talks on the fishery, that the response program the Federal Government had announced, the Province was not consultE!d on it. He made · a gl"eat issue of it.

On1y a week ago we saw the three Premiers from the rest of Atlantic Canada at a meeting with the Premier, and then they walked away and had their own meeting to decide what would be the fate of the Atlantic Provinces if there was no Canada. What did they do with our Premier? They told him to go home, go back to St. John 1 s, they were having a mE!eting all by themselves, despite the fact, by the way, that hE! was the host.

I think he invited them to Corner Brook, and following the meeting with the Premier they had their own meeting, I suppose to try to L4-l April 4-, 1990 Vol XU make some sense out of what Premier had, and I am sure did not gE!t much out of it. UH:1 real reason the Pl"t::1miel" doing this, as I said E!al"l-:i.r:•l", to deflect from t..uhat is going in the economy around him. the they But is is on The unfortunatE! thi.ng is that. -:in Newfoundland one the easiest ways to evoke pub1ic r·e·sponse, g€d:. public syrnpa·thy on your side, is to say something about Quebec.

Most Newfoundlanders, for some reason or another from past experiences, have developed this sense that Qut::1bec sornc::1how has given Newfoundland a rough time. Now what we have to remember is tha