VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD 3:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1983 NO. 28

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1438 ah-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 hon. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I wonder if somebody on the benches there opposite could tell us if the Premier is going to be in his seat to answer questions this afternoon? MR.OTTENHEIMER: To the best of my knowledge he will be here this afternoon. MR.NEARY: Well 1 while we are waiting for him to arrive perhaps I will put a question to the President of Treasury Board and ask the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) if there is anything new to report, any new initiatives taken to resume negotiations with the teachers? Have the government taken any new initiatives to bargain in good faith, to get back to the bargaining table,to get the teachers back into the classrooms and get the children back into school? Have there been any new initiatives?

I do not mean that the minister should get up and tell us what proposals or counter-proposals are being negotiated if negotiations are taking place,because yesterday we called for a news blackout on these matters, But have the government taken any new initiatives at all,apart from the propaganda that they are pumping out, have they taken any constructive initiatives to return to the bargaining table and negotiate with the teachers in good faith? MR. SPEAKER: DR.COLLINS: The han. Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the government has taken some very unusual actions in the last ten days to 3123

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1438 ah-2 DR.COLLINS: two weeks. As hon. members know the.re are two ways to terminate negotiations during a collective bargaining situation: One is to walR away from the table and just indicate that you no longer wish to carry on the negotiations; an even more definitive and definite way is to go on strike. If you go on strike you definitely terminate negotiations, you say that you are no longer expectant that you can get anywhere through the negotiating process and now you are going to go into a power situation,and that is the most decisive and incisive way of terminating negotiations.

Now,as han. members know1the NTA did put their members out on strike so they terminated negotiations on - I forget the date, I think it was the 12th, anyway whatever the date was. 312l•

April 27, 1983 Tape 1439 EC - 1 DR. COLLINS: In a situation like that where the employee side terminates negotiations so definitely, decisively and unequivocally, traditionally the employer side then indicates that it will not initiate the negotiation process itself unless the side that so decisively, dramatically and completely stopped the negotiation process reverses their action. In other words, they will desist from strike action and go back to the negotiating table. That is the traditional way, that is the understood way, that is the way that, I think, the public mind views things.

That is normal, that is only to be expected because otherwise, if that did not happen, the employer would be negotiating with this terrible threat of the employee side being out on strike and that is just generally regarded and considered to be intolerable. It just does not happen that way.

Now, what government did in the interest of terminating this very, very unfortunate situ­ ation of a strike against the children of this Province, what government did was,even though the other side had so dramatically and without any shadow of a doubt terminated the negotiation process- in our view, quite unnecessarily­ what government did was it nevertheless said, 'Despite what is generally understood, despite what everyone expects, despite what no one would criticize you for, despite all that, nevertheless we will negotiate with you and will not insist that you stop your strike action.' We said, 'We would like you to stop your strike action, we would like a moratorium on the strike action, but we will not insist on it,'although that would be the logical and expected thing, 3125

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1440 MJ -1 MR. DR. COLLINS: ' We will negotiate and we put forward therefore a new packet.'Aqain almost an unheard of situation that one side goes on strike and then the other side voluntarily says, 'Despite this dramatic and uncalled for action on your part,we will nevertheless put forward a new and generous packet1' but that is what government did. So, those are the two very, very significant moves that government made because of this very serious situation facing this Province, and particularly the children . of this Province.

No\v, one would have expected that, because of those most unorthodox approaches made in the best of interests and made in a most sincere fashion,that there would have been some sort of reciprocation from the other side, there would have been some sort of move. Even if government had only moved a little way you would have expected the other side to move a little way. But government moved absolutely dramatically and almost without precedent.Government moved and "lvhat happened? The other side did not move at all. "\<!hen I say the other side, I mean the NTA executive and the NTA negotiating team.

Now government has therefore been faced with this intolerable situation and therefore what government has now done is said to the professional membership of the NTA, 'Your executive have elected not to respond to these sincere and dramatic moves that government has made, We are going to ask you as professional members of the association to just look at our proposal, look at our new package, see if this is a reasonable stance for government to take. Look at each item. Do not consider it in any preconceived way,just read the words and see if your concerns - MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell): Order please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. 3126

April 27 , 1983 Tape No . 1440 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: I am sure r do not have to remind the Chair that the hon. ge nt l~~an is misusing and abusing the rule of this H0use that answers ~ust be brief . The hon . gentleman is stra ying far from the question that I put . I asked the hon . gentleman if there were any new initiatives "~.tow the bon . gent l eman is giving me the history of negotiations from his vant a ge point . Mr. Speaker , the hon. gentlem a n is abusing his privilege and I woul d a .sk that the answers be brief in accordan c e w i th the St anding · Rules of this House . MR. MARSHALL : To that point of order, Mr. Speaker . 3127

April 27, 1983 Tape 1441 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. President of the Council, to that point of order. MR. MARSHALL: The han. minister was asked a question on a matter of great sensitivity, great importance, and great complexity. He was asked a question with respect to that matter and he is responding. Presumably if the han. gentleman wishes to ask general ·questions he will expect general answers. Obviously the answers to general questions demand a much longer time than the questions themselves. MR. SPEAKER: That point of order is basically correct , both questions and answers should be brief.

However ,there are times when the very nature of ti:e question asked requires that the answer be a little longer than is normally expected. I again remind han. members that perhaps their questions and the answers should be as brief as possible. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS : To conclude, ~rr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman· has been told that his answer is too long. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The han. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neai-y} rose on a point of order and the Chair made a ruling on it.

The Chair did not rule the han. Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) out of order. I will let him continue if he is very brief in finishing up his answer. DR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, what government :"las now done, it is asking the professional membership of the NTA itself to look at what we have put forward in a new, I generous package. We are saying,' Just read what we have offered in the light of what your demands are and decide 3128

•.j April 27, 1983 Tape 1441 PK - 2 DR. COLLINS: yourselves, individually, is this a reasonable response t.o these very complexed issues which remain on the negotiating table before us?' And having done that 1we are asking then that you communicate your desires to the NTA. We are not trying in any way to direct what your response '•!Ould be. We are not even trying to direct what the NTA Executive's response should be. We are just saying, 'Look, at the facts as they are written and in your own considered opinion give forth your opinion on the matter and communicate with the NTA Executive. 3129

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1442 SD - 1 DR. COLLINS: We have full confidence in the teachers of this Province that we have addressed any legitimate concerns they have in the proposals we have put forward. We know that the teachers of this Province themselves have a very, very sincere- this has never been in doubt - concern for the educational system in this Province and particularly for the education of the children of this Province. So we are asking, therefore, that they give rise to that concern having read the proposals that we have put forward to address any points that they had on the negotiating table.

And that is a very, very positive move that government has made. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Hear, hear. Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the han. Mr. Speaker, that answer was not a direct answer to my question. I know I cannot appeal it at this moment. I can only say it was insulting and provocative and can only further intimidate the teachers and harden positions. The han. gentleman made a very irresponsible response to my statement.

Now, Mr, Speaker _, let me . ask the han. gentleman if the government, if th .e administration, have adopted a new strategy now and the new strategy is that collective bargaining will continue based on public opinion? Is that why they are publishing ads like this full page age in The Daily News? Is that why the member for St. John's West (Mr. Barrettt is putting out political statements on Newfoundland Information Services? Is that why the Premier .' s staff has been ordered to call all PC Party supporters around the Province 3130

Ap ril 27, 1983 Tape No . 1442 SD - 2 MR . NEARY : to solicit their support in blocking the open line shows? Is the government now orchestrating ~ a propaganda campaign , Mr. Speaker? Is that now their idea of collective bargaining? Mr . Speaker, are they turning it into a political issue? Are they orchestrating a propaganda campaign? MR . MARSHALL : MR. SPEAKER (Russell): President of the Council. MR . MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr . Speaker. Order, please! A point of order, the hon. The hon. gentleman is doing, Mr. Speaker, exactly the same thin<;J he complained about the Minister of Finance (Dr.

Collins) for a moment ago. Standing Order 31 indicates that questions have to be brief and they cannot be speeches.

Section 31 (c): 'In putting any oral questions, no argument or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the same'· • Mr. Speaker, that Standing Order is well known. I think he has asked his question now anyway, Mr. Speaker, and is just embellishingit with his own political rhetoric. 3131

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1443 NM- 1 MR. NEARY: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The Chair a few moments ago indicated that the Question Period is designed so that both the questions and the answers should be brief, and indicated that sometimes the nature of the question asked requires that an answer be a little longer than usual. The hon. Minister of Finance (Dr. Collinsl took some time to answer a question, the hon. Leader of the Opposition .(Mr.

Neary) rose to ask another question, and was taking a little longer than,again,perhaps was necessary to ask this question and was wandering into the field of debate. Ma ybe he would like to propose a specific question. MR. NEARY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what he expects the administration to accomplish by this massive propaganda campaign that they have undertaken using the Premier's staff and the PC Party supporters who campaigned actively in the last election for the government, for the Tory Party, what do they expect to accomplish by this?

Will it be on the basis of the outcome of that propaganda campaign that negotiations will resume? Is that what they are waiting for? Are they turning it into a political issue or is it better to return to the bargaining table and sit down calmly and quietly and negotiate these matters with the NTA in good faith? MR. BAIRD: Like you people did in '68. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, what we expect to accomplish is that the membership of the NTA, the teachers themselves, the professional teachers in the schools, those who are actually involved in the teaching system itself as opposed to those teachers who have 1 at this point in time anyway, gone into a totally union type of stance, that is the executive of the NTA and the neogitating team of the NTA. 3132

-• April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1443 NM- 2 DR. COLLINS: Quite apart from that group we are now asking the people who are actually out there in the trenches, giving education, dealing with chlldren on a day by day basis, dealing with the parents of children on a day by day basis, we are hoping to achieve that those responsible people out there will look at our proposal and will bring forward their considered opinion. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : A supplementary, the han. Leader of .the Opposition. MR. NEARY: The Premier 1 I notice 1 has arrived in his seat.

Would the hon. the Premier tell the House what the administration expects to accomplish by using taxpayer money for this kind of propaganda campaign? Will it do anything to help negotiations? Will it do anything to help get the schools open? Or is the han. gentleman merely worried about his image and the image of his party a.nC. worried that he is being slaughtered on the open line shows and would prefer to orchestrate a propaganda campaign rather than negotiate with the teachers in good faith? Would the han. gentleman care to answer that question? 3133

April 27, 1983 Tape 1444 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would think that the government has a responsibility to put its position forward to the people of the Province just the same as anybody else does and ~hat is what we are trying to do.

What we have done is we have made a simple request to the Newfoundland Teachers' Association that in our view­ and I do not think it is a view that is just held by the government - it might be a good idea to speed a settle- ment to this if the latest new offer, which was substantially different from anything else the government had put on the table during negotiations, was voted upon by the membership of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. And we have an obligation to inform the public in the same way as all governments do about what our position is.

And that is one way in which we do it, and we will continue to do it on this issue and other issues as they come up from time to time. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is saying in effect is that the negotiating team, the NTA executive, do not have a mandate to make a decision on this matter.

Now, following the hon. gentleman's logic and the hon. gentleman's reasoning,and not using double standards, does the hon. gentleman not feel that he is just as obligated to put the matter of the offshore before the people of this Province because of his failure to deliver on the mandate that he was given in April of last year? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. 3134

' . April 27, 1983 Tap e 1444 EC - 2 PREMIER PEC KFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problems we have in this dispute, that somehow or other the Newfoundland Teachers' Association executive has suddenly become, if you use the han. the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Neary) argument, the Cabinet or some kind of an organization which is elected in public suffrage by the people of the Province to serve in a Legislature, to operate under a group of law. Now, I do not think that is true. If you want to use the comparison that the Leader of the Opposition is using, that is not true.

The election of members of the House of Assembly is much different from the election of the executive of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association.

And, as I understand things, normally, and it does not happen every time, but given the nature of this dispute and how it has dragged on with 140,000 pupils not receiving instruction as we would all like them to and the employer having put a new, substantially different proposal on the table, I do not thin k that it is in any way inappropriate for government to suggest and request in a letter to the leadership of the Newfoundland Teachers' Association that they put that new, substantially different offer to the membership of their union. 3135

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1445 MJ - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) is somehow trying to say that there is no difference in an offer from an employer to a union as opposed to a public policy position of a government, elected by the people through a system of British Parliamentarv democracy that we all know about, on a public policv issue like the offshore, then I think the Leader of the Opposition is due for some very, very quick instruction after the strike is over. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. ·MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

NEARY: The han. gentleman used one issue in that carnpaign1one issue only,and that is why you have forty­ four members sitting on the benches there opposite, On that one issue the hon. gentleman received a mandate, he has not delivered on that mandate, and now he is trying to worm his way out of it. He is asking the teachers to do something that he has not got the courage to do himself. Now, let me get on another matter regarding the dispute. Could the han. gentleman tell us where is the point of no return?

When do we reach the point in this dispute that it will be no longer feasible,realistic to reopen the schools until September? I heard the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge) this morning being very vague and general as she usually is about these matters when being interviewed on radio, she seems to be programmed, she turns on the tape and that is it,could the han. gentleman tell us when we reach the point of no return? When will the school boards and the administration decide that there will be no point in reopening the schools until September?

If that happens, if we do reach the point of no return.how will the children be graded? Will they move on to the next grade? How will they be dealt with? Could the han. gentleman enlighten us on that situation? 3136

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1445 MJ .,. 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Russell): The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: First of 'all, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the

preamble to the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Neary) question,and obviously he really needs speedy instruction. The mandate that was given last April 6th,as the han. the Leader of the Opposition and all han. members of this House know,is a mandate for four or f:i. ·ve years, I think ;it can go five years as the leader of his party did back · in 1971 and almost extended the mandate right out. So that the mandate that was given to this party was a mandate not from April 6, 1982 to April 26 or 27, 1983, I do not think, I do not think that was part of the mandate.

I th .ink the mandate of a political party when it goes to the people is ·a mandate for the term 1and that term happens to be five years. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a good question what is going to happen on the offshore before another four years is out, a real good question. We will see who will win on the offshore, Mr. Speaker, before it is all over.

I know it is frightening for the Leader of the Opposition to think that possibly because th:i,s government is taking the position it is now taking on the offshore it might get a better deal than Nova Scotia has, it might get a better deal than other provinces have who have capitulated, we just might. And then the poor Leader of the Leader of the Opposition is going to be forever in the political wilderness of Newfoundland. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the question of talking about the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge).

I think every han. member on this side of the House is very proud of the Hinister of Education. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! · PREMIER PECKFORD: And the Leader of the Opposition can learn a few pointers from the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. "' . 3137

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1446 ah-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Now on the question of the point of no return, I guess it is a matter of opinion. I mean,everybody can have their own opinion on that. As a former teacher I can give an -opinion on that and others can give an o::·inion on it. I guess if one wanted to be sort of a purist in the educational sense of the word in looking at the students and the amount of time they lost,that not one hour, not one minute should be lost from classroom instruction. I know that in certain parts of the Province last year-I think it was in the member for St. Mary's-The Capes (Mr.

Hearn) district, I am not sure, and the Minister of Transportation's (Mr. Dawe) district last year -some students lost school instruction twenty-one days to twenty-eight days in weather and storms. I guess they made it up.

So you have on the one hand the purists who would say from the pure educational point of view that one minute, one second out of the classroom instruction will impair,and if you get into it and you look at the various students, if you look at your average student versus your very bright student or what have you in the general classroom situation,I guess the average student would have more difficulty trying to manage the additional work than a brighter student would. So there are a lot of gray areas in dealing with it,where is the point of no return . That is a question that begs an answer.

There are many, many answers to it depending on the school board district. How many school board districts or schools in this Province now have lost a significant amount of time because of weather and how many have not? Avalon North is a good example, where they have already lost a lot of time because of a strike of maintenance workers. So , you know, the question 3138

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1446 ah-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: cannot be answered yes or no, black or whiteu That is one of the problems generally with an employer dealing with a professional organization, on the one hand and 1 on the other hand,also dealing with a group who are also unionized on the other. It is a sort of hybrid situation where they are both professionals and unionists,because it is very, very difficult as the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) knows, the member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) would know, as the member for Bellevue (Mr.

Callan) would know when you are dealing with pro~essional items to be able to put them specifically and mechanically within a contract. So it begs the whole issue of the dispute between the employer and the employee because one of the big problems we have is the whole area of professionalism and what constitutes professionalism , what can be in a contract and what really needs to be done as a sort of a side kind of agreement rather than a contract to try to deal with all those professional items which are very important to the teachers of the Province.

I might just add for the Leader of the Opposition's edification ,I do not know if he heard last night or not , there has just been a major study done on education in the United States of America by a Presidential Task Force which has just released its report,which I commend to the han. gentlemen,which trys to deal with educational policy of the 1990s and the year 2000 in the United States of America. Knowing full well that very often Canadian thought 3139

April 27, 1983 Tape 1447 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: on education,as well as other things unfortunately 1is influenced significantly by what happens in the United States, we might do well to read what they are saying in that report. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, regretfully I have to change the subject. I wish I could debate tl1e answer just given by the hon. gentleman who obviously is still trying to inter~ere with the internal affairs of the NTA. And the hon. gentleman cannot win.On the course he is on, nobody wins, it is a no win situat1on.

They are jockeying for public opinion, and you have two great forces jockeying for public opinion and that will not help collective bargaining. But I have to get back to the Minister of Rural, Agriculture and Northern Development (Mr. Goudie) because I have a very important question I want to put to the hon. _gentleman, so I have to change the subject.

It has to do with 129 car~uhaving been shot laying on the ground in Northern Labrador, 29 skidoos and sleds are in the country, and it will cost about $20,000 to use helicopters to get this caribou out of the country and get the skidoos out and so forth,and get all of the camps that belong to the people up there outbecause it is about thirty-five minutes from Nain by helicopter. They are waiting for word up there from the hon. gentleman. Could the hon. gentleman tell me and tell the House what is going to be done about that situation?

Sealand Helicopters are waiting for an answer. r understand the German Air Force up there have the facilities that could be used to bring out the caribou and skidoos and sleds and tents and sg forth. I would like for the hon. gentleman to tell us what the answer is on that situation. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Rural, Agriculture and Northern Development. 3140 -···

April 27, 1983 Tape 1447 PK - 2 f.1R . GOODIE : Mr. Speaker, the information that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr . Neary) just gave is basically correct . I was told yesterday by one of the people who was on the hunt that there were twenty -five hunters stuck in the country after a river on which they were supposed to have travelled fell through, and the EMO people under Mr. Greer removed the hunters from the country 'But they -had left behind their snowmobiles, the caribou that had been shot, etc. , their gea .r and so on.

I understand that the hon . gentleman representing Torngat Mountains district (Mr. warren) is on his way North to deal with the matter from his end . The proposal we sug gested to them is that it is going to take $19,902 to remove the animals and the gear to a safe place where they can travel by snowmobile back to Nain. There is a difficulty 314 1

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1448 NM - 1 MR. GOUDIE: with weather in Labrador, Northern Labrador particularly. The snow is soft, it is difficult to travel. As a result many of the residents of the Northern zone have not been able to get in to get at the caribou herd which has just moved down.

We have suggested to them that they agree to take $50,000 from the Native People's Agreement, we are waiting on telegrams from the communities involved now to verify that, and not only remove the gear and the animals that are in there already, but carry on and get enough meat and protein for the other communities along the North Coast covered by the agreement, thereby resolving all the problems. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: I thank the hon. gentleman for the answer.

Would the hon. gentleman, if he will excuse the way I put this, ride herd on that request to make sure that it is done quickly because the 129 caribou that are slaughtered on the ground, as the hon. member knows, the meat will spoil unless a decision is made quickly? So would the han. gentleman try to get a quick decision so that that can be moved out quickly? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, that was the suggestion that we made to the communities. We are waiting on telegrams from them now.

My parliamentary secretary was on the phone as recently as ten minutes ago to make sure that the telegrams have either arrived or have not arrived. As soon as they come in, whether it is in a matter of minutes or a matter of hours,then action will be taken, the money be provided and the whole thing can be resolved. 3142

April 27 , 1983 Tape No. 1448 NM- 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back now to the teachers' situation. I want to ask the h.on. Premier a final question today with regard to this matter, Could the han. gentleman tell us what he expects to accomplish by involving his staff and the political wing of his party in a dispute with the teachers? What does he expect to accomplish? What will that do for collective bargaining?

I mean,from now on when the han. gentleman cannot get his own way is he going to call in his political troops, use his staff and use taxpayer money to carry on a political campaign? Is that what the han. gentleman is going to do? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to get our way. We have moved significantly from the position that. has been put on the table months ago in our negotiations with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. I have not been trying to get my own way. The government has not been trying to get its own way.

It has been extremely flexible on just about every issue that has·come before the collective bargaining process,so we are not trying to get our own way. We are trying to resolve this situation as best we can. We do have to deal ' with other groups. we have to deal with :·.the nurses next month, and we have to deal with tens of thousands of workers who get their pay from the government. So we have to be fair and reasonable. The evidence does not support the allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition that we are trying to get our way.

We have been very, very flexible on the issues that have been outstanding in trying to resolve this dispute, and we remain that way. We demonstrated that last week. we had on the table 10 days and 2/3 on the subsitute teacher issue and we moved 3143

April 27, 1983 Tape 1449 EC - l PREMIER PECKFORD: from ten days to three days, implementing the two-thirds for those three days until next April, 1984, by a whole year. And we suggested a committee be struck or a task force be struck to examine the professional workload items,which is different from where we were before. On the other issues that have been outstanding, we have moved and will continue to demonstrate flexibility on these matters. So, you know, there is no attempt at all by the government to just have its own way and the evidence does not support what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) is saying. We are here negotiating all the time. We have settled with 10,000 workers already. We have settled with the vocational instructors, we have settled with this group and that group and another group and, you know, we are into negotiations daily with many, many groups and there has never been an allegation by any of these groups that we just wanted to get our own way. We have to make sure that we are fair and equal to all people who come before us. That is why the wage restraint programme was so important.

It is a matter of public record that the Newfoundland Teachers' Association did not accept a publicly announced wage restraint policy until about a week and a half or two weeks ago although it was announced last Fall and 10,000 other workers had agreed to it. So, I mean, when you start talking about people who get entrenched in given positions, the facts have got to be told and we have, as I say, moved on just about every single issue that came before the parties last Fall, last Winter and now. the Spring.

So it is not a question of the govern­ ment getting its own way, it is a question of trying to resolve it satisfactorily, you know, to the benefit of everybody. But I have to point out in speaking on 3144

April 27, 1983 Tape 1449 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: behalf of government that at the same time as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) tries to allege that we just want our own way, one has to point out that the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, through the negotiating team, did not for months and months and months and months agree to a twenty-four month wage restraint policy which was public policy and was announced and was consistent with what was happening in all parts of Canada and with the federal government.

So when we talk about entrench­ ment and so on, all the facts have to be told and allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition will not suffice and cannot be substantiated. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! The time for Question Period has expired. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MRS • NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MRS. NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker, I have answers here to question 103 and Question 78 on the Order Paper presented by the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock). MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: point of tentative order.

It being Wednesday, we shall - If I may, Mr. Speaker, on a MR;- SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: As a point of order, a point of observation for the House, I had made an agreement with the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) on Friday last that Private Members Day, which is normally held today, would not be held but we would do ordinary government business. I made a gentleman's agreement with .314 5

April 27, 1983 Tape 1449 EC - 3 MR. MARSHALL: him to give the gentleman an opportunity to participate and lead off in the Budget Debate. That agreement, as far as 3146

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1450 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL : I know 1 still stands and I would assume that it is in order to go into government business today. I mean, Y,ou know, you make a gentleman's agreement with respect to it and obviously you would expect both sides to keep their undertaking with respect to it. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The h on. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, while it is true that my han. friend discussed this matter with the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Hodder), it was a personal matter. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR.

NEARY: I talked to the han. member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) last night and he deeply appreciates the han. gentleman trying to accommodate him, but he is out of town on important business, so we can carry on. But the fact of the matter is that he is not here so therefore, Mr. Speaker - as Your Honour knows we started the budget debate yesterday- it will be Private Members' Day today, business will go on in the House as usual. While we appreciate the fact that my han. friend across the way wanted to accommodate the member for Port au Port who is our spokesman on Finance, Mr. Speaker, there was no deal. MR.

MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I will not belabour this in the House but, Mr. Speaker, this is not a private House of Assembly occupied by myself and just the member for Port au Port. We made this deal, rather regrettably. The han. member for Port au Port remembers -it, the Leader of the Opposition does not. It just goes to show how 3147

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1450 SD-2 MR. MARSHALL: difficult it is securing any agreement from the Opposition with respect to these matters. In otherw words, Mr. Speaker, if things do not suit them, they are not going to comply with the agreements which they made. So we have to go on because we require unanimous consent, but I want to draw it to the attention of the House as being a flagrant violation of an agreement that was entered into with the Opposition. It seems to be almost impossible to make any agreement with respect to the operation of this House if they are going to act in that fashion in the future. MR.

NEARY: of order, if I may respond. MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : on this matter MR. NEARY: MR. SPEARER: Mr. Spe~ker, to that point Order, please! The Chair has heard arguments Two to one. -and agrees that there is no unanimous agreement to dispense with Private Members' Day and we continue with Private Members' Day. The debate last day was adjourned by the han. Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn), and he has three minutes left. The han. Minister of Labour and Manpower. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, obviously three minutes is not a lot of time to sum up what I had to say last week in this debate. Suffice it to say that there are concerns with respect to the offshore as it relates to my department and local employment or local preference in the offshore. I indicated last week that BP who operate off the Northeast coast. Unfortunately, since that time we found out that BP will not be conducting a programme off the Northeast Coast and, despite what they say as their reason for 3148

>l. April 27 , 1983 Tape No . 1450 so - 3 MR. DINN : not conductingthat exploration off the Northeast Coast, Mr . Speaker, that means jobs lost for Newfoundlanders on the Northeast Coast . But I will say that I am happy to report that \'le know that rigs coming this year 1 the SEDCO 706 ,the West Venture and Zapata Ugland , 31 49

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1451 MJ -1 MR. DINN: which are out there; possibly the John Shaw, Pellerin, Pacnorse and Neddrill, SEDCO 710 and the Petrel will be offshore this year. We are having trouble with Petro-Canada with respect to asking them to employ Newfoundlanders on their new rig that is supposed to be coming in here,the SEDCO 7101and I hope to have that concluded. If that is successfully concluded, Mr. Speaker, we should still have something in the order of 3,000 people -working in the offshore this year and on shore directly related to offshore.

There will be about 2,000 jobs still for Newfoundlanders offshore and on shore directly related,and these are as a result of negotiations that have been held over the past few years. Obviously,for example,the Pellerin, Pacnorse and Neddrill that worked off the Labrador Coast last year will be back this year. They each have approximately thirty Newfoundlanders on these drill ships at all times. These thirty Newfoundlanders on each rig went with the rigs when they left Labrador waters last year, will come back with that thirty and add to that when they get back. So we are looking to a fairly successful season.

I think it is interesting to note also that the drilling season or the drilling operations off Nova Scotia this year, where Nova Scotia has an agreement and we do not have an agreement,is a little bit less than what we have here off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact,if one were to investigate we are talking about nine to ten rigs off our shores this year

whereas Nova Scotia will have four to five, and I believe the fifth rig will be off Prince Edward Island. The hon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) I am sure is delighted to hear that we will have approximately 2,000 Newfoundlanders working in the offshore this year and the taxes will be able to roll in and he will be able to balance his budget. 3150

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1451 MJ-2 MR. DINN: Now the problem that we are having with the SEDCO 710 is with respect to the fact that the SEDCO 710 basically is a Petro-Canada rig, or Petro-Canada is the lead company operating that rig. Basically what has happened with Petro-Canada - MR. CALLAN: Criticize Petro-Canada. MR. DINN: No.

For the han. member who likes to interrupt and break the rules of the House, we have several agreements that were concluded in previous years for rigs that were operated by Petro-Canada, Pellerin, Pacnorse and Neddrill,but I think it is interesting to note, that the new rig, whilst we had negotiations ongoing with Petro-Canada, the federal Crown Corporation, since the Newfoundland Supreme Court decision we have been having a great deal of difficulty with respect to talking to Petro-Canada to employ Newfoundlanders on the SEDCO 710. MR. SPEAKER (AYLWARD): Order, please! Order, please! elapsed. MR. CALLAN: MR.

SPEAKER: MR. CALLAN: The han. member's time has Mr. Speaker. The han. member for Bellevue. Mr. Speaker, today, Private Members' Day, I think we should review for just a second the Private Members' Motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) that we are debating, and to refresh the memories of members on both sides I want to briefly run down through the resolution. It says, 3151

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1452 JV - 1 MR. CALLAN:

WHEREAS on February 12, 1982, the Premier of this Province announces. that the Provincial Cabinet has referred the offshore ownership issue to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal and,WHEREAS that same Court did on the 17th day of February, 1983 -j·ust a year and a week later -rule that the resources in question do not fall within the meaning of the Term 37 of the Terms of Union and thus do not belong to Newfoundland and,WHEREAS this present administration- this government, the Queen's government-has, by its own admission,no other reason to exist except that battle for ownership of the offshore now lost by that administration in the Courts and 1

WHEREAS this Province still needs an offshore development agreement to boost a desperately failing economy, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon.

House of ~ssembly go on record 1 today, as supporting a negotiated settlement to this question at once which would provide maximum long and short term benefit to this Province and to Canada and, BE IT FURTEEa RESOLVED that the delicate issue of ' whether or not winter drilling should be allowed under any circumstances during our storm season should at once be referred to a joint Federal-Provincial committee which would establish guidelines on this and other related matters that address the subject of human life in a marine work environment. That 1Mr.

Speaker, is the ~rivate ~·s Resolution which we are debating today. Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt ever in anybody 1 3 mind why this administration, 3152

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1452 JV - 2 MR. CALLAN: why this Province, does not have a negotiated settlement with Ottawa 1 I am sure that in the minds of people that doubt is being dispelled on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, 3 "15 3

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1453 PK-1 MR. CALLAN: if the government on at least two occasions were in agreement we could have had another Private Members' issue debated, the issue that is at the forefront in this Province today, Mr. Speaker, the issue of 8,000 teachers and 140,000 students who are not in their classrooms. MR. CARTER: Be relevant! MR. CALLAN: The member says, 'Be relevent! ' I am being relevant. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that the reason that the teachers and the students are out of their classrooms is the same reason that we do not at this point in time have a negotiated settlement with the federal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, what plans does the Premier have for the teachers and the students? That is a pertinent question. Another pertinent question, Mr. Speaker, what plans does the Premier have as it pertains to a negotiated settlement with Ottawa? Well, let me first deal with the negotiated settlement with Ottawa. I believe, and I believe sincerely, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier is quite happy, for his own political gain and his own ego and his own personal gain, and at least two years, perhaps longer than that, but at least two years go by while this Province is slowly and surely drifting along with fewer and fewer jobs and fewer and fewer employment opportunities. The game that the Premier is playing now is a political game, a game that he loves playing, a game that he plays very, very skillfully during election time, but plays just as surely and perhaps just as skillfully between elections as well.

The Premier forgets that when the election is over the time now has come to carry on his mandate to govern and not to play petty politics as he is presently doing with the teachers with 315!+

April 27, 1983 Terre No. 145 4 NM - 1 MR. CALLAN: these full page ads and of course as he is doing regarding the offshore. Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is doing now and what he plans to do is wait until the Tory leadership is finalized nationally,and then he is prepared to wait until the next federal election is called in perhaps two years time, and he thinks and he hopes that the candidate that he is supporting, John Crosbie, will be the eventual leader of the PC Party nationally and will be also the PC Prime Minister.

That is what the Premier is wai tinq fnr, that is what he is hoping for • He thinks that in two or three years time he will be able to say to the people of this Province, "We waited but we finally have the kind of agreement that I have been waiting for for so long." And then the Premier will wait a few more months and then he will go to the people again and he will hold up in front of them the new agreement and he will ask those 8,000 teachers, and he will ask people in unions all over this Province to forget about the fact that in the Spring of 1983 he held the teachers up to ransom, he held the students up to ransom, and he closed the hospital in North West River, and he closed the hospital in Markland, the Premier will ask the people of this Province to forget all of these things.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that an end can be found and I believe that a solution can be found long before two years from now when the people of this Province 1 I daresay 1 will be starving to death if it were not for the old age pension cheques, 3155

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1455 ah-1 MR.CALLAN: the family allowance cheques, and the unemployment cheques, and the millions and millions of dollars that are being spent on the Trans- Canada Highway and the millions and millions of dollars that are being spent in make-work projects by the federal governrnent.But the Premier is prepared to create a fe >'l make-work projects for welfare recipients , let them work for ten weeks so that they also can then be thrown on the unemployment insurance rolls so that their cheques will also be corning from Ottawa rather than from the Department of Social Services.

It is very easy to see the kind of cheap political game that the Premier is playing. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in another debate I questioned the role of the member for Mount Scio (Mr.Barry), I questioned his plans for the future. Everybody will remember that it was the member for Mount Scio,when he was a member of the Peckford team and when he was a member of the Cabinet, who negotiated the ERCO deal; it was the member for Mount Scio who resigned from the Cabinet because he could not carry on the negotiations with Ottawa the way that he wanted to carry them on.

It was the member for Mount Scio, Mr.Speaker, who less than a month ago , at the university, suggested to a bunch of students that he knew the answer, he knew how to negotiate a deal with Ottawa. I have mentioned before that the Premier made no response to that.

The Premier who responds publicly to practically every thing that goes on in the world practically - he kne'" 'I!Th y Bill Davis was re-elected in Ontario - it was the fault of Trudeau and the Liberals in Ottawa; he knew why Hatfield in New Brunswick was re-elected - it was the fault of Trudeau and the Liberals _/ in Otta>.,ra - but the Premier made no response, as he normally 3156

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1455 ah-2 ~ffi .CALLAN: does to everybody else's actions and so on inside and outside of this Province, the Premier made no public announcement in reaction to what the member for Mount Scio (Mr.Barry) had to say. ~~d last week, and again earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, we had the member for Mount Scio in the public media, in the print media and the electronic media, the member for Mount Scio suggests - he does not suggest, he comes out forthrightly and he says that what is happening in negotia tions \<lith the NTA , what has happened with negotiations with the federal government is wrong, the administration is wrong and the party that he- is a member of is wrong. 3157

April 27, 1983 Tape 1456 PK - 1 MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, what is the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) planning to do? What is he planning to do? Is the member for Mount Scio going to continue to play this little game, when the member for Mount Scio knows that if one trick does not work he can try another? He tried it at the university. He told a bunch of students at the university less than one month ago that he knew the answer, he knew how to negotiate a deal with Ottawa 7 and he hoped that the Premier would respond in some way or other, at least, publicly he thought the Premier would·respond, but no.

Well,perhaps the Premier will, do the unlikeliest thing in the wor~d, perhaps the Premier will get in tou~h with the member for Mount Scio and say to him,'Okay,I want to make you a generous offer. I want to invite you back into my Cabinet. I want you to put your money where your mouth is.' But,no,the Premier made no response. So what is the next thing that the member for Mount Scio can do, Mr. Speaker? What is the next thing that he can do to help this Province? One thing, Mr.

Speaker, that he cannot do -if he does he will be worse than the Premier, just as bad or a worse enemy to this Prov~nce and to the people of this Province - if he sets him~e;l .!__? ~ as the Prince-in-Waiting for the day in a couple of years time when the Pr~mier, who has said that he is a two-term man, will perhaps 3158

April 27, 1983 Ta pe 1457 EC - 1 MR. CALLAN: resign and call a leadership convention. If the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) were setting himself up as the Prince-in-Waiting for that occasion, then I say, Mr. Speaker, that he is just as bad an enemy and he is treating the people of this Province just as unfairly as the Premier is. Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) is smiling. The member for St. John's North, Mr. Speaker, should not be smiling, he should be feeling very guilty, if I can change the subject for just a minute. !1R.

TOBIN: Just what we expected, since the member for Mount Scio came in. MR. ·oiNN: Those members will even attack themselves. MR. CALLAN: Yes. The member can attack the member for St. John's North. Mr. Speaker, another game that the Premier has played, and he is good at it, is he has appointed the member for St. John's North as Chairman of the Committee on Election Expenses. ~fuy? And how long ago was he appointed? Did we have any control? Were there any controls regarding election expenses during the election last Spring? Will there be any at the next election? Not very likely, Mr. Speaker, not very likely!

The Premier likes to suggest in the media, you know, that 'I am going to maintain the culture of this Province and I am going to bring in some changes in the Election Expenses Act,' and all of these sorts of things. He likes to sound in the media like he is a great innovator and at the same time, you know, he wants to do everything fair and square. But the Premier does not want an election expenses - 3159

April 27, 1983 Tape 1457 EC - 2 MR. CALLAN: act for the next election any more, perhaps, than the member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) wants one. If the member for St. John's North, who is chairman of that cornrnittee,really wanted to do something about the way elections are conducted in this Province, like the one last Spring1then, Mr. Speaker, he would be holding a lot more meetings than he is holding presently. MR. TOBIN: Wi1at has this got to do with the offshore? You did not want the Budget r::ebate and now you will not talk to the resolution. MR. CALLAN: Now, Mr.

Speaker, the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr. Tobin),who would never be permitted to cross over to this side of the House, would never be invited or permitted to cross because, Mr. Speaker, he was elected last Spring on the Premier's coattails and he is in here in this Legislature for his first and last time, and the one thing that we do not intend to do is to give him an opportunity to be elected a second time on a Liberal ticket. MR. TOBIN: You have no worries about that. MR. CALLAN: We would rather let him K go into the next election, Mr. Speaker, on a Tory ticket and see him defeated and defeated soundly.

The member for Burin -Placentia West knows that any fool can get elected once, but just try it twice or three times. MR. DINN: How many times for you? MR. NEARY: How many times for you? MR. CALLAN: Three times Your Honour. Mr. Speaker, the member for Bu~in -Placentia West knows in his heart of hearts that this Province should have an offshore agreement 3160

April 27, 1983 MR. CALLAN: MR. TOBIN: MR. CALLAN: Tape 1457 with Ottawa. Right. EC - 3 He knows that we should, and he knows who is to blame. He knows who is to blame, Mr. Speaker, i.Jecause, 3161

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1458 SD - 1 MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, of all of the players who have been involved in trying to settle the offshore oil dispute over the past several years, of all of the players only one remains the same, only one. The Premier is the only player who was there from beginning to end. Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) who was in his seat and has left again1 he was one of the gentlemen who tried to negotiate with Ottawa but quit because the Premier forced him to quit. He resigned from this Premier's Cabinet.

He did not resign from the federal Cabinet, he resigned from this Premier's Cabinet. And then we had the member for St. John's South (Dr. Collins) who quit as well because he was told to do so by the Premier. But he, of course, did not resign from the Cabinet as the member for Mount Scio did. He was in cahoots with the Premier and he agreed. But on the federal scene, Mr. Speaker, how many people have we seen on the federal scene? MR. TOBIN: MR. CALLAN: Who is the member for Mount Scio? You tell me.

We saw Mark Lalonde and we saw John Chretien, two different players, who tried to negotiate with this same Premier and, of course, failed. And everybody in this Province knows how hard John Chretien worked just to get the negotiations started. He had to go down on his knees and come to this Province and try to get the negotiations started again let alone try to get them settled. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to this some other time. Thank you •. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. J·ohn' s North. 3162

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1458 SD - 2 MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) has probably set a precedent in this House for relevance. Apparently anything on Private Members' Day, no matter what the resolution is, apparently anything is relevant. So in the light of this new rule I think I will be excused if I wander a little bit. The first point I would like to deal with is the member for Mount Scio (}1r. Barty) • The member for Bellevue is wondering what the member for Mount Scio is going to do. Well,what a number of us were thinking of doing, Mr.

Speaker, was - and it would take about nine of us - if nine of us crossed the floor we would then be in the majority over there and we would elect a new Leader .of the Opposition. Possibly we would do it on a rotational :basis and when my turn carne to be Leader of the Opposition I would try to find something for the hon. member for Bel~evue to do, that is to aay, if I could find 3163

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1459 JV - 1 MR. CARTER: something menial enough for him to do. I suppose the of~ice could use some cleaning occasionally, it perhaps could be scrubbed out .~ aut I warn the hon. gentlemen opposite that if the y test our patience too far, that is exactly what will happen. Nine of us will get together, cross the floor, elect a new Leader of the Opposition, and turf the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) out of his thick carpeted office. And one of the advantages of doing this would be that during Question Period the questions will be a lot more relevant and a lot more sensible.

For instance, I can imagine the first question would be 'Mr. Premier, why are you doing such a good job?' We might ask the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) if he is not working too hard? All these various soul-searching questions could be addressed,coming from the Opposition benches,and I am certain that it would raise the tone of the debate in this House. Mr. Speaker,to get serious, the resolution that we are debating is not the one that the hon. gentleman read, it is the one that was amended. We are now debating the amendment made by the member for Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr.

Rideout) and he amended it because it was not the length of the resolution it was the dirt of it. .Therefore, it was amended and shortened considerably and it merely requests that we try and get a deal with Ottawa on the offshore. The law regarding offshore ownership and the ownership of inaccessible parts of this earth is long and complex and there will certainly come a day when all of the earth, even the deepest trenches,will be claimed by some country or 316 L+

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1459 JV - 2 MR. CARTER: some autnority or other. Geological research has indicated that the continents are floating, if that is the word, on heavier material and that they move and that the plates as they separate other plates quite distant from them have to go together, so there is a continual renewal of the land surface of the earth. And where these plates come together it is possibly a good place to dispose of radio-active material. Radio-active material . as members know, can have a half life of anything Doom. a few seconds to a few centuries.

The . half life of a bit of radio-active material is the time it takes for half of its radio­ activity to decay and using the same logic,! would think that the half life of some of the hon. members opposite is considerably short 3165

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1460 NM - 1 MR. CARTER: but the half life of some of their documents and some of their charges, and some of the stuff on file in the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Neary) office, is such that it should be disposed of in one of these trenches. But the areas of the earth that have traditionally been claimed by countries, or companies like the East India Company, or by authorities, have generally lb.een those parts of the earth that were accessible and accessible to everyone.

It is interesting to note that the laws of the sea and the law of ownership of land,were worked out in the time before air travel was possible and most of the laws that we are struggling with are the result of deliberations that took place in those far off days.

Now,of course,since the bottom of the sea can be not only visited by submarines, or by bathyscaphes in the deeps, but it can also be exploited by drilling rigs and by laying deep pipelines and also by laying cables botih for electric power and for communications, But . --. . .. practically no part of the earth is inaccessible and therefore it must all belong to someone. I do not know enough about international law to know how the cable companies get on claiming the right to lay a cable on the ocean deep where no country claims ownership, but I can see disputes easily arising in the future.

And also, of course, in: •the deeper parts of the ocean there seem to be residues of minerals that are worth exploiting and with our modern technology we are now able to bring up even samples from the deepest parts of the ocean. Now,there is a great deal of debate about whether we should own the 200 mile limit, all the land within 200 miles of the offshore, or whether it should really be the Continental Shelf. Ordinarily that debate would be quite academic but it is very important for us because what they call 3166

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1460 NM- 2 MR. CARTER: the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks are outside the 200 mile limit but are part of the Continental Shelf. Of course, this is rich fishing ground as well as perhaps exploitable ground for oil drilling and exploration, so this has taken upon itself a new importance. And I would hope that within the lifetime of most of us here that we will be able to get a sensible, decent, and workable settlement.

It is interesting to note that the members opposite, their hero, or I think the hero of most of them, the former, former Premier Smallwood who botched the negotiations for Confederation, he was one of the signators for Confederation, he botched the deal entirely.

There was no thought or mention of the offshore and yet in the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland it was pointed out that had any gesture, any concrete gesture, effort or note or notation been made or taken of the possibility of our owning the offshore at that time,then our claim to the offshore would have been justified and would have been recognized by our court and presumably this would have an effect on the Supreme Court of Canada. But \ \ '· 3167

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1461 MJ - 1 MR. CARTER: because the former, former Premier could not see beyond the end of his nose, not only did he botch any possibility of an offshore deal but he alpo gave away the Churchill Falls. I mean,this was a most incredible display of incompetence and the present Liberal Opposition,if Newfoundland were ever unfortunate enough to see them in power - MR. HODDER: What did you botch? HR. CALLAN: You were kicked out of Frank Moores' Cabinet, what did you botch? HR. CARTER: I do not think I need to comment on that, Mr.

Speaker, although if the hon. gentleman would like me to discuss his - MR. TULK: There is light at the end of the tunnel. MR. CARTER: Anyway I will get back. The Churchill Falls was botcted and,of course,we saw what sort of a person the former Premier Smallwood was when he ran that ill-fated Independent Liberal Party -what was it? -Liberal Reform Party and I think the hon. member for Bellevue was one of his worshipping adherents, one of his chief toadies, and finally, I think, he partially saw the error of his ways and coalesced with the Liberal Party. It is always a case of great wonderment to me, Mr.

Speaker, how former Liberal members or Liberal Reform members can sit down comfortably with each other, how the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) can sit down comfortably with the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) and vice versa and yet they have more reason than most to hate each other. And r have wondered about this. It sometimes kept me awake at night. Finally I realized that Liberals do not have friends, they do not have enemies either -they do not have friends or enemies they just have interests; like countries they just have interests. 3168

April 27, 19-83 MR. CARTER: own interests in - MR. CALLA.N : MR. CARTER: l>_"J R0::-1. !~T:'!InF. R: MR. CARTER: for sure. Tape No . 1461 MJ - 2 And of course they all have their Who was it that gave you the Family Allowances? Pardon? And the old age pension. It was not the hen. member , that is So we may have to adopt a waiting game, Mr . Speaker, and I think in the Question Period this · afternoon our Premier eluded to the fact that we may - 3169

April 27, 1983 Tape 1462 PK - 1 MR. CARTER: or I think it was the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) who alluded to the fact that we may very well have to wait for two years for the present Liberal Government in Ottawa to disappear and for a more friendly go vernment to come into power, one that we can negotiate with. MR. CALLAN: We do not think he can do it. MR. CARTER: We hope that it will be Prime Minister Crosbie that we will be negotiating with, but even if it is not ,any change would be for the better. And I am convinced that - MR.

TULK: Is it because of his first name that you want him to become Prime Minister? MR. CARTER: No, it is because of his many abilities, not his first name, and not his first ability, all of his abilities. We saw in this House of A5sembly what an asset he was and we will certainly see what an asset he will be as Prime Minister. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. CARTER: So I would say the Opposition better keep a civil tongue in their heads, ot :~ erwise the nine of us, or some nine of us-possibly we will rotate, Mr. Speaker.

There is no reason why nine of us should go over and be the Opposition all at once, we will change sides, it is perfectly within the orders of this House. This House does not recognize political parties, it recognizes the government and it recognizes the Loyal Opposition. MR. NEARY: What a buffoon! MR. CARTER: So I think perhaps - the hon. gentleman may well be afraid his job may be coming to an end very quickly,because in a matter of hours we could have a new Leader of the Opposition, we could have any number of new Leaders of the Opposition, and perhaps if hon. gentlemen on this side 3170

April 27, 1983 Tape 1462 PK - 2 MR . CARTER: would put down their preferences for which shadow Ca:binet they would like,orwhat title or office they would like to hold, perhaps we will see if we can accommodate them. So I would warn han. gentlemen to keep civil tongues in their heads and to behave themselves, otherwise they may,and they certainly can,be replaced. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear 1 hear! MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : MR. TULK: The han. member for Fogo. Mr. Spea~;;er 1 after hearing such a humourous broadside it is hard to stand in this House. The member for St. ~ohn's North (Mr.

Carter), I believe,may have used a couple of sensible sentences and tha,t is unusual for him. AN HON • MEMBER : Be kin e!, boy . 3171

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1463 SD - 1 MR. TULK: Be kind? The member for St. John's North (Mr. Carter)does not know what it is to have somebody be kind to him. MR. DAWE: He has no sense of humour at all. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want, in speaking to this resolution, to first of all point out to this side of the House and to that side of the House that we have before us one of the most magnanimous resolutions that will ever be brought before this House. It is a resolution put forward by the member for LaPoile, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Nearyl,and it is one of the most statesmanlike, I would submit to this House, resolutions that has ever come to the floor of the House. MR. CARTER: MR. TULK: We are debating the amendment now. I will get to the ~endment in a minute. In speaking to the· resolution as it was amended by the member, I understand, for Baie Verte - White Bay (~r. Rideoutl, I want to say this, Mr.

Speaker, that it is too bad indeed that the government of this Province which last year- just a little over a year · ago - got a tremendous mandate from t~e people of this Province to govern and to govern t~em democracticallyr it is too bad that t~e Premier and the government of this Province cannot act in the same statesmanlike manner as the Leader of t~e Opposition h.as in putting fon1ard this resolution. Because, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing th .ere is absolutely -and I cannot understand why · the member for Baie Verte - White Bay wanted it amended in view of the fact that I think this resolutio~ as was pointed out by the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warrenl last week, is very similar to a resolution that was · put forward one time by the member for Baie Verte - White Bay when he sat on this side of the House. MR. NEARY: R.i.ght on. MR. TULK: So I find him to be the most unlikely person, 3172

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1463 so - 2 MR . TULK: perhaps 1to want to try to amend such a resolution as has been put forward by the member for LaPoile (Mr . Neary). I say, Mr . Speaker, that the original resolution expresses every concern that all Newfound~anders today are expressing, it expresses every concern that every Newfoundlander has in this Province about what is happening to the Province . And there is nothing in this resolution that is fictional.

For example, the first 't~REAS': 'WHEREAS on February 12, 1982, the Premier of this Province announces that the provincial Cabinet has referred the offshore ownership issue to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal'; and then it goes to the second 'WHEREAS'. Well,Mr . Speaker , 3173

April 27, 1983 Tape 1464 EC - 1 MR. TULK: there is nothing fictional about that. That

WHEREAS is perfect - "the Premier of this Province- HR. SHIMS: They are left in the amendment, that is perfect. MR. TULK: Oh, that much is left in the amendment and at least, in that case, the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) showed good sense - "The Premier of this Province did on February 12, 1982 refer the offshore ownership question to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal." That is a perfectly legitimate thing and the member for Baie Verte - White Bay was very wise in leaving that in. The second

WHEREAS: "WHEREAS that same court did on the 17th day of February, 1983 rule that the resources in question do not fall within the meaning of Term 37 of the Terms of Union and thus do not belong to Newfoundland," -that is a fact. The President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) does not like the fact that the Suprerr .e Court of Newfoundland ruled against them. The Premier does not like it. They have questioned the decision of the court. The fact of the matter is that they did refer it to the court and the court did rule against them. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) has said so many times in this House and as we have said so many times on this side, the truth of the matter is that they took their chance, paid their money 1 took their chances and lost. MR. NEARY: Right. MR. TULK: And they seem not to be able to accept that fact. It is too bad that in that fit that the Premier had last February 12, 1982, that fit - he suddenly, as he always does, acts on the spur of the 3174

~~ April 27, 1983 Tape 1464 EC - 2 MR. TULK: moment without good judgement - it is too bad that he put it in the court but he did put it in the court. MR. CALLAN: MR. TULK: Like the Day of Mourning. Similar to the Day of Mourning, very similar, the same kind of thing. MR. POWER: April 6th, 1982 a day of mourning for the Liberals. MR. TULK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister of Forestry (Mr.

Power) something about politics - he does not know anything about forestry but I would like to tell him something about politics, last April 6th started the rebirth of the Liberal Party, make no mistake about that, not a day of mourning. Mr. Speaker, to come back to the resolution. MR. MARSHALL: They did not show too much in Port Blandford (inaudible). MR. TULK: Port Blandford? Is that right? Were you out to Port Blandford? They got you outside the Overpass? MR. MARSHALL: MR. TULK: on rumours? ·-. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. MARSHALL: MR. TULK: not get out there at all? MR. MARSHALL: MR. TULK: I know about it.

Oh, rumou!s, you are operating He heard about it. A first-hand report. You heard about it. You did They blocked more telephone booths. I see. Very good. We will see who is in the telephone booth. Call an election and we will see now who is in the telephone booth. MR. CALLAN: MR. TULK: You are smarting now. He is hurting. 3175

April 27, 1983 MR. TOLK: the resolution - MR . CALLAN: MR. TULK: Tape 1464 EC - 3 t-tr. Speaker , to come back to l-tonitoring the Liberal (inaudible) . - to ignore the hurt President of the Council (Mr . Marshall) , the President of the Council who has seen his little empire crumbling around his ears in recent days and recent months, to ignore him, 317 6

April 27, 1983 MR. TULK: the truth is Tape 1465 PK - 1 to come back to the resolution, that 1as I said, this government did put the matter in court and they lost. And they lost the offshore, perhaps, hopefully not, but perhaps they lost it for all time for Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, the member:for Baie ··Verte-White Bay (Mr. Rideout) wanted to end the 'WHEREASES' of this resolution at that point and to cut out the next one, 'WHEREAS this present administration eas,by its own admission, no other reason to exist except that battle for ownership of the offshore now lost by the administration in the Courts'. 1·1R.

RIDEOUT : resolution. MR. TULK: That was cut out of the Mr. Speaker, that was cut out of the original resolution, it is not in the amended one. Mr. Speaker, that is too bad,because what the member for Baie Verte-White Bay apparently is saying is that that is not the main plank any more of the P.C. Administration in this Province. And I would like to suggest to him that the Premier and, indeed, the member for Baie Verte-White Bay staked his whole political future on government'~ _.. stand on the offshore. They were given,last year,a mandate to negotiate a settlement.

Not to sit over there and fight with everything theY come across,but to negotiate a settlement of the offshore issue. And, Mr. Speaker, we know where that is, it is in the Supreme Court of Canada, and they may, indeed, as I have said before. have gfven that very thing away. Mr. Speaker, the other

WHEREAS that the member for Baie Verte-White Bay has cut out by his amendment, he has cut this out of the resolution, 'WHEREAS this Province . still needs an offshore development agreement to boost a desperately failing economy', that is the next ~~REAS. Now, Mr. Speaker, there can be nobody, 3177

Apri l 27, 1983 Tape 1465 PR - 2 MR. TULK: absolutely nobody in this Province, including the members on the other side, there can be absolutely nobody who doubts ;he state that this provinc ia l economy is in. ~tr. Speaker, I believe I have some figures here that show the rate of unemployment in this Province. l1r . Speaker, if you look at those figures there can be no doubt what the rate of unemployment is. For example, amon ~ our young people ,the number of unemployed youtlsbetween the ages of fifteen years and twenty -four years is 21,000, or 42 .9 per cent of the total number of unemployed. And, ~tr.

Speaker, the total number of unemployed in this Province has gone from 35,000 in 1982, the year when we were supposed to have the new beginning, April 6, the year in which we were supposed to give a mandate to our Premier to solve all of our problems , a mandate to negotiate our futu .re, to see that our future was secured, which he got 3178

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1466 NM- 1 MR. TULK: the unemployment rate in this Province has gone from 35,000 up to 49,000, an increase of 14,000 people unemployed. The unemployment rate has gone from 16.4 per cent in 1982 to 22.5 in last month's calculation. Now., Mr. Speaker, if there can be any doubt about the sincerity and the work of the resolution that has been put forward by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) there is no doubt in those two ·WHEREASES that the member for Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr. Rideout) has cut out. So, Mr.

Speaker, one can only conclude that the member for Baie Verte-White Bay and the government side of this House, were being hurt by the truths that are contained in the resolution as put forward by the member for LaPoile. Because you see, Mr .. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns, as I have already said, one of the biggest concerns that is expressed in this resolution, and one of the biggest concerns that the people of Newfoundland have, is cbve .r the settlement of that offshore issue.

The Premier, for example, first when th.e teachers' strike started in this Province- the teachers' lockout I choose to call it, he chooses to call it the strike. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) tells us that legally it is a strike, I say it is a lockout. For example,there is no reason that teachers in the community that I live in would not be in the classroom except for the ' fact that schoolboards have locked the doors and said, "No, I am sorry, you cannot come in." .3179

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1466 NM- 2 MR. TULK: But the mandate that '11/a:S given to this government last year, if I can come back to that, Mr . Spea~er, the ~ndate that was given to this government last year was to carry on a negotiated settlement, to see that the issue \vas sett led. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is fa~r to say that this Fall everybody in Newfoundland, certainly everybody on this side of the House - and we supported the government on a number of issues on the offshore, but it was hoped by everybody, everybocy believed this Fall that what I choose to call the Chretien/Marshall talks were going to succeed . We believed that we were on our way to a settlement of that very important issue. We believed that the President of the Council (Mr .

Marshall) I the minister responsible for the offshore -he was the Minister of Energy then, was he not , when he started the talks? -that the Minister of Energy at the time was going to conclude an agreement with Mr . Chretien and wit~ the federal government . And r believe that 3180

April 27, 1983 Tape No, 1467 ,MJ - 1 MR. TULK: the Minister of Energy at the time, the President of the Council 01r. ~1arshal1), bel,ieved it himself, I believe he believed it himself. I mean,h~ sweetness and light 1 See you the once Jean , 1 everything wa,s working out beautifully. Of course, we know what happened; I firmly believe a certain policy advisor in this Province said to our Premier, 'If you do that what do you have left to fight about? What is your issue? What e1se do you have left?' And I do not believe that the ,Marshall/Chretien talks are doing what I want done,Mr.

Prem:i,er,for this Province, what that policy advisor wants done for the Province. So I think it isverywell known that the Premier and his policy adv:Lsor sat in a room in a certain hotel in Montreal - I have heard it.I do not know if there is anything to this or not - watching the two ,Ministers of Energy, the ,Minister of Energy from Newfoundland (Mr. Marshall) and the Minister of Energy from Canada (Mr. Chretien) ,negotiating, When they saw the - MR. NEARY: MR.

TULK: Through a pair of binoculars, -through a pair of binoculars, I have heard - when they saw the two gentleman were going to come to an agreement, I think it is a well known fac .t that the Pr.emier of this Province pulled the rug out from under his ,Minister of Energy and somehow or other moved it around so that he was not Minister of Energy any longer, he was Min:i,ster without Portfolio responsible for the offshore ~is that correct? - Min:i,ster without Portfolio responsible for the offsho~e, gave him a demotion. Mr.

Speaker, if you want to go back and look through that situation it is very obvious that the Government of Canada had met the four pre-conditionsthat we~e set down by this government in order"to have a negotiated settlement, and they have always had to have their pre-conditions before they start to negotiate, you always have to agree to their point of view before th~y start to negotiate,and it is 3181

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1467 MJ -2 MR. TULK: very obvious that the ~ederal gover~ent had met their four pre-oondi tions. Aft·er the ·Min;i.ster of Energy (Mr. Marshall) had the rug pulled out from under him by the Premier and the policy advisor on the eighth 'floor, he then went back to the Minister of Energy for Canada, Mr. Chretien, and sent him a telegram with seventeen other it·ems that were nov1 outstanding. The same kind of senario that you have today with the teachers in this Province; after one issue has been put on the table and it seems that ·you may have a settlement, the Premier adds others. 3182

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1468 ah-1 MR. TULK: First of all,before he signs anything with anybody in this Province or outside of the Province,he has got to have them on their knees; they have to kiss the hem of his garment before any negotiations can take place. Now, Mr. Speaker, before my time is up I want to point out that I do not think you can negotiate by telex. I do not believe that the Premier can stay in his stance, the stance of what I call shadowboxing. The Premier is always shadowboxing. I do not believe that you can run a Province in that way.

I further do not believe that the Premier has the experience to run this Province. AN HON.MEMBER: Who does? MR.TULK: Where did he get it? I ask a very important question. He should, realizing that- AN HON MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR.TULK: Keep quite now. I am helping you along the way to your leadership ambitions. I hear you have them. HR. NEARY: Barry. MR.TULK: He should have the good, common sense though - He will not get ahead of I have to get to him later. He should have the good common sense though to hire and to stay by the advice of people who can perhaps negotiate and who can get into those good deals. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has two things in mind, liirst himself and then his political party. And on the offshore issue, the one that my friend from LaPoile (Mr.Neary) has referred to and has brought in a very magnanimous resolution, the Premier hopes to win the next federal election •. ·Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is mentioned in this resolution is the concern over Winter drilling. That is the last part part of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland where 3183

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1468 ah-2 MR.TULK: we have the climate, the type of climate, the type of North Atlantic climate that we have and the distance that we are from shore and so on, there has to be concern by all people, even the people who work out there. I know they have to be concerned although they go out there and work and they do not want to be stopped from working. But there has to be concern over Winter drilling off this c.oast ,given the kind of situation we exist in, the kind of environment that we exist in.

Keeping that in mind the Liberal party of Newfoundland and Labrador last Fall at the National Convention on November 12th,put forward a resolution that all Winter drilling be stopped until a thorough investigation of the whole situation was carried out. That >>~as passed at our convention. The Minister of Energy at the tL-ne pooh-poohed such nonsense. Why should you stop Winter drilling? Well, 3184

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1469 JV - 1 MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker,he suddenly realized this year that he was in another situation that was very similar to what happened on that tragic night when the Ocean Ranger overturned and then he tried to jump on the bandwagon and tried to put down the fact that it was this side, led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary),which had put forward such a resolution. What he was trying to do,Mr. Speaker, was to show us that,indeed,he was still boss and that he could take on the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker,! want to speak again about what the member for Mount Scio MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! The han. member's time has elapsed. The han. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker,! do not want to get involved in che large partisan debate that I am motivated to get into,particularly on this particular issue today.

All I can say to the han. gentleman who just . .. :;~.· ...... --~ . spoke and who tried to recount facts which a~e not t~ue with respect to those negotiations, if the han. gentleman knew and really appreciated _ the exact facts .and what occurred during those negotiations, I wonder whether, as a Newfoundlander, he would really and truly continue the position that he has been taking and continue the support that he has taken with respect to the Federal Government in this matter. Because, Hr.

Speaker, it needs to be stated again I am glad the han. gentleman is coming back-whether-the han. gentleman accepts it or not, the simple fact of the matter is that in December and 3185

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1469 JV -2 MR. MARSHALL: January of this year we had an agreement that was quite acceptable to the Government of Newfoundland and it t-1as quite acceptable to the Minister representing the Government of Canada at that particular time; it was an agreement that was beneficial fer all Newfoundlanders and it was also an agreement that tY"as beneficial for all Canadians. Now that agreement has not been delivered, that agreement remains to be delivered. This gevernrnent, Mr.

Speaker, \olas, is, and has been prepared te deliver that agreement and can deliver that agreement tomorrow,but the Federal Government unfortunately, for reasons best knotY'D to it, and I have made summations as to the reasons and I believe them to be very valid as to the reasons why,the Federal Gevernment somewhere along the line changed its mind. Now,that is the only conclusion that one can come to. Mr. Chretien was negotiat.ing for the Federal Government. Obviously,he had the authority and the 3186

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1470 NM- 1 MR. MARSHALL: trust of the Federal Cabinet, and the federal government, to make the commitments that the gentleman made to me in those agreements. But there was a change, there was a direct change when i.t went to the officials and what happened was that they reverted, i.e. the federal government reverted to its previous position of the Nova Scotian agreement or nothing else. And the Nova Scotian agreement, Mr. Speaker, is unsuitable, unacceptable for anybody in this Province. ·It has been proven to be so. It has been condemned actually in Nova Scotia.

So we are prepared, let there be no doubt, we are prepared to negotiate, but in o.rder to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland in view of the circumstances, obviously w·e have to do it on a certain basis and that basis, Mr. Speaker, purely and simply is that all we do is ask the federal government to put in writing the understandings which it had.through Mr. Chretien and myself when we arrived at that agreement in principle.

Now,you know,if a person- a government is no different than a person,and if a person refuses to put his or her words in writing, you have to ask the reason why and you certainly have to question the sincerity of the intent. I repeat again, we are prepared to sit down and negotiate tomorrow but all we want is a simple response to thbse letters and those seventeen points. And I think, Mr.

Speaker, not only is it not too much to ask, but for those people who take a little bit more than just a super- ficial view of the situation, they would say that any government in our position would not be actina in the best interests of the people of this Province if it negotiated on any other basis. Because what would happen if you negotiated 3187

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1470 NM - 2 MR . MARSHALL : on any other basis was there would be this euphoria built up in the Province and alsewhere pushing us to make an agreement and you would e.nd up getting an agreement at any cost, \o~hich is really what the fede ral government attempted to get us to do be~ore the negotiations broke of fc And we do not care , Mr. Speaker, what the percept io n of people may be one way or the other, this government will not sign an agreement unless it is good for the people of Newfoundland and for Canada as well. MR. TULK: (Inaudible) . MR .

MARSHALL: Now,the hon . gentleman brings it up again about the teachers . Look ,I hear it said over and over again in relation to offshore , and in relation to teachers, and in relation to the recent thing with the ~1icmacs and what have you, that the government does not know how to negotiate. But I think what you have to do is you have 3168

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1471 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: to ask what negotiation means and that brings you right to the kernel of the situation. MR. TULK: I hope you have learned. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, could I have the protection of the Chair? I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please: MR. MARSHALL: When people negotiate with the government, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be the impression that they negotiate and they ask for everything that they want, obviously, first off. MR. TULK: That is true. MR.

MARSHALL: And there are things that are given by government, there are things given by the other side and that is the normal give and take of any negotiation. But then when you get down to the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, and you get down where the government can give no more and the other side tries to hold on to its full and entire position, accusing you of not being able to negotiate. That does not mean when you negotiate, Mr. Speaker, you must capitulate. If you adopted that philosophy it would mean you would have to give everything away, that the government is good for it no matter what demands are made.

Whatever the situation, whatever you are negotiating, the government has to take a broad view. MR. CALLAN: MR. MARSHALL: this year and rather than - You have saved millions so far. There is a $28 million deficit MR. CALLAN: You want to (inaudible). MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the protection of the Chair. I am not interested in debating with the hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: .31 B9

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1471 SD - 2 MR. MARSHALL: There is a $28 million deficit this year. The government had to nickel and dime foster children's clothing in order to bring it down to $28 million. We know that we cannot provide from the public chest all the needs of the community either in Education, Health, Social Services or elsewhere. So we keep it down to $28 million - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR.

MARSHALL: -and when we try to act responsibly in that manner, then people like the hon. gentlemen there opposite try to insinuate that what we are doing in that particular situation is attempting to save money so we can cover the deficit. Mr. Speaker, that is completely and absolutely untrue. There was a $28 million deficit in the budget -the same budget that included the amount for the salaries in question. But I am not going to be put off on that situation except to say, Mr. Speaker, that this government is ready to negotiate in all matters, but negotiation does not mean capitulation.

What we have to do, we have to look at the broader aspects. 3190

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1472 MJ - 1 MR. MARSHALL: As I say,a mandate to negotiate does not mean a mandate to capitulate. The Leader of the opposition (Mr. Neary) with his arcane statements was again on radio today talking about the Premier, the old tired statement, oh, the Premier had a mandate to negotiate on April 6th and because he did not come up with an agreement therefore he should resign and call an election, he has not fulfilled his mandate, Mr. Speaker, this government has - .SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR.

MARSHALL: -fulfilled its mandate ,let there be no doubt about this,in the offshore. It has fulfilled its mandate, it arrived at an agreement, it was a good agreement in principle, we are prepared to deliver that agreement,If the federal government wishes to show its good faith all it has got to do is respond to that letter and negotiations will resume. And as I say, anyone with a little more than a superficial know ·ledge of the complex issues involved would realize that to negotiate except on the basis of that agreement would not be for the benefitiof the people of this Province.

When we entered into those ne ·gotiations we gave, Hr. Speaker, we believed for the first time that Ottawa was moving in the direction of meaningful equal joint management, was moving in the area of meaningful revenue sharing, and was moving in the area of the necessary permanence of the agreement. Mr. Chretien convinced us of that over a period of five meetings.There were constant dialogues with the Cabinet and the Planning and Priorities Cornrnittee,and as a result of our belief and trust in that particular position that he was taking,we gave and we gave all that this Province can now give.

No matter what the court case may decide,this Province cannot 3191

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1472 MJ - 2 MR. !>1ARSHALL: give any more than we gave which briefly was this: Number one, they were concerned about the~r national concern, which is our nation~l concern as well,l hope, which is energy self-sufficiency rurl security of supply, The national interests are not the entire prerogative of the national government as I would hope the provincial interests are not the entire prerogative of the provincial government, So, we gave that.

We agreed that there would be no turning off of the t~ps,as it were,up to our proportionate sh~re of energy self-sufficiency and security of supply, -'But, 1 we 'sa,id, 'while this is being done we have to determine how this development occurs, the manner or mode in wni.ch it occurs.' And that surely is reasonable, Mr. Speaker.

Then they came back at another meeting and said, 'Well, we agree with that but what happens if your manner or-mode interfers with the paramount interest of energy self-sufficiency?' So then we said, 'Okay, in that particular case our preferred mode would be put before an independent board and if our mode or manner of development is proven to be unreasonable,then, in that event, the other mode which would attain energy self­ sufficiency and security of supply will pertain.' Now,how much more reasonable can you be than that?

We would determine the how, we would concede our per share of energy self-sufficiency~ We would determine the how and if our how was demonstrated to be unreasonable,then their how would have the way. The next element of the settlement was that we would get 75 per cent of all government income,they would get 25 per cent, So there would be sharing right off, but we would 3192

April 27, 1983 Tape 1473 PK - 1 MR. MARSHALL: get 75 per cent until certain economic indicators had been achieved, the major one of which was that the per capita earned income of the young people and all people in this Province would be equal to the average per capita earned income. Now I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with that agreement? That was, as I say~ a model of federal/provincial co-operation. It was our bottom line which we gave to the federal government on the faith that Mr. Chretien, I am sure he was sincere at the time, but on the faith that Mr. Chretien could deliver that particular agreement.

And he cannot today Jeliver that agreement, Mr. Speaker, and that is why that letter has not been received. If that letter is received we will negotiate it, if that letter is not received we cannot negotiate,because to negotiate would bring us down Below that bottom line and would be an abject breach of faith with the people of this Province which we will not do , Mr. Speaker, under any circumstances , no matter what any court decides, no matter what anybody saysr Andthe hon. gentleman keeps alluding to the courts. All the courts will do, I repeat, ... --- - - - ___ .r Mr.

Speaker, if the Supreme Court of Canada upholds it, will decide the narrow legal issue that the resources off3hore are owned by the federal government. It puts us in no different position than the people of the Western provinces, we say over and over and again, were before 1930. 'Ihey did not own the resources below their land. They did not need a court case to determine it, that was determined, it was a given fact. If you had referred it to court they would have said yes, the federal government owns it,without even having a court case. So that was given.

But common sense dictated that the people living above the land should own the resources underneath the land and so they were given their resources. 3193

April 27, 1983 Tape 1473 PK - 2 MR. MARSHALL: Now,why should this Province, no matter what any court decides,settle for anything less? Is it the Grand Banks of Newfoundland or it is the Grand Banks of Newfoundland? You can have all of the court decisions between here and Outer Mongolia and back again, but they will not make the Grand Ban!~s of Newfoundland -::he Grand Banks of Ottawa. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: And, Mr.

Speaker, the unfortunate part about the situation is that we do not ask in that settlement­ we have not askeci for the same thing as Alberta, yo u will note.­ They are paranoid over the last two years in the'negotiations with Messers LaLonde and Chretien over the fact that a province might turn off the taps as they did in Alberta. And that is one of the main incidents of ownership 1 that you can turn off the taps. Well,we went even further than that, and we said, Look ,we are good Canadians, we will agree that up to our proportionate share we will put it beyond our control to turn off the taps. Now,I ask , Mr.

Speaker, what is wrong with that? And how in the name of heavens the hon. member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk), the Leader of the Opposition (~r. NeHry) or anybody can oppose that particular settlement? If we oppose that settlement and get lost in all of the rhetoric that is gone, what we are going to see is the demise of this Province, 3194

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1474 NM- 1 MR. MARSHALL: And the qu estio n remains as to 'i'rhether or not Newfoundland is going to lie down f roll over and play dead. We saw a situation which occurred last week which was disgraceful,with respect to British . Petroleum. There is no doubt about it, the facts are there. If you wanted to you cannot have a select committee.

If you had a select committee before this House now and you called in the President of British Petroleum, and the international president, and the local manager here, and the various parties, and they testified in this House before a committee under oath, it would substantiate every word r- said last week, that there are 250 jobs on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland this Summer that are not going to - 250 people who are going to be drawing welfare payments this Summer rather than working and being gainfully employed on the resources which we brought into Confederation, and why?

Purely and simply because, and here again to quote unfortunately the Minister of State for Small Business, (Mr. Rompkey}, "They did not give the permits at that period of time because of the negotiations." The Mayor of Botwood said, and he was right, it had nothing to do with the negotiations. He said that sometime ago. So the y 'i'Tai ted and while they waited, Mr. Speaker, <the ice floes came down. MR. NEARY: That is not what he said. He said just the opposite. MR.

MARSHALL : "The ice floes came down tight to the land, you could do no site surveys, so drilling is off this year." Now,Ottawa does not seem to know and appreciate that we have ice down here as witness what happened again, another instance of why you need joint management so much down here. Imagine the denial of the Winter drilling which occurred. And what happened? Everybody said, "Oh,yes, you will damn your own politicians, " the hon. gen tleme .n there opposite made all 3195

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1474 NM-2 MR. MARSHALL: their statements, Oh, it is totally political, the same type of little speeches the member for Fogo (~rr. Tulk) made now supporting the federal position, but what happened? Nature took its course and within eighteen days you had the spectre of rigs having to flee from ice. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker. And they stayed out for six I•Teeks aften<ards. And what happened l'lhen we wanted them brought into the port in Marystown, the logical place where they could have been ~efitted?

Oh,no, puerile, childish reaction from Ottawa demanded that they be tm.,ed around in the North Atlanti.c where they were. In the meantime,they could have been into Marystown, they could have been refitted as was necessary in the appropriate time, and everything co.uld have been done orderly, but instead of that what is going to happen is the ----.... •• l; Sed~o 706, and the West Venture, Zapata Ugland very likely, as well this Summer is going to have to come into Marystown. Will they go to MarystO\m or will they be pulled into Halifax? That is another question, Mr. Speaker. 3196

April 27, 1983 Tape 1475 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: The han. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) exults from time to time that we lost jurisdiction, and this is what is happening. And I say unless Newfoundlanders are prepared to wake up, unless, Mr. Speaker, they are prepared to wake up and realize what is happening, I do not believe that there is any Newfoundlander worth his salt - MR. NEARY: (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: - except the han. gentleman there opposite who is worth virtually nothing, not even a plug~ed nickel, but there is not a Newfoundlander, Mr.

Speaker, worth his or her salt who is going to lie down and play dead. But I am afraid that events are going to transpire to such an event, Mr. Speaker, if you allow this type of thing and take the type of attitude that people take, 'Oh, it is just political, a pox on all their houses,' and in the meantime, on the Western boundary of our Province where we see $600 million taken off and we are treated as a foreign country; we might just as well be on the borders of Afghanistan as being a part of Canada and they cream $600 million. Now on the Eastern portion of our Province we are no longer - Mr.

Speaker, are we a foreign country? Oh, no, Sir, we are all one great big happy family now. And incidentally, the putative father, i.e. Ottawa, is going to take all the resources out from the family and is going to dole it out by way of dole"to the child. And that is what is happening. You hear talk going on about the position that we are in and today and every day we sit in this House and we sit in government, immersed with problems related solely and simply to the financial 3197

April 27, 1983 Tape 1475 EC - 2 MR. MARSHALL: position of this Province. Pretty well - not pretty well, just every minute of this day is utilized by this government in dealing not with the creative things that this government would like to deal with but with things that are certainly not creative, the things are counterproductive, and all brought about why? -Because of the lack of money. If han. gentlemen there opposite, Mr. Speaker, think - and to hear people say that we choose to save money.

Does anybody think that any political party who has a respect for the teaching association, for example, and the teachers of this Province, wish to inveigle them in any way? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): has elapsed. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. Order, please! The han. the minister's time On a point of order, MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Your Honour could enlighten the House on liow Your Honour feels about speaking to an amendment? The other day, if you recall, the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr.

Rideout) moved an amendment to a resolution, and I suppose this is the only institution in the world, the only organization in the world where you are not permitted to speak to an amendment. Even though we have this rule about a member only being allowed to speak once on a private member's resolution, Mr. Speaker, I believe the spirit of that rule change, if it were to be observed, would have to mean that there would be no amendments. If you can only speak once to the main resolution and not 3198

Jl>.pril 27, 1983 Tape 1475 EC - 3 MR.. NEA,R.Y: speak to the amendments,then it should have barred amendments being brought in. Could Your Honour rule on that point? MR.. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. MR. SPEAKER. (McNicholas) : The hen. the President of the Council. MR.. MA.RSHALL: Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a p~rt - now, the han. gentleman has a little smile on his face; you see, this is part of the way he conducts debate. In this very debate last week, Your Honour, the hen. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) rose on the same point - I do not know whether the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker was in the chair - and a ruling was given at that time which was consistent with a ruling that had been given by a previous Speaker, that is in the rules and regulations and precedents of this House,to the effect that on Private Members Day a person may only speak once, with the exception of the mover of the motion who speaks at the opening and the closing. By presenting an amendrr .ent, as contrasted with'other debate, there is not the right that springs out the second time. And I quote to Your Honour

Section 53, and the spirit and intent of

Section 53 (2) particularly, indic~tes this .: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 49, no member may speak for more than twenty minutes in the debate on a private member's motion." Now, Mr. Speaker, that is­ \ HR. OTTENHEH1ER.: And there have been two rulings of the Chair. 3199

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1476 ah-1 MR. MARSHALL: Andthere have been two rulings of the Chair. It has already been decided. And for the han. gentleman to raise it now is an attempt to just take the time of the House and to cover up the obvious embarrassment that the Opposition finds-and notwithstanding the fact that they have eight members, they normally only have a compliment of between 25 per cent and 50 per cent in their chairs. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.SPEAKER (Dr.HcNicholas): Order, please! To that point of order. There has been a precedent set in the House that a member only speaks once.

If the member has not used his twenty minutes he may speak again. of Belle Isle . MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member for the Strait Mr. Speaker, thank you. I, of course,do not intend to debate or comment upon Your Honour's ruling, I mean,that is fine, the ruling is right. I will simply say to my absent friend from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) ,who is now back again,that in his concluding remarks he is obviously confusing quality with quantity.

It is true that we may not all be here all the time and it is equally true that those on the other side - I see over there now, one, two , three, four, five, seven, ten, twelve seats occupied

whereas there are four occupied on this side. MR. CARTER: MR. ROBERTS: We have a few in the wings. I am not saying whether any of them over there are even functioning or not,or whether they are comatose,but my friend from St. John's East ought not to confuse quality with quantity. MR.NEARY: 50 per cent on this side and IO per cent on that side. 3200

April 27,1983 Tape No. 1476 ah-2 MR. ROBERTS: 50 per cent on this side. And 1 of course 1 our strength , Mr. Speaker, is as the strength of ten because our hearts are pure.Now, Mr.Speaker, the resolution before the House is one moved by my friend the Leader of the Opposition and an amendment has been moved by my former parliamentary friend - I have nothing against him personally but in a parliamentary sense he is no longer a friend, and that is the gentleman from Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr.Rideout).

I do not know whether we have stated explicitly where we stand but we on tnis side are prepared to support this amendment. It does not in any way change the import of my friend the Leader of the Opposition's resolution. It states the principle of that resolution, I think it is fair to say, in a little different words. It does delete some of the

whereas clauses.And while I have no difficulty in supporting the

whereas clauses in the original motion, I think they are correct, I think they are properly stated and I think they are relevant,I equally have no problem in seeing them deleted. I guess I am in the school of thought that says in drafting private member's motions it is usually best if we left out these

preambles that sometimes tend to be argumentative. The Chair has a discretion as to whether or not these clauses are removed in whole or in part. That is entirely within the purview of the Chair. MR.CARTER: Sit down. Sit down. MR.ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, you know 3201

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1477 SD - 1 r-1R. ROBERTS: you know, if you are walking across a pasture at night and you step in something obnoxious you really have to pay attention to it and on the same reasoning I have to pay attention to the han. gentleman from St. John's North (Mr. Carter) who once again is demonstrating the fact that I believe ought to be a state secret,and that is that his collar size exceeds his intelligence quotion. Now my friend from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) asked if Your Honour would and Your Honour, of course, did enforce the rules of the Chair.

I was not interrupting anybody opposite, I simply want to be allowed to speak for the twenty minutes or whatever it is I am allowed by the rules and make my modest contribution. The han. gentleman for St. John's North has-nothing to contribute -his role in life. And I say welcome ,-speaking of somebody who has something to contribute -welcome to my friend from Placentia East {_Mr. Patterson)_ who at long last has seen the light and in the words of his old adversary, Mr. Smallwood, has heeded the old adage that 'While the light holds out to burn the vilest sinner may return'.

And I am not saying my friend from Placentia East is the vilest sinner, but I do say welcome back and I hope he and the member for Bellevue (Mr. Callan) are happy there side by side, cheek by cheek, jowl by jowl, if naught else. spiritual bed fellows MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: I do not want to get quite as low as my friend from -the last I heard of my friend from Grand Falls (Mr. Simms) he was on the bus. MR. SIMMS: Yes. MR. ROBERTS: I would say if he met some of my constituents he is. in good hands and I hope he has 3202

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1477 SD - 2 MR. ROBERTS: been as generous and as responsive to them as he is to his own. MR. MORGAN: You will find good people there. MR. ROBERTS: They are good people. And I say to my friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan), they are good people in the North, they are politically among the most astute in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the resolution is one .that we are prepared to support.

What it says in ~ word or two or three is that the House - it is badly drafted, it is bad language, it is sloppy language - but the House supports the principle of a negotiated settlement of the offshore issue. And that is not one that I find difficult to support. I have been standing here in this House for four or five years now saying just that and so have my colleagues. In fact, we were saying that when hon. gentlemen opposite, including my friend from Baie Verte - White Bay lMr. Rideout), thought the only issue was ownership. And I had the immense privilege of being called a traitor by the gentleman for St.

John's North (Mr. Carter)_ because I stood in this House and said, 'Let us not get hung up on ownership, let us instead do a negotiated deal'. Well,they have seen that much of the light. It is too bad that in so doing they have launched the Province on a course that has cost us four or five years at minimum and in addition has put us on a road that could easily · lead to doom. You know, it was this administration that forced the ownership issue before the courts. 3203

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1478 MJ - 1 MR. ROBERTS: There was no need at all, Mr. Speaker, to take a reference to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Appeal Division on this issue. The administration either panicked or did so for base partisan political purposes as part of the prelude to what turned out to be a successful election campaign/ successful to the hon. gentlemen opposite but unfortunately not for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did so, Mr.

Speaker) and let this be recorded, in the face of the legal advice that had been · given to this administration and every administration in Newfoundland,namely,that the Newfoundland case at law on the offshore issue is on the short end of the fight as against Ottawa. And the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Appeal Court has now given their rulingq I am not going to comment on it in detail except to say that the judges down there, the Chief Justice, Mr. Chief Justice Mifflin, Mr. Justice Morgan, Mr. Justice Gushue, after an extensively argued lenghty hearing gave th~ir judgement,the matter is now on appeal.

I believe it has been appealed,in fact, before the Supreme Court at Ottawa and,of course,a similar issue is being raised by the federal reference - DR. COLLINS: It is not settled yet. MR. ROBERTS: I agree with my friend the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) and I am delighted to see him back. I agree that the issue is not settled by any means. All I am saying is that this administration went to court, nobody else took it to court, they took it to court and they blew it. They went into the poker game with kings and they called the cards and it turned out the other side had _the aces.

And all of us are going to pay the price for it,because the administration have seriously weakened our negotiating position. That is a brutal realistic fact. I am, for one, grateful that Ottawa has not chosen to 3 2 0 l+

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1478 MJ "" 2 MR. ROBERTS : .take advantage of this. You know, we heard my friend, the Hinister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) up today talking about his negotiations with Petro-Canada and others to get more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians employed on those rigs.

I am all for it and I give him every commendation and every encouragement, but we must realize,Your Honour,that as a matter of law our regulations now outside the three mile limit are as effective as the laws of Basutoland are in ruling the offshore,in law. · Because the only legal ruling there is is by the Court of Appeal here and the Court of Appeal has held on the opinion, the reference, which is an opinion, they have held that Newfoundland's writ does not run and that is where this administrations course of action has led us. That is where we are now. We are in a cul-de-sac of our own making.

We have jumped into a hole and we have pulled it in behind us. But it is not too late. We should negotiate. I have been saying that for four or five years, we haye all been saying it over here, 'It is still not too late.' And that is the point of my friend from LaPoile (Mr. Neary), the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, 3205

April 27, 1983 Tape 1479 PK - l MR. ROBERTS: that is the point of his resolution, and that is the point of the amendment moved by the gentleman for Baie Verte-Whi te Bay (Mr. Rideout), ~7ell, since they are of one mind, and since they agree with the position, my friend for LaPoile has sa~d , We support it. The gentleman for Baie Verte-White Bay has finally come around this far. I welcome that. I regret that he is doing it from that side and not from this side, but that is history now. Mr. Speaker 1 the gentleman for St. John's East (Mr.

Marshall), the ?resident of the Council, who is the minister responsible for negoti..3,tions in this matter, has made it quite clear that there was an agreement between Ottawa and Newfoundland, and there was. There was an agreement. It was not reduced to writing, but there was an agreement~ And any lawyer, including my friend for St. John's East,knows that you can have an agreement, a contract that is not in writing. You can have some that must be in writing, but you can have a contract that is not in writing, many contracts are not. I do not know to this day why the negotiations broke down.

I have heard what the gentleman for St. John's East has to say, I have heard as well what Mr. Chretien has to say, I have read the propaganda which this administration has put out, I have read the propaganda which Mr. Chretien has put out or his officials in Ottawa, I honestly do not Nnow where ~e fault lies, and I do not care where the fault lies, Your Konour. What I do care about is what I ·believe to be the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that is to get this matter resolved.

The only way to resolve it in my view is now, as it has been right from the start, by negotiation, by talk, by give and take, f1R. CARTER: Tell us about it. 3206

April 27, 1983 Tape 1479 PK - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Going to court, Mr. Speaker, is not an answer. We have gone, we forced it into court and we lost. Newfouncland, if you wish, lost. Not th~t the court ruled against Newfoundland, it did not do that. The court ruled on the law as the judges found it. And that is their job and they did it I am sure to the very best of their ability.

And I will say again that this administration went to court on this matter against the opinions that they have received over the years, not only this administration, but the previous the Moores Administration had t.h.e same advice as did this one, and one, the Moores Administration backed off. They were a lot smarter than this present administration,in my view. Now, Mr. Speaker,the only way out is negotiation. We are now on a course for c~larnity, we are going straight for suicide.

And this administrat~on pigheaded, bullheaded, arrogant, inward looking, they have ---'"' got a bunker mentality~ plainclothesmen in the galleries today. I do not know what we are coming to, plainclothesmen which rna~ by the way, be an infringement of the privileges of this House, unless Your Honour asked them to be there. It is an infringement of the privileges of this House, I would say. _ No police officer has the right to come within the precincts of this House without Your Honour .' s permission. MR. NEA...'RY: Right onl MR. ROBERTS: There is no breach of the l~w here.

But here we are with plainclothesmen - this administration and their bunker mentality now, they are afraid of the people, afraid, they are quivering and cowering, they brought us to the point, Mr. Speaker, were the 3207

April 27, 1983 Tape No. 1480 JV -1 MR. ROBERTS: time is running very short.So I would say simply this to my friend for St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) whom I believe wants a settlement, I believe that. I believe he had a settlement. He says it broke down because of Ottawa, Ottawa says it broke down because of him. I do not know where the truth lies, I suspect as is always in these cases, it lies a little on each side and a little on the other side. But,Mr. Speaker, the point is that negotiations in my view are the only way to resolve this iss,ue else we risk losing it all. MR. CARTER: Tell us how to negotiate. MR.

ROBERTS: Yes, I will tell the government how to negotiate. They do not know how. Everytime they get into negotiations with anybody - it took Joe Smallwood twenty years to get the teachers on the streets against him. It took Brian Peckford four years. They do not know how to talk. They do not know how to negotiate and in fact one comment of the gentleman for St.

John's East that he made today; one comment :troubles me deeply because he said. 'we want ~ to negotiate'and then he went on and a little later in his remarks he said 'we have given all that the Province can give '• Now if that is so, then there can be no / / negotiations unless negotiation means in the eyes of the gentleman opposite, give us everything we want and we will talk to you. I sometimes suspect, Mr. Speaker, to be qui