VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, DECF~F.R 14, 1983 NO. 78

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3980 NM - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! ORAL QUESTIONS: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR. NEARY: The han. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) in connection with the Auditor General's Report. The first question I want to ask the han. gentleman is Departnental Observations on the matter dealing with the ferry, the $1, 6 0 0, 0 0 0 of taxpayer money that 'I-' aS scruandered. In the observations the only

section of the red book that has pages marked A, B, c and D is the part dealing with the ferry. Could the han. gentleman tell the House - MR. TULK: Page number? MR. NEARY: Page 42 of the report. Could the han. gentleman tell the House if we are looking at the original response by his department, or did they doctor it up and inject pages into this red nook, into this report, after the original response was made to try to smooth over the situation? Because the only part of the red book that has As, Bs and Cs - MR. TULK: 42A? MR. NEARY: 42A, 42B, and 42C in the red eook has to do with the ferry. Why is that, Mr.

Speaker? Why were the other items not listed A, B, and C, why this particular item? Is it because it was changed after the original response was made to try to cover up something? 8846

December 14, 1983 Tape No . 3980 NM - 2 l-1R. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon . Ministe r of Transportation . MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) is trying to look at the low side, with which he is very familiar, in trying to dig up things - SOME BON . r-tEMBERS : Oh, oh ! MR. SPEAKER: MR. DAWE : Order, please! Order, please~ - that have no basis in fact. Mr. Speaker , the Departmental Observations are the ones that are in the book, is the reaction that the department had to the comments made by the Auditor General and I think they fully explain the situation . MR.

NEARY : A supplementary, ·Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY : The hon . the Leader of the Opposition. Mr . Speaker, is the hon . gentleman saying that there was :no additional information provided after the original Departmental Observations were written? Is that what the hon . gentleman is saying? 8847

December 14,1983 Tape No. 3981 ah-1 MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR.DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I am really at a loss to find out what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Neary) is trying to get at. The response that is in the red booklet is the departmental response to the comments made by the Auditor General and that is exactly what they are. They are there in their totality without any deletions, without any additions; they are the response that we made to the Auditor General in relationship to his comments with regard to that particular situation. MR.NEARY: MR.SPEAKER: Opposition.

MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the I want to make sure that I understand the hon. gentleman clearly on this point, that there was no additional response made.Once the original response was made to the Auditor General's Report,there was nothing added to it or taken away from it after,that , was it? That we have the information in the red book as it was originally and nothing added to it after the original response was made, the hon. gentleman is saying? is that what MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR.DAWE: Again, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon.

Leader of the Opposition is referring to. There is a booklet before the House of Ass~ly,as has been the practice of this administration for the past number of years. When the comments of the Auditor General are tabled, with the usual efficiency of this particular administration, at the same time are tabled the departmental responses as it relates to the 8848

December 14,1983 Tape No. 3981 ah-2 MR.DAWE: items that are mentioned about the various departments in the Auditor General's Report. I do not know if there is a first edition or a second edition or a third edition,but as far as I know this is the only booklet, it is the official departmental responses to the comments by the Auditor General and what is in that book is in the book. I mean, there are no changes made to that book,as I understand it. Those are the responses that were made by the individual departments. MR. NEARY: Speaker. MR.SPEAKER (RUssell ): Opposition. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. The hon.

Leader of the Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that when the Auditor General sends his observations to a department of governrnent,there is then a response from the department to the Auditor General and the responses are in this book. Now what I am asking the hon. gentleman is,is there anything that was added after the original response was made to the Auditor General? Was there anything added afte~ and why are these numbered 42(a), 42(

b) and 42(c),Whichwe do not see it in the rest of the report? MR. TOBIN: You tell us about your ·slush fund. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. WARREN: You v.orry amut the ferry down in Springdale. MR.DAWE: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Torngat (Mr. Warren) is finished barking I will continue. As I indicated previously,I have no idea what the hon. member is getting at. 8849

December 14, 1983 Tape 3982 EC - 1 MR. DAWE: The responses that are in the red booklet are the departmental responses that are tabled in this han. House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are two members of the Auditor General's staff in the Department of Transportation on a continuous basis as, I am sure, the Auditor General is involved with other departments. MR. WARREN: He certainly needs to have them there. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! MR. DAWE: It is a function, Mr. Speaker, of the Auditor General's department that this administra­ tion is very proud of.

In the days of yore, when members opposite were responsible for the accounts of this Province, there was no - MR. NEARY: We are not the government. MR. DAWE; Well, that is the reason that they are not the government, I might add, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! .MR. DAWE: That is the very reason they are not the government and that is the reason why this administration is over here.

We are very proud of the 1\,uditor General, we are very proud of public accounts, we are very proud of the process that allows the people of th~s Province to have an opportunity to scrutinize tfie expenditures of public funds. · SOME RON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! -MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the xesponses tabled in this House of Assembly to the Auditor General' -s report are the responses from my 8850

December 14, 1983 Tape 3982 EC - 2 MR. DAWE: department, they are the responses from the Department of Education, from the Department of Municipal Affairs. MR. NEARY: ~Tpey are not the original responses. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, again, I have no idea, and I am sure,as usual 1 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) has no idea what he is talking about. The responses that are in this particular book are the one and only. It is an original copy, the first time in publication; the members of this House of Assembly were given the opportunity to read the first draft and I am sure, Mr.

Speaker, it will be the only draft necessary. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: the matter itself. MR. BARRETT: HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, let us get on to You obviously blew that one. No, we have not blown that one. !ve "'ill hear ITiore about 'chat 1 you need not worry 1 because the pages of the book were changed, Mr. Speaker. MR. WARREN: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Now, let us talk about ·the government bungling on this matter. Could the minister inform the House who brought this matter of the acquisition of a ferry for Mr.

Wilbert Weir before the Cabinet? 8851

December 14, 19B3 Tape No. 39B3 MJ - l MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the particular matter identified by the Auditor General, the responses of the department are listed for all hon. members to read. ThRt is the official response of the department leading up to that particular situation, during the situation and the ongoing activities of that particular acquisition~ 'I'he" are fully explained in the comments to the Auditor General's remarks and I see no reason to continue with it. MR. NEARY: HR. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman would like for us just to forget it and hope that it would go away, Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest scandals in Newfoundland's history~ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Oh, the hon. gentlemen can laugh and sneer all they want. A million six hundred thousand dollars is not to be sneez .ed at. SOME HON. ~1EMBERS : Oh, oh! r-1:R. SPEAKER: 0rnP.r, please! Order, please! Two points: The member speaking does have the right to be heard in silence; the purpose of the Question Period really is to ask questions and not to provide information. MR.

HODDER: We would like to get some answers, too. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the han. gentleman did not understand my question. My question to the han. gentleman was this: Who was it that brought the 8652

December 14, 1983 Ta pe No. 3983 MJ - 2 MR. NEA RY: matter o! the acquisition of this ferry before the Cabinet? What minister brought it befor .e the Cabinet? ~. SPEAKER (RUssel.l) : The hon. the Mi nis ter of Transportat ion. MR . D AWE : Mr. Speaker, tne hon. member was a member of a former Cabinet and he should be, although I doubt very much if he was aware then or if he is aware now, of the process involved in bringing Cabinet papers before Cabinet.

It is a normal practice and it is a usual practice and,as far as I know 1it is always the practice that matters relating to a particular department are brought forward by the minister responsible for that dep~rtment. And since ~t was the Department o~ :~~nsoortation which ultimately took over the responsibility for the intra- - - provincial ferry svstem 1 then certainly that matter was brought before his Cabinet colleagues by that particular minist .er. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. 8853

December 14, 1983 Tape 3984 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: The hon. Leader of the Would the hon. ~entleman undertake to table the Cabinet paper that he is referring to? MR. WALSH: Cabinet meetings from now on. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: We will punch you into Order, please! · Mr. Speaker, that is a fair request; table the proposal that was brought before Cabinet so we can all take a look at it. But let me ask ._the hon. gentleman a supplementary. Why was it necessary for the Cabinet to overrule ~the previous minister?

And why was it necessary for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet,to overrule Treasury Board on this matter when in both instances they stated that the ~ proposal not be approved? Why was _it necessary to overrule Treasury Board and the minister who made the proposal originally? MR. SPEAKER: Transportation. MR. DAWE: The hon. Minister of Mr. Speaker, one time before I remember the _question being asked in this hon.

House about things that go on around the Cabinet table, and at that particular point in time I was sort of fishing for the right words to use, when the hon. member who asked the question himself indicated, 'You are about to tell us that it is none of our business', to which I replied, 1 ~hat is correct: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leade~ of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, how arrogant! How arrogant can hon. gentlemen get! SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! 8854

December 14, 1983 Tape 3984 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is wh y? The hon. gentleman,maybe he did not understand the question: Why did the Cabinet overrule the Minister of Transportation who advised his colleagues not to proceed with the proposal to purchase that ferr y? And why did the Cabinet overrule Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker? Does the hon. gentleman understand the serious nature o; the question and the serious nature of the topic under discussion? MR. SPEAKER (Russell}: The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr.

Speaker, what happens - again I might emphazise - around the Cabinet table is a very important and serious procedure in our democratic process. It is one in which there is a certain degree of secrecy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, ultimate secrecy. And the discussions that occur around the Cabinet table and decisions that are made are never made lightl y, and they are made with the availability of all the knowledge that is available at that particular time to Cabinet, and decisions are always taken in light of the information available.

Now,as it relates to the quer y, 'Why did Cabinet overrule Treasury Board? I will just indicate again for the member opposite,who should know better 1 that Treasury Board is a committee function and makes recommendations to Cabinet, From time to time when Cabinet will accept the necessary recommendations that are brought forward by various Cabinet committees 1and there are times when they consider the recommendations and do not necessarily follow them. But what happened at Cabinet is, 8855

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3985 so - 1 HR._ DAWE"; again,a part of the democratic and Cabinet process in this Province and it i:s not one that will be discuss.ed openly before the member. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER ('Russell); of th.e Opposition. MR. NEARY; Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the hon. Leader .Mr-. Speaker 1 that is no excuse for try~ng to cover up this situation. I am not asking the hon. gentleman to divulge Cabinet secrets, I am merely asking the hon. gentleman to justify the squandering and waste of $1.6 million of taxpayers' money .. Wh .. "!t ,.,ere the reasons behind it?

Why was the Treasury Board overruled? And why was the minister who said, 'No, do not go ahead with this proposal', why was he overruled? The hon. gentleman can give me the answers without divulging Cabinet secrets, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to do so in the interest of British fair play and British justice. MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: Council on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Order, please! The h.on. President of the Mr.

Speaker, just so the hon. gentleman can understand that the hon. minister's response was grounded in law and in practice and in parliamentary procedure, I refer Your Honour to questions which are prohibited, questions out of order, paragraph 357, page 130, ''Questions may not relate to communications alleged to have passed between a member and a minister', It goes on to talk about, ''that you JTI"t'' !lot ask questions of what has gone on in Cabinet: Obviously no Cabinet member can communicate deliberations and what actually occurred in Cabinet. It is entirely against the rules of practice 8856

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3985 SD - 2 MR. MARSHALL: and procedure. And what the hon. gentleman is doing in the question that he is persisting in asking 1 which has already been answered by the · Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe),is exactly that. MR. NEARY: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : To the point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order because what I was asking the minister had nothing to do with discussions in Cabinet or Cabinet solidarity or Cabinet secrets.

I am asking the minister, as the spokesman for the adrninistration,to justify the government's action, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am asking. And the minister does not have to divulge Cabinet secrets to answer my question. They are just too cowardly and too embarrassed to answer the questions, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order 1 the point of order raised by the hon. President of the Council (~r. Marshalll is well taken. It would appear from the Chair's viewpoint if the minister did answer the question -.I hernighthave to discuss confidential information that was discussed in Cabinet.

Be that as it may 1 I would refer the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nearyl to Beauchesne, page 129, which says: "A question oral or written must not (_c) multiply Nith slight variations a similar question on the same point•, and (

d) says: 'Repeating in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused'. The hon. Leader of the Op9osition. MR. NEARY: Now, Mr. S:?eaker, let me as}: the h.on. gentleman, th.en, another question. I know, Mr. Speaker, they are smarting over there, i""' -1:'1':!:-:-e was ever a Commis ·s·ion of Inquiry warranted in this Province 1it is certainly warranted aq57 1..i ~ I

December 14, 1983 Tape No . 3985 SD - 3 MR. NEARY: on thi s matter . But I would say the Premier would oe too cowardly to do it . MR. SPEAKER CRussell) : Order, p l ease! I would ask the hon . Leader ot the Opposition CMr . Neary) to pose a direct que s tion . The hon . Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr . Speaker, let me ask the ho n. gentleman to give the Rouse now a breakdo\o~n of the $.1. 6 milli o n 8858

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3986 MR. NEARY: that was squandered and wasted and mismanaged n~ this administration on that ferry~ Give us a breakdown of the $1.6 million. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I would again MJ- l refer the hon. gentleman to the departmental response to the queries by the Auditor General. If he still has difficulty with interpreting the response 1then I am ·afraid that is something that I have no control over. HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr .

Speaker, I am horrified by the ridiculous answer given by the hon. gentleman over this very serious matter. It is a shameful answer. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. gentleman if a subsidy was paid to ~~- Weir for three years while that ferry was tied up and unable to operate? Did the administration approve and pay an operating subsidy to Mr. Weir while that ferry was tied up for two and a half out of the three years? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I refer the han. gentleman to the departmental response in the red book. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, how cowardly can you get? It is no~ in the red book. Mr. Speaker, I asked the han. 8859

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3986 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: gentleman to state whether or not an operating subsidy had been paid to this gentleman, MR. TULK: MR. HODDER: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : That is not in the book! It is not in the book. It is not in the book. Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, now let me ask the hon. gentleman if the administration paid out any taxpayer money for refit of this ferry during the three years under review by the Auditor General, if there was money paid out for a refit of a ferry that was tied up and not in use? Could the hon. gentleman answer that question? MR. TOBIN: MR.

SPEAKER: Transportation. :I-1R. DAWE: She is in good use now, boy. Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Mr. Speaker, the questions that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) pose are in fact in the booklet, the question that the hon. member from Fogo (Mr. Tulk) is querying from his seat is also in the book,and if hon. members would read it they would interpret it for themselves. MR. TULK: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR. NEARY: We read the book. Mr. Speaker. The han. the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, we have gone through the book with a fine-toothed comb and these answers are not in the book.

We do not know the amount of the subsidies that were paid out to Mr. Weir and we would like to know why Mr. Weir, Mr. Speaker - we will get around to that later on - why Mr. Weir and why Green Bay? We will have a few questions 6660

December 14 , 1983 Tape No . 3986 MJ - 3 MR. NEARY: to ask about that in due course. But let me ask the ton . gentleman again about the expenses of that ferry when it was tied U?, Mr. Speaker. He refused to tell us whether there were operating su bsidie s paid to !·1r . Y..7eir or to the bank. Nmo~ could he tell us if there were any expenses paid t:o Mi": Weir for that ferry while it was tied up? And if the hon. gentleman says it is in the red book,would he please tell us the numb er of the page in the red book and the paragraph that we can look at in the red book that will give us the information,Mr . Speaker?

Never mind trying to sweep it under the rug,because this matter is not going to go away . SOME BON . MEMBERS : Oh, oh! 8861

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3987 NM- 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The hon. Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amused by the Opposition, but certainly not surprised. The Auditor General's Report, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, and the process of the Auditor General's Report, and the process of departmental responses, the process of public accounts committees, and the scrutiny of public funds, the opportunity that the Opposition have to question various departments on expenditures are itemized and detailed as it relates to subsidies for all the ferry operations.

If it had been left to members opposite and the administration when they were in po~1er in the Province 1we would not ha 've had to worry about ferries, Mr. Speaker, because there would not have been any communities left alive and vibrant for an essential and vital part of our rural Newfoundland economy~ they just would not be there, Mr. Speaker, so we would not have had to worry about ferryboats and about making a contribution to rural Newfoundland because hon. members opposite, with their particular administration and with their thought process, would :1ave done a'ftoray with all of them. So, Mr.

Speaker, of all the items in the Auditor General's Report dealing with the various departments,the compliments that the Auditor General bestowed upon the Department of Transportation as it relates to two other items which were mentioned in the Auditor General's Report,are not mentioned by the Opposition. They think that somehow, using the kind of gutter mentality that they are using over there, that they somehow now have an opportunity 8862

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3987 NM - 2 MR. DAWE: to embarrass the Premier. They keep referring to the Premier's district. Well, the Premier's district is a historic and important rural district in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to provide transportation links to the islands of this Province even though the Opposition members do not want it to happen. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Nobody mentioned contributions or the gutter mentality except the hon. gentleman.

We have not mentioned the Premier. we will deal with that later in contributions to leadership conventions and the like. MR. TOBIN: Why do you not - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: 'I'.Te will deal with these matters at a later date. But I want to ask the hon. gentleman why it was necessary, because when you look at the figures, the original bank loan, you take into consideration the interest and the subsidies, why was it necessary to pay for that ferry twice? Because that is what in actual fact happened . MR. TULK: A rotten boat. MR.

NEARY: The rotten ferry was paid for twice by the taxpayers of this Province. Why was that necessary? BB63

Lt!. December 14, 1983 Tape 3988 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. the Minister of Transportation. MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, the whole process and all the circumstances surrounding the decision-making, if han. members took the time to read it and to try and look at it in a positive light, they 'YTOuld see that the circumstances outlined in the red booklet are ones which justify the procedures that happen.

We were subject to a number of things over which we had no control in relation to the financing that was worked out and the arrangements worked out whereby the federal government would build the terminals, which were not done until three and one-half years after the agreement was signed. There are a number of things itemized in that particular booklet, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask han. gentlemen to read it and, instead of looking t.,ri ·i:h a finetoothed comb for the dirt that th~y suspect is there, they would do well to read the explana­ tion, Mr. Speaker, in the light in which it was written. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: The han. gentleman is very, very sensitive about the dirt that is there. And there is dirt there, and not only dirt, but filth of the worst kind involving $1.6 million of taxpayers' money! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! Again, I have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to pose a direct question, not enter into the realm of debate. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman, less than a year ago when he was asked about this situation, shrugged it off by savinq, 'We have one bummer on our hands.' The hon. gentleman was 8 8 6l~

December 14, 1983 Tape 3988 EC -2 MR. NEARY: quoted in Atlantic Insight as saying, 'one bu."lUller on our hands ' . Did the hon. gentleman realize at that time, Mr. Speaker, that what the gove.rnment was doing was wrong, illegal? And why did not the hon. gentleman do something about it ~-1hen he was asked about the situation by a reporter from Atlantic Insight w~en he admitted that they had one bummer on their ha.."lds? Why did not the hon. gentleman take action then to do something about this terrible situation? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Transportation. MR. DAWE: The hen. the Minister of Mr.

Speaker, one bummer as opposed to seven, I suppose, is not so bad. I cannot be really responsible for what a reporter puts in an article, nor would the situation referred to by the reporter have any bearing on what did happen or what will ultimately happen to the ferryboat issue in this Province. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. 8865

December 14,1983 MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Opposition. MR.NEARY: Tape No. 3989 ah-1 The han. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can be as sleazy now as he wants and as casual as he wants but - MR.MARSHALL: of order. Mr. Speaker, on a point MR.SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. President of the Council on a point of order. MR.MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman just cannot use the House to entice other people to respond in kind. The word•sleazy•is unparliamentary in referring to the hon. gentleman and he should be asked to withdraw it. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I.t is not unpa:t;liamentary, Order, please!

The Chair is really not sure if that word is unparliamentary. I do not think it does much for the House of Assembly as a whole to make comments with that kind of language.But whether or not it is unparliamentary perhaps could be debatable. MR.NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answers are not very parliamentary either. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon.gentleman that when Mr. Weir went to buy that ferry, when he brought the CSI inspectors with him to Europe to buy that ferry- HR. TOBIN: And ~-1ho do they work for? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

NEARY: - did the Canadian Steamship inspectors approve that ferry for the run that it was suppose to go on? And,if so,why did they turn it down when the ferryboat was brought back to Newfoundland? 8866

December 14,1983 Tape No. 3989 ah-2 HR. TOBIN: work for? MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Transportation. What government do they The hon. Minister of MR. DAWE: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to answer the questions posed by the hen. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Neary) because in asking the questions he is basing his question on facts that are not true. MR.NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The han. Leader of the Mr.

Speaker, is the han. gentleman aware that the statement I just made is in the Auditor General's -Report, that the ferry was turned down by the Canadian Steamships inspectors as unfit for use unless a substantial amount of public money was spend to refurbish the ferry? Is the han gentleman not aware that that is in the report or has he bothered to read the report or the red book? He just casually brushes it off hoping that it will go away, Mr. Speaker. Is the han. gentleman aware of that? MR. SPEAKER: Transportation. MR.DAWE: The han. Minister of Mr.

Speaker, what I am aware of is the information provided to both the operator and the provincial government as it relates to the seaworthiness and the amount of repairs that had to be done in order to make that particular vessel suitable for Canadian waters. From what was given by CSI to the operator and to his financial people,and what was given to the Province at that time,was somewhat different 8867

... December 14,1983 Tape No. 3989 ah-3 MR.DAWE: from the ultimate CSI inspection that occured after the vessel was ac9uired and in Canadian waters. There was some discrepancy but the discrepancy was CSI 's. 8868

December 14, 1983 :1R.. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: Tape 3990 PK - 1 Mr. Speaker. The han. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, in view of the serfuus ma§nitude of this situation, in view of the fact that it involves the Premier's own district and people who are very close to the Premier and were very close ·during his leadership, would the han. gentleman not agree that in order to clear the air- and I believe the Premier would find this in his own best interest because the han. gentleman is being tarnished,whether he deserves it or not,by this transaction­ now would the han.

Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) not agree that in order to clear this matter up, Mr. Speaker­ and we saw what happened to a previous Minister of Transportation when he was tossed out of the Cabinet, had to resign because he towed his boat down from Harbour Breton down to Clarenville and did not pay for it, and we were only talking about a small amount of money compared to what we are talking about here- would the han. gentleman not agree that the only way to get at the bottom of this matter is to have a public enquiry set up under the Public Enquires Act to do a thorough investigation into this matter? MR.

DINN: :Remember the Mifflin re!)ort. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, does the han. gentleman not agree that this is a kind of a serious situation where you have a public enquiry , where you send for witnesses and documents ? And would the han. gentleman agree without delay to consult with t~e Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and have .a public emquir:.:· established immediately under the Public Enquiries Act to lo::>ok into this whole sordid affair? 8869

December 14, 1983 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): MR. DAWE: Tape 3990 PK - 2 The hon. Minister of Transportation. No, Mr. Speaker, the minister would not agree. my life. I have never heard such garbage in all MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would not agree because obviously they have something to hide. That is why. The hon. gentleman would be well-advised to set up a Commission of Enquiry. ask the hon. gentleman again . i·m. TULK: MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to Why the extra $100, 000? Yes, why did they pay Mr.

Weir, after they discovered that the boat was rotten, that it could not operate and - MR. TULK: Val~ed at $250,000. MR. NEARY: - the value of it was only $250,000, a little more than a quarter of a million and they paid him $7 7 8, 0 0 0 for it, >·Thy did they pay Mr. Weir . the extra $110,000? What was that for? Was that a gift for his support .· of the Premier or somebody on the government side of the House? Is that what it was? Why was the $110,000 - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: - of taxpayer money paid out to this gentleman who had already made, who had already collected almost $800,000 in subsidies?

MR. MARSHALL: On a point of qrder, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. President of the Council on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, from the mouth of the person who is always accused of squirting poison, comes the charge that hon. gentleman is squirting poison in the most base way 8870

December 14, 1983 Tape 3990 PK - 3 MR. MARSHALL: possible. You are not allowed, Mr. Speaker, to cast innunendoes in Question Period. I could give the gentleman a long string of authorities on that . The hon. gentleman is making obvious innuendoes 8871

December 14, 1983 Tape 3991 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: in the hope of getting it reported in the press~ in which case, it will be greeted with the normal credibility the hon. gentleman's statements are greeted with. But, at the same time, he is casting innuendoes, Mr. Speaker, and aspersions against the character of members and people outside of the House. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER_jRussell) : The hon. the member for Port au Port. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. HODDER: Mr.

Speaker, innuendo is when you try to project something that is not, But in this particular case the boat was in Green Bay, the person who operated the boat was a former politica~ friend of the .Premier throughout his leadership campaign and if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) stated these two facts, which are known fact throughout the ~rovince, then there is no innuendo, Mr. Speaker, since what the Leader of the Opposition has said is the truth. That is not innuendo. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I refer again to Beauchesne, Page 129, 17l(a), which says: "A question, oral or written, must not be ironical, rhetorical, offensive or contain epithet, innuendo, satire or ridicule." MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The time for Question Period has now expired. MR. NEARY: Good! We will have a week on this. 8872

December 14, 1983 Tape 3991 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: The Leader of the -Opposition (Mr. Neary) and myself are agreed~ I wrote the Leader of the Opposition this morning and asked him on behalf of his party in the House whether they would agree to support the government in a resolution and the Leader of the Opposition wrote me back saying that he would agree to support it and that he would second the motion without debate. So I take this opportunity now to present the motion, seconded by the Leader ·of the Opposition. It reads as follows:

WHEREAS the inshore harvest of the Northern Cod stock has been the traditional source of livelihood for the Province ~s Northeast and Labrador coasts for hundreds of years and no other Province can claim any historic dependency on this stock; and

WHEREAS proposed quota allocations to mainland and foreign interests would severely impair the financial health of the new restructured Newfoundland Fish Company and its ability to operate all its trawler plants after that Company has been rescued from bankruptcy at great public effort and expense; and

WHEREAS Federal quota allocations in recent years have seen a dramatic increase in allocations to outside interests as particularly evidenced by a proposed allocation in 1984 of nearly 12,500 to~s to yet another class of mainland plants with no previous involvement in the Northern Cod harvest; and lqHEREAS the constant erosion of this Province's share in its own Northern Cod stocks must be stopped; 8873

December 14, 1983 Tape 399 .1 EC - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that t.his House opposes the proposed 1984 Manage.'':l.e::lt Plan for the Northern coc; stock and urges the Government of Canada to stop the erosion of this Province's share of the Northern Cod stock and to make no further allocations to outside fishing interest. The reason why I am bringing this up today, Mr. Speaker, and ask for the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr.

Neary} support and his seconding the motion, is because there is a decision pending in the next couple of days through the federal Cabinet - for the first time through the federal Cabinet- on this very important issue, which could injuriously affect many of the plants and fishermen in this Province. So I lo .ok for­ ward to the Leader of the Opposition's support and that of his colleagues. MR. NEARY: _ Mr. Speaker. MR. SP EAKER (Russell) : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. 8874

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3992 SD -1 MR. NEARY: Hr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Premier earlier today, and I thank him for his courtesy in phoning me earlier this morning, and then we had some correspondence back and forth, as we do. As han. members know, it is our policy to have the Northern cod stock go to the processing plants here in Newfoundland. So we concur with the resolution and we support the re'solution, Mr.

Speaker, in the hope that it will get the unanimous consent of the House and be dispatched to the various people in authority so that the message will get through on time, before a final resolve is made of this matter. SOME HON. HEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : to adopt the resolution? SOME HON. HEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: SOHE HON. HEMBERS: MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL : to call Orders of the Day. Hear, hear. Is it the pleasure of the House Thos·e in favour 'Aye' , Aye. Those against, 'Nay'. I declare the resolution carried. Hear,. h.ear . Mr. Speaker, The han. President of the Council. Mr.

Speaker, I know we are about From the qovernrnent' s point of view·, we would be ?erfectly prepared to \vai ve the motion on the Order Paper ~y the han. member for St. John's tvest CMr .. Barrett)_ today and go with government business, if the Opposition were agreeable to it. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, members· of the House will understand that there are two House Leaders, one on the government side and one on the Opposition side. It has always been a tradition in the House, in the House of Commons, in 8875

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3992 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: legislatures where you have the British parliamentary system, for House Leaders to converse and to enter into \'lhat I suppose you would call deals. In this particular session of the House, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) has not only stayed a\'lay, but seems to resent anything we do over here. He has been unco­ operative, Mr. Speaker, he will not talk to anybody on this side of the House like all House Leaders do in other administrations.

And until the hon. gentleman, Mr Speaker, learns to be a little more friendly and co-operative and a little more social 1 and comes down off his high horse, then we will proceed today with Private Members' Day as usual. MR. MARSHALL ~ MR. SPEAKER lRussell): MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. The hon. President of the Council. I would just like to make one comment with respect to my dialogue with the hon. Opposition House Leader lMr. Hodderl., I would just like to point out that for most of the Fall session he has been about an unsuccessful activity so he has not been here to talk to. MR.

SPEAKER: We do not have consent to dispense with Private Mernbers 1 Day. Before we proceed with the Private Member's Motion , it is a pleasure for me to welcome to the galleries Mr. Anthony Jones,who is the . Chairman of the Fisheries Committee of Petit Forte, Placentia Bay. SOME HON. MEMBE"RS: Hear, hear. 8876 -·

December 14, 1983 Tape No . 3992 SD - 3 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER (Russell): It being Private Members' Day we will proceed with Motion 1 to be moved by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Barrett). The hon. member for St. John's West. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read into the record, if I may, the motion that is now before this House.

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has apparently made a deliberate decision to penalize the people of this Province for actions taken on the people's behalf by their duly elected provincial government; AND

WHEREAS the drastic decline in spending in this Province by the federal government on cost-shared programmes aimed at improving public services is ample evidence of this penalizing attitude and actions on the part of the federal government; AND

WHEREAS the Province is suffering severe financial and economic hardship as a result of these reductions in funding; AND

WHEREAS the Frcvincial government has tried every means at its disposal during the past several months to improve federal/provincial relations and sign cost shared agreements;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of Canada to reverse its present policy and to return to the Canadian approa~h of co-operative federalism. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a very, very major and important issue. It is an issue which. is affecting all Newfoundlanders in all their various lifestyles today 1 a situation which. has been perpertrated by the federal government in Ottawa as a deliberate attempt to penalize the government and the people of thi :s Province because of actions that have been taken over the past number 8877

December 14, 1983 Tape No . 3992 so - 4 MR . BARRETT: · of years to try and determine for this Province an ability to stand on its O\vn feet , an ability to provide the people of this Province with the right of self-determination, the right to be able to become self-s ufficient, the right to be able to stand equally with all other Canadians and not have to continually 887 8

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3993 MJ - l MR. BARRETT: look forward to the ways of the past whereby this Province and the people and government of this Province have had to rely on handouts from Ottawa and from anyone else ,to try and provide a substance for the livelihood of our people here. I think there is no question that the major reason for the attitude change of the federal government has been this Province's position in trying to have Ottawa and the rest of this country recognize Newfoundland's right of control and jurisdiction with respect to its offshore resources.

The point has been made numerous times substantiating the historic claim that this Province has to its offshore resources, and as this has not met with the approval of the federal government in Ottawa,they have attempted to browbeat this government into changing its position by trying to dry up and curtail payments which are made and which have been based on many years of activity to support social programmes. They have attempted to bring this Province to its knees by financial restrictions. Mr. Speaker, the offshore dispute is a dispute as far as Ottawa is concerned. We have no dispute here.

The people of this Province and this government haveattempted to deal with this issue in a very rational, very forthright and a very honourable way. All we have asked is to have a significant say in the right of development and the sharing of revenues from that resource to no greater extent than that which would be enjoyed by any other Province in harvesting its natural resources. t-ie are not :-logking for any special handouts, any special considerations, we are just asking for equal treatment and t~at we could stand proud as equal Canadians in this great Confederation.

However, the political climate that presently a~ists in Ottawa will not permit that process to continue. So they have gone the route 8879

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3993 MJ - 2 MR. BARRETT: of trying to push this Province to its knees through withholding revenue, drying up revenue sources, changing agreements, failing to sign agreements, to force, fi nancially , this Province into making or agreeing to an inequitable deal with Ottawa regarding our offshore res ources. Further evidence of this s.i:tuation 8880

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 3994 NM - 1 MR. BARRETT: is more currently before us now with respect to our concerns about the federal government's position on the reallocation of the fish stocks from the Northeast Coast, the Northern cod stocks. This cod stock has been the lifeblood of the inshore fishery for this Province . It has been the source of the fish for our entire inshore fisheries. It has been well established without any question that Newfoundland has been the only province of this country that has ever had historic rights to that resource.

And now we find a situation prevailing where the federal government are again going to intercede and disperse great quantities of that resource to foreign fishing fleets and to other provinces of Canada, thereby negating any benefit that might otherwise accrue to the formation of the new fish company to take the place of Fishery Products, National Sea and Nickerson in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the resolution which was unanimously passed this afternoonatteststo the seriousness of this particular situat~on.

And again it is further evidence of the federal government's determination to drive this Province to its financial knees so its own interest can be best served,and try and have this Province agree to an offshore settlement that~~uld be injurious to the future of the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, in order to review some of the examples of the curtailment of funding it is necessary,obviously,that I must refer to some notes on this so I trust that that will be understood if I make significant reference to some of the information that has been compiled in this regard. 8881

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 3994 NM - 2 MR. BARRETT: Newfoundland lags behind the rest o£ the provinces and a considerable influx of federal funding is required to get us up to the levels of other provinces. An example of per capita expenditures in our sister Atlantic Provinces might well serve to illustrate some of my concerns on this particular matter. The most recent figures available, the years 1980 and 1981 and continued into 1982,show that the federal government expenditures in the Province of Nova Scotia were $4,490 per capita, increasinq in 1981 to $5,117 per capita. MR.

NEARY: Where did you get these figures? MR. BARRETT: The sources? Statistics canada- Okay? -a recognized statistical agency, I think, that even my gentleman friend across would agree is reasonably accurate. This annual increase is 14 per cent. The Province of Prince Edward Island: The per eapita expenditure in 1980 is $4,369 and in 19 .81 $4,914,for an annual increase of 12.5 per cent. New Brunswick saw a per capita .. expenditure in 1980 of $4,039; and in 1981 this '"as increased to $4,460, an annual increase of 10.4 percent. 8882

December 14, 1983 Tape 3995 PK - 1 MR. BARRETT: The final provincial illustration is Newfoundland:The per capita expenditure by ' the federal government in this Province in -1980 was $3,542 per person, in 1981, $3,822 for an annual increase of 7.9 per cent, half of the increase that was paid out in Nova Scotia. HR. CALLAN: That 7.9 per cent makes you solv~nt. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, on our knees again. No doubt about it. Grateful, grateful, grateful! Grateful, suffering , poor Newfoundlanders!

If Newfoundland were to have the same ~evel of expenditure per capita as Nova Scotia, federal spending in Newfoundland would have to increase by $750 million annually. That is the differential, that is the disparity, Mr. Speaker, between the per capita spending of the federal government in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia. Now,that is not ir. terms of real dollars that they spend, $750 million more in Nova Scotia than they do here, this is a per capita assessment. So the differential in population is accountable.

So just to do exactly the same thing per capita in this Province,we have a shortfall in revenue that would otherwise accrue to us if we were living in Nova Scotia. It is no different, we are still Canadians ,we are still on the Eastern Seaboard, we still have the same problems with transportation, we have the same problems with the inequities in schools and hospitals and all the other services. We are not trying to compare ourselves with Central Canada but a sister province,separated by ninety miles of water in the Gulf; we have a disparity- MR. CALLAN: Finety-six miles. MR. BARRETT: Not if you go to St.

Paul's Island - of some $750 million. Now , Mr. Speaker, that is 8883

December 14, 1983 Tape 3995 PK - 2 MR. BARRETT: rather startling and rather significant. And it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the same political stripe in this Province cannot get that message across. I mean, their constituents would also be beneficiaries, not just Conservative constituents in the many, many seats around thi .s Province that the Conservatives hold. How many do we have now? MR. TOBIN: Forty-five. MR. BARRETT: Forty-five and climbing. Now, Mr.

Speaker, even those people in those infrequent, sparcely located Liberal districts ' are the losers; they are the losers as well, because they should be sharing in this equalization. MR. TOBIN: Well said! Well said! MR. BARRETT: There is no question about that, it is all Newfoundlanders we are talking about. We are not talking about Conservative Newfoundlanders in St. John's West, we are talking about Liberal people who are living in MR. DAWE: Where? MR. OTTENHEIMER: MR. CALLAN: MR. BARRETT: Outside of the Overpass. In Bellevue area. In Bellevue? Yes, that is a good place. MR.

TOBIN: There are some Conservatives out there, too, I am told. The latest report is that there are not~ many Liberals out there. MR. CALLAN: They are all Tories in Bellevue itself. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, another illustration of some of the disparities that probably should also be recorded for -:the record. And maybe · someone in the press is also listening into this dialogue so that they can pick up and report the gross disparity that exists. The 8864

December 14, 1983 Tape 3995 P.K - 3 MR. BARRETT: expenditures by the Canadian Government for national defence. Now, is that not a nice one, e.h? Is that not a great one? The per capita expenditure in the Province of Nova Scotia, per capita expenditure, $736 a year; in Prince Edward Island $338 per person per year; in New Brunswick $262 per person a year. Anybody care to guess what Newfoundland's is? MR. TOBIN: MR. BARRETT: I would say about $1,000. Seventy-four dollars per person capital expenditure in this Province. SOME' BON. MEMBERS : MR. WARREN: with the Germans? MR. BARlmTT: Oh, oh!

Does that have anything to do I am talking about the Canadian Government expenditure, all right. MR. WARREN: MR. BARRETT: Oh, ~10! oh,ho! I am not talking about what the u.s. Forces spend going into New Brunswick, into Gagetown, or into Chatham, BBB5

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3996 MJ - 1 MR. BARRETT: I am talking about the Canadian Government. If you want to read the resolution,~e are talking about the inequities in expenditures by the federal government and this Province. MR. WARREN: Why do you not get the facts straight? MR. BARRETT: The facts are something that you have difficulty with, very, very great difficulty with facts. MR. TOBIN: to comprehend. MR. BARRETT: facts.

He has not got the ability You got some problems with This gross inequity again in this important part of our total Canadian economy, the flow of money from the federal Treasury to support national defence throughout all of Canada. We have a per capita expenditure in our sister province of $736 per person annually, in Newfoundland $74 per person. To bring Newfoundland to the level of Nova Scotia just in national defence spending alone 1 would require an extra $420 million into the Newfoundland economy. Now that is rather significant. We would even probably do something in Torngat Mountains if we had some money.

We would probably put in some water and sewer service, or we would probably be able -to look after the relocation of a settlement down there which is having some serious problems because of financing. MR. MARSHALL: Help the caribou population. MR. BARRETT: No, I am not going to talk about caribou today. These two illustrations, Mr. Speaker, are adequate to suggest all of the inequities that exist right now between this Province and the Province 8886

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3996 MJ - 2 MR. BARRETT: of Nova Scotia, our nearest sister province, with the same basic concerns, the same reliance on fishery, the same reliance on mining and farming and forestry. Here they are, the one case, we need $750 million annually in general federal funding to bring us up to their level,and I know their level is well below the rest of Canada, they will tell you that, but just to bring us up to that level we would require in federal funding $750 million extra into this Province, and in ·national defence spending alone, a $420 million differential. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is rather stagsering. MR. WARREN: I would say you are the one (inaudible) . MR. BARRETT: I have got enough problems now. There was another great scourge that should have been and was intended to be a great significant economic benefactor and that V:ras DREE. In 1968 the Government of Canada established DREE in response to the ever--increasing concern that certain areas of the country experienced continuing economic disparities despite the prosperity of the nation as a whole. Now1of course,that prosperity no longer prevails because th~s country is not prospering as a nation,as a whole.

The objective of DREE was to work in co-operation with the Province in designing proqrarnrnes to stimulate economic growth and development -okay? -to encoura~e economic expansion in areas in Canada where the growth of employment and income had been lagging--no problem, we are all for it.-to assist in the social adjustment required to enable people of an area to take advantage of any new opportunity created -no problem, we are in total agreement to provide incentives to industry to assist them in creatingand increasing employment opportunities in slow growth 8887

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3996 MJ - 3 MR. BARRETT : areas of the country - we fully agree, we are part of it. Since 1974 a total of twenty­ two subsidiary agreements authorizing expenditures of $630 million have been concluded for this Province. Wonderful stuff! However, it is important to note that sixteen of these agreements were signed between 1974 and 1978,leaving 8888

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3997 ah - 1 MR. BARRETT: only six agreements signed in the five ensuing years, six. In fact, in 1980 and again in 1982, there were no agreements signed at all·, none, absolutely none. DREE expenditures in Newfoundland rose in current dollars from $31.2 million in 1971-72 to $76 million in 1979-80. After that, however, expenditures fell drastically. In fact, in 1982-83 only $34.9 mi~lion was spent by DREE in Newfoundland.

In terms of real dollars, to compare with 1971-72, we would have had to have had $135 million to equate to the same level of spending in 1982-83 as was allowed in 1971-72, a further illustration of the federal government's overhanded attitude towards trying to bring this Province economically to its knees, not the provincial government, not the Province, we are talking about people, we are talking about individuals, we are talking about constituents in your district as well as in mine. These are the people that are suffering from this. MR. TULK: You are a poor negotiator. Have you ever considered the agreements?

MR. BARRETT: are a sufferer. I am a poor negotiator and you How often have you gone to Ottawa to talk to your cronies up there, your buddies up there, your red Liberals up there? How long have you talked to your red Liberals up there to get DREE funding increased? MR. TULK: Longer than you have. AN HON. MEMBER: You did a poor job of negotiating in Terra Nova. MR. BARRETT: It is absolute~y essential, Mr. Speaker, that these trends be reversed if progress is to be made in reducing the magnitude in disparities between this Province and the rest of the nation.

Such a commitment to overcoming these disparities is required 8889

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 3997 ah - 2 MR. BARRETT: and must be allowed to prevail. We just cannot, Mr. Speaker, allow this continuous erosion to continue. Mr. Speaker, we have several other illustrations here: The recent reductions in the established programmes financing arrangements, EPF transfers, a subject that has been hot off the press in recent days. Mr.

Speaker, in established programme funding - I am getting my notes all sorted out here now - we have seen three major reductions occur in recent months; the elimination of the revenue guarantee component, the capping of post- secondary education, and the population adjustment. The population adjustment we cannot do anything about. However, these are three major areas of reduction that have been introduced into EPF financing transfers. The elimination of the.revenue guarantee component saw the compensation introduced in 1977 for integration of hospital insurance into EPF.

This was eliminated in 1982 and the revenue loss for the period, $123 million - $123 million lost as a result of the elimination of the revenue guarantee component. On the capping of post-secondary education, which was introduced in April 1983, the six and five guidelines were applied, future growth rates were not specified and we have a revenue loss from EPF transfer funding in this particular section, as a result of the capping of post- secondary education, of $21 million; $123 million as it relates to hospital programmes, $21 million as it relates to 8890

• December 14, 1983 Tape 3998 EC - l MR. BARRETT: post~secondary education, Mr. Speaker, a very, very significant short fall in re~enues to this Province as a result of these amendments and changes to the EPF transfer arrangements, If one were to project the loss of revenue for the next five years or for the five year period from 19 .82 to 19 .87 ,the direct cumulative loss to this .Province would be -$144 million as a result of adjustments made to the EPF programme. Mr.

Speaker, I think that these illustrations, $144 million lost from EPF transfers, $75Cl mi.llion annual .-· deficiency in federal government expenditures in this Province compared with our sister Province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, $420 million deficiency in the expenditures by the federal government's National Defence programme in this Province as it relates to Nova Scoti& very, very significant figures, Mr. Speaker, ill-afforded by a Province which cannot get control, which cannot get a significant say, not only in its offshore, not only in the vast resources offshore in petroleum products, Mr.

Speaker, but an ever-eroding control with respect to our fishery as well. Thank you very much. SOME HON . MEMBERS : Hear, hear ! MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Dr. McNi cholas): The hon. the membe r for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the devil quotes scripture to suit himself. I think what has been left out of the member's speech would boggle the mind. Mr. Speaker, this resolution embodies the line of the goverrr~ent, the Pec kford line, 8891

December 14, 1983 Tape .3998 EC ~ 2 MR. HODDER: more than anything else I have seen. As a matter of £act, it might have been written by the Premier himself, given his habit of answering any letter that turns up in the public press, and I am quite sure he writes every resolution for members opposite. ~~- Speaker, I have said before that a shrewd negotiator uses what he has to mqke the biggest gain. He does not take the attitude that 'You have everything, we have nothing; you are trying to put us down and punish us.

And I think some of the words in this resolution ~ I think the words 'punish Newfoundland' is in that resolution, 'deliberate decision to penalize the people of Newfoundland', to penalize or punish. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has ever had any experience in negotiating would never make bigger gains by starting with a chip on his shoulder. You know, it would be interesting, Mr.

Speaker, if this government were to put on a course in negotiating skills for themselves or better still, for some professor to study the negotiations that have been going on between this government and the federal government and then to relate those negotiations to how proper negotiations should be carried out and do a little study on it. It would be a fine doctoral thesis for a political scientist or for a person who is training in negoti~ting skills. Mr. Speaker, some people have skills in negotiations, some people do not.

We do not approach someone who has the same interests as ours with a chip on our shoulders. We negotiate as equals and we play our weaknesses into strengths. That is 8892

December 14, 1983 Tape 3998 EC - 3 MR. HODDER: acceptable within the Canadian federation. It is acceptable in the Canadian federation, Mr. Speaker, to dispute the policies of the federal goverrun .ent, to dispute policies of a sister province i£ they conflict with what we, ourselves believe, or i£ they conflict with our interests, but we must do it withL'l the framework of Confederation. We will. neve .r do it by convincing people, the people of Newfoundland, that the federal government is out to get them. Now, I have said two things: I have said, one, that we must negotiate properly.

We must negotiate from strength and we must not negotiate with a chip on our shoulder. But the second thing is that we cannot negotiate in good faith with another government 8893

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 3999 NM - 1 MR. HODDER: when the atmosphere becomes so tense that our general populations start to dislike each other,and I refer to the resolution today. If you extrapolate that particular resolution, which shows more than anything else the government's thinking, if you extrapolate that resolution into a negotiating stance I say, Mr. Speaker, it is an incorrect one. It is an incorrect philosophy on which to base negotiations with Ottawa on any basis. Mr. Speaker, when I speak of the rousing up of our populations when \"le negotiate "Tith Ottawa I think back to the Day of Mourning.

Now,the Day of Mourning in itself was something which was formulated to get the troops on side. It backfired,but it was formulated to ensure that the people of Newfoundland would have the desired hate for the federal government and their policies that would give this government some political points with the people. But,also,arnongst the general population,we went to the "1orst sic'lP. of people's natures, they are going to take something from us. We did not stand up and say, "We are going to get this." We did not give a positive image. This is the negotiation stance.

During the Constitution Debate, whic l1 was only held here a couple of years, one of the things that this government did again was to go down and rouse up the population. And the Premier carne on television and he said that they could take our church schools and that they could take our Labrador boundary. Well,when I first heard that I thought, well,this is just terrible. I mean,no Newfoundlander will ever stand for the Labrador boundary being taken, in particular. And of course the churches, including some churches who did not 88 9 '~

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 3999 NM - 2 MR. HODDER: have any guarantees in the Terms of Unions, did not have one guarantee, got ver y upset. Letters were coming to us from religions, teachers, and lay people, and religions that were not even guaranteed in the Terms of Union. But people were roused up again so that the Premier could charge off and fight his battle with Ottawa with the Province behind him. Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Minister of Employment and I~'Tli("l'ration (r-1:!:". Axworthy) was negotiating with me over something in my district I think we would stand as equals.

If I were on weak ground I would try to make my stand as firm as possible and I would go to my people and say these are the tools we have and I would try to work out the best negotiation possible. If the hon. gentleman has read history and looked at some of the great figures in histor~ they have been able to negotiate with very little and get a lot for their countries. But they have never been able to do it by fighting. The only way they have been able to do it by fighting is to go to war. You have to go all the way.

But what the negotiation stance of this government has been since these issues have come upon us, it has been one of confrontation and it has alSo been one of trying to stir up the general popular in whatever way possible,and sometimes ··-- . - not in nice ways,as I think of the church/school issue, but to stir up the populus. And that, Mr . Speaker, is the seed of separatism. When we use issues in the Province to fight other issues,that is the seed of separatism. 8895

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4000 ~_J - 1 MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Premier did a poll and the question of ~bility to negotiate were asked that the Premier would play very low on that particular issue. PREMIER PECKFORD: lffi. HODDER: and unless - P~~UER PECKFORD: MR. HODDER: I am sorry, you are ~>~rang again. Mr. Speaker, I am not wrong We had a poll done on that. Well 1you better sh.Ow it to us. But, Mr. Speaker, never before in this House has such a monumental piece of hypocrisy come before the House.

The Province is crumbling around our ears, the House of Assembly has been open a for quite some time now, it is an expensive exercise 1 and we are faced with blatant, categorical politics. Mr. Speaker, this is a political resolution, resolution again aimed at knocking Ottawa between the eyes. Mr. Speaker, that is not the negotiating stance that we should have at the present time.

Out of all of the resolutions that were placed on the Order Paper this year, this particular resolution is the most diabolical, 'that the Government of Canada is punishing us deliberately, has made a deliberate decision to penalize the people of the Province~ How can we, Mr. Speaker, ever negotiate with a chip on our shoulder? It will never work. Mr. Speaker, I would like to present an amend~ent ~o this particular motion, to amend the motion by striking out allthe words before 'NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED' and replace it by adding 'That this House urge the provincial and federal governments to return to the Canadian approach of co-operative federalism,' s~conded by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary). 8696

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4000 MJ - 2 MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas) : There is an amendment before the House to amend the motion ~y striking out all the words before 'NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED' and replace it by adding, 'That this House urges the provincial and federal governments to return to the Canadian approach of co-operative federalism.' MR. RIDEOUT: MR. SPEAKER: Verte -White Bay. MR. RIDEOUT: }lf..r. Speaker. The han. the member for Baie Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the amendment that is proposed here by the han. gentleman for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) negates the intention of the original resolution and I point out to you, in particular,the fourth

WHEREAS says, 'WHEREAS the Prov~ncial Government has tried every means at its disposal during the past several months to improve Federal/Provincial relations and sign cost shared agreements;' and then it goes on to say, 'THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of Canada to reverse its present policy and to return to the Canadian approach of co-operative federalsim.' Now,the amendment urges both provincial and federal governments to return to the Canadian approach of co-operative federalism. I would submit to, Your Honour, that 8897

December 14,1983 Tape No. 4001 ah-1 MR. RIDEOUT: the intent of the resolution is such that the Province is willing, able and has proven that it follows the course of co-operative federalism but that the federal government has not,and to try to insert in the amendment the bllring of both governments with the same brush I would submit, Sir, negates the intention of the resolution and is therefore out of order. MR.HODDER: MR.SPEAKER (Dr.McNicholas ): To that point of order. To 'that point of order the hon. member for Port Au Port. MR.HODDER: Mr.

Speaker, that is not so_ ~t does not negate the intention at ali, all it does is add one more. We have had many amendments in this House sine~ private members' motions were put on the floor this year. Concerning this particular resolution I would point out to Your Honour that I did check this out with the appropriate authorities and - MR. RIDEOUT: I did too. MR.HODDER: We have a right to the lawyers at the bmle as well as you do , you know6 We checked it out and they told us that this particular motion would be in order, Mr. Speaker. We looked at it very carefully,as we always do.

I would refer the Speaker back to amendments which have been made throughout this session. There have been a number of amendments made throughout this session and you will find, Your Honour, that this is the same as almost all of the amendments which were made when we sat last and throughout this particular session and through last year's session. There have been quite a number of amendments and we have all done them on the same basis. And as I say, Your Honour, two lawyers have said that this is in order. I checked 8898

December 14,1983 TApe No. 4001 ah-2 MR.HODDER: it with them first. MR.SPEAKER (Dr McNicholas ): To that point of order. I will recess the House for a few moments to look into the matter. RECESS MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) Order, please! The hon. member for Port ~u Port (Mr. Hodder) brought in an amendment to the resolution from the member for St. John's West (Mr. Barrett) and we have reviewed the resolution and find that it is in order. Port au Port. MR. NEARY: · ruling. MR.HODDER: The hon. the member for A good ruling, an excellent Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, it just shows how good the expert from Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr. Rideout) is. MR.NEARY: Get the House Leader back. MR.HODDER: Well,the Premier was agreeing with him and the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter),so they obviously have a lot to learn, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, as I was saying the amendment?uts some sense to the memb~r's resolution and I would call on the governmentmernbers to support .out amendment because one of the problems is that federal/ provincial relations have soured in the past two or three years and a return to the Canadian approach of co-operative federalism is certainly desired. ~he approach to Canadian federalism which has been practiced by this 8699

December 14,1983 Tape No. 4001 ah-3 MR.HODDER: governmentt Mr. Speaker, we have seen examples of ministers coming down from Ottawa with money in their pockets , millions of dollars, and the provincial government -sending a deputy minister down to pick it up rather than to t_ake the money as is normal protocol in different provinces. Mr. Speaker, in the past years we have a number of general development agreements, subsidary agreements. In May of 1981, there was a Coiistal Labrador agreement,which is a six year agreement and expires in March 1987 1 for $389 million • That agreement , Mr.

Speaker, is for building roads and airstrips throughout the Northe .rn part of our Province where they a~e so badly needed. I happened to travel in that area this Summer and it is sometimes difficult to realize how advantaged we are here living on the· Island, and how disadvantaged the people on the Coast of Labrador are ~ " 8900

December 14, 1983 Tape 4002 PK - 1 MR. HODDER: And when I returned, after the agreement, I had visited there previously, it was to see the work that has taken place there to make their lives a little better, to transport their food a little more cheaply. That was only $38.9 million. The pulp and paper modernization agreement was $33 million, which expires in March 1985. There was an industrial development agreement; .

Phase one was parks for $17.8 million, it runs to 1988; the institute of marine technology,which is certainly not one that was given to Nova Scotia- I do not ~ know if the hon. member there was taking .in the little agreements like the institute of marine technology~which was signed in June 1983 and runs to March 1987, for $42.3 million. High~ays agreements under special recovery programme: :tr. Speaker , you kno\11, our Trans-Canada Highway is a provincial responsibility.

But $44 million,which covered the Manuel's Bypass, the Trans­ Labrador Highway, separate agreements for the TCH, signed in January 1982 1for $48 million,which expires in Harch 1985. An .. amendment to the forestry subsidiary agreement, that was an amendment of $8.7 million; and the Arctic vessel marine research institute at ~4emorial University signed in July 1981, valued at $6 million. But, Mr.

Speaker, when you consider the input of job creation dollars into this Province, if you look at the input of job creation dollars anywhere in the Province,the provincial government,I thinkrlast year put in some $30 million,it was some one-third of the amount of job creation dollars put in under one programme that the federal government put it. They did put in some $30 million last year. I believe I may be high on that figure. But, Mr. Speaker, these amounts 8901

December 14, 1983 Tape 4002 PK - 2 MR. HODDER: of money are placed in areas where there is the highest unemployment and still we have the highest unemployment. But , Mr. Speaker, the millions and millions and millions of dollars that have come in for job creation projects 1and we can criticize some of the job creation projects that have existed,but it is certainly good when you go into a small community and you see that their wharf was done through Canada Works or their community centre or their local slipway or whatever it happens to be.

It provided employment, and in many areas of this Province it saved the rural areas. But, Mr. Speaker, we hear nothing of this. And I agree with the hon. member opposite, we do not get on our knees and beg for more and say thank you, Mr. Ottawa. No. I do not agree with that at all.

I think we should negotiate with Ottawa to get as much as we possibly can but we cannot, on the one hand, say - and perhaps I forgot the most important agreement of all,which the Premier hailed as the greatest agreement since Confederation,that of the restructuring of the fisheries -but we cannot,onthe one hand, at one moment say this is a wonderful agreement, the greatest since Confederation, ~nd then the next day slam the federal government for something else. Mr.

Speaker, I remember the Shoe Cove incident, and one of the problems there was the capability of the Shoe Cove installation to track icebergs, and the government made such a fuss about that that a minister of the government organized a demonstration against Ottawa. It was not spontaneous by the p'eople, it was organized by a minister of government who went up there and said, 'Boys, let us demonstrate against that'. Now, Mr. Speaker, we hear that there is a new aircraft which is being ..... 8902

December 14, 1983 Tape 4002 PK - 3 MR . HODDER: developed which will be better to look at the flow of the icebergs, the direction of the icebergs, and even the smaller icebergs which could never be discovered before, and it is the type of machinery that we need .. But no one at the time the Shoe Cove institute closed down,on that side,in the government would give the Government of Canada any kind of credit at all " , and it was ·seen as just an issue ·.~ ·Now things are being done which will improve the type cf faci~ity, and we will have a better facility to do what Shoe Cove could not do; Shoe Cove could not see through fog, it was an antiquated observatory system. 890 3

December 14, 1983 Tape 4003 EC p 1 MR. HODDER: And when things are antiquated ana out of touch and there are newer technologies being developed, then we have to take our lumps and wait until something comes into place. And besides that, Mr. Speaker, at that particular time there was all sorts of indication that the ordinary satellite systems were providing just as much data as the Shoe Cove one was. But that, Mr. Speaker, is the type o£ rhetoric that we ~£rom this government.

So I go back again to what I said originally, that i£ we are to negotiate with the federal government, then we must do it with our backs firm and with confidence and pride, not with a chip on our shoulders. And the resolution p you have told me that I have just a minute left - the resolution that was presented here today embodies tfie type of negotiation - when you negotiate, you have to negotiate from somewhere. If you negotiate from strength, from a sense of pride, then we will do well, but when yo.u negotiate with a chip on your shoulder then, Mr.

Speaker, I contend that we will get nowhere with that, particularly if we try to alienate our Province against Ottawa. That is not co-operative federalism, we are only sowing the seeds of separatism. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Dr. McNicholas): Burin - Placentia West. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. TOBIN: The hon. the member for Hear, hear! Thank you, Mr~ Speaker. I would like to make a few comments regarding this resolution, so ably presented by my colleague from the district of St. John's West (Mr. Barrett). It is a good resolution but an unfortunate one.

What we are witnessing here today is a resolution 8904

December 14, 1983 Tape 4003 EC - 2 MR. TOBIN: where we have to stand in this House of Assembly as elected representatives of the people throughout the Province and condemn the -Government of Canada for deliberately trying to penalize the Province for its actions on the people's behalf , the duly elected provincial government. Mr. Speaker, I can say, since my short time in politics and for the many years that I served as an elected representative to the people of Marystown as a councillor and involved at the municipal level on the Burin Peninsula, that _things have drastically changed. We look at the fisheries.

The resolution which was moved by the Premier today and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Irr. Neary) after, ~~r. ST_)eaker, it took the Leader of the ~~ociition and the Liberal Party of this Province seven or eight days to make up their minds on whether or not they supported the people of Newfoundland as it related to the Northern cod stocks, whether or not, Mr.

Speaker, they wanted the ~le in the plants in this Province, on the unemployment rolls, as \·Te have seen so often in the past, whether or not the Liberal Party in this Province wanted to see that 1 whether they were going to stand by and let it happen, or ~rhether or not they ;.rere going to support this government. It took them days, Mr. Speaker, to make up their minds. The fisheries in this Province indeed plays a vital role, it is the backbone to the rural growth of this Province.

The fisheries have gone through some very trying times in the past and now, as things beginto shape up, as the fisheries begin to take their place in the Province, we see a deliberate attempt once again by the Government of Canada to penalize the fisheries: to penalize the fishermen, 8905

December 14, 1983 Tape 4003 EC - 3 MR. TOBIN: to penalize the fish plant workers, to penalize the growth of this Province by trying to put in place our fish, Mr. Speaker, the Northern cod off Newfoundland, which has been so vital to the 8906

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 4004 NM - l MR. TOBIN: inshore fishery in this Province and over the past number of years has been so vital to the deep-sea fishery in this Province. Now for some mysterious reason the federal government wants to allocate this fish to foreigners, or give a share of this fish to anyone else except Newfoundlanders. Well, I would say that is regrettable and again I believe it is a deliberate attempt by the federal government to see Newfoundlanders on their knees, and we as Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker, cannot permit it to happen. What is going to happen, Mr.

Speaker, if the federal government g~t th~ir WaY? If its wish to sock it to Newfoundlanders is allowed to happen, the people in this Province will be unemployed. I will predict, Mr. Speaker, · that we will have more unemployment in the fishing industry in this Province next year,as a result of the actions of the federal government, than we have had in the past, and Heaven knows we have had our share , \'le have had enough.

But if the federal government are permitted to go ahead with their plans to sock it to the Newfoundland fisheries,we will have more unemployment in the fishing industry in this Province than we have had in the past year. And I further state ~ that the deep-sea fishery in this Province had been traditionally . fished on the Grand Banks for years. Mr. Speaker, through the efforts of all the foreign vessels that came in and poured down on the Grand Banks,we have witnessed the depletion of the fish stocks on the Grand Banks faster than anywhere else, thanks to the foreigners, Mr. Speaker.

Then the federal government - I give credit Mr. Speaker, to a good Ne~foundlander, . a statesman, the hon. Don Jamieson. In !1is day he interceded with the federal government, through the efforts of this House, I might add, and the 200 mile limit was brought into place. But what happened to the Nose and Tail of the Bank, 8907

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 4004 NM - 2 MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker,the spawning grounds for the fish that come to the Grand Banks? What happened to that resource? What happened to the Flemmish Cap? Why was the 200 mile limit not extended beyond so it could include both the Tail and Nose of the Banks and also the Flemmish Cap? Mr. Speaker, we can look at all of this. The federal government has not been, and I suggest Mr.

Speaker, rhat they will not be as long as the Prime Minister of this country and his cohorts from Quebec are in the federal government, as long as they exist the Government of Newfoundland, the people of Newfoundland will never benefit to the extent that they should, to the extent that they should become equal partners in this Confederation. Unles~ these people are replaced, and I think that whenever they get the courage to call a federal election that will happen - MR. WARREN: Sit down, boy. You are making a fool of yourself. MR. TOBIN: Mr.

Sp~aker, if there <;;as either fool ever came into this House it is the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. PEACH: MR. TOBIN: MR. PEACH: MR. WARREN' MR. PEACH: pronunciation. He is not leadership material now. He is not leadership material'? No. And it is Torngat, not Torngate. You would never know by his 8908

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 4004 NM - 3 MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we can look at the Marystown Shipyard as an example, a shipyard that is owned by the Government of Newfoundland, that has been supported by the Government of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, for years. If ever there was a need to have the shipyard in Marystown ·brought into the mainstream, Mr. Speaker, of federal work it is right now. We have heard, Mr.

Speaker, the Canadian Press carry stories o.ut of Ottawa where the federal government has announced programmes for the ship building industry from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, but we have in Marystown, Mr. Speaker, a good shipyard, recognized internationally for the workmanship that takes place there, we have that in Marystown and yet the federal government in their wisdom have not seen fit to give one ounce o£ work to the Marystown Shipyard. Mr. Speaker, the federal government have not seen fit to put one iota, one ounce of work in the Marystown Shipyard.

The last contract for new construction at the Marystown Shipyard was given when the Prime Minister of Canada was the Right Han. Joe Clark and the Minister of Fisheries was Jim McGrath. That is the last time that the Marystown Shipyard has gotten one ounce o£ work £rom the federal government. And yet, Mr. Speaker, in the past 8909

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4005 MJ - 1 MR. TOBIN: number of months, particularly in the past year _, they have spent millions upon millions of dollars in the construction of new ships throughout Canada but not one cent have they put into the Marystown Shipyard. MR. WARREN: MR. TOBIN: No federal money at all? That is, Mr. Speaker, total lack of representation of the area and,furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt the contempt that the federal government holds for Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders. MR. WARREN: No federal money at all? MR. TOBIN: Not for new construction, Mr.

Speaker, not one cent. We can look at Nova Scotia with millions of dollars being pumped into it, we can look at the shipvard in PEI, .in Gage Town, I telieve. PREHIER PECKFORD: A boat for my cistrict. MR. TOBIN: That is right. I bel±eve the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, was just up there to christen one. We can look at the shipyards all througho~t Ca~ada, Mr. Soeaker, in British Columbia, in Quebec ships pounding out, and not one cent are the federal government putting into new construction in Newfoundland. MR. WARREN: Anything in repairs? MR. TOBIN: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of repairs it is basically the same, very, very little are they putting into the Marystown shipyard. And,futhermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government do not call public tenders for construction of new 3hips. They do not call public tenders for construction of ships, Mr. Speaker, and that clearly emphasizes the contempt that they have for Newfoundland 8910

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4005 MJ - 2 MR. TOBIN: and Newfoundlanders. Mr. Speaker, I sat in the House today when questions were being directed at my colleague and good friend, ·the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe), one of the very able parliamentarians, one of the best constituency men that this Province has ever produced - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, if you sit in his office, spend a few hours with him during the week it is a little bit strange that he receives more telephone calls from the district of LaPoile than he does ~the district of St. George's. MR.

NEARY: It is right that he took you at public expense out to his opening the other day,took vou and his buddies and his friends and his family at public expense? HR. RIDEOUT: MR. NEARY: at public expense. MR. TOBIN: Why did you not go out there? I was out there. I did not go And I can tell the han. member, Mr. Speaker, that my visit to the LaPoile district is not too far away either,with the hon. the member for St. George's (Mr. Dawe), because it is my understanding that both of us have probably been invited to attend some functior.s in the han. member's district. I have got some great friends, ~x.

Speaker, in the district of LaPoile. I have got some great friends in Isle aux Morts, Rose Blanche, Margaree. We can go on and on, t~r. Speaker. We can waltz through the district of LaPoile, myself and my han. colleague. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : the member for Bellevue. A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of order, the han. 8911

"" December ~4, l983 Tape No. 4005 MJ- 3 MR. CALLAN: Mr . Speaker, we are all well aware of how ignorant of the rules of the House .the hon. the gentleman from Burin {Mr. Tobin) is,however,he must realize that talking about the district of LaPoile or any district has nothing to do with the motion that is before the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER {Aylward): Order, please!

To that point of order I would remind the hon. the member for Burin - Placentia West that we are discussing an amendment to the resolution, 'That this House urge the provincial and federal government:s to return to the Canadain approach of co-operative federalism', and he should relate his remarks to that. MR. TOBIN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. That was exactly the point I was getting at, Mr. Speaker, when I was referring to the hon. rneMher's rlist rict· There happens to be a magnificent bridge there that was built by the 8912

December 14, 1983 Tc;ipe 4006 PK - 1 MR. TOBIN: federal and provincial governments through the effort of my colleague, the Iiinister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe). That is exactly the point I was getting at. MR. WARREN: What about the ferry? Are we going to get our ferry back? MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speake-r, if you want to talk about ferries I certainly can talk about ferries and address totally ,the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I can speak of ferries, Mr. Speaker, when myself and my colleague,the Minister of Transportation,spent days, Mr. Speaker, last year in Placentia Bay - the hen. Minister of Transportation, Mr.

Speaker, spent hours upon hours regarding ferries when the federal government wanted to put the shaft to the people of Placentia Bay. Through the efforts of my colleague and through the efforts of people such as my good friend in the galleries today,that was not permitted to happen. No credit , Mr. Speaker, is directed to the federal government. No credit whatspever. MR. WARREN: ferry you were talking about. MR. TOBIN: No, it was not the Springdale If you want to talk about ferries, Mr.

Speaker, if you want to speak about ferries, you should realize the torture that the people of Placentia Bay were put through last year by the actions or inactions of the federal government. That is where ferries come in, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: That is where the shaft of the federal government was issued. HR. WARREN: bad either. 8913 Your buddy did not do too

December 14, 1983 Tape 4006 PK - 2 MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, because of the g~ption of the people of Placentia Bay - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAI,ER (Avlward): Order, please! MR. TOBIN: - of Petite Forte, Mr. Speaker, Southeast Bight and Little Paradise,because these people united · and fought the shaft that was directed their way by the federal. government, and, I might further add, Mr. Speaker, - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TOBIN: - I might further add, ·Mr. Speaker, aided and abetted by the Liberal Party of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Mr.

Speaker, when my hon. colleague wanted to address a petition that I presented in this House on behalf of the people of Petite Forte it was the Liberal Party that tried to stiffle me and would not let that bon. gentleman, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) 1 utter one word in support of the people of Petite Forte. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker. MR. WARREN: (Inaudible) $1.6 million, 'i/hy did he not use that? MR. TOBIN: If you want to talk about ferries , Mr. Speaker, we will talk about them all day. SOME HON. MEMBERS : On, oh! MR.

TOBIN: That is what happened to the ferry .. system in Placentia Bay. ferries in this Province. MR. CALLAN: That is what happened to the Your time is up. MR. DAWE: And now the Province has taken over the whole coastal service. MR. TOBIN: That is right. The Province has taken over the whole coastal boat service. If it had not been for the people 8914

December 14, 1983 Tape 4006 PK - 3 MR. TOBIN: of Southeast Bight, Petite Forte and Little Paradise last year,with the support of myself and my han. colleague,the people of Petite Forte today would be_totally isolated, Mr . Speaker. MR. WARREN: MR. TOBIN: Not true! Not true! Not true! They put on a ferry system that was totally inadequate, not acceptable to the·people, nor should have been acc~ptable to the people, and they tried to say, this is it, this is what you must put up with. No, Mr.

Speaker, the people of Petite Forte and Southeast Bight and Little Paradise told the federal government where to go,and the Department of Transport 1and so they should, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, you talk about relationships, federal/provincial relationships. Well, I would say as it relates to the ferry system ~n _P~ac~ntia Bay 1 and the inadequacY of the ferry system that existed there last yea~ -it would not have been a worry if the Liberal Party in this Province had to get their way and had moved everyone from Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, to St.

John's or some other urban setting in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TOBIN. II Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened. That is what happened under the resettlement programme in this Province. MR. YOUNG: Shame! MR. WARREN: Who moved them _back to l1erasheen? SOME HO~. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: I did not know, Mr. Speaker, that anyone moved back to Merasheen. I.ffi.. WARREN: You did not know that? 8915

t. December 14, 1983 Tape 4006 PK - 4 MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon . member wants to taLk about Placentia Bay let us talk about Placentia Bay and where the people live . If you want to know where people moved,they moved to Red Island and not to Merasheen Island. They moved to Red Island and not to Merasheen Island, Mr. Speaker. SOME BON . MEMBERS : Oh, oh! 8916

Decemner 14, 1983 Tape 4007 EC ~ 1 .MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is the contention of this government, and it has been, that if people want to live where they were born and bred, where they take pride in living, where their families live, where they can make a living, Mr. Speaker, they have every right to live there! That is the attitude of this governrnent .- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: - unlike the policies nne philoso~~ies of the Liberal Governnent uho v1ent domt and flashed dollars c.t the feople. rm.. YO~!G: Tl!O thousanc1 dollars and move them out.

Bouaht their souls for $2,000 and noved then out. MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. The lack of spending, Mr. Speaker, in this Province: We heard my colleague when he introduced the resolution, speak of the per capita dollars that are spent throughout the Maritime Provinces, Atlantic Canada - National Defence, $736 per person in Nova Scotia: in Prince Edward Island, $338 per person: and in New Brunswick, $262 per person. And why, Mr.

Speaker, in Newfoundland, do the federal govern~ent in National Defence have to give us $74 per person which, Mr. Speaker, is in excess of 600 per cent less than they are receiving in Nova Scotia? Mr. Speaker, that is bad enough, that the federal government would treat the people of this Province with that type of contempt, that is bad enough, but when the Liberal Party in this Province, Mr. Speaker, so few in number, when they stand by and let this happen, that is what is regrettable. 8917

December 14, 1983 Tape 4007 EC - 2 MR. TOBIN: And the day shouid come and will come, Mr. Speaker - they did not get the message the last election and they did not get the message last week in Terra Nova, but when the next election is called they will get the message. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the resolution in its totality as presented by my hon. colleague, is a good one and it is unfortunate that the Opposition has tried to stifle it. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : MR. CALLAN: Thank you very much. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hon. the member for Bellevue. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this resolution. The member who just took his seat - and he did take his own seat for a change, he is usually sitting in everybody else's -but the member who just took his seat, Mr. Speaker, finished his few remarks by saying, 'It is a good resolution.' Mr. Speaker, it should not be necessary, and it is silly and ridiculous for a backbencher on the government side to have to bring in a resolution such as this one, asking and urging the Government of Canada to reverse its present policy and to return . to the Canadian approach to co-operative federalism. What nonsense!

What nonsense! We have heard, of course, of the cap-in-hand approach that this Province has had to take, and so on. Mr. Speaker, what did the people in Terra Nova district have to do? Did they have to take a cap-in-hand approach in order to have any chance of getting any of their own tax dollars? From 1975, Mr. Speaker, up until the present day, not one inch of pavement was put in the district of Terra Nova, not one inch! And then the Premier goes out 8918

December 14, 1983 Tape 4007 EC - 3 .MR. CALLAN: with his cohorts and they threaten the people in Terra Nova and they say to them, 'I f you want any of your tax dollars back in paved roads or whatever - t-1R. MORGAN : (Inaudible) in the by-election out there. MR. CALLAN: He contributed to ·it, he was one o£ the contributing factors.

But I can tell you one thing, the Pxemier can have his head in the air all he wants to, but one thing is quite clear, that the Premier's presence out in Terra Nova in no way influenced the voters in that district, they voted to have a man on the government side because they were coerced and they were threatened just as the people in the district of Bellevue were in the by -election in Bellevue . But the only thing that happened in 8919

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4008 MJ - 1 MR. CALLAN: the only thing that happened in Bellevue that was different from Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker, is that there were not as many people in the district of Bellevue who wanted the paved roads. The people who wanted it,they voted Tory, they voted in accordance with the threatening letter that they got, 'Vote Tory or you get little or nothing.' But the people in Arnold's Cove and Swift Current and North Harbour and Garden ·cove and Dildo and Whitbourne and Norman's Cove ·and Chapel Arm and Chance Cove and Come By Chance, these areas, Mr.

Speaker, had no reason to vote for the government because they had their paved roads, most of it, of course,thanks to the former Liberal administration. But getting back to this resolution Mr. Speaker, calling on the Government ·of Canada to be rrore friendly with this Province, what silly nonsense! We have had ministers and we have had MPs come down from Ottawa ready to hand over millions of dollars to ministers in this Province and they refused - and the Premier is a shining example - refused to go to a certain site for the signing because, because it-~ not the seat of government or some such silly nonsense.

Talk of co-operative federalism, Mr. Speaker, the ~rs opposite, the members of this government have no idea what the word means, co-operating. How do they co-operate with us? The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) was in Clarenville a couple of weeks ago, met with a delegation and told them because they were from the district of Bellevue, well,it is not likely you will get any money for pavement because you feed your own family first.

In other word~,if thereare any crumbs left from the table we will give it to you, sure, c~t you can be pretty sure that all of the bread will be spread around the other forty-five districts in this Province and there is very little chance. 8920

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4008 MJ - 2 MR. CALLAN: This is the attitude of this government, Mr. Speaker., It is the Premier who leads it off and his ministers fall in line and they do the same thing 1 and they parrot the same phrases. Here we have this same government calling on the federal government in Ottawa to be nice and to be generous when they,themselves, have no idea how to practice what they are preaching to Ottawa. My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is natural and it is obvious, clean up your own act, first.

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in Ottawa's eye, look at the splinter that is in your own first, or in both eyes. ~use obviously you are blinded and cannot see 1 you cannot see any further than your own noses. And then they talk about how Ottawa is treating us unfairly. What silly nonsense! Mr. Speaker, when the member for St. John • s West (Mr. Barrett) was -. quoting figures just now he was quoting convenient figures. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder what state of affairs ~ost of the people of this Province would be in, what kind of homes would they be living in if it was not for many of the federal programmes, the rural RRAP programmes that repair their houses,and the rural and remote programmes that repair their houses and,of course,the 50 per cent and the 60 per cent and the 90 per cent funding that comes from 0ttawa and is administered through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and other agencies in this Province '?

And 1of course, we have the make work programmes, the NEED programme, the latest one,where people were earning $200 a week at least, $800 a month. If they were not getting employment cin-:these projects they would have been on Welfare- again 50 per cent funded by Ottawa .- they would be living on vlelfare with many fewer dollars to spend for their families and to heat and 8921

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4009 IB-1 MR. CALLAN: light their houses. So, Mr. Speaker, my response, as I said, is simple to this resolution. We had a resolution or a motion earlier today as well. The Premier (Mr. Peckford)_ mentioned a few days ago about the Northern cod. The Premier, Mr. Speaker, was carrying on the exact same fight with Ottawa when he was insulting the hon.-James McGrath,saying he was not as good a Fisheries Minister as Romeo LeBlanc. James McGrath said the Northern cod is a national resource.

So nothing has changed, The characters may have changed but the one character that has not changed, of course, is the Premier and he is referred to as a fighter. He is more of an actor, Mr. Speaker. He is not a fighter. If he is a fighter I do not know what he has won. How many fights has h.e won? MR. TOBIN: Terra Nova. MR. CALLAN: Terra Nova had nothing, absolutely nothXng to do with the Premier. Terr~ Nova had nothing to do with the Premier. We could have had Tommy Toe. Tommy Toe could have been the premier. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !' MR. SPEAKE'R (AYLWARD): Order, please! ' Order, pleasel MR.

CALLAN: Tommy Toe could have been the Premier. If the Premier was so great,how come he did not win the district of Bellevue in the by-election? It had nothing to do with the Premier. the Terra Nova by-election, and most members oppos-ite know it. F.yen though they are over there like a bunch of parrots and tapping seals, they know. MR. TOBIN: T.Vnat ~'-"On Terra Nova for us? MR. CALLAN: What has he won? MR. TORIN: I know what you are going to say about Terra Nova. 8922

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4009 IB-2 MR. CALLAN: I am not even going to talk about Terra Nova. You talked about Terra Nova. Terra Nova is in the past. MR. TOBIN: You are saying if (inaudibl~) went out there he would lose the election. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, , this gentleman who is not in his own seat,which is usual for him, is bawling across the House. He just had twenty minutes to get across his points and here he is in somebody else's seat being again, of course, traditionally unpar~iamentary. MR. TOBIN: Like yourself. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER (AYLWARD): MR. CALLAN: Mr.

Speaker - Order, please! -I would like to be heard in silence. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TOBIN: 'l'rere is nobodY listening, so you will bE' heard in silence. MR. CALLAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is about time to name the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) . MR. TOBIN: kicked out. MR. CALLAN: to be heard in silence. MR. SPEAKER: You would like to see me Mr. Speaker I would like Orderr please~ I remind all hon, members that th .e hon. member for Bellevue would like to heard in . silence. Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: The hon. the member for 'NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges the Government of Canada to reverse its present policy and to return to the Canadian approach of co-operative federalism'. Now, in whose opinion, Mr .. 8923

December 14, 1983 Tape No . 4009 MR. CALLAN: Speaker, \qas anything changed to have to be reversed? The opinion of the member for St . John 's West (~ . Barrett) , as I sa~d. who is so blinded by his love for the Tory Party and for the Tories in St. John 's West that he ca~~ot see beyond the overpass 1and he 8924 IB-3

December 15, 1983 Tape No. 4010 NM - 1 MR. CALLAN: cannot see the Taxation Data Centre that was put down here, millions and millions of dollars, and the Harbour Arterial. PREMIER PECKFORD: Get on your knees. The syncrolift. MR. BARRETT: It is the member for Lapoile (Mr. Neary) who cannot see that. MR. CALLAN: The syncrolift was built through a loan backed by this government, nothing else, a loan. PREM~ER PECKFORD: A federal Crown corporationlike the ~eds would not go along with it, would not give us backing. MR. CALLAN: We know the story on all of these things, Mr.

Speaker, but we also know about the millions and millions of dollars that are coming to this Province, and the millions and millions of other dollars that would pe coMinq here if the right approach was taken by this Province, not by Ottawa. You see, Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's West (Mr. Barrett) contradicted his own argument. If the member for St. John's West said, "Here is a Liberal Government in Nova Scotia and PEI and New Brunswick that are getting lots of goodies from Ottawa because they are Liberal Governments," if he said that- MR. BARRETT: They are notLiberal GovernTients. MR.

CALLAN: -if he had said that it would have made sense and then he would have said, "But we have· a Tory Government in Newfoundland so that is why we are punished." But the member for St. John's West defeated his own argument. Here we have the Federal Liberal Government in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, who are treating Nova Scotia, and PEI and ' New Brunswick, the same premiers who our Premier walked away from.by the way-he got out of the Atlantic Premiers Conference, he backed out of it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: He was never in it. 8925

December 15, 1983 MR. CALLAN: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. CALLAN: Tape No. 4010 He backed out of it. He was never in it. He backed out of it. NM - 2 Mr. Speaker, the Premier denied funding several months ago and instead of being a part of these three provinces the Premier wants to go it alone. He wants to go it alone. He wants this Province to go it alone. And, of course, what does he do? He blames Ottawa. When there is nobody else around to blame he blames Ottawa. So where is the fight? Where is the fighter, Mr. Speaker? He has not won a victory?

As far as I know Joe Fraser and the other world champion fighters they won something and that is why they were classified as fighters. What has this Premier want? The only deals that were ever signed in this Province, Mr. Speaker, were signed by the former Minister of Mines and Energy, 'Leo Barry•, who resigned from the Premier's Cabinet, because he did not like the way the Premier conducted his affairs. We could have had an agreement with Ottawa. When Ottawa signed the offshore agreement with Nova Scotia there was a clause in there which told Newfoundland that we were going to get a better deal.

It spelled it out. The clause in the Nova Scotia agreement said, "Okay, you have agreed to this deal, however, if Newfoundland gets a better deal than this one,then your deal will be matched with the better deal for Newfoundland." We were told that there is a better deal for Newfoundland regarding our offshore. Why do we not have a deal? Because, Mr. Speaker, our Premier and,of course,the new minister responsible for the offshore, the one who replaced the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) who refused to sit there and see this Province having its years wasted while the Premier waits 8926

December 15, 1983 Tape No . 4010 NM - 3 MR. CAL .LAN: for the next federal election, when he hopes that another 'Brian ' will be Premier. We have three of them, Mr. Speaker, and ~ do not know which of the three Brians are doing the most damage to this Province, Brian Davies, or the other two . One thing is quite clear in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this Province is not doing anything to help this Prov~nce. Be is procrastinating! Wasted years, wasted Tory years, that is what we have seen, 89 27

December 14,1983 Tape No. 4011 ah-1 MR.CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, especially since this hon. gentleman became Premier. MR • . NEARY: and the three Brians. MR.CALLAN: AN HON. MEMBER: one. MR.CALLAN: We have the two Ronnies That is true. Do not forget yQur other Mr. Speaker, the best way to get better relationships with Ottawa is not by bringing a resolution into the House of Assembly like this one here by the member for St. John's West (Mr. Barrett), the best way to get better relations with Ottawa, Mr.

Speaker, and the better way is not to do what the Premier is doing, to wait for a change in government, another wasted year or two, the best way to get better relations - MR.TOBIN: Are you an expert? MR.CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burin Placentia West (Mr.Tobin) is in his own seat, I think, but he is still yapping. The best way to get bet~er relations with.Ottawa , Mr. Speaker, is for this government to change its attitude.And the Premier who has not made a Cabinet shuffle in about four years, perhaps the time has come for that.

Of course on the other hand the Premier,perhaps,is afraid to try that ' because he knows that he will have other resignations from his Cabinet,like the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) had to do when he could no longer agree with the attitude and the approach that the Premier was taking. Mr. Speaker, even though I have five minutes left 1 I will take my seat and I will not be supporting this foolish resolution or anything else that the 8928

December 14,1983 Tape No. 4011 ah-2 MR.CALLAN: member for St. John's West (Mr. Barrett) comes up with. SOME HON.MEMBERS: MR.SPEAKER (Russell): PREMIER PECKFORD: Oh, oh! The hon. the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this resolution. SOME HON.MEMBERS: AN HON.MEMBER: ferry. PREMIER PECKFORD: Hear, hear! Have a few words on the I will have a few words on the ferry in due course, do not worry, Mr. Speaker. There is no problem, no problem at all. I will have all the say on the ferry in due course, Mr. Speaker, there are no worries about that.

There is no problem there with the hon. member for Green Bay (Premier Peckford), he knows all about that. There is no problem there at all. Now,on the matter of relevance, the matter we are discussing, Mr. Speaker, let me say:to :the hon. gentlemen opposite that once again they are making a terrible, terrible, as they did in Terra Nova, a terrible, terrible political mistake. I mean,hon. gentlemen opposite, I just do not understand what motivates people opposite.

If one looks at the evidence that is available before us,going back to 1979, 1980, 1981,1982 and 1983, I mean,the evidence is overwhelming that the Government of Canada, the government of this nation has taken a completely new approach to federal/provincial relations and the best piece of evidence -there is only one single piece of evidence that anyone really needs,~r. Speaker, and that is that the Prime Minister of Canada 8929

December 14,1983 Tape No. 4011 ah-3 PREMIER PECKFORD: said to the nation, co-operative federalism is dead,and he went on _to say in a conference which all the Premiers attended and the Ministers of Finance, he told us, he told everybod~ both on TV and to all the Premiers and the Ministers of Finance and the Ministers of Development,that ~heir new approach was parallel delivery, they had no intention whatsoever of continuing with the joint approach to regional development opportunities across Canada, that the DREE approach was dead.

And to prove that co-operative federalism was dead he just did not say it,he went about to change the whole structure of the federal government, all the departments, so he changed DREE to dry. And he has through his ministers,the Minister for Regional Development, Mr. Lumley,and Mr. Johnston and all the other ministers said they have told us, they are telling us now in the Rural Development Agreement,that they want to go direct delivery, they do not want to co-operate with the provinces.

I mean,that is what they are doing, that is what they are saying and they are going about all the provinces in the same manner, and it is very, very unhealthy and has nothing to do with the spirit of Confederation as devised and as practiced for the last 100 years, absolutely nothing. And the other thing about it is that the Prime Minister is going to lose on it, they are going to lose on it over the long-term. Over the short-term they might try to gain a. few Brownie points,but over the long-term they are not. But , Mr. Speaker, let us put a few things in perspective in talking about projects and so on.

The han. member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) who just sat down 8930

December 14,1983 Tape No. 4011 ah-4 PREMIER PECKFORD : . says we have not done anything. You knm-r, it was in that brief period of time -v1hen Mr. Clark was Prime Minister of Canada and Mr . Crosbie was Minister of Finance, the member for St . John's West in the federal parliament,that we got the West Coast subsidary agreement signed : the work done on the Stephenville access road, the work jone on the road in the industrial park in Corner Brook. That was signed, that was in a six month period. We signed, I think it was $40 or $50 million worth of projects . Where did the ice tank come from?

I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite from time to time brag that the ice tank is .something that came out of the Liberal government in Ottawa . It did not come out of the Liberal government~ the commitment was given in writing that the Liberal government afterwards could not go back on, because .the commitment was given both 8931

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4012 IB-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: by Energy, Mines and Resources and the National Research Council,was given by Mr. Hnatyshyn who was then the Minister of Energy. The ice tank is at Memorial University because of the Conservative Govern~ment that was in Ottawa for six or eight months. That is how we got the ice tank. It has nothing to do with the Liberal Government of Canada at all. That is how it was done, Mr. Speaker, and in a very short period of time. Now if you look at from 1979-1980 to 1983-1984 1 here is what has happened and here is what the member for St. John's West (Mr.

Barrettl in this Legislature was talking about a few minutes ago when he introduced this resolution. In 1979-1980 1 when this administration took over 1there was a cash flow · in that year in regional development funds from Ottawa of $76.2 million. That was their share, and ours would be somewhere down around $15 million or $20 million. In 1980-1981 it went down to $46.5 million. In 1982-1983 it went down to $34.9 million and in 1983~1984 it is down to $34 million approximately. Now that is what has happened since 1979. Those are facts. That is the truth. Nobody can deny it. They are there.

They are open for anyone to see. That is the kind of money that is now coming into this Province through the regional development project. Then th.e question has to be asked, the member for St. John's West asked it, w(ly this sudden reduction in the funds~ Then somebody will say, 'Well, perhaps; I guess 1the Government of Ne~foundland is not doing its job, it has not put forward proposals under the programmes that have been announced by th.e federal government. It has not put forward subsidiary proposals under the general development agreement 1 • we have got rural development put forward; we have got 8932

December 14, 1983 Tape No. 4012 IB-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: ocean industries put forward; we have got pulp and paper modernization put forward; we have got tourism put forward; \V'a hiive got I agriculture put forward? w; have got planning put forward; w-e; have got the St.

John's urban region put forward1 we hzve got Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation put forward; we have got management training put fo~ward; we have got mineral develODTT\ent put forward; We have got Coastal Labrador- and,nf course,that is in addition to the one that ~·re have now and I will come back to Coastal Labrador in a minute - highways are proposed, fisheries infrastructure, lane s·urveying and mapping, and Internaticnal Center for Ocean Development ,on Ea.rtl: Sciences Building and special capital recovery programme~ All of these are proposals that we have laid on the table after economic analysis ask:i.ng for shared-cost agre.ements, that we have put on the table as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in t~e same way as other provinces have.

What \V"as announced just recently out in Manitoba, because l-1r. Axeworthy is the minister out there? Forty million dollars for a pulp and paper mill that was about to close down, $40 million to keep a pulp and paper mill open. No problem at all. He has got half of Winnipeg revitalized out of . I do not know, $80 million or $90 million or $~00 million spent over the last year or so. So, we have put forward our proposals. So if you look at t~e evidence,you know, it is j1;1st abs ·olutely outstanding.

First of all the level of money has gone down.And the TCH agreement, the highway strengthening one I am talking about, the hon. Minister of Transportation CMr. Dawel has put forward proposals with the intergovernmental affairs people for 8933

De c e mbe r 1 4 , 1 983 Tape No. 40 12 IB - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: TCH improvements. We were finally able to get one going and got it going, and we got it at seventy-five, and they say we cannot ~tiate. Mr. Speaker, you cannot negotiate away your credit rating. · We cannot live in this Province on the TCH or a Trans-Labrador Highway agreement on fifty-fifty, we cannot afford it. Now if there is somebody around this Province 1 in University or anywhere else,who wants to classify himself as a financial analysis or economist who will deny that statement, then I want to see them. I want to see who they are.

I want to see their credentials and I want them to tell me that I am wrong when I say that we cannot afford to sign fifty-fifty deals on the Trans-Labrad.or Highway and the TCH. We cannot afford it. That is why we held out 1and it was difficult getting some of these things signed, because we could not afford it. And we would have been absolute fools and we would have been laughed out of the Province if we had signed something which would have drained the finances away from all the other programmes just to go into the h;ighways' one. And we would not have been able to 8934

December 14, 1983 Tape 4013 EC - l PREMIER PECKFORD: drain it away from the others, so we would have had to borrow it and therefore our borrowing programme would have been from $200 million to.$220 million or $230 million net when it should be some\'lhere between $160 million and $170 million. So you cannot do it. So that is why we held out on the Coastal Labrador agreement. What did we get in the hon. member's district, -in the Liberal districts in Labrador? What did we hold out for? We had to hold out for,and got 190/10, I think, on just about all of it.

Now, that is what I call negotiation, when the federal government put the gun to our head and said, 'You sign for 50/50,' was going to set a new pattern for all of them. Some we can take with 50/50, the smaller programmes, some of them we can. What did we sign, Mr. Speaker? What were we able to negotiate? - 90/10, that is what we were able to negotiate, and they said that you could never do it! SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: We were told by everybody you could not do it. We signed 90/10. We had a situation where a TCH agreement had been agreed to in the mid-l970s for 5