Volume XL . Tuesday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM ~EPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable . Pa. .trick McNicholas Number 50 10 June 1986

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to inform the House of two fisheries access road upgrading projects recently approved by my department. One of those projects is to be carried out at Bell Island and the other one at Flowers Cove. Mr. Speaker, since the closure of the iron ore mine at Bell Island, the development of fishing activity has been hampered by the lack of a proper harbour and facilities.

Fishermen have recently moved from the ferry wharf area to the vicinity of the -old mine wharf where they now have a landing wharf, a slipway and a boat storage area, all constructed through C.E.I.C. make-work programmes. Mr. Speaker, the road leading to the wharf is approximately 700 meters in length and was constructed many years ago by the mining company. Not having been maintained by any agency for years, it has deteriorated considerably. Since this road is used exclusively by fishermen, it has been recommended that my department assume full responsibility for this access road.

The Department of Transportation informs us that the cost of upgrading the access road to minimum standards is $28,000.00. Mr. Speaker, inform the I am House L2922 June 10, 1986 pleased that to my Vol XL department has recently approved this expenditure and has authorized the Department of Transportation to undertake the project on behalf of the Department of Fisheries. The access road to our marine service centre at Flowers Cove was constructed a number of years ago at a low grade on the existing ground. This road is approximately 730 meters long and requires extensive upgrading to reduce problems with drainage.

Mr. Speaker, the road also needs to be raised considerably to permit easier maintenance during Winter conditions, since it is now very difficult to keep the road open in drifting conditions because of the low elevation. Our operations and engineering personnel have recommended that we proceed with this work as soon as possible and I am pleased to inform this hon. House that my department has authorized the Department of Transportation to carry out this work on our behalf at a cost of $35,000. Mr.

Speaker, these two projects, though not huge, will do much to improve access for fishermen in the communi ties to which they apply. I believe these projects show that my department is not only aware of the concerns and needs of our fishermen, but they also demonstrate our willingness, where possible, to address their concerns and be responsive to their needs. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: No. 50 R2922

The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for giving me a copy of his statement a few minutes before delivering i.t. You know something, members in the backbenches particularly seem to have great difficulty in understanding that people, whether they live in Liberal districts or in Conservative districts, are taxpayers and they are citizens of the Province and they deserve to be treated fairly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the Minister of Fisheries is going to now take responsibility for this road leading down to where the fishermen on Bell Island have their facilities. This is a road which, like, I am sure, roads in many districts, fell into the area of terra incognito, no man's land, nobody wanted to take responsibility for it. The Department of Transportation said it was the responsibility of the town council, the town council said no, it was . the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. The fishermen were down there during thi"s past Winter, Mr.

Speaker, and on occasion I had to write and point out that fishermen had boats sinking down there because they could not get pumps down to pump out their boats because of the condition of the road. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am glad, I am L2923 June 10, 1986 Vol XL delighted, I am happy that after several years of representation the Minister of Fisheries has man fashion stood up and said, 'Yes, I will take · responsibility'. It is too bad more ministers will not do the same sort of thing on that side of the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

BARRY: It took a little while, but I compliment the minister for taking this action because those fishermen - I do not know how they vote, I did not ask how they voted, and nobody on the other side of the House should ask how they voted - are taxpayers and they are entitled to service from government. That is what we are here for. MR. TULK: The Minister of Public Works and Services should follow his example. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, in the same way the access road to the Marine Service Centre at Flowers Cove is intended to serve all the fishermen of Flowers Cove, whether they voted Liberal, whet)1er they voted Conservative or whether they were foolish enough to vote something else. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister has been specific. He has allocated, Mr. Speaker, a specific amount of money and I am glad that the access road to the Marine Service Centre at Flowers Cove is also going to be improved. This will make it easier, Mr. Speaker, for the No. 50 R2923

fishermen o~ both districts to carry on a legit-imate profession; get out. there and work hard and earn a dollar and contribute to this Province. And that is what government is -here for, to help people do that. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister Responsible for Culture, I am pleased to inform bon. members that, as a result of numerous discussions between the Chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, officials of my department, and the recipients of funding under my department's programme for sustaining grants for professional performing arts companies, the amount of $130,000, which has been provided in the 1986-1987 budget for my department for this programme, is being transferred to The Arts Council to administer. The Chairman of The Arts Council, Dr. D. F.

Cook, has been notified of this decision, as have the client groups of the programme. This decision has been made at the request of the majority of recipients to have this programme come under the jurisdiction of The Arts Council, and we are pleased to respond positively to their wishes. The sustaining grants for professional performing arts companies were established three years ago at the request of these major performing arts organizations, as well as the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra.

L2924 June 10, 1986 Vol XL These grants provide basic operational funding for these groups, overcoming their financially precarious existences, and allowing them to concentrate more fully on their artistic endeavours. The Arts Council has agreed to carry on this programme in the fulfillment of these worthwhile policy objectives. It is also my pleasure to announce today that The Arts Council is to be provided with office space in the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre.

In its efforts to diminish administrative costs so as to place more funds into the hands of Newfoundland and Labrador artists, The Arts Council approached government to provide office space in a government facility. We are very pleased to respond to this initiative of The Arts Council, and one could think of no more appropriate location for their offices than the Arts and Culture Center. These changes, Mr. Speaker, demonstrate our full confidence in the excellent work of The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council.

We are certain they will continue to provide the greatest possible support and leadership for the Newfoundland and Labrador artistic community. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR.. K. AYLWARD: What a pleasure it is today to 'see No. 50 R2924

another Liberal initiative brou~ht forward by the Tory Government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. K. AYLWARD: I will ~ive you some back~round on this. The · leader of the Opposition and I attended this art~ conference with open eyes and open ears, and we heard about the problems they have had over the last number of years. I have, by the way, to ~i ve some credit to Ms Cheryl Sta~~. of Stephenville, who went there and helped make this initiative a reality, alon~ with a lot of other people in the arts community who did a very good job.

The minister, however, decided he could not attend that weekend, he could not come to the conference. MR. BAKER: Where was he? MR. K. AYLWARD: He was off playing soccer somewhere. I do not know where he was. But I will tell you one thing, he was supposed to be in Montreal somewhere, but I heard he was in Grand Bank. But I do want to pat him on the back for coming forward and acceptin~ the initiative of the arts community. It is not the initiative of the Tory government, it is the initiative of the arts community who have done a good job. I also want to say that they had to eat their words a~ain today.

Because, last fall, they put out a press release condemning the arts group down there on Duckworth Street for spending too much money on the wrong thin~s. Now they are giving them office space, L2925 June 10, 1986 Vol XL recognizing the fact that they were spending too much money on tryin~ to have some decent space to operate in. So you ate your words a~ain today, Gentlemen, and you are goin~ to do it more often in the next few years. This is a good. Liberal initiative, and · it is ~ood to see it come throu~h. Con~ratulations! · SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions. MR.

BARRY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: We have questions for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young), we have questions for the Premier. Now, would the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) indicate whether both the Premier and the have and it Minister of Public Works decided to duck this issue stay out of the House until blows over? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is no point of order. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker: MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: As Your Honour said, there is no point of order.

The Premier is here daily, the Minister of Public Works is here daily, and if the No. 50 R2925

hon. gentleman has any questions let him ask his questions. MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Public Works is at a conference. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: I would like to ask the Government House Leader, since I set out a specific list of questions that I asked the Premier to supply information on to the House yesterday, does the Government House Leader have that information? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House yesterday. MR. EFFORD: You could have got ten information this morning. the MR.

CALLAN: They are taking turns staying away. MR. MARSHALL: I will respond, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition can control his minion. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: ·.Mr. Speaker, as I said, in the House yesterday. gentleman says he gave questions to the L2926 June 10, 1986 I was not The hon. a list of hon. the Vol XL Premier. Well, the Premier is not very shy about answering questions. He answers all the questions put to him. He answers them summarily and I am quite sure the hon. gentleman will get the answers to his questions in very short order. MR.

BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, until the Premier makes himself available and the Minister of Public Works makes himself available, prepared to answer questions in this House on this issue of political patronage and lying to the House of Assembly, there will be no questions, Mr. Speaker, because - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name him! Name him! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word ' lying' . MR.

BARRY: Until the Premier and the Minister of Public Works are prepared to come into the House and make statements that are non-contradictory, non-inconsistent with the facts, that do not result in terminological inexactitudes, that tell the situation as it is instead of how they want to pretend it to be, - Mr. Speaker, Question Period in this House, Question Period in this Province, is a farce, the entire legislative process is a farce, and the No. 50 R2926

official Opposition will not be asking questions until the government is prepared to give the answers. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Following that great blow for democracy by the hon. gentleman, I would draw to Your Honour's attention that the hon. gentleman used the words that the Minister of Public Works and the Premier - I believe he coupled them together were lying. I think those statements are obviously out of order and they have to be withdrawn.

I do not care whether the hon. gentleman asks questions or not, but he is to ~ithdraw that particular statement. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, as I understood it the Speaker asked to have it withdrawn and the Leader of the Opposition has substituted phrases which are perfectly parliamentary, which are perfectly true, which describe the situation exactly as it is, that the Premier and the Minister of Public Works are staying out of this House with the hope that an issue, that the Premier knows he is wrong on and does have the courage to address, L2927 June 10, 1986 Vol XL will go away. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I did ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term 'lying' . He has not done so. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I am sorry about that. I substituted. I withdrew it. If Your Honour has any hesitation I withdraw it again. I substituted that the Minister of Public Works and the Premier - MR. SPEAKER: I am quite satisfied the han. Leader withdrew. MR. BARRY: Hold on, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be made clear. I am entitled to explain what took place before in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I asked the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term 'lying' and he has not done that until now. I do not want any further explanation about the matter. MR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR .

SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: The point of order is that when a member in this House substitutes other phrases, phrases such as 'engaging in terminological inexactitudes', 'engaging in making statements that are inconsistent with reality,' No. 50 R2927

.t. engaging in making statements that they would want the House to believe are the truth but are only what members opposite are pretending to be the truth,' Mr. Speaker, then we are entitled to say that in parliamentary language, whatever we are prohibited from saying regardless of what we think. Until we see the Premier of this Province in his seat and the Minister of Public Works and Services in his seat, this is a farce. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. The bon. the Leader of the Opposition knows very well I just simply asked him to withdraw that term and he did not withdraw it.

But he has done it now and I am satisfied. MR. SIMMONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the bon. member for Fortune - Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe it is given that one of the traditions in parliament · is for the ministers to be accountable to the House. I believe it is a legitimate question to put to the government, the one that was ·put in another form by the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago: Can we expect the Premier and/or the Minister of Public Works and Services in the House today?

We have some questions we would like to put to these two gentlemen and, I believe as part of their responsibilities to be accountable to the House, we should be informed whether or not they are L2928 June 10, 1986 Vol XL going to be here today or how soon they are going to be here. Now, it is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that after the Premier made a statement on TV Thursday he did not show up . Friday in the House. The minister did not show yesterday, neither has shown today. They may have good reason, but at the very least, Mr.

Speaker, the House should be informed, I maintain, as to whether or not these gentlemen are going to be in the House today and, if not, when they will be in the House. MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the President of the Council to that point of order. MR. MARSHALL: I am advised that the Minister of Public Works and Services is at a Ministerial Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia.

The bon. gentlemen there opposite take themselves infinitely more seriously than the people of Newfoundland do if they think that the Premier of this Province is out of the Province because he is cowering from questions that the bon. gentleman may put to him. The bon. the Premier has business of the Province to attend to on an hourly and a quarter-hourly basis. He will be here in due course and there is never any problem in answering questions. As I say, how foolish are the bon. gentlemen.

They obviously take themselves infinitely more seriously than the people of Newfoundland if they think the Premier is not in the House because he is afraid to come in and answer questions. No. 50 R2928

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. The bon. member took the opportunity of offering an explanation about a certain matter. MR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the We would like the Government House Leader to indicate whether the reason the Premier is not in the House is because, as was indicated by the member for Carbonear (Mr. Peach), government members have been eavesdropping on the Opposition caucus. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. PATTERSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: We are on a point of order now. MR. BAIRD: Poor old 'Leo.' MR. PEACH: Who has been feeding you lately? You do not seem to be the same. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we wonder if the Government House Leader would confirm that the reason the Premier is not in the House is because the member for Carbonear and other designated eavesdroppers, Mr. Speaker, have been eavesdropping on the - L2929 June 10, 1986 Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. BARRY: Opposition caucus room? We wonder if the Government House Leader could confirm this? MR.

SPEAKER: There is no point of order. That seems to be more a question than a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: And, Mr. Speaker, what a foolish question! The hon. gentleman was down to 7 per cent a little while ago, and now he has gone out of sight. MR. PATTERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Placentia on a point of order. MR. PATTERSON: With reference to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, we do not need any scientific, technical devices to hear what goes on in their caucus, because any time a contentious issue comes up, like the member for the Straits (Mr.

Decker) was trying to get rid of you to bring in Smallwood, you usually throw a tantrum and we can hear it all through the building. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. ·MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, do we go back and No. 50 R2929

fot"th? MR. SPEAKER: To that point of Ot"det". MR. TULK: To that point of ot"det", it is obvious that the gentleman, the puffball of poison ft"om Placentia, is ovet" thet"e again tt"ying to use anothet" divet"sionat"y tactic to take away ft"om the business of this House, to take away ft"om the fact that the Pt"emiet" of the Pt"ovince and the Ministet" of Public Wot"ks do not have the cout"age to do what is t"ight, to come to this House ei thet" to answet" questions. The Pt"emiet", of cout"se, does not have the cout"age to ask the Ministet" of Public Wot"ks fot" his t"esignation, which he should do.

In view of his confessions on public television and in view of what has gone on in this House, it is obvious that thet"e have been contt"adictions, and what we at"e seeing het"e is a delibet"ate attempt by the membet" fot" Placentia to again divet"t the issues. He should hang his head in shame, Mt". Speaket", and if he does not, the Speaket" should ask the hon. gentleman to withdt"aw those kinds of t"emat"ks he is making and ask him to leave the precincts of this House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Ot"det", please! MR. TULK: The membet" for Cat"boneat" should watch what he is getting on with, too. MR.

SPEAKER: Ot"det", please! I have already ruled that there is no point of order. When the bon. member L2930 June 10, 1986 Vol XL wanted to say a few words I did not think he wanted to make a speech. The han. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Opposition obviously are not interested in asking any questions I move that the Orders of the Day be now read. That is, the pt"ecedents will show, non-debatable and non-amendable. 'Question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question! MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, 'Aye'? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker.

DR. COLLINS: Non-debatable . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is a question ·now before the floor. All those in favour of adopting that motion? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay. MR. SPEAKER: Carried. Orders of the Day MR. MARSHALL: No. SO R2930

Order 15, Bill No. 1. MR. SP EAK ER: The continued debate on second reading of Bill No. 1. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the fact that Question Period is a farce is because there are no members opposite prepared to give information .. MR. PATTERSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for Placentia. MR. PATTERSON: It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barry) should be so concerned about Question Period when he left this party, the seat of democracy, to join a party that did not have a Question Period. There was no Question Period until we formed the government in 1972. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order. The hon. Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how members opposite have changed since they came into government. They came into government with the L2931 June 10, 1986 Vol XL great boast of reform; the Government House Leader (Mr.

Marshall) came in on the promise that things would change, particularly matters relating ·to the procedure of this House. MR. PATTERSON: We got rid of you. MR. MARSHAL L: We are debating the Accord now. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: You sit and listen now, you know the rules. The Government House Leader came into this House, Mr. Speaker, with great ideas of reform, as did the Premier. They said, 'We are going to set up a Question Period where the issues of the day can be raised and, Mr. Speaker, where government will be held accountable.' And what have we seen? What have we seen for the last four days?

What it boils down to, Mr. Speaker, . is that members opposite are prepared to answer questions on issues which they consider to be politically non-damaging, but anything that goes. to whether in fact there is corruption in government, anything which goes to whether a minister of the Crown has been abusing his authority by hiring on the basis of political patronage - MR. J. CARTER : A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE AKER: A point of order, the han. the member for St. John's North. MR. J. CARTER: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the rule of relevance is a fairly No. 50 R2931

relaxed one and that fairly wide-ranging debate is allowed, but, as I understand it, we are on Bill No. 1, the Atlantic Accord, and so far the Leader of the Opposition has yet to even allude to it let alone mention it. MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the member for Gander. MR. BAKER: I think that John's North ·should have the member for St. (Mr. J. Carter) listened to the Goverrunent House Leader when he gave his introductol;'y speech on the Atlantic Accord. He used about an hour and a half, Mr.

Speaker, and for one hour and fifteen minutes he hardly mentioned the Atlantic Accord but went on a savage personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition, going back over the years that had nothing to do with the Atlantic Accord. So, I would say to the member for St. John's North, he should wake up and listen to his own House Leader. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I must rule there is no point of order. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has an hour and he can develop his ~peech. SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? An hour? MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, the reason I want to deal with the question of parliamentary procedure is because we see the same thing with respect to their great promise of reform of the legislative process, as we L2932 June 10, 1986 Vol XL saw with respect to the great promise on the Atlantic Accord. Before the Atlantic Accord was introduced, they called a press conference at the Hotel Newfoundland and it was supposed to be the answer to all of Newfoundland's problems, including the unemployment problem. Now, Mr.

Speaker, not only do we see members opposite not even bothering to rise on the other side of the House to debate this great flagship legislation, we see them playing petty politics with the jobs, with the bread and butter of families in this Province. Instead of delivering 40,000 jobs - what was it the Minister of Career Development (Mr. Power) promised, between 10,000 and 20,000 jobs? - we have yet to get an announcement that Hibernia is going to go, even though the Premier got up earlier this Spring and said unless there was a decision by early June, there would be no Hibernia development start this year. MR.

MATTHEWS: That is what you are hoping. MR. BARRY: ·No, that is not what we are hoping. What we intend to do is put the member for Grand Bank's (Mr. Matthews) and the rest of his colleagues' feet to the fire and we want to see them produce what they promised, which was jobs, and we want to see those jobs allocated on a non-partisan basis, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: We want to see ministers of this House and the Premier, when we get up and ask a question as to whether in fact the Minister of No. 50 R2932

Public Works cancelled a competition because he wanted those he had appointed to the temporary jobs held there on a permanent basis, we want to have the answers to our questions, Mr. Speaker, with respect to dates when he received recommendations for those permanent positions, dates when he cancelled the competition, copies of memoranda that he sent out ordering public service employees not to sit on departmental selection boards, we want to know, Mr.

Speaker, why is it that the Premier of this Province is prepared to leave a Minister of Public Works in office who not only by his own admission has abused his responsibility, has abused his position of public trust but, Mr. Speaker, has come into this House and told this House other than the facts in that particular case. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: We want to know, Mr.

Speaker, have we reached yet another low in political morality in this Province, a low which has not yet been reached in any other parliamentary country in the world, I do not think, where a minister is able to come into this House and tell something that is not true in response to a question from the Opposition, say something that is untrue and, when proven to be that which we are not allowed to call him but which we all know is the label one applies to somebody who tells untruths, why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier will not give answers to those questions? Does he think that the issue is going to go away?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader can carry this back to wherever the Premier L2933 June 10, 1986 Vol XL is hiding, and here is the message: Every day that the House of Assembly is open, and we will keep it open as long as we can, we are going to ask questions on the issue of the Minister of Public Works and Services (Hr. Young) and his kiddy patronage until we get the answers that we are looking for. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: We are not going to let the Premier of this Province put up a stone wall between the Opposition and the truth, Hr. Speaker.

The Premier can stonewall and the Government House Leader can assist in that stonewalling. But the Government House Leader, his recommendations on strategy so far in the last three sessions boiled down to cutting your losses, terminating the House of Assembly, and running. Hoist your tails and run is the name of the game that is recommended by the Government House Leader. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the government can have that option again, they can try and terminate this session of the House, but I will tell them here and now that we are g~ing to ask questions again tomorrow, during Question Period, on the question of Public Works hi rings. We are going, Mr. Speaker, to ask questions every day while this House of Assembly remains open, and we are going to try and keep the House open as long as we can. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Because I think that this is, not I do not think in the fact that matters which are untrue have come No. 50 R2933

across from the other side previously, but it is the first time that we have seen it done in such a baldfaced fashion. It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, I think probably in the history of, well - I am just trying to think back. How long is it that we have had a Premier stay in his seat and refuse to stand up and answer questions of the Opposition? MR. TULK: It was know. never Was Newfoundland? MR. MATTHEWS: done as it ever far as done I in You had one for twenty-odd years who did not answer questions. MR. BARRY: No, I was trying to think back to the time of the previous Premier.

I do not think that I remember Frank Moores ever staying in his seat and being afraid to answer a question. I know Joe Smallwood did not sit in his seat and not answer questions. MR. MATTHEWS: No, because you were not allowed to ask questions. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: As a matter of fact, Joe Smallwood was prepared to bring the television cameras in and answer questions, and was prepared to bring witnesses in on the floor. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. PATTERSON: He brought Shaheen in here and he ripped us off for millions .. MR. BARRY: L2934 June 10, 1986 Vol XL Mr.

Speaker, the member .for Placentia (Mr. Patterson) is the expert on rip-offs in this Province, so we will let him discuss that. The Placentia Puffball of poison is the expert on rip-offs. MR. MATTHEWS: Tell us about Valdmanis? MR. PATTERSON: Come down and run against me boy! Come down! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure that we will mount a campaign. The member for Placentia is going to be like the guy in Texas who was defeated by a chap who had died two weeks earlier. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: All we need do is go out and find a name on a tombstone, Mr.

Speaker, and the member for Placentia will be gone. MR. REID: You will be in the graveyard anyway. MR. BARRY: He is in the political graveyard right now. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen in this House, Mr. Speaker, is members opposite try and pretend that a problem is going to go away, that if they can refuse to answer questions long enough, refuse to supply answers, refuse to table documents as requested, they think that the issue is going to go away. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have another thing coming. This issue is not going away and we are going to use every No. 50 R2934

procedural opportunity, every legislative device that is available to us to get at the truth as to what took place, and the truth is that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) - MR. J. CARTER: Do not point at me. MR. BARRY: No, I know the backbencher now - MR. TULK: He is pointing at the Chair in front of you. MR. BARRY: sitting in that seat is waiting. He is hoping that the minister is going because before the seat is cold he thinks that he is going to be in it. Well, the member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) had his shot at a Cabinet position and it was not very long before it was discovered, Mr.

Speaker, that it was not safe to leave the member for St. John's North in a Cabinet position because one did not know where he would next turn up, whether it was in Moscow seeking advice on how to educate and discipline the children of this Province according to the communist methods there employed, or whether it was in the study of some other obscure and eccentric method of disciple, Mr. Speaker, that is where you can find the member for St. John's North. But what we have now, Mr. Speaker, is a degree of duplicity on the part of members opposite with respect to this patronage issue. They are caught.

"Oh, what a tangle web we weave/When first we practice to deceive!" Mr. Speaker, that tangled web is over there now and members opposite, the Premier and the Minister of L2935 June 10, 1986 Vol XL Public Works (Hr. Young) particularly, think that the only way out of that tangled web is to stay out of the House of Assembly. Well again, Mr. Speaker, they can run but they cannot hide. The are going to have to come back at some point in time, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to have to give the answers that we have been seeking.

Just in terms of duplicity, let me go to the Atlantic Accord for a minute and let me go to the responses of the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall), to the five points that I listed in the course of my debate on the Accord. Just dig out the Government House Leader's speech for me so I can refer to the specific questions. MR. TULK: Was that the one in February? MR. BARRY: No, the one he gave just recently. Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader got up the other day - MR. PATTERSON: He cut your salary once, he will cut it again. MR.

BARRY: The Government House Leader got up the other day and pretended to answer the points that were raised in my speech. Now, what the Government House Leader forgot is that I was quoting his own words. When he attacked what I was saying in my speech, he was attacking himself. For example, Mr. Speaker, let me go and just refer to the Government House Leader's comments with respect to participation. MR. TULK: No. 50 R2935

Do you have it? MR. BARRY: No, I would like to have you speak. I am going · to refer to my own speech now. MR. J. CARTER: Would the Le~der of the Opposition permit a serious question? MR. BARRY: On February 21, 1986 when speaking on the Accord, Mr. Speaker, I referred to comments in a report prepared by the Government House Leader, the very person who was asking us to vote for this clause in the Accord on refining. This report was issued in August, 1982. Here is what the minister in the report said: ..

The promot .ion of the downstream industrial potential of offshore oil and gas production depends on the number of interrelated factors from future market conditions . in the world refining and petrochemial industries to the existence of a preference in the supply of feedstock for local users. .. The general implication of these factors is that downstream development in Newfoundland .. that is refining and processing - "will be undertaken under highly competitive conditions, and that control of the availability and price of feedstock from the offshore will be the critical tool in encouraging local development.

This is certainly the case in Alberta where .provincial control of natural gas feedstock has to be used to build a world-scale petrochemical industry." The minister got up the other day and attacked us on this side of the House for saying that it was important for us to try and use L2936 June 10, 1986 Vol XL our control of Hibernia oil and gas to see refining and processing onshore in this Province. Whose questions was he attacking? Whose words was he attacking? Was this just another example of the same sort of political posturing that the Premier has indicated he engaged in on the railway?

Has the Government House Leader been politically posturing on the offshore since he took over that portfolio in the Fall of 1981? MR. FLIGHT : Yes, yes. HR. BARRY: Did he really believe what he said in August, 1982 in this report? MR. FLIGHT: No. MR. BARRY: Listen to what he says about the Nova Scotia agreement. In that report the Government House Leader pointed out that the clause in the Newfoundland Accord was the same as the one in the Nova Scotian agreement.

Listen to what he said about the clause in the Nova Scotian agreement: "Ambiguity exists in determining whether the concept of existing industrial facilities would include a mothballed refinery such as Come by Chance, and whether only industrial facilities existing as of the signing of the agreement, or such facilities as exist from time to time, will be given preference under this clause." Do you remember the minister carne in, after introducing the original Accord and said, 'It is perfectly unambiguous'. He had forgotten, Mr. Speaker, about this report which he prepared in August of No. 50 R2936

1982. His own words in black and while have come back to haunt him. Maybe that is why the minister has told . officials of the Petroleum Directorate not to prepare any more reports. We have not seen a report from that Petroleum Directorate in · the last couple of years. The reason is because the minister's words come back to haunt him. Whenever he puts anything down in writing, whether it be comments with respect to conflict of interest regulations, whether it be comments with respect to Question Period in the House of Assembly - MR. J. CARTER: Hr. Speaker, on a point of order. HR.

SPEAKER: The hon. ·member for St. John's North on a point of order. HR. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is very important in this debate that we have a clear statement from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) as to the Opposition's position on whether or not he feels that the oil produced at Hibernia, or any of the other wells, should, of necessity, be processed here in Newfoundland. I do not mean all of it but the bulk of it. I would like a clear statement from him as it would help very much in this debate. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR . BARRY: Hr.

Speaker, it is not a point of order but I will be happy to answer that by saying again what I said on February 21 when the member for St. John's North was, L2937 June 10, 1986 Vol XL as he often is, sound asleep. I know he has difficulty reading Hansard, if he went back to pick out Hansard, but I will read what I said. I refer the member to February 21, 1986, Hansard, page 4957.

I said that we will be voting for this Bill in principle, the principle of settling this issue by an agreement with the Government of Canada we accept, but I said we will be proposing an amendment because the Accord, as it is now drafted, is seriously flawed and here is the flaw. I said, Mr. Speaker, that it is flawed in the way it deals with refining . In my speech, Mr. Speaker, I said that we will be proposing an amendment that oil and gas from Hibernia or any other field off Newfoundland and Labrador should only be produced if there is an operating refinery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador .

Whether it is Come By Chance or whether it is another refinery, there should be no production off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, based on the same theory as I just read out which was proposed by the Government House Leader. The only way we will see jobs from refining and processing is if we use our control to insist that there be refining and processing. MR. J. CARTER: All of the oil or some of it? HR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, that, to a certain extent, depends upon how much we are producing.

We think that there should be at least a refinery the size of Come By Chance operating which could handle around 100,000 barrels a No. 50 R2937

day OL something in excess of 100,000 barLels a day. With Hibernia onstLeam, theLe will be times, not foL the whole life of Hibernia but theLe will be yeaLs when Hibernia would pLoduce moLe than 100,000 baLLels a day and we would accept that duLing that peLiod of peak pLoduction some of the oil and gas could not be Lef ined within the PLovince of Newfoundland and LabradoL but, theLe should be at least the capacity to Lefine up to 100,000 baLLels a day. MR. J. CARTER: WheLe would you get youL market for the refineLy products? MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, if the membeL ,' the former minister, is having difficulty getting answers to this type of question fLom his colleagues in Cabinet, let me suggest that the members support the members on this of the House because they can supply the answeLs to those questions and when they fornt the government, as will happen after the next election, they will provide the markets. There are no shortage of markets. MR. J. CARTER: For crude oil, yes, but for - MR. BARRY: There aLe no shoLtage of markets, Mr. Speaker, foL pLoduct.

TheLe aLe tempoLaLy gluts · from time to time but theLe are no shoLtage of markets in North America for refined products. MR. J. CARTER: Well, why problems? MR. FUREY: is Irving L2938 June 10, 1986 having Vol XL Be quiet, boy, and go back to sleep. MR. BARRY: There may be too many refineries operating. MR. J. CARTER: Well, think yes, the another. MR.

BARRY: that is it, and you WOLld has room for But these refineLies have to get a supply of oil and gas from somewhere and there is absolutely no reason why those refineries should be kept operational on the oil and gas in Hibernia when we are forced to keep a refinery closed. MR. J. CARTER: They can get it on th~ open market, we cannot. I do not see a connection between a Lefinery and the oil (inaudible). MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, it makes no wandeL that the member for St. John's North was flung out of Cabinet because the PremieL could not trust him to make his eccentric statements as government policy.

Now, the Premier has been kind enough to point out, making it a lot easier for the Opposition, that he does not listen to his backbenchers on any serious question. So that makes it a lot easier for members on this side of the House not to be too conceLned about the outrageous statements of . the member for st. John's North. The member foL St. John's North should stand up in this House in his proper time when he has the chance to speak in this debate and tell the people of this Province is he saying that we are not entitled to have oil and gas No. 50 R2938

refined and to have the jobs from refining oil and gas in this Province, even if this means that a refinery closes down in New Brunswick or Quebec or Alberta or wherever the hell. MR. J. CARTER: Are you asking me to respond? MR. BARRY: No, Mr. Speaker, the member will have his opportunity to stand up. I have my hour and I want to use every minute of it because I have a lot to say, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Speaker if he would try and put a pillow over the member's head or something to keep him quiet and to stop interrupting. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I do not mind him asking me a question periodically but I do mind when he goes on in a constant stream of harassment. Mr. Speaker, I just quoted the member for St. John's East, the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall), where he spoke about using control of oil and gas to get refining and processing. That was only in 1982. Maybe the member for St. John's North should ask his Government House Leader was the Government House Leader trying to mislead the people of this Province and this House when he tabled that report? Was he just politically posturing the way they have been posturing on the railway?

Can we believe nothing they say on that side of the House any more? Mr. Speaker, in that same report, just listen to what the member for St. John's East said about the Nova Scotia agreement. He said, L2939 June 10, 1986 Vol XL "What is agreement, industdal clear is that under the new Nova Scotia-based, buyers will not be given access to offshore production unless 'such feedstock is excess to feedstock required to meet the demand of presently existing industrial capacity in Eastern Canada' . " The minister goes on.

"Thfs means that unlike Alberta, which can use its oil and gas resources to start new industries which can compete with existing refineries in Ontario and Quebec, Nova Scotia can only hope that more oil and gas is found off its coast than Ontario and Quebec will need. This is hardly consistent with a commitment to using the resource to promote local economic development." So does the member now understand? The Government House Leader in 1982 was saying the same thing that I am saying now. MR. J. CARTER: Will you give me a minute to respond? MR. BARRY: Yes.

The member will have a half an hour to respond when he gets up in his place to speak in this debate, if he is allowed to. Maybe he has been told, like the Premier told the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr . Young) , to keep his mouth shut so as not to embarrass government. But the Government House Leader in 1982 was saying exactly the same thing as we are saying now, that we should be entitled, Mr.

Speaker, to use the oil and gas from Hibernia, to require that it be refined and processed onshore in this Province to create jobs; in the same way we say we will not let fish be exported in raw form so that the cutting jobs and the processing jobs are elsewhere; in the same way we say we want our No. 50 R2939

forest products processed in Newfoundland; in ·the same way we say we do not want our electricity flowing out to create jobs in Quebec - fish, trees, electricity and oil, they are all the same. They are all raw, natural resources and they should be used in this Province to create jobs in this Province. MR. J. CARTER: Some are perishable and some are not. MR. BARRY: Yes and the biggest perishable of all, Mr. Speaker, is the member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) and his political career. It is what will be called a fungible, I think, and the member for St.

John's North is going to get well funged in the next election. Mr. Speaker, is it only myself and the Government House Leader in 1982 who believed this? Listen to Dr. House who has been appointed the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment. Presumably the Premier has some faith in that gentleman's judgement and in that gentleman's ideas. What did Dr. House of Memorial University say should be done as far as oil and gas are concerned? He talked about the Accord.

He says, 'A second weakness is uncertainly about the implications of the Accord for a downstream processing industry, refining and petrochemicals for the Province. Under a

section on regional security of supply the Accord gives first pr-iority for- end use consumption and industrial ·. feedstock to capacity already in place within Newfoundland'. He says, 'It is unclear whether the mothballed Corne By Chance refinery L2940 June 10, 1986 Vol XL is counted as part of existing capacity'. MR. DECKER: Who said that? MR. BARRY: Dr. House is saying · this and he says also, 'If not, r-efineries in other parts of Eastern Canada would have first call on Hibernia crude.

This would make the pr-ospects for Newfoundland to process its raw material into finished products rather r-emote for the foreseeable future' . Imagine that now! Listen to this that Dr. House says , the same Dr. House who was appointed by the Premier to head up his Royal Commission: 'Contr-ary to the Peckford r-hetoric, Newfoundlanders would still be huers of wood, if rather r-icher ones'. Well, with the drop in the pr-ice of oil, we would still be hewers of wood but, unfor-tunately, not quite as rich. I do not know! Is it myself, the Government House Leader- in 1982 and Dr.

House who are now wrong, and the member for St. John's North is right? What is going on here? Mr. Speaker, I would like to address something that has been really bo .thering me. I would like to address that clarion call for my resignation which went out fr-om the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) with respect to my position on offshor-e o.il and gas. I would like to put this question: Why should I resign for having the same position as the Government House Leader had in 1982? Why is that a reason for my resigning? The Government House Leader has No. 50 R2940

found it necessary to back off from the position that he held in 1982. We all know why that was. Mr. Mulroney, who is a member of the same political party as the gentlemen opposite, took the members up to Ottawa and laid down the golden rule of Tory politics, and the golden rule of Tory politics is that we will all speak with the same voice. The theory is that if everybody says the same thing, there will be a better chance of people believing them. So, the Premier and the Government ·House Leader thought about this and they agreed.

They felt that their only chance of political survival would be to agree with the Prime Minister of Canada on anything. It did not matter what it was. On free trade we saw the Premier stand up and say, "Me too, me too, me too," what was it~ a day or two days after the Prime Minister had announced his position. Other premiers were saying, "We do not know enough about what is meant, we do not know enough about what the Prime Minister intends, •• but not the Premier of this Province. He was saying, "Whatever is good enough for my Tory Prime Minister is good enough for me".

Even though months afterwards, six months, seven months, eight months afterwards other premiers were still saying, "What sort of input are the provinces going to have in these negotiations?", the Premier of this Province was saying, "No, whatever the Prime Minister of Canada says, it is good enough for me." That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader had to change his position because he was told, "Fall in line with Ottawa or else ." He fell in line .

So he changed 180 degFees and we now L2941 June 10, 1986 Vol XL have a situation where he is coming in with the Atlantic Accord which is supposed to be Newfoundland's answer to everything, · including sliced bread, and lo and behold, when we look at it, it makes no provision for ensuring that there is refining and processing of oil and gas in this Province, even though only a few years ago the Government House Leader in this report to which I have referred said it was absolutely important, absolutely essential, that we have that refining and processing. Now, is that the only thing?

You might be able to say, "Well, that is just an oversight by the Government House Leader." You might be able to say, "That is only one factor and there are other things in the Accord." Well, let us look at something else. Let us look at this whole issue of the back-in, the notion of a Crown corporation having the right to have a share in any oil or gas found offshore.

The Prime Minister of Canada went down to the United States and before a meeting of oilmen in that country, I think it was at the Park Plaza Hotel in New York, he said, 'I am going to give you back that share that Petro-Canada has in the oil and gas of Hibernia. ' The same minute that the Prime Minister was down there making that statement to the oilmen, we were here in this House asking a question to the Premier, because remember there is an hour and a half time difference.

So we were here at 3:00 o'clock or 3:15 asking a question t.o th~ Premier, and that was about 1:30 or 1: 45, t~e exact moment when the Prime Minister of Canada, following the luncheon down there, was on his feet saying No. 50 R2941

to the oilmen, 'I am g1v1ng you back the 25 pet" cent of Hibet"Tlia which Pett"o-Canada held.' AN HON. MEMBER: An expensive lunch. MR. BARRY: An expensive lunch, was it not? What did the Pt"emiet" say when we asked him that same moment whethet" he agt"eed with this? He said, 'my staff at"e on the telephone to the Prime Minister's Office trying to find out what is going on.' Then members opposite have the gall to come in here and say that there is now a new era of co-operation and consultation which makes everything better in ·terms of dealing with the Government of Canada.

Well, you could have no better example, Mr. Speaker, of how the Govet"Tlment of Canada takes members opposite, takes the Premiet", takes the Govet"Tlment House Leader and sticks it to him, and does what it wants, whether it is with respect to out" oil and gas ot" with respect to free trade Ot" the t"ailway · or any other issue. All this comes back down to the matter of credibility.

You see, it might not be a bad strategy for the federal Tories and the provincial Tories to say, 'we will all speak with the same voice, we will all say the same thing and everybody will believe us.' That is only true if both pat"ts of the team maintain their credibility. What do we see from the Prime Minister of Canada lately as far as credibility is concet"Tled? Well, I guess the best example was his sacred trust with respect to universality and with respect to not attacking old age pensions.

Within a couple of months after he L2942 June 10, 1986 Vol XL was elected, he tried to cut back the old age pensions and were it not for the senior citizens of this country and their gt"ey power mounting that t-remendous campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada might have gotten away with it because members opposite wer.e not opening their mouths. They were not saying a word to protect the senior citizens of this Province. But then ministers reasons Cabinet. we had a series of resigning for various from the Mulroney The most recent one being Mr.

Stevens where, in a fashion very similar to what has been going on in this House - AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the stonewalling? MR. BARRY: Yes, exactly - the Prime Minister tt"ied to stonewall in the same way that the Premier is trying to stonewall as far as the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr. Young) is concerned. The credibility of the Prime Minister of this country has been severely damaged, and lo and behold, what is happening is that the credibility of members opposite is being damaged at the same time. But do you know something?

I think that even if the Prime Minister's credibility had not been damaged, the credibility of members opposite would be questionable now anyhow. The Premier of this Province only a few months ago got up and said that he had been lying to the people of this Province fat", what was it, six years, on the railway. He had been saying that we had a constitutional right to have a railway forever. No. 50 R2942

All of a sudden we find the Premier of this Province saying, 'No, no, we do not have a constitutional right anymore.' Now, why would he be saying that?

If you look at the proceedings of the House of Commons, the federal ministers up there are all saying Newfoundland has a constitutional right, the Prime Minister is saying Newfoundland has a constitutional right, why is the Premier of this Province saying we do not, contt"ary to his own words of a few years ago? -Obviously, he is trying to pave the way to weaken Newfoundland's case, to make it easier to sell-out the railway when the day comes when that will be necessary, and that day will be necessary when his bosses in Ottawa tell him, Okay, 'Brian' , now is the time to sell-out the Newfoundland railway.

He will do it, he will jump to it, Mr. Speaker. In the Minister of Public Works and Service's (Mr. Young) incident there last week we got a real insight into the way the Premier thinks. He went on television in this Province and launched into a tremendous attack on the press. Why did he attack the press? He attacked the press for taking unfair advantage of the Minister of Public Works and Services. That is exactly what he was saying. He said, you know this minister is easily flustered. You can dress him up but you cannot take him out. We know he is not competent. That is what he was saying, basically.

You know, I only have him there. Why? Because I owe him a favour or because he has something on me. Why does he have him in Cabinet and why is he protecting him? That is a question we will have to put to the Premier when he comes back in the House, if he ever L2943 June 10, 1986 Vol XL comes back in the House. The Premier basically was saying to the press, it is not fair what you did. It was cruel and it was not fair for you to trick the Minister of Public Works and Services into telling the truth. That is where we at"e in this Province today, because the minister never did deny what he said.

He said the same thing here in the House, it is in Hansard, that he would hire sons and .daughters of people who supported him before he would hire the sons and daughter's of other people. Now, those sons and daughters may never have voted in their lives. DR. COLLINS: You at"e flogging a dead horse, like always. MR. BARRY: Yes, I admit that the Minister of Public Works and Services is a dead horse and we want to see him six feet under, politically. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: And we want to see the Premier of this Province throw the first sod down on his political grave.

That is what he should do, if he had any honour as a Premier. He should not permit the Minister of Public Works and Services to engage in those kind of cot"rupt practices, that patronage, that punishment of all those 40,000 young men and women who are looking for work because they did not vote for the member. In the House of Assembly the minister' said, 'I said that the pet"son who worked for me politically, his son and daughter had a better chance of getting a job than the son and daughter of a person who worked against me.' Now, that is No. 50 R2943

corruption, that is an abuse of office, that is a despicable attack on every young person who has not been politically active. Mr. Speaker, dead horse or no, to remove the stench in the political nostrils of this Province, that dead horse has to be politically buried. Mr. Speaker, we all know there is a ritual, we all know there is a formality to go through. Mr. Speaker, we all know about the formality and the formality requires the Premier of the Province to be the main pallbearer in this type of situation. The Premier of this Province is the main pallbearer. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Public Works the end of last week, last Friday, when he was feeling the heat on this issue to which I just referred, he said to members on this side of the House, after the House closed - I cannot use the term he used - 'You will not be able to get me next week, because I am going to be out of the Province'. Well, Mr. Speaker, we see the minister living up to his words. He is gone out of the Province so that we cannot get at him.

But not only. is he gone, we see the Premier of this Province, who was here~ by the way, last Friday, in this building and would not show up at Question Period, and, when I gave him a list of questions that I wanted answers to today, we saw the Premier take the list yesterday and not have the courage to show up today. Now all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is does it make any wonder that we would question whether we should believe members opposite on the Atlantic Accord when it goes contrary to what the minister was saying a few years ago, when it goes contrary to what the Premier L2944 June 10, 1986 Vol XL was saying?

This is the other point now: The Government House Leader attacked me ·for having the audacity to say that we should go back for this 25 per cent back in, that there should be the right of a Crown corporation to have a share of Hibernia, that it was not right for Mr. Mulroney to do this without ever consulting with the Premier, because, you know, once Mulroney did it, naturally the Premier then could not say anything but, 'Well, I agree with it'. What was he saying a couple of years ago? Let us just look at what they were saying about the participation.

Remember, we started a Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation? Now, let me quote the words of the Premier on January 25, 1982. Listen to this.

"Through direct participation in the resource development process, the corporation, that is the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Corporation, is designed to help the Province achieve a fair share of revenues, jobs and industrial benefits while operating in a manner which is sensitive to local needs." Now listen to what he says: "Under the Province's regulations, said the Premier" - this is in 1982 - "more than half of the income to government from Hibernia will come through the participation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Corporation." More than half of our revenue! Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier was taking the same position in 1982 as members on this side of the House are taking today. He was supporting the notion of having a Crown corporation to participate No. 50 R2944

in the development of Hibernia. Now, I do not know if I can find his exact words, I looked at them a couple of days ago. But, when the Government House Leader (Mr. Marshall) was attacking me in his speech on the Accord, he forgot, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier had been saying the same thing, and the Government House Leader said, 'That is total foolishness, total nonsense! ' Total foolishness, he said, to think about getting revenue through a Crown corporation. Well, did he consult with the Premier?

Is he saying that the Premier was a total fool in 1982, and does he still think that the Premier is a total fool today? Or at what point in time did the Premier cease to be a total fool? Was it when the government changed in Ottawa and when the Premier stopped criticizing the government in Ottawa? Is that when the Government House Leader stopped thinking that the Premier was a total fool? Or does he still think he is a total fool but is afraid to tell him? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRY: Now, the minister got up and asked me for my resignation and he quoted my letter of resignation where I said, Mr.

Speaker, that I did not think the Premier would be able to bring about a settlement along the lines of what he was proposing when I resigned. And do you know something? MR . TULK: You were right. MR. BARRY : I was absolutely right. Because within six months, Mr. Speaker, or less, actually it was within four 12945 June 10, 1986 Vol XL months, the Premier had to give up this notion of negotiating through a committee and he had to send the minister up to meet face to face, first with Mr. Lalonde and then with Mr. Chretien. He had to give up this notion that you could negotiate through a committee.

Now, was I wrong in saying that their approach was going to delay getting a settlement? MR. TULK: You were absolutely right. MR. BARRY: It was back in September, 1981 that I resigned, almost five years ago. Now, have we overheated the economy so far? Has the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador been blackened by that petroleum? Are our salt water cowboys, Mr. Speaker, riding the range on their million dollar ranches from all the money they are making offshore?

Is the Government of this Province rolling in revenues from the offshore so that they can keep the Come By Chance hospital open, or keep the Grand Bank hospital open, or keep the st. Lawrence hospital open? Are they rolling in revenues so that they can fund the university? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. PATTERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Greening): Order, please! A point of order, the bon . the member for Placentia. MR. PATTERSON: I notice the trained seals are managing to get their flippers up on the desks and they pat them No. 50 R2945

very gently. The Leader of the Opposition was mentioning about the offshore and the wealth and so ort. He is the only fellow who made any money off the offshore so far. You do not have to be in the offshore in Newfoundland to drive a Mercedes, all you have to be is a lawyer. That is all you have to be, and an unscrupulous one, at that! MR. BARRY: To that point of order, Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Mr. To that point of order, the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, the puffball of poison from Placentia has never made an honest dollar in his life, has never been able to keep a business going, has never been able to do anything for which people were prepared to pay him. Now, fortunately, Mr. Speaker, that was not like me. Fortunately, people were prepared to pay for my services and pay well, and get a bloody good job done when they paid for it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is a difference of opinion between two han. members. The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: And the jealousy, Mr.

Speaker, of the Placentia puffball of poison is not going to detract at all from the reality of the situation, which is that the member is on a slippery political slope, he is L2946 June 10, 1986 Vol XL going down for the third time and, Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is go out and find a name on a headstone and the member will be defeated in the next e·lection. All we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is get a good name off a headstone and he is gone. MR. PATTERSON: Here is The Canadian Lawyer, read that, boy! MR. CALLAN: Remember what Hopper said yesterday? MR. BARRY: Yes, that is a good point.

Talking about all the revenue we are going to get from the Hibernia, Wilbert Hopper says it would be very sensible, Mr. Speaker, for the Government of Canada to subsidize the production at Hibernia. Now, this is a man, the guy who is leaving Petro-Canada. One would assume he knows a little bit more about oil than the member for Placentia, who might have seen cod oil; he never got his feet wet, he never went out and did an honest days work fishing, he was a hangishore, Mr. Speaker, a hangishore who never went below the low water mark. The only time he saw salt water was when they flooded Placentia Beach. Mr.

Speaker, that member might have known what cod liver oil was all about. If he was around the wharf when those people who were working for a living rolled up a tub of cod liver oil, a puncheon of cod liver oil, Mr. Speaker, then the member for Placentia might have experienced cod liver oil, but he is surely not in a position to criticize Wilbert Hopper who says that now we are talking about subsidizing production from Hibernia. What No. 50 R2946

does that mean? Instead of the taxpayers of Canada getting revenue, it means that the taxpayers' dollars have to go into it in order to get production. MR. PATTERSON: There is nothing subsidies, boy. MR. BARRY: new about There is nothing new about subsidies, because the member for Placentia, that is the only thing he survived on for the last seventy-five years. Ever since during the dirty thirties he has spent his time getting his scrip. He has existed on subsidies, he has been sucking on the public tit, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years. MR. PATTERSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: .

A point of order, the hon. the member for Placentia. MR. PATTERSON: This is The Canadian lawyer. 'Barry says his firm earned an estimated $750,000 off fifteen clients.• Can you imagine that? MR. MATTHEWS: Fifteen poor widows. MR. PATTERSON: Fifteen poor widows. He does not know what to do now, because he has been censored by the Law Society, and that is a closed shop, so the decision they made has not come out. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. MR. FUREY: The scum is short down again. L2947 June 10, 1986 Vol XL MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, again the member for Placentia (Mr.

Patterson) refers to a matter which was dealt with and which was dismissed. MR. PATTERSON: What did they do to you? MR. BARRY: They dismissed it. They dismissed it. MR. PATTERSON: You were tried by the Law Society. What was the verdict? MR. BARRY: They dismissed it, as was made public over a year ago. Mr. Speaker, the heavyweights in the backbenches have been engaging in a tremendous, withering attack on me all afternoon and I have been told, Mr. Speaker, I only have five minutes left. I was about to crumple from that devastating attack by the Placentia puffball of poison, but now, Mr.

Speaker, we hear something else corning up from the backbenches. Well, I will leave that, Mr. Speaker. I do not have my scooper here so I will leave that to be dealt with by other members. But I have just been informed as to where the Minister of Public Works is. The Minister of Public Works - now this should be good - is attending a two day meeting of the Canadian Committee on Procurement Standards. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DECKER: Is he addressing them? MR. BARRY: Well, I wonder keynote speaker? No. 50 if he is the The Standards of R2947

Procurement! And, following this meeting, he will also attend the Sixty-Fi-rst Conference of the Purchasing Management Association of Canada, which is also being held in Ottawa and concludes on Friday. So the Minister of Public Works is out of the House for good, he is out of the House for the . rest of the week. Now, we can only assume that the Minister of Public Works is giving the keynote address as to the standards to apply in procuring the services of young men and women. But we would really like to know the standards of the employees.

For example, do they have a set of membership cards for a Tory youth brigade? Does a young person have to go into the Department of Public Works and swear undying fealties to the Minister of Public Works, his complete works and beliefs, his political philosophy, the party doctrine, the party standards, the party policies? Is this what a person has to do? MR. PEACH: We are some lucky we got rid of you -'Leo'. MR.

BARRY: Is he going to inform people in other provinces how to do this, how to weed out those young men and women looking for jobs and make sure that nobody gets a job in the Department of Public Works except somebody who is the son or -daughter of one who has supported the minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to The Globe and Mail reporting on the minister's speech. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough, if members opposite -· would be kind enough to get a copy of the minister's speech for us so L2948 June 10, 1986 Vol XL we can understand standards - MR.

MORGAN: just what (Inaudible) in the files in the Department of Fisheries on you. MR. FUREY: 'Morgan', what files do you mean? You cannot even find your own files, boy.' Morgan' where are your files? MR. W. CARTER: (Inaudible). MR. MORGAN: People who Walter, I buddy. live in glass houses. am telling you, old MR. FUREY: 'Morgan', where are your files? MR. MORGAN: Walter, you do not believe in that trash anymore, do you? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we have silence? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we have silence while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is debating? MR.

FUREY: Trying to suck your way back in into the Cabinet are you 'Morgan'? MR. MORGAN: Explain to your Leader (inaudible) then and not now. MR. SPEAKER: Could we have o~der please? No. 50 why R2948

MR. FUREY: Trying to earn your way back into Cabinet, are you, 'Morgan'? MR. MORG A.Nt · We have the files to show that . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Name him. Name him. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader Thank you, Mr. Speaker. of the I am amazed! You would think the member, having been out of the House for awhile, would be able to control himself. MR. TOBIN: He never missed as much of the . House as you used to miss. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. FUREY: Get in your seat, gofer. MR. BARRY: Mr .

Speaker, we have an Atlantic Accord debate here where the Government House Leader stood in his place and attacked himself, attacked his Premier and then asked me to resign. SOME HOM. MEMBER S: Hear, hear! MR . SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up. MR. BARRY: Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe some L2949 June 10, 1986 Vol XL members opposite could explain why it is that I should resign when the minister at tacked his own statements, attacked the statements of the Premier and has admitted that he has not yet overheated the economy nor flooded this Province with revenues from offshore oil and gas.

Thank you very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FUREY: Trying to suck your way back into the Cabinet. MR. MORGAN: Ask 'Walter Carter' about appointments. MR. FUREY: Trying to salt your way in to the Cabinet. MR. MORGAN: Ask your leader about appointments of friends. MR. CALLAN: I am asking you. I am asking you. MR. MORGAN: I know a few fellows appointed by him who would tell you the difference. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we have silence, please? MR. MORGAN: Come on, boy, do not be hypocritical.

You are losing support as a party leader around No. 50 R2949

the Province. laughed at. MR. BARRY: You are being Have you been following the debate on the Saltfish Corporation? MR. MORGAN: I have read it all I have a (inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: I am warning all members of the House that I want silence or I will name the membe~s. O~de~. please! The hon. the membe~ fo~ Kenihek. MR. FUREY: You a~e a suck, 'Ko~gan•. MR. MORGAN: Ask your f~iend, -'Walte~ Ca~ter', about appointments. MR. FUREY: You~ nose is brown, boy. MR. MORGAN: Ask him. Ask him! MR. CALLAN: I am asking you. MR. MORGAN: I am not getting all the crap, you fellows are. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Name him! Name Him! MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you ve~y much, Mr. Speaker. This is an historic debate and I would like to get a few conunents in at the end he~e. just befo~e we vote on it. I would like to put on the record the position that my L2950 June 10, 1986 Vol XL party has taken consistently since we have started. I have some extensive notes that I will be referring to here. Anyone who tells you what is going to happen with offshore oil is a fool, or lying, or both.

There is little that we can do in this Province to influence worldwide conditions in the industry, especially with regard to price. But even with everything going our way, with prices rising, with new oil fields, with plenty of development and exploration, we will still have a major problem providing work for all the people in our Province who want it. And it is once this fact sinks in that we will have to wake up and get back to the very mundane job of making this Province work. Before addressing the future, I think I would like to examine the past.

There is an historical maxim that says ·, 'He who ignores the past will repeat its mistakes' . It has been seven years since the discovery of oil in the Hibernia and Avalon structures. I think all of us thrilled to the smokey flare on a tiny platform that sent a column of smoke off over the horizon. Sitting there in the hard blue sea, it was a curiously smokey flame of hope. As that same image reappeared on our television screens, it came to represent good, decent jobs, high paying and demanding, providing our people with self-confidence and a feeling of worth.

Slowly, ever so slowly, we began to believe that finally our turn had come. 'Brian Peckford' had become Premier barely six months before that first, great Hibernia strike. As a former Minister of Kines, he had a real claim to No. SO R2950

credit for the policies in place when the discovery was made. As is usual with our Premier, he was not modest in claiming that credit. He stopped short of saying that he had actually put the marine animals out there millions of years ago that produced the oil, but just short of that. Almost immediately, Ottawa and St. John's began asserting ownership of the resource, tugging back and forth in a stt"Uggle that would last until the Supreme Court of Canada cut the rope and, unfortunately, gave the long end to the federal govet"nment. DR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: M~. Speaker, it is a well known-parliamentary dictum that you are not to read speeches in the House, you are supposed to speak your own thoughts. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly rising on that point of order. But there is even another point, that you are not supposed to read other people's speeches. It seems to me that the hon. member's words do not sound like his speech. I have heard him many times in this House, and the phrases are not the same.

I suggest that the bon. member may be reading someone else's composition and I think that is quite out of order in the House. MR. FENWICK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: L2951 June 10, 1986 Vol XL To that point of order, the bon. the member for Menihek. HR. FENWICK: I will be glad to produce a copy of the notes for the member opposite who has complained. I am not reading a speech, but I am using the notes copiously. I can assure him, given the resources that the House provides me, that these, indeed, are my own words and my own phrasing. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, it is accepted that one cannot read a speech, but I am not aware that the bon. member is reading a speech. There is no point of order. MR. MATTHEWS: Are you going to circulate them? MR. FENWICK: I will be glad to give a copy to members afterwards. During this prolonged dispute, Mr. Speaker, the major political parties have covered all corners of the map.

For example, in 1979 - 1980 the federal Tories, under what can only be described as the insipid leadership of Joe Clark, were being bullied by our Premier during an election campaign to acknowledge the Province's claim to the resource. Clark, the Prime Minister, seemed quite reluctant to acknowledge this. But once defeated and safely in Opposition, where he had no responsibility, he became much bolder. His successor, Mulroney, in his usual, principled way, sold the federal shop for support in the 1984 election. The result, Mr. Speaker, is this particular piece of legislation that we have before us today.

No. 50 R2951

The Liberals, on the other hand, have been more consistent, at least at the federal level. You may not have liked Trudeau's insistence on hogging the oil, but you knew where he stood. It would have been refreshing to see the provincial Liberal Party just as consistent, but in support of the Province's position. Instead, we got a succession of leaders who vacillated under Trudeau's spell, betraying their own innate feelings that they indeed should stand up for our Province.

This vacillation on the part of the Liberals is in stark contrast to the early, fiLm and consistent stand taken by the New Democratic Party, both federally and provincially. In 1979, Fonse Faour, who at that time was a NDP, MP from this Province, prepared and . proposed an offshore oil policy to the federal NDP caucus that called for offshore resources to be treated exactly as though they were on our shore. That policy was later supported by the provincial New Democratic Party and, Mr. Speaker, that policy has been our policy to this very day.

In the 1982 provincial election we restated that support, despite the almost incoherent ramblings of a Premier who declared, and I recall it vividly because he did it in my own college, 'all who are against me are traitors.' It was tempting, awfully tempting to turn on that kind of arrogance and oppose just for the sake of opposing but the principle was much too important to use politically. Today we have finally arrived. Offshore oil is to be treated just as if it was onshore. We lost the legal battles but, from our P.~l;"spec ti ve , we never had faith in L2952 June 10, 1986 Vol XL them first or last.

Our argument was always that it was in the interest of fairness that we should have the oil, and it was that fairness argument that won in the end. We, therefore, look upon the Atlantic Accord as a victory for the position that we as a party, both federally and provincially, took and have held consistently for the last seven years. What, then, are the fruits of this victory? If current trends prevail, the fruits may be small and they may be bitter. In the Fall of 1980, The Economic Council of Canada estimated the cost of oil would be over $40 per barrel in 1985 and 1986. It predicted, Mr.

Speaker, that we would be in the second year of production of the Hibernia structure, and that provincial revenues would vary between $150 million and $584 million per year, depending upon which agreement was used and what the price of oil was at the time. Instead, the revenues from offshore oil are, in fact, a negative, not even covering our share, for example, of the development fund that is currently in place and the best estimate to see oil flowing is 1992, if not later, a full six years behind the

schedule estimated by The Economic Council. If that were not enough, the price of oil has slipped down at an alarming rate. The cash flow and tax write-offs that Mobil and others were counting on to finance their $5 billion concrete tower are just not there, choked off by the collapsing price of oil. Mobil and friends may still be willing to proceed on the construction of this modern day Tower of Babel, but it will No. 50 R2952

require courage to pour billions of dollars into a concrete platform when the price of oil is as low as it is today. But, even if production does proceed, oil prices have crippled further exploration. The loss of PIP grants has stopped the independent Canadians in their tracks and the low price of oil is even drying up funds to the big multi-nationals. Although PIP grants are not strictly part of this debate, this House must soon address the problem of how to deal with the immediate future of the industry.

It is my opinion that incentive grants are now needed to restart this critical exploration process and ·, quite frankly, it is a shame that the harvest has not been more bountiful. Six years ago, the Council estimated oil revenues of $584 million for this year. · Think of that! That would be enough to pay for our entire health system in the last year, with enough left over to pay for virtually · all the building being built ·by the Department of Public Works and Services.

On the revenue side it could have eliminated entirely our 12 per cent sales tax, and provided enough additional monies to knock out three quarters of our income tax. In job creation it could have created good paying jobs for perhaps as many as 30,000 people. Whether this harvest of jobs, services and revenues will ever come is now in question, so much depends upon the price of oil, and, as I said at the start, we do not control that. What if it does turn out to be a bitter harvest, indeed?

Then we will have to turn to the other trees in the orchard, to continue that analogy, fishing, agriculture, mining, manufacturing and our service industries. There is an L2953 June 10, 1986 Vol XL axiom that the time you spend pruning, fertilizing and nurturing one tree can never be used upon another. This present government, to give them credit, has worked hard on the offshore oil industry, devoting thousands of hours in negotiating, fighting with the federal government and in litigation, time, unfortunately, that can never be recaptured to develop our fishery, forestry and other industries, and these, Mr.

Speaker, are the industries that can . and must provide the jobs that our people so clearly deserve. I say to the government opposite, with the passing of this Bill into law, you have done all you now can do with offshore oil. It is now time to turn your attention to the hard, mundane task of creating an economy with work and jobs for all of us. As long as we sit in opposition, you will have our support in that task just as we expect your support for our efforts when you are in opposition. The Accord is signed. We are now enacting it into law and it will do what it will do.

Let us now leave it, for it is time to solve our problems the hard way, with honest work in our old industries. Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the President of the Council speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. in Speaker, closing No. 50 I shall not be long the debate because R2953

there is not l:"eally that much to say. The closing of debate is for the purpose of rebutting certain arguments that have . been made against the legislation or the motion that you brought before the floor of the House. Quite frankly, there has been very, very little of substance said by the bon. gentlemen there opposite with respect to the principle of this bill itself.

The principle of that bill is quite clearly, obviously, a matter of joint management of the offshore resources where this Province has gained as full and complete control over the resource insofar as it would want control within the Canadian Confederation. I can touch on that in a moment. The other principle of the bill, of course, is the matter of revenue !>baring and the fact that we are entitled to assess revenues on the offshore resource the same way as if on land.

I note that it was quite pointed that the hon. gentlemen there opposite really steered away as much as they could from those particular issues which are the real principle of the bill and represent the real victory in the bill itself. The Leader of the Opposition particularly, as the predecessor in this portfolio, I was very disappointed with his speech. He really did not get into the substance and lock issue in the debate in the way that I thought that he might have.

He was given plenty of opportunity to because when I spoke I referred to and joined issue with the five or six points he had made last February when the bill had been debated at that particular time. His reasons for not locking issue in a substantive way are known to him L2954 June 10, 1986 Vol XL and I do not necessarily need to go into them. I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this - I will just touch on a few of the arguments - the matter of refining is about the only thing that the official Opposition can talk about in . connection with this bill. MR. MATTHEWS: The back-in. MR.

MARSHALL: Well, there was no mention made that I recall. I was not in the House for the whole of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition but I will deal with the back-in. I already have, in fact. MR. MATTHEWS: The back-in was mentioned by the member for Stephenville (MR. K. Aylward). MR. MARSHALL: Yes, the back-in by the member for Stephenville. We remember when he said that. But let us deal with the refining first. As I said, the main elements of this bill is a matter of management and revenue sharing.

Indeed, that was the main issue that was addressed by the Leader of the Opposition when he choose to resign his portfolio as Minister of Mines and Energy. At the time, and I will just quote him again, he said to the Premier as the reason for his resignation, "Frankly, I do not think your approach will achieve that which is crucially important for our Province to achieve, namely, a fair division of revenue and a substantial degree of control in any joint management scheme for the offshore resources.'' Now having taken that serious step, No. 50 R2954

the hon. gentleman has not even, in his speech, really addressed the basis of that resignation. When he gave those reasons for his resignation, he, in effect, was conceding at the time that the main issues confronting the Province on this offshore issue were management and revenue sharing.

All and any other matters related to the Accord and to the legislation that is before this House today, with the exception of the local preference policy that is going to give · young Newfoundlanders for generations to come the righ~ for a fair chance at the jobs offshore when these jobs materialize, all other elements are really collateral. They are important in their way but they are collateral, these matters of not changing the legislation without mutual consent, the equalization provisions and, of course, the provisions with respect to the refinery.

Now, the real power with respect to that Accord and this legislation, with respect to refinery itself, obviously lies in the power which the government of this Province has achieved to assess revenues as if it were on land. We can use that particular power, Mr. Speaker, and exercise that power for the benefit of the people of this Province that we wish.

We now have it within our powers, with respect to that one element of the agreement alone, to preclude any agreement from taking place, because we have, for instance, the right to assess royalties, and only the Province of Newfoundland can assess royalties, and we have the right to assess · provincial corporate income tax, etc. So we can use that power in all areas, including the refining area if we wish to, L2955 June 10, 1986 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of preserving any rights with respect to the refinery itself.

Now, the fact of the matter is whether you use that power and how you use that power will be a matter of concern of governments in years to come as they tackle, as we are presently tackling, Hibernia, and as future governments negotiate with companies with respect to the development of other structures. The thing that I think must to remember when you are dealing with this, in all fairness and reasonableness and rationality, is that oil is no different, really, than any other commodity.

Really, you cannot sell it outright any more than you can, as much as you would like to, sell the iron ore from Western Labrador, sell it outright and necessarily make the absolute condition that the purchaser must use it in the way in which · you define it to be used. Otherwise, of course, if we possible could, the iron ore of Labrador · West would not be exported in its form but would be used for the purpose of manufacturing steel in the Province.

Indeed, if you wanted to really press the analogy to the petrochemical area, the refining of crude would be done in our petrochemical complexes, and the iron ore of Labrador would go to our car factories and what have you. You have to deal with the world not as you would like it to be, nor with the world as you might in all sorts of theory address it, but you have to deal with the world as it is and you cannot really sell it twice.

Now, in this particular time, if you tried to make that condition, you very likely would have a very, very difficult time in seeing the development of any structure outside this Province. At the No. 50 R2955

present time, for instance, in Saint John, New Brunswick, Irving Oil has a refinery that is only operating at 25 per cent of its capacity. That other 75 per cent could be operated with substantially the same costs as are involved at the present time. The operator of Hibernia would tend to put crude first through that refinery in the immediate proximity because it could do it at a much lesser cost than if a new refinery were built here in this Province or even a refurbished refinery. So those then really are the facts of life. We have really given up absolutely nothing.

As a matter of fact, in Clause 41 of the legislation we have preserved to the greatest degree possible, insofar as government in the future will be able to direct crude to come to the Province of Newfoundland, it is there crystal clear that Come By Chance, or any replacement for Come By Chance, will get first preferance and then, after the needs of Atlantic Canada have been satisfied, we will get preferance again.

But, as I say, members should only regard that really, if you are looking at it seriously, as a collateral right, something that you can hang your peg on some time in the future, something for protection of future generations, but at the present time, in the present economy and the present state of organization of our society, the immediate application of that particular power is not one that we can utilize. Our main power under that agreement counts in respect to the refinery, obviously, with respect to that right that has been conferred upon us, and this was the key and this was the clue, Mr.

L2956 June 10, 1986 Vol XL Speaker, in negotiating the Accord with respect to that, and it comes right down to the fact that it is the Pr~vince of Newfoundland, the Government of Newfoundland, not even that joint board that I will get to in a moment, that has the power to assess royal ties and taxes, and through that th~ government has whatever powers may be necessary. I hope to see refineries emanating from this agreement in years to come, in the future. I have no doubt that they will in the future, but I mean you cannot look to clause 54 or clause 41 as being any weakness and logically sustain it.

The only reason, Mr. Speaker, why they are doing it and I think it is very evident by the way the official Opposition is tackling and emphasizing Clause 54 is because they have nothing really of substance to say about the principle of that bill, which is a principle which gained us management and the right to assess revenues as if they were on land. We got those rights, do not forget, at a time when the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the complete and absolute fee simple ownership, freehold ownership or what have you, was vested in the Government of Canada.

So we regard that as being a considerable accomplishment and one which is going to endure to the benefit of generations of Newfoundlanders for: years yet to come. Now with respect to the management, some of the members alluded to it, and I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition did today or not, but he has in the past, but certainly members of the official Opposition talk about who has the management No. 50 R2956

rights. Now, the management rights, ·as we know, are in a joint board, but the ultimate responsibility, the ultimate powers rest in the federal government and the provincial government. With respect to revenue which I have already dealt with that, we have the ultimate, right from the first, complete and absolutely control there. With respect to the management, we have the right to select at all times.

The main concern to the people of this Province about management is how is any development that is going to occur going to be developed, the mode or manner or development, specifically, as we know from the debates, whether a developer opts for concrete platforms or floating platforms. Now we have forever and a day gained that right, that the Province of Newfoundland will be the ultimate arbitor of that.

The only element that we have given up in any kind of .control at all - if giving up is the word and I do not accept it as giving up - is . we have said we will not exercise that control with respect to the rate of exploration and the rate of development until such time as Canada gets energy self-sufficiency and security of supply. That is the one exception and we have all the other controls. . MR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! the hon. the Opposition . MR. BARRY: A point of order, Leader of the The minister completely minister declaration is saying something outrageous.

The bas now made the that there is not L2957 June 10, 1986 Vol XL going to be any refining in the Province . Should the minister not wait until the Dor Chemical proposal bas been received Until they have completed their review? Or is the minister aware of something that be has not yet told the House? Is be undermining the attempt of this company to start up that refinery, or is be dismissing their intentions and saying that they are going to come to nothing? MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon . the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Now, Mr.

Speaker, the only one that bas undermined the interest of the people of this Province bas been the hon. gentleman there opposite, in the way in which the hon. gentleman has treated this whole issue. I have said absolutely nothing of that kind.­ I am explaining the import of that particular provision and the lack of any credibility of the argument that bas been advanced by the Opposition from time to time with respect to refining capacity emanating from any development that occurs out there. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I must rule that there is no point of order. The bon. Council. the MR.

MARSHALL: President of the With respect to management, Mr. Speaker, we have all the management rights with only one exception, as I indicated, and we have said, with respect to the No. 50 R2957

rate of development and the rate and manner of exploration, until Canada gets energy self -sufficient and security of supply we will accept whatever rate is necessary to attain it. What possible right have we given up there? We are a part of the Canadian nation. One would expect any province of Canada to willingly concede that particular right, if concede is the right word, even if you owned it outright.

If you are going to be part of a country you are not going to have · people in Saint John, New Brunswick, or in Montreal or in Charlottetown needing the means for warmth in their houses, the means to drive the engines of their industry and us being able to withhold it here in this Province . So in effect what we have, Mr. Speaker, in this particular bill is we have as full control as we need in the Canadian Confederation, complete control with respect to the assessment of revenues as if they are on land. And, Mr.

Speaker, it is not only the best agreement that could be obtained, but the best that could possibly be conceived within Confederation. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia has asked for this particular agreement. It is why the Northwest and Yukon Territories have asked for this agreement. It is why the Government of Nova Scotia is pl:"esently negotiating with a view to getting this agreement, and it is why a companion bill that went up befol:"e the House of Commons passed unanimously in the House of Commons with all parties voting unanimously in favour of and agreeing with it in principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L2958 June 10, 1986 Vol XL MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, that is the situation. Now I have already dealt with the Leader of the Opposition and ·the position with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, bnt I really want to say this to him seriously. Now the bon. the Leader of the Opposition resigned on this particular issue. A l:"esignation from the government at any time is a very serious step for any person to take, and it was particularly serious, I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, when one has the responsibility for this portfolio at a time when the situation was so volatile as it was and we were having such difficulties in gaining any measure of control with respect to the offshore. So I know that the Leader of the Opposition would not have addressed that resignation without addressing it very, very seriously and weighing it. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, about the Leader of the Opposition, that you have to look at the reasons for that resignation.

The only reason that we can take for that resignation is what the hon. gentleman put in his letter, and I quote once again, and he said to the Premier as a reason, "Frankly, I do not think your approach will achieve that which is crucially important for our Province to achieve, namely, a fair division of revenue and a substantial degree of control in any joint management scheme for the offshore resources". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: Now the Leader of the Opposition - as I say, B.C., the Yukon, and all parties in the House of Commons have accented it - but he, in this No. 50 R2958

debate today, Mr. Speaker, has not evi:m addressed those two elements which were the main reasons for his resignation. MR. BARRY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

BARRY: Just for the record, you know, when students of history and so forth come back and listen to the misleading statements of the Government House Leader, I would like for the Government House Leader to keep in mind that I gave my primary speech on the Accord debate on February 21, 1986, ·volume XL, Number 87, Page 4955 to 4968 of our Hansard, and the matters that the Government House Leader refers to were dealt with there in detail.

The fact that I did not deal with some of these points here today was just to save the time of the House, as we said we would, to help expedite the passage of the bill, that the points that were raised by the Government House Leader, I used his own words and the Premier's words today, to rebut. With respect to my resignation, the minister must have been out of the House. Because I pointed out today that the procedure was changed within four months after I left Cabinet, and the minister has to admit this, that he had to negotiate face to face with the federal Energy Minister.

The procedure was changed, but apart from that, Mr. Speaker, we have very legitimate concerns as to whether there is a substantial degree of control and revenue as though the resource were on land. We have mentioned this to him time L2959 June 10, 1986 Vol XL .. after time and we will be proposing amendments at the Committee stage to deal with these points. So let us not waste the time of the House. MR. MARSHALL: It is not a point of order. MR. BARRY: There was a five year delay. MR. SPEAI<E .R: To that point of order, I must rule there is no point of order·.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity of explaining his actions.· MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I responded to those points point by point, and the han. gentleman in debate today has not joined issue, but I am not going to continue on that. The hon. gentleman is not going to resign. I withdraw, anyway, my request for him to resign. As a person who is interested in the furtherance of the Tory Party in government in this Province for- a long pedod of time, I think the hon. gentleman should stay in the Opposition as Leader for an appreciable period of time. Hr.

Speaker, the other keynote speaker - I am not going to deal with all the han. gentlemen - but I do want to deal with the han. member for Gander (Mr. Baker-), who was the official person to r-espond to the introduction of the bill itself. The only thing I will just quote is that the wor-ds 'not' and 'no' and 'it will not happen' are .so engrained into the vocabulary of the Opposition that it is quite obvious that the only thing they are concerned with is that they hope that things do not happen. No. 50 R2959

First of all, to quote him, 'When that was shown by the courts not to be so, we got to the stage, well, at least we might be able to manage it as if we owned it. If we control what is happening out there, if we are to get all the money from it, then I would not want anything else. You know, what more can we want? What are we complaining about? We have control, we have all the money.

The word 'not' appears in just about every sentence, and the bon. gentleman opposite represents the official position of the official Opposition because they have really a death wish for this Province and really, in the final analysis, they hope that nothing will, in fact, happen. Mr. Speaker, I think -I have covered everything. I should be able to speak longer in rebuttal of the debate. I just say it is rather disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition, who put such a stake in this particular bill, when he got up to speak, spoke the way he did.

He did not address the matters which are joint management, revenue control, the rights to Newfoundlanders for jobs, equalization protection, the fact that this agreement is ingrained in the Statutes of Canada and the Statutes of Newfoundland, the protection with respect to secondary processing. None of these were mentioned. He just tried to skirt over them and really hopes that they will be overlooked. But they will not be overlooked, Mr. Speaker, because this is a bill which, as I said, is good for Newfoundland, it is good for Canada, and it will redound to the benefit of Newfoundlanders for years to come.

I move second reading. SOME HON. MEMBERS: L2960 June 10, 1986 Vol XL Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill be now read a second time? Those in favour 'aye• SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SPEAKER: Those against 'nay'. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division. MR. MARSHALL: Call in the members, Mr. Speaker. We want a standing vote. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Division MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour please rise: The bon. the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies (Mr. Power), the bon. the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey), the bon. the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr.

Dinn), the bon. the Minister of Consumer Affairs and Communications (Mr. Russell), the bon. the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall), the bon. the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), the bon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Matthews), the bon. the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Dawe) , the bon. the Minister of Education (Mr. Hearn), the bon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Doyle), the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard), the bon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. R. Aylward), Mr. Baird, -Mr. Greening, No. ~0 R2960

Mr. Patterson, Mr. Reid, Mr. J. Carter, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Peach, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Warren, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Woodford, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barry) - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Mr. Flight, Mr. Tulk, Mr. Callan, Mr. Lush, Mr. W. Carter, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Efford, Mr. Baker, Mr. Furey, Mr. Kelland, Mr. Fenwick. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The motion is carried unanimously . MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman over there I think is carrying on some proceeding. We cannot hear because of that crowd over there.

Could you keep the maw mouth from Bonavista South quiet? On motion, a bill, "An Act To Implement An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador On Offshore Petroleum Resource Management And Revenue Sharing", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, presently. (Bill No. 1). MR. MARSHALL: Order 22, Bill No. 39. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers• Compensation Act, 1983." (Bill No. 39). MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Debate on this bill was adjourned yesterday by the hon. the member for Fortune - Hermitage.

L2961 June 10, 1986 Vol XL SOME HON . MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. I want to express some of the concerns that I have with the Workers' Compensation Act i tse 1f and the Workers • Compensation Board. I was looking through the annual report and one of the things that was pointed out in the report is that they are concentrating a lot on rehabilitation .

I am very pleased to see that but I think that not enough effort is being put into the rehabilitating of people who,. for very good reasons, cannot continue to work in the work force. I think it is an emphasis that we have to put into the Workers Compensation Board, an emphasis that has to be carried forth. MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the member for Fogo . Order, please! MR. TULK: Ask the hon. gentleman to - No. 50 R2961

MR. FUREY: Kick that big goof out. MR. TULK: - (inaudible), and if he does not take it out, will you remove the hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: Would you have Thank you. The hon. the Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: that removed? member for Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up certain cases of people whom I have dealt with over the last number of months where they have a limited disability. There is no way that they can go back to work because they cannot get a doctor's certificate. They could probably do a certain type .of work but they are not trained for it.

I think that there is not enough emphasis being put on this because these people feel very left out, in between a hard and a hard place in the sense that they cannot pursue a living because the act or the Compensation Board does not recognize or is not flexible enough to provide an opportunity for these people. I can think of a specific case where a gentleman used to be a heavy equipment operator and he hurt his legs.

They say that he cannot get a licence because he has a certain disability, yet he could possibly perform the work but he is not allowed to get a licence because of this disability. · He is not a trained individual in any other type of work so he is now left out in the cold in a lot of ways. He cannot pursue other work and so he is making a very meagre living.

He has tried for many years to get L2962 June 10, 1986 Vol XL through the Workers' Compensation Board's head that, "I want to pursue other types of work and I want to work." I think that we have to place an emphasis at the Workers' Compensation Board on that type of retraining for people. It needs to be done. Just because somebody has a limited disability does not mean that they cannot work and cannot contribute to this Province's economic activity.

So I think that the board itself, while I read their annual report and it is quite glossy and nice, I hear so much about these cases of people who were on a limited disability that an emphasis should be placed on that by the board. I was also reading the annual report and it was saying how the work ethic is affected by people who feel very low in society.

They feel that they cannot contribute any more and I think it is very damaging to the whole spirit of people in this Province who, through no fault of their own in the work place, have had an injury which has limited them in their abilities to earn a living for themselves. So, as I was going through the report and going through the legislation, that is one factor that I must say I was taken aback by.

It also brought the realization home that we have to do more for these people because I think everybody out there who has been hurt and is trying to get Workers' Compensation, in 99.9 per cent of all the cases, they are people who are legitimately trying to work. For some reason they cannot work but need some type of income to help them pursue a good life in this Province. Again, I express the concern that we should do more. I must say that I was No. 50 R2962

very happy again to see in the report that there was an emphasis being put on it. Also, there was a very positive note in that report that people who have been retrained, people who have taken advantage of that course of action to retrain and to get into a ·different occupation for the future, have done very well. The success rate has been very good. So that is a positive note that I think should be noted and that should be pushed by all gove~ent members, that this type of emphasis on the retraining of individuals to give them other options for their . future work should be pushed as much as possible.

It is the sense of people who have · been injured and feel as if they have no hope for the future that we have to try to dispel. we · have to try to get rid of that as much as possible because it is the furthest thing from the fact. Again, from the cases that I have seen and have had to deal with, I find that many of these people could be trained in different areas for the future. We have a community college system that is pushing retraining. I think it brings out an issue that has been coming to the forefront in the last number of years about adult education and retraining.

There are people who have been in the work force for twenty-five to thirty years and who have found themselves ·, in a sense, disabled because their type of work is not demanded as much. In that . sense, they have a disability in the sense of not .being able to contribute 'to the economy. I think that we have to put more of an emphasis on adult retraining for those individuals who have been trained but now find L2963 June 10, 1986 Vol XL themselves, especially when it comes to a labour intensive type of work, not able to pursue this work. We should not be holding them down.

We should not be holding them back from pursuing a career or an opportunity that can see them produce for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is special emphasis that I would like to put in this debate. With regards to the bill, I also notice that in the bill itself the Emergency Measures Organization was also being put under the act and I think that is a very good move.

I think these people who volunteer their services for the protection of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been for far too long, I believe, a little bit neglected in the sense of being provided with the proper equipment and with the proper services to do the work. They perform very dangerous work on many occasions. I am happy to see that it is being put under the Workers' Compensation Act so these people will be covered.

I think they are going to feel much better . about the work they perform knowing that they will be compensated somewhat for their efforts, which are totally voluntary and which should be appreciated more and more. I think that is a positive move. When it comes to the other part of the Bill, I am taking about compensation, the retraining and so on of people who have been injured and so on and who do not see a future, I think that emphasis should be placed as much as possible on this because I think we have to look to the future.

Workers' Compensation is a thing that has to be dealt with, it has to be there for a helping hand and sometimes a full income. No. 50 R2963

Again, I think the emphasis on the work ethic and getting people to improve themselves is something that should be pushed as much as possible. I wanted to bring this to the minister's attention because I do not think it is being done enough and I want to see it done more. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to end. Thank you. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the Bill for a few moments.

I can only say that I suppose of all the departments, agencies or whatever in government, it is the Workers' Compensation that has caused more problems than any other for all members. I can only hope and wish that the amendments that we are dealing with today in this particular Bill will certainly help to solve some of the problems that all of us had to deal with and some of the weaknesses and some of the inadequacies that were so glaringly present in the previous system.

We certainly hope that the structuring we see today, although they are administrative matters, that they will solve some of the problems that we all had to deal with from time to time on behalf of our constituents. Certainly we agree with the Tribunal Appeals Committee.

I believe that this certainly should L2964 June 10, 1986 Vol XL help alleviate a lot of the problems that we previously had to deal with and we hope that present in the Bill will be some sensitivity and some real concern for the problems that many of the workers experience who are unfortunate enough to have to deal with the Workers' Compensation Board. All hon. members know that we have had some real sad cases that have not been dealt with in the expeditious manner or in the humane manner that we would all like to have seen.

Again, I am sure that all of us can go over, rehash and reiterate case after case of people who have not been treated with the degree of sensitivity, with the degree of consideration that they should have been given under the unfortunate circumstances under which they found themselves. Again, we can only hope that the measures that the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Blanchard) is so sincerely introducing in this particular Bill will take care of these matters and that we shall see workers throughout the Province, workers who through the unfortunate circumstances of receiving serious injuries in the work place, will be dealt with with every consideration, with every kind of sensitivity that is humanly possible. So we hope that the structure will prove to be a good one and if there is any part of the structure that I personally support, it certainly is the appeal process.

That is something that all hon. members have from time to time addressed and we are glad to see the present structure at this point in time. The director hope, as I No. 50 system, we can only say, that that will R2964

prove to be more satisfactory than what was the previous arrangement. A lot of that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure will depend on the kinds of people who work there. That is not to suggest that we ever had the wrong kinds of people there because the Workers' Compensation I found to be a strange situation. I have never dealt with anybody on the commission or anybody within the Workers' Compensat .ion that I did not find to be sincere, that I did not find to be people with sensitivity.

There just seemed to be something wrong within · the system somehow that did not allow these outward actions of sincerity to be displayed in the total dealings with the workers. Maybe it was the system. Maybe it was cumbersome.

Maybe the kind of system it was did not allow for that free flow and for that line 1 of communication and the line of sensitivity that one would want to see exercised in this very sensitive division of the Department of Labour .- When we are dealing · with a person who has become incapacitated, I think it takes a lot of understanding and a lot psychology to be able to deal with somebody who for all intents and purposes possibly will not be able to work again or, if they work again, will not have the full capacity, will not have the full potential that they once had.

So to just deal with that kind of a situation itself is a very difficult situation. It takes trained people to be able to deal with that kind of person who now is reduced, if you will, their total person has been reduc~d because when you cannot work and cannot produce to your full potential, we are dealing with a problem of a serious nature. When we are L2965 June 10, 1986 Vol XL dealing with a problem of that nature, we certainly have to have people who understand. I would hope then, Mr.

Speaker, as a final conclusion to these remarks, that the structure that the minister is now bringing in will be able to relieve and alleviate these kinds of problems that all of us have ha