Volume XL Wednesday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Fourth Session VERBATIM REPORT ·{Hansard) Speaker: Honoumble P.]. McNicholas Number 20 20 April 1988

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of members opposite, I would like at this particular time, and with a great deal o.f pride, to welcome to the galleries today the .first Newfoundland Bantam A All-star team from this Province to win the Purolator Cup. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: I know that my colleague, the member for Kilbride (Mr. R.

Aylward), officially asked the House to send its congratulations to this team a few days ago, but I thought it would be appropriate today, while they are in the galleries, for us to recognize their presence here and their contribution to sport, · and the honour and privilege they have brought to all of Newfoundland and Labrador in their very, very significant achievement in Sydney, Nova Scotia, during the Easter break. I am sure members will also appreciate the fact that I am a little bit personal about this, in that my son happens to be a defenceman on that team. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! SOME HON.

MEMBERS: He is in the gallery. the gallery. MR. RIDEOUT: Stand up, Terry. L989 April 20, 1988 He is in Vol XL SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: I will probably be disowned this evening when I get home, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure members will join with me in welcoming the team to the House . I would 1 ike to say, for the benefit of hon. members, that this is, in fact, the first time, even though Newfoundland has taken

part in the Purolator Cup before, that a team from this Province has won the Atlantic Championship . It was a real bang-up of a hockey game, I understand. In fact, they went into three overtime periods before, with one minute and thirty-one seconds left in the game, I think, a young fellow, a Mr. Roach, was able to score the winning goal so that Newfoundland was able to bring home the Purolator Cup, seven goals to six. So, it is with a great deal of pleasure, both as a member and as a parent, I ask all colleagues to join with me in welcoming · them here today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR . EFFORD: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place and take great pleasure in joining with the hon. the Minister of Fisheries in congratulating the team for winning the Purolator Cup. I have been involved very heavily in hockey over the last fifteen or twenty years, coaching, and again this year I had the No. 20 R989 ,.

great pleasure of coaching a team that won the Intermediate Championship in ou~ district. I have been very heavily involved in minor hockey in my district, because I, like the Minister of Fisheries, have two sons who are involved in hockey. It is indeed a pleasure for us, on this side of the House, to pass our cong~atulations on to the Bantam A All-star hockey team. We, the Liberals on this side of the House, are very proud of the fact that they did win the All-star Championship. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LONG: M~. Speake~. MR . SPF.AI<ER: The hon. the member for St. John's East. MR. LONG: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker . We also welcome the opportunity to add a note of congratulations. On a personal level, I would also like to say, as a person who not too long ago also played Bantam All-star hockey for the St. John's Caps, at the time I played we were beaten by other stronger teams in the Province and were not able to go on and represent the Province. I am sure everybody in the Province, and pa~ticularly the Minister of Fisheries, takes pride in congratulating this team.

I would have to say further, given the pe~sonal note that the minister has made a point of making, that when the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth comes to the Cabinet table looking for funds for the High School L990 April 20, 1988 Vol XL Athletic Federation and other amateur sport.ing groups in the Province, days such as this, when all members in the House take pride in congratulating a championship team representing our Province, should be a reminder that the government needs to do more to make monies available, and support, to all amateur athletic groups in our Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hea~! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPF.AI<ER: The hon. the Minister Agricultural, anQ. Development. MR. POWER: of Rural, N'orthern Mr. Speaker, today I would like to give hon. members an update on the Newfoundland Enviroponics Limited project at Mount Pearl. There are now 100 production workers on staff. These people are tending the plants, harvesting the vegetables, and preparing them for shipping. In addition, there are still sixty construction employees on site putting the finishing touches to various aspects of the project.

As of today, zone eight is still producing. Zone one, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wells) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Fenwick) saw No. 20 R990

being planted during their visit in early April, is now producing commercially. Zones two, three and four are now planted and will come into production on schedule. Zones five and six will be planted during the week of April 25. All of these zones will be producing cucumbers, and zones seven and eight will be planted during the week of May 9, which will produce tomatoes. Newfoundland Enviroponics will cont.i.nue to hire production employees until they reach their projected maximum of 150 employees. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, and hon. members, employee levels may well exceed this number if initial production levels continue to be matched. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. POWER: Newfoundland Enviroponics has sold all of its initial production within the Province and has yet to meet the local demand. With the complex coming into full production it expects to be able to start shipping produce outside the Province within the next two to three months. Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Naskaupi. MR. KELLAND: L991 April 20, 1988 Vol XL Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement. I am a little surprised to see him rise in his place, because when questions are put to him on this particular project he usually refers them to the Premier or to Mr. Frank Pet ten. But I guess he has been allowed to make some comments, and this is supposed to be good news. tt is a pleasure to see that there are a number of Newfoundlanders working on the project, so that somebody besides the Sprung family is getting some benefit from one of the biggest rip-offs and shams that I have ever seen perpetuated by the Provincial Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! AN HON. MEMBER: Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror? MR. KELLAND: When you are talking about the Sprung project, Mr. Minister, I have also viewed the project and I was impressed by the structure. But I was not impressed by the hidden subcontract figures which denies us the knowledge of how much profit is being ripped out of the people i.n Labrador for -this particular project. And I still say that you have no markets. If you had them, you wou 1 d say so.

You have nowhere to send the damn produce, when you make too much for what Newfoundlanders can consume. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! No. 20 R991

MR. KELLAND: You expect to be shipping outside of the Province. Where are you going to be shipping outside of the Province? Who are you going to sell it to? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we experienced a day that most of us would like to forget, I am sure. It was nothing to be proud of. Now I hope we are not beginning to get off on the wrong foot again today.

The han. member in his comments just then, and I am not certain if the word he used was unparliamentary it may or may not be - but certainly because of the tone in which it was used, and in view of the guests who are in the gallery, I believe, the comment used was rather inappropriate. If it is not a point of order, at least ask him and beg him to temper his language? MR. SPEAKER: To that hear the point of order. I did co~~ent. I think that word, if I heard it is not one that is I would ask the hon. would withdraw it. particular correctly, acceptable. member if he MR. KELLAND: Mr.

Speaker, certainly if I have said anything unparliamentary, I immediately withdraw. But I am so disturbed by the whole thing, the Sprung project. I suppose you get L992 April 20, 1988 Vol XL caught up in the whole thing. I have yet to see any proof that there is a market outside this Province. You cannot compete economically, Mr. Minister, outside this Province against similar operations, and there are similar operations. I will say one thing in conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

When he says the crews are putting the finishing touches on the various aspects of the project, I suggest to you, unless you can prove otherwise, that the Sprung project is putting the finishing touches on the Tory Government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr.

Speaker, in looking at. this, what is interesting about it, of course, is that when the Leader of the official Opposition and myself and a couple of others went through the project it was about the last week in March, and that was the time when the tomato crop was starting to go into marketing. We have heard this last week that the tomato crop is actually complete. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, as an individual who has grown tomatoes in the past, that if you only get three weeks production out of a plant, then you have a real crop failure on your hands.

Any other members who have ever tried to grow tomatoes realize that that does not work. The question, of course, has to be No. 20 R992

asked, Mr. Speaker, whether the Greenhouse is capable of growing tomatoes in the Summer. My information suggests that it is much too hot, it is not a structure for it, although it does seem to be reasonably successful in the growing of cucumbers. Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the only question that has to be asked at the end of all of this is can the $18 million, $20 million, $22 million that has been sunk into it be recovered by the cost of the produce that is being sold.

I have the same reservations I had back last May, and I will continue to have them until I can see some figures to indicate that we have bought a good deal. I do not believe we have, and I am waiting to see exactly what the numbers will be. AN HOM. MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I would like, before I begin the statement, to inform hon. members that the statement I am about to read to the House now is being concurrently presented at this time by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Warren), to the annual general meeting of the Torngat Fish Producers Cooperative, which is being held today, in Makkovik. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! L993 April 20, 1988 Vol XL MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the Department of Fisheries has been authorized by government to enter into a lease agreement with Torngat Fish Producers Cooperative Society Limited, to lease our fish plant at Kakkovik as well as the feeder plants at Hopedale and Postville. A tentative agreement had been reached by my Department and the Cooperative in early 1988 after several months of negotiations, which were very constructive and obviously required mutual co-operation combined with give and take on both sides. Mr.

Speaker, the highlights of the agreement are as follows: First, the facilities option of operate for Co-Op will lease for one year with first refusal, an additional year; the an to Secondly, recognizing the economics of operating fish plants in Northern Labrador, the Department of Fisheries will provide a subsidy on losses incurred to a maximum of $430,000.

Government and the Co-Op have agreed to a sharing arrangement on losses with the Co-Op's share being a significant portion, representative of their ability to pay; Thirdly, to assist the Co-Op with start-up operations, government will advance to the Co-Op $130,000 by July 1, 1988, representing partial payment of government's anticipated subsidy for year one of the lease; Fourthly, additional payments by the Province will be based on monthly financial statements with the necessary holdbacks which are No. 20 R993

standard in these types of arrangements. The final settlement from the Province with respect to any losses will be based on audited financial statements. Mr. Speaker, as the Department of Fisheries is acutely aware, the nature of fish plant operat.i.ons in Northern Labrador is such that the period of July to September accounts for approximately 90 per cent of processing activity. During this timeframe, plant operators must cover the costs of fish purchases, processing costs as well as plant overheads.

While there is a rapid outflow of cash, it is not until November or later that revenues begin to .flow back to the operation. Mr. Speaker, in order to meet peak cash flow requit"ements under such an operating scheme, to take into consideration the timing of the Province's payments of its share of any losses, and to continue with assistance .with respect to the Co-Op's Rigolet operation, govet"nment has also approved a $750,000 loan guarantee on behalf of the Co-Op.

This guarantee will meet the peak operating requirements for the Makkovik and Rigolet operations, particularly as they relate to the crucial July to September period. This guarantee will lessen as the Co-op realizes revenues and sales and receives subsidy payments from the Province. Mr.

Speaker, government's approval of the lease arrangement with the Co-Op and the provision of a $750,000 loan guarantee as well as a $430,000 subsidy, clearly demonstrates, in my opinion, our commitment to Northern Labrador while, at the same time, recognizing the legitimate L994 April 20, 1988 Vol XL aspirations of the local people to have a greater say in their major resource industry. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RTDEOUT: We clearly recognize the need to maintain, as long as necessary, a commitment to subsidize these operations. I am confident, Mr.

Speaker, that the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society will take up the challenge and operate these plants to the benefit of their members as well as to the benefit of the people and flshe~en who rely on those operations fot" their livelihood. I am hopeful that the initiatives we are announcing today will be successful to the extent that the department will be able to privatize all of its Labrador operations in the not too distant future. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: This agreement represents a bold new step in our relations with the fishery on the Labrador Coast.

For some tlme now, government has recognized the necessity of placing control of the Labrador fishery in the hands of Labradorians, thus giving them the opportunity to manage their future and to control their own destiny. I view this agreement as an exciting pilot project for future co-operative Northern development, and one which can serve as an example for similar agreements in the years to come. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. No. 20 R994

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Twi llingate. MR. W. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure this announcement will come as good news to the fishermen and plant workers in the Makkovik, Hopedale, and Postville areas. Mr. Speaker, I have some questions to ask with respect to the announcement: One, the one-year term with an option to renew for an addi tiona! year, that, to me, seems to be a rather short period. MR. RIDEOUT: That is what they wanted. MR. W. CARTER: That is what they wanted.

Well, I wish them luck, because it is obvious that you cannot do very much in one year in proving the viability of a fish plant, especially in Northern Labrador. I understand these are plants, by the way, that were initially, I believe, owned by Labrador Services and were handed over to the Province in 1979. The Co-op, itself, my understanding is that they were receiving royalties, I believe, from shrimp being caught by foreign ships, but because of a new regulation, Canadian bottoms must be used now. Is that correct? MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, maybe the minister could indicate, too, what they wi 11 be processing. For example, the plants, I think, were processing salmon, Arctic char and L995 April 20, 1988 Vol XL groundfish. They will still be processing the same fish? MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. MR. W. CARTER: All right. I note with interest, Mr. Speaker, the amount of subsidy that is guaranteed. I welcome the news that there will be a subsidy, if and when it is needed, but is it wise to announce at the outset even the amount of the subsidy? MR. RI DEOUT: Do you know what our losses were last year? MR. W.

CARTER: Yes, T have an idea what your losses were last year, and I am not suggesting that government should not cover the losses this year or the following year, but is it wise to start off telling any company, whether it be in Torngat or in Makkovik or in St. Mary's - The Capes, that there is going to be a certain subsidy available to them? That, in my view, does not generate the kind of enthusiasm in a fish plant, for example, in Northern Labrador, that is necessary to make such an operation viable.

I am not at all against, as I said, the government guaranteeing their loses or paying a subsidy toward the very substantial financial assistance that you are making available to them. Mr. Speaker, I noticed the total loan guarantee is for $750,000, and I presume that $450,000 of that will be written off, or, at least, the $450,000 subsidy will be applied to the $750,000. MR. RIDEOUT: No. 20 R995

No. MR. W. CARTER: That is not the way it works. MR. RIDEOUT: It is in addition to . MR. W. CARTER: It is in addition to . will be - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! So there The hon. member's time has elapsed . MR. W. CARTER: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. So, there will be approximately, then, exposure of - what? - well over $1 million on the part of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I hope it works. There is no part of Newfoundland that deserves a break more than the areas mentioned.

It has been a touch-and-go operation, and I recall very well, in fact, when those plants were taken over by the Department of Fisheries from Labrador Services. It is a touch-and-go opet"'ation, and it is one that has never really done justice to the terrific potential that exists in that area. I think they are proving it now in the way of shrimp. I wish them well, and I commend the minister for entering into this agt"'eement. If you give those people a chance, I believe they will make i. t, and I think, to some extent, the minister is now giving them that chance. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Heat"', hear! MR.

FENWICK: Mt"'. Speaket"'. L996 April 20, 1988 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, we would like to also congratulate the minister for getting his department to negotiate an agreement with the Co-operative. The only thing I would like to say, though, is I take exception to the word used to say that he has privatized the operation, s.ince it is my concept that a co-operative is a people-owned insti tut.ion. It is one that is more locally and mol"'e regionally operated, but it still is a co-operative and on that basis, Mr.

Speaker, it is an initiative that we applaud, even though it may look like a privatization effort. I think it is extremely important to realize that the Coast of Labrador and the Northern Peninsula, as stated in the Kirby Task Force of a number of years ago, is the last great undeveloped region of the Province. It is unfortunate that the kinds of initiatives that were called for in that report, I guess about five or six years ago, have not been brought to fruition; we have not seen the initiatives called for in terms o.f a corporation speci .f ica lly dedicated to improving the lot of Northet"'n Labrador.

I believe this 1s a positiv e move . I believe that giving more control to the individuals on the Coast of Labrador in the long run will mean that they will adapt the fish plants to their best possible use, and they will, in the long t"'Un, I think, be able to suppot"'t the people on the Coast of Labrador hopefully at a much better level than they are currently. No. 20 R996

Mr. Speaker, wi. th those comments, and specifically asking the minister to remember that we still have a commitment by the federal government to go ahead wi. th more initiatives in Labrador and Northern Newfoundland, then I would say that this is a very good initiative. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: At this stage I would like to welcome to the gallery twenty-four students f C"om the T. I. Murphy Centre and twenty-four students from Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary of Surrey, B.C., accompanied by their teacheC"s, Mr. Royce Shook and Mrs. Maureen Cobb. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: My question is to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rideout). I do not know if the minister has read the

article or not, but in The Globe And Mail this moC"ning theC"e was an

article that has to do with a FC"ench company. The headline is, 'British, French spend $2-million in bid to win' - the $8 billion - 'submarine contract'. That artie le goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the spokesman for a large French company is now in the process of preparing a bid and promoting a bid to be made on the L997 April 20, 1988 Vol xr .. upcoming $8 contract. billion submarine Mr. Speaker, given the minister's statements in the House, and I think in the news media over the past year, suggesting that Ottawa use trade sanctions or pressuC"es on France to settle the St.

Pierre - Miquelon boundary dispute, does the minister still stand by that position? If so, would he now communicate to the appropriate minister in Ottawa his feelings that we are not in favour of Canada accepting bids from a French company for such a large contract? Would he make that point known to his counterpaC"ts in Ottawa? Of course, the reasons for the trade sanctions are obvious. T am sure he can again rei. terate that to his federal counterparts. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker., let me, first of all, thank the han. gentleman for the question and say categorically to this House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labt"adot" that the position of this government has not changed one iota, and that position is simply this: That the Government of Canada when it comes to an issue of sovereignty relating to the country's boundaries ought to use every lever that is available to it in dealing with the adversary, which in this case, is France.

We have articulated a position both inside this House and outside the House, all over the Province, that every lever available to us ought to be used and not just fish alone. In fact, that has been one of the criticisms that this government has levelled at our poll tical colleagues in ottawa, that they No. 20 R997

have not utilized all of the levers available to us as a Nation to solve this particular difficult problem. We have not changed our minds on that . We do not in tend to change our minds on that. That has been communicated to Mr. Siddon. It has been communicated to Mr. Crosbie. It has been communicated to the Prime Minister. And it wi.ll be communicated to the Vatican, Mr. Speaker, if that can help out. MR. W. CARTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: the I thank the minister for his answer. Mr.

Speaker, my supplementary question will go to the Minister of Development and Tourism (Mr. Barrett). Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I believe around the end of February, a contract was awarded by the Department of Development in the amount of, I believe, around $900,000 for the design and model testing of structures unique to Newfoundland waters concrete production system for offshore oil. That contract was awarded by the Minister of Development around the end of February in the amount of approximately $900,000. The catch is, Mr. Speaker, that contract was awarded to a consortium of companies. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. W. CARTER: My question is: Given the fact that that contract was awarded to L998 April 20, 1988 Vol XL a consortium of companies, the parent company of which is a French company with its headquarters in Paris, how does the minister square what his colleague has just said and what the Premier has said, and the position we have taken with having awarded the contract to a French company? Now, granted, there are two Newfoundland companies involved with that company, but the principal of that consortium is a Paris based company. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the information, as is normally the case, is partially correct. This department of government certainly did award a contract with respect to floating production systems. It was necessary that it be done in a very timely fashion and that we acquire the absolute, best possible expertise that was available in order to carry out that project. And one of the elements of the project team is, in fact, Bouyges Offshore, which is a company that has some French association. There are a number o.f elements to that whole project and that just happens to be one of them. MR. W.

CARTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the bon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, indeed the company does have some French connection. Indeed, the company is headquartered in France, let me remind the minister. My question No. 20 R998

to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is: Given the fact that there are companies affiliated with New.foundland companies, including Norweglan compan.ies and Swedish companies that could have ver.y well had done that work and have affi Hates het"e in this Province, why did not the minister call tenders for that contract and allow these companies the opportunity, for example, to bid on them? By the way, the contract was awarded without any tender call.

Why did he not call tenders and give these other companies, which also have the expertise necessary, a chance to bid on them rather than going and giving the contract to a French company without the benefit of a tender call? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister. of Development. MR ·• BARRETT: I think it is appropriate to restate what I said when I began the answer to the last question, that the member is still only speaking from a partial element of awareness.

This department did in fact solicit globally for proposals to produce a report for government with respect to new concepts in floating production systems. There was an evaluation process that went beyond government in its evaluation, and th.ere wet"e a great many mot"e than one company that responded to that proposal call. It was after an evaluation by very senior people, both within and L999 April 20, 1988 Vol XL without the public service, that the consot"t.ium in quest.ion was the one that was appointed to carry out this work. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member fot" Port de Grave. MR.

EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Ministet" of Health (Dr. Collins). It is in relation to the recent increase in the cost of hospital beds. MR. TOBIN: Are you prepared to report this outside the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. EFFORD: 1 would 1 ike to ask the minister number one, d.id his department implement the cost and is it going to effect all the hospital beds around the Province? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to private and semi-private beds.

Yes, there was an announcement made in the budget that the cost for private accommodation in hospitals would be increased. I think I have the precise figures here somewhere and if the hon. member wishes me to get them I certainly will, but they were announced in the budget, and this will apply to all private and semi-private beds throughout the Province. No. 20 R999

As hon. members know, it is in normal circumstances elective whether a patient wishes to go into a ward or into a private or semi-private room. Having said that, sometimes there are not ward beds available to ordinary, admissions to people who normally do not elect to go into private or semi-private rooms. If that is the case, they can be accommodated in the private and semi-private rooms without additional cost. But if there is election on the part of the person going into hospital to have a private or semi-private room, they do pay a surcharge.

It is quite open to us to determine the leve 1 of surcharge, which does not contravene the Canada Health Act. Our surcharges are quite modest compared to many other provinces. It was determined in this budget that it would be desirable to increase the surcharge over last year. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. the Let me say to the Minister of Health that there are two things in the budget that we have seen now. We have seen the cutback i..n the cost of eye care, where it is going to be once every two years.

Now we have seen the cost o.f beds in hospitals go up to $50 a day. I ask the Minister of Health why was the increase put on the cost of beds at this time? And as far as being modest by comparison to any other province, let me say the rate of unemployment ln the Province of Newfoundland is not LlOOO April 20, 1988 Vol XL modest when compared to the rest of Canada. The incomes of the average family in Newfoundland is much less. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

EFFORD: My question to the Minister is: Why at this time does he see it necessary to put the extra charge on the backs of the people of this Province when we have such high health costs in our Province and such low incomes? That is the point I am getting at, the low incomes of the people of this Province. Why does the Minister see i. t necessary to do it at this time? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Health. DR. COLLINS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Windsor), would wish that we had no taxes, no fees, no charges ln this Province.

I mean, that ls something that we all - desire, · but I am afraid the reality of the situation is that public services require funding and we have to spread the pressure or the burden of funding as evenly as we possibly can. And we determined at this time, that those who elect - as I say, it is not obligatory - when they go into hospital special accommodation that is private and semi .-pri.vate accommodation should bear. a bit more burden this year rather. than last year. But the burden this year is not an excessive burden lf you compare it to the burden that is borne in other provinces in similar circumstances.

No. 20 RlOOO

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister of Health how can he justify putting this expense on the backs of the people -- he says it is to get extra money when at the same time we are spending $23 million of taxpayers' money on the Sprung operation, and now today we find that $2 million of taxpayers' money is going to be spent in building a liquor retail outlet in Mount Pearl? How can the minister justify those kind of expenditures on the backs of the sick when the taxpayers' money is being thrown away on foolishness such as that?

MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Health. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the han. member has not had the opportunity to partake in the process of government, so one has to remember that when answering his quest ions. In government there are many, many requirements, those of a social services nature, including health, of an educational nature and of many other natures. There is also economic needs for funding. There are a wide range of needs for funding in govet"nment. We cannot just limit our expenditures in one narrow area. The people of this Province do not want that.

I do not know if that is the policy of the Liberal party; if it is, it is news to me. I thought the Liberal party, which is a gt"eat institution, had a bt"oad concept of how to run a LlOOl April 20, 1988 Vol XI. Province, and, indeed, run a country. But from what the han. membet"s says, they have a vel"y nat"t"OW, ver.y distot"ted, very focused view of how to t"un a pt"ovince, and T am sul"prised to hear thls.

I am really startled and disappointed to hear this, because I thought the party opposite might have been an alternative to this administration, but, clearly, if they have no concept of how a government is to be run, we have to rethink this whole appt"oach. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LONG: Mr. Speaket" . MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for St. John's East. MR. LONG: I had a question I was going to put to the Minister of Finance, but T do not see him here, so perhaps r will put my question to the Minister of Justice (Ms Verge).

Tt concerns the situation with The Public Utili ties Act in which one consumer representative and member of the Public Utilities Board has called for changes to the legislation to disallow Newfoundland Light and Power from cutting off services to clients during Winter months. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if she has advised the minister responsible for Newfoundland Light and Power whether, in fact, that might be a course of action the government should take, to bring in legislative changes to disallow this action by the utility? MR. SPEAKER: No. 20 RlOOl

The han. the Minister of Justice . MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am the minister responsible for the Public Utilities Board. There is no minister with particular responsibility for Newfoundland Light and Power . Since the Minister of Finance just came in, I can defer it to him. But I can say that the matter of any legislative change is one that the Cabinet as a whole will be looking at. I have not received a particular suggestion for legislative amendment from any member of the Public Utili ties Board. MR. LONG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han . member for St. John's East. MR.

LONG: the I will put my supplementary to the Minister of Justice as well. In view of the suggestion that she has not received representation, would the minister consider the public statements that the consumer representative on the board has made as adequate representation for the Cabinet to give consideration to introducing changes to the legislation to disallow such action by Newfoundland Light and Power as cutting off services to clients during the Winter months? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr..

Speaker, I have certainly been following the news coverage of this issue, and there are different legal opinions about what the present legislation L1002 April 20, 1988 Vol XL provides and allows. The Department of Justice has given one opinion, which would not warrant any change along the lines of what the member for st. John's East is suggesting. MR. LONG: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for st. John's East. MR. LONG: Mr.

Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Justice, in asking her a final supplementary, that there is indeed a lot of uncertainty out there and that the minister could take positive action to clear up a very uncertain situation in responding to the concerns that have been brought fot:"Ward by the consumer. representative on the Public Utilities Board by making a commitment to bring in legislative changes. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

LONG: Will the minister give to the House today a commitment to bring in changes to the legislation to disallow Newfoundland Light and Power from taking such action during Winter months? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Justice. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot gl.ve any such commitment. T have already said that the matter of bills being put to the House of Assembly are for Cabinet as a whole. Secondly, there may not be a need for any leg1slative change to meet the representations of the consumer representative on the No. 20 Rl002

Public Utilities Board. Certainly, I will be happy to entertain various suggestions for improvement to our public utilities legislation. MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Waterford --· Kenmoun t . MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Development and Tourism.

Considering the pending sale of Newfoundland Hardwoods, if news reports are correct, and the untenable position of the employees with some seventy jobs at stake at least, originally there were seventy jobs, we understand that some layoffs have taken place and others are reported to be pending, based on some calls from union members who are concerned about their jobs - considering that situation, would the minister like to comment on what steps are being taken by the government to guarantee that the seventy original jobs will be maintained if a sale does indeed take place? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Mini.ster of Development and Tourism. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, government has indeed moved towards the divestiture of the Mount Pearl Division of Newfoundland Hardwoods and the media presentation of that information is indeed correct. The process that is to be followed is _ that a statement of the assets and a request for proposals will be sought _ from the private sector with respect to their interest in that operation, whether it be in LlOOJ April 20, 1988 Vol XL whole or in part.

With respect to the people who were employed at that facility, one of the things that this government has achieved in its labour legislation is sucessor rights of workers in the eventuality of a new owner taking over an existing plant, so there will indeed be protection for those workers should a new operator be sought and be .found. Tt is difficult to speculate as to what the proces will be exactly because we have not as yet sold the property. We have to wait for proposals, and these proposals, as I explained in response to one of your colleague's questions some weeks ago, could take many forms.

Until such time as we know what the various options are that we have before us, it is very di.fficul t to know what the end result will be with respect to the employment of those who are affected. MR. GULLAGE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. the member for Waterford - Kenmount. MR.

GULLAGE: Tn 1 ight of what you just said, will the government continue then to maintain a position, shares in this company, at the time of its transi tlon to private business, for the sake of the employees primarily, to ensure that the transition is properly carried out and the business, ongoing for a period of time continues to interact with the business community, other manufacturing firms, and the numbers of employees at seventy, as it was, could be possibly maintained as in the past with a proper transition into the private sector? No. 20 RlOOJ

MR. BARRETT: Mr . Speaker. MR • SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as is usual, I guess, the message that comes through from questions from the opposite side of portrays the negative position of most initiatives that government would wish to undertake. I think the same kind of thing is occurring here, and that the member opposite has not anticipated that this sale, this disposition of an asset by government, could in fact be an extremely positive initiative, not just, Mr.

Speaker, for the perservation of maybe fifty or seventy jobs, but possibly an opportunity fom some potential investor from the private sector to create a facili. ty that will be competitive, that will be up to date, utilizing the expertise that exist at that plant to create probably job opportunities for several hundreds of people. That is one of the things that government would expect to see in response to its requests for proposals from the private sector get it away from the constrictions of government interaction. Everything to do with business development and delivery is better in the private sector.

Time and time again examples are there to suggest that the private sector runs business better than government. Here is a prime opportunity to take a facility, deliver it to the private sector, and provide an opportunity to expand the role, to provide new opportunities, new challenges for the people who are presently employed at the Ll004 April 20, 1988 Vol XL facility, but a l.so open it up to a great many more opportunities for other Newfoundlanders. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Waterford Kenmount. MR.

GULLAGE: Why did the minister wait until the firm is practically bankrupt to decide to put it on the market for private sale, to a private developer, a private owner and leave the other manufacturing firms that i.nteract and do business with Newfoundland Hardwoods l.n such a position? And not only do we have Newfoundland Hardwoods in great difficulty, but we have other firms, which interact and do business with them supplying the local market, in difficulty as well. Will the minister answer why it has been left to such a late date?

And, in fact, will a window be left open so that the purchaser of this particular property, when the sale does take place, will have an avenue, will have a way to deal with government, with government, perhaps, as I suggested, maintaining some share so that we do not see the firm taking this over left in a position of having to compete with Mainland suppliers, as in fact they now do, and left in such a position - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. GULLAGE: that they are unable to carry on and conduct a profitable business? No. 20 Rl004

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, government has not as yet made any decision as to how it is to dispose of that asset. But first of all let me enlighten the hon. member opposite, that Newfoundland Hardwoods is not in a deficit position . Newfoundland Hardwoods is in cash position. of Newfoundland a very positive It is one element Hardwoods that government is intending to dispose of, and that is the Mount Pearl Division of Newfoundland Hardwoods, nothing else.

Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited is · a very viable operation that has provided a strong economic base to several parts of this Province. We are divesting of one element, the Mount Pearl Division of Newfoundland Hardwoods. There are no creditors unsatisfied as a result of government's role, nor, are there any creditors left out in the cold as a result of that particular Division of Newfoundland Hardwoods having successively lost money on its own operations. None, absolutely none!

Tf there are certain private sector companies which might have made several investments to accommodate and be a part of the supply process to that facility, then government cannot accept any responsibility for it. The member opposite should know that the private sector expands its operation and modifies its operation at 1 ts· peril, but also at its profit also at its profit.

If there are companies L1005 April 20, 1988 Vol XL that might have done something to accommodate something that might have been, that could have been doing business with that Division of Newfoundland Hardwoods, then I have no doubt that those companies can change their marketing techniques, change their customer relations to accommodate that particular i.nvestment. I have no problem with that. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

RIDEOUT: Who is the question for? MR. TULK: If the hon. gentleman had been listening he would have heard. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and i.t concerns the enforcement of regulations on our salmon rivers as they are being enforced by the Federal Department of Fisheries.

The minister will recall that over the past eight to ten months that there have been a number of pieces of correspondence between himself and myself and the Federal Minister in ottawa concerning the fact our salmon rivers, in tenns on surveilance of them, are perhaps being treated a little better than a ten week unemployment insurance scheme to No. 20 Rl005

make work for the river guardians. The minister will also recall, I believe in a letter of December 17 which he wrote back to me supporting what I had said, and r appreciate his support, wrote that he would be meeting with Mr. Siddon- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. gentleman is making a speech. MR. TULK: I would ask the hon. gentleman has he met with Mr. Siddon and what the results of that meeting were? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries . MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, T certainly can inform the bon. member for Fogo that I carried through on the commitment and had the meeting with Mr.

Sideon, and again, I guess for the thlrd year since I had been in this department, made the case that the surveillance programme on Newfoundland salmon rivers in is totally more staff and be dedicated to inadequate, that resources need to it, and requested done. that that be I think the answer to all of us is obvious , it has not been done, but the fact that it has not been done has not been for a lack of representat.i.on from this government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. L1006 April 20, 1. 988 Vol xr. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. member for Fogo. MR.

TULJ<: Do I understand the Minister to say I have got the correspondence somewhere in the binder and I will table it in a minute, - that in spite of all of the representation that has been put forward by himself, by Newfoundland's federal minister in ottawa, by Rod and Gun Clubs in this Province, by concerned individuals, that the federal Minister of Fisheries, in spite of all of that representation, is going to allow the salmon rivers in this Province to be raped by poachers - and that is all you can call it; the minister knows the facts as well as T do, and be the subject o.f a ten-week employment programme so that river guardians can gather unemployment insurance in the Winter?

Do T understand the han. gentlemen to say that that is going to be the case? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: I am always more optimistic than the han . gentleman in everything that I do. But, nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that I am not aware that there is going to be any increase in the programme, and I agree with him that that leaves many of the rivers in the Province open to excessive poaching, and that is not a desirable position for us to be in in terms of that resource or any resource, and that is not a position that we support and it is not a position that I support.

But when it comes to providing the additional resources to have a more then No. 20 enhanced supervision role, per.haps the han. gentleman Rl006

could convince his leader that one of the things we want to accomplish under the Meech Lake Accord, if we can accomplish anything, is more jurisdiction as it relates to inland fisheries, and inland fisheries would certainly fall under that particular clause, and we might be able, if we had some legislative responsibility, to force the issue a bit more than in the consultive way that we have had over the last several years. We might, T do not know. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, let me remind this hon. gentleman that in August and September of 1984, the Premier of this Province conducted a crusade of prosperity and the Prime Minister of this country promised to inflict prosperity on us. Let me ask him how does he square having a discussion of the fishet"ies on the agenda of future constitutional conferences with the pt"omise that they made to us in 1984? What he is telling us in effect is that this minister is being ignored by his Tory counterpart in Ottawa while-- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question! Question! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

TULK: - the fishermen of this Province at"e being to told to cut back on the commet"cial salmon fishery. I L1007 Apt"il 20, 1988 Vol XL ask the gentleman once again- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question! Question! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: - will he rise in his place and now tell us that the truth of the matter is that the federal Minister of Fisheries is ignoring him, that our salmon rivers are being depleted, that they are being raped and pillaged by poachers, and the people in Ottawa, his Tory counterparts, are just not listening to him? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fishet"ies. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, I will stack the results of the Campaign for Prospet"ity against the twelve ot" fourteen years that preceded that when the party that the gentleman opposite supports were in powet" in Ottawa. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: We, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and in this government, did not roll over and play dead because our political confreres wet"e the Government of Canada, when the rights and the responsibilities and the desires and the objectives of Newfoundlanders were at stake, Mr. Speaker. You never heard any screams from that han. ct"owd, Mr.

Speaker, when Trudeau and the other people up there were crucifying Newfoundland and Labrador, but you hear it ft"om us when the present govet"nment tries to do something that is not in the No. 20 R1007

best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was what the campaign for prosperity was all about, Mr. Speaker. It has not been 100 per cent successful, but 99.99 per cent, Mr. Speaker. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has elapsed. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies. MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.. I wish to supply the answer to a question on the Order Paper, by the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Decker), to ask the Minister of Career Development and Advanced Studies to lay upon the Table of the House the following information:

a) Invoices, vouchers, etc. to cover the receipts, cost of accommodations, travel, car rentals and entertainment incurred by the Minister, Parliamentary Assistant and/or Parliamentary Secretary and othe 'r members of the Minister's staff in the Province, between the dates of November 25 and December 13, 1987 inclusive. L1008 April 20, 1. 988 Vol XL

b) List regions visited during that period and for what purpose. The answers to both, Mr. Speaker: There were no expenses incurred by the minister in any region of the Province. MR . RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Question Mo. 28 on the Order Paper of opening day, March 15, from the han. gentleman for Twillingate requesting a list of grants given to various fishermen's committees and other organizations around the Province. The list is here for all the districts, Mr. Speaker, around the Province.

We provided grants to fishermen's committees, development associations, all kinds of people, Mr.. Speaker, in St. Barbe, Mount Scio Bell Tsland, Port au Port, Port de Grave, Eagle River and Bale Verte - White Bay; I got a few dollars for my own district and one thing and another. But it is all there, Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: St. John's South? MR. RIDEOUT: St. John's South? missed it. MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I think we The han. the Minister of Social Services. MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the hon. the member No. 20 Rl008

for Port de Grave who asked me to lay upon the Table of the House:

a) Invoices, vouchers, etc. to cover the receipts, cost of accommodations, rentals ... incurred travel, car by the Minister, Assistant ... November 25 inclusive.

b) A during purpose. list that Parliamentary between the dates of and December 18, 1987 of regions visited period and for what Mr. Speaker, at that time T was Parliamentary Asslstant to the Premier. I notice .it is the same time that the Windsor Buchans by--election was on, Mr. Speaker. I can say to the House that the answer to the question is that I travelled at no cost to government as it relates to that, and at no cost to government did I visit any regions of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, I say that, of course, recognizing that probably the Leader of the Opposition would like to answer whether or not his party incurred any government expenses during that period. I notice it is not on the Order Paper whether or not there were any government credit cards used. To the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, no, no! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It is now four. o'clock and it is Private Members' Day. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, T would like to raise a point of pr.ivilege. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege, the hon. the L1009 April 20, 1988 Vol XL Minister of Fisheries. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, Your Honour will no doubt recall that yesterday in Question Period there were a series of questions directed to me by the hon. gentleman from Port de Grave. Today there was a press release issued to the media in the Province by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as it relates to that particular series of questions that were asked yesterday. It is in that context, Mr.

Speaker, that I bel i.eve, and of cout:"se Your Honour will rule once you have heard the evidence, that there exists here the basis for. a case of privilege, certainly my privilege, as a member of the House and the context of the questions yesterday and the context . of the answers that were given in a press release t:"elating to the activities of this Chamber on yesterday. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says in his statement that was issued today, and I quote, "The thrust of the question was not directed at the MHA for Bonavista South but at the Minister and the Department of Fisheries on the basis that ... " and then it goes on to outline the basis. Now, I refer Your Honour to Hansard of yesterday, Tape No. 716, Page IB-2. The first question from the hon. gentleman from Port de Grave was the following, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, my question was not how the money was paid - excuse me, Yout:" Honour, it is TB-1, the first page, that I want to refer to, Tape No. 716.

The hon. gentleman fl:'om Port de Grave, and I quote, "My first question to the minister is: Was the minister aware that a member of his No. 20 Rl009

government was involved in marketing when he announced the subsidy of last year. If he was nat aware that a member of his government was involved in the marketing, when did he become aware of it and did he agree that this was a proper procedure for him to be involved with. " I have to ask Your Honour, what is the thrust of that question? Is the trust of that question not directed at somebody in the House other than me? I have the responsibility as minister to answer, but what is the thrust of that particular question?

I would say Your Honour would have to agree and the House would have to agree, that the thrust of that particular question is directed at somebody in this particular House who happens to be a member of the government. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the next question, the first supplementary following the main question from the han. gentleman, is the following on the bottom of page IB 2. The hon. gentleman says again: .. Mr. Speaker, my question was not how the money was paid.

My question very clearly was: Was the minister aware at the time that the programme was put in "place, was instituted, by his department, where the fishermen did not get a great deal, about five cents a pound, that a member of his own government was involved in the marketing of this product?" I ask Your Honour what is the thrust of that question? The thrust of that question has to relate - again it is very clearly asking me if I was aware that somebody over here was involved in this particular programme before it was announced.

I refer Your Honour finally to the L1010 April 20, 1988 Vol XL second supplementary, the third question on the bot tom of page IB 3 where the hon. gentleman says: .. I would ask the minister: First part of the final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, Why was $750,000 approved by the budget far marketing in his department?

And the second part: Did not officials of your department, at the same time this was going an, completely go against the fact that an MHA was involved and told you so and told the Premier?'' Again, for the first time in this whole series of questions the budget of the department, the $750,000 budget of the department for marketing, was raised, but the second part of that fi~al supplementary again refers to some particular individual in this House and advice that I had or did not have on the programme.

So, I say to Your Honour that it is very clear from Hansard, the official record of this House, that the thrust of the questioning - the thrust of the quest i.aning - was just as it is here in Hansard. Now, the second thing T would like to bring to Your Honour's attention is page 3 of the hon. gentleman's press release for today on the subject, where he says: ..

The minister. must explain to the people of this Province whether or not he knew, before the subsidy programme was announced, that the producers would be using some of the subsidy to pay a marketing commission, to any marketing· company. . . .. and it goes an from there. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it .from producers in this Province, and there were two or three various No. 20 RIOlO

marketing companies involved in marketing that particular fish, that 1 t was not a commission that was paid. The marketing companies, Morgan International and others, purchased the fish from individual fish plant operators and sold it. Whether they made money on the deal or lost on the deal I have no way of knowing, but the marketers did that. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

RIDEOUT: In conclusion, Your Honour, I think it is very, very clear that the Hansard of yesterday, and the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, are totally at odds and it certainly, T think, infringes on the privileges of all members of this House. If Your Honour so rules, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition privilege. the to Order, please! MR. WELLS: Leader of the the point of Mr. Speaker, there obviously is no question of privilege. The questions as set out in Hansard speak for themselves .

The question being asked in each of the first two questions put by the hon. member is: Was the mi.nister aware? The thrust of the question cannot be anything other than the minister's awareness. Was the minister aware of a stated LlOll April 20, 1988 Vol XL position? That is clearly the thrust of the question, and it is quite an appropriate question. How this gets to be stretched a.s a question of privilege, I will never know.

The third question clearly relates to the expenditures of the minister's department, the management of the Marketing Division of the minister's department and the expenditure of funds for marketing in the minister's department. Was the minister aware that funds would be spent on marketing this when he had a .Marketing Division spending public funds to market fish that was processed with subsidies provided by the minister's department, where subsidies were intended to be given for fishermen? That is the thrust of the question. Tt is clearly not a point of privilege. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. YOUNG: Tell us about your hand-delivered - MR. SIMMS: Explain your press statement. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem. I will take the time of the House, but it would be a trespass on it, Mr. Speaker. But if the hon. gentleman wants, T have no problem explaining the press statement. There was a great hue and cry about the comments made by the hon. member. T will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member No. 20 RlOll

not only did that which was right, he did that which it was his duty to do. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WELLS: His proper duty to do. That is what he did in this House. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TOBIN: Smear and innuendo? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Fisheries r-ose on a point of privilege and stated his case without any inter-r-uption. I would ask hon. members to extend the same courtesy to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his reply. The hon. Opposition. MR. WELLS: the Leader Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. of the Now, hon. gentlemen opposite have, in this context, asked me to deal with this statement. That is the subject of the minister's point of privilege, and T will deal with it. The statement was made, Mr. Speaker, because a great hue and cry \oJas raised that the hon ~ the member for- Port de Grave did something improper in asking this question, or had an improper basis for doing it. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, I submit the hon. gentleman has a concern.

The hon. the member for Bonavista South telephoned me this morning at about eight thirty or quarter of nine, somewhere around that Ll012 April 20, 1988 Vol XL time, and told me he felt the hon. gentleman for Port de Grave ought to apologize for the comments in the House yesterday, and gave me some explanation for it on the telephone. I said to him, 'I assure you that if anything improper was sa i.d or anything unfounded was said or impli.ed, the Li.bera l Caucus wU l apologize for i.t, but I suggest you come and meet with me. He did. He stated certain facts. They are spelled out in this news release.

There are a couple o.f fundamental facts. He told us he had been involved with marketing fish in various parts of the world over the last couple of years. I commend him for it. I commend him for it. He said he has marketed about 4 million pounds in the last year. I commend him for it. He said that he marketed on behalf of the producing companies in Newfoundland - he emphasized that and I agree with him, I understand that to be the case a significant portion of the fish that was produced in respect of which the subsidy was paid by the Department of Fisheries to those fish producers. MR.

TOBIN: Do you commend him for that? MR. BAIRD: Do you commend him for that? MR. WELLS: He also said he received no payment of any kind directly from the government, nor any other assistance of any kind or knowledge or information, in connection with the herr-ing or mackerel subsidy. I accept his word for it. I do not question it. He received commissions, was my understanding from him. I may have misunderstood him. He talked about commissions of 3 percent to No. 20 R1012

5 percent is the norm, as low as 3 percent on occasion, never more than 5 percent. Maybe commissions is the wrong word. If it is incorrect, I certainly withdraw it and apply the right word. But I took it from the information given to me by the bon. gentleman that it was in the neighbourhood of 3 percent to 5 percent, whatever that meant. He received those payments from the fish producing companies who did receive the subsidies from the government. Now, it may be that he lost a bundle of money on it for all I know. I have no way of knowing, and I do not suggest one way or the other.

Then, when I saw these statements from the hon. member, I looked again at Hansard and, having put that together, T say, · Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port de Grave would have been dere li.ct in his duty to his const.i tuents and the people of this Province if he had not asked the minister the question he asked him. And the question was, clearly it is set out in Hansard, his first question, "Was the minister aware that a member of his government ... " Now, I have talked to him about that. That is incorrect. It is not a member of the government.

It is a member sitting on the government side of the House, the hon. member for Bonavista South, not a member of the government. "Was the minister aware that the member was involved in marketing when he announced the subsidy last year? If he was not aware that a member of his ' own government was involved in the marketing, when did he become aware of it and did he agree that this was a proper procedure for him to be involved with?" Ll013 April 20, 1988 Vol XL N'ow that is a proper question for him to ask the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Fisheries ought to answer 1 t. Because, Mr.

Speaker, this House voted $750,000 of taxpayers' money for the department to spend on marketing. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am trying to make up my mind where the privilege comes in, the privilege of hon. members, so I will ask the hon. member if he could briefly make the point. MR. WELLS: I will clue up, Mr. Speaker. I was asked to deal with the press statement and T have done it. The simple position set out in the press statement is this, that that is a valid question.

The minister has to account to this House for the expenditure of public money on marketing even if he is not going to have his department involved in marketing fish that his department is subsidizing going to a market that his department knew about and was subsidizing because it was part of the Third World and they could not afford to pay the commercial prices for it. That is the thrust of the question. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should still answer it, and there is no privilege involved. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member for Bonavista South, T have heard the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. the Leader of the No. 20 Rl013

Opposition and I am going to study this matter tonight. I think it is only reasonable that I would hear what the hon. member for Bonavista South has to say, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has referred to their conversation in statements today. The hon. the member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the chance to speak on this point of privilege raised by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries. Because if I had not been allowed to speak on this one, my intention was to raise my own, which would tie the two together.

It is a most serious situation, Mr. Speaker. The last time I stood in this House and raised what I thought a most serious breach of privilege - in fact Your Honor, from the Chair, made the decision that I did establish a prima facie case. That was about two and a half years ago, and that was the first time in the history of this Assembly here in Newfoundland that a prima facie case was ever established. Tt was done by this member, here.

Maybe it is ironic that it comes at a time when I j ust announced that I was not going to seek re-election again to this House of Assembly in Bonavista South, but it is a very, very serious matter. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, what happened was this: It was implied that in my role as an MHA, as a result of my being a member of this House, I somehow benefitted in my . own personal business. That Ll014 April 20, 1988 Vol XL was the clear implication left yesterday in the House, and outside the House, in comments to the media made by the member for Port de Grave.

No question about that, that I somehow improperly received something from government, whether it be information or finances or some other thing, to benefit my personal business because I happened to be a member of the House o.f Assembly. That, Mr. Speaker, is a most serious charge to be made against a member of the House of Assembly. Tt was because of that, Mr. Speaker, that I felt compelled this morning, after seeing last night's news, based on what happened in the House yesterday, to call the han. the Leader of the Opposition. I said to him on the phone, "Mr.

We 11 s, in the name of common decency, will you arrange to have a member of your caucus, John Effo~d. apologize for the damage he did me yesterday in slandering my name and casting innuendo?" His reply was, "Well, if you feel that this should be done, let us meet and discuss it." Mr. Speaker, we met. And today I am going to throw a shocker on this House of Assembly, a shocker! We met and the Leader of the Opposition, as he said today in his statement, now released to the public, clearly wanted to leave the impress ion that the whole thrust of the question was on the Minister of Fisheries and not on me.

He went so far as to say that in the name of common decency, yes, if necessary he would call a press conference this morning to clearly indicate and clarify the whole matter as it pertained to me. But - but, Mr. Speaker, following immediately after that statement the hon . the Leader of the Opposition, and this No. 20 Rl014

is going to be seriously damaging to him, sa i.d .in the same breath, »I will arrange that, Jim, if you will arrange to stop making your criticisms of me in the House like you made yesterday.» SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame! AN HOM. MEMBER: No way! MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am standing on the factual truth, and Mr. Efford was there as a witness. Mr. Speaker, they cannot deny it. I said to the Leader of the Opposition, 'What comments are you talking about?' 'The comments you made yesterday in the House. ' I said, 'What comments?' 'You know what I am talking about.

Now, you stop making these comments and we will deal with this issue. • Now, Mr. Speaker, that is blackmailing a member of the House. Is he now saying to me that I cannot attempt to criticize the Leader of the Opposit.ion or the Opposition party, I cannot do that because they will find a means of trying to attack me and use that kind of blackmail? That, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of blackmail and very seriously interferring with the privileges of a member of this Assembly. That is a most serious thing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I again appeal to the hon. member, as I did this morning.

The facts speak for themselves, and any innuendo or any comment I have made across this House in debate or otherwise, I will stand by outside the House of Assembly. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Ll015 April 20, 1988 Vol XL Hear, hear! MR. MORGAN: t am not going to hide behind the curtain of immunity like some people do, like the member for Por-t de Grave did yesterday when he passed his innuendo against me, Mr. Speaker, then went public and did not have the courage to even mention my name, afraid of a court action, in his comments made to the media. I will not hide behind the curtain of immunity, Mr-. Speaker-.

What I say today in the House I will say outside, any time after- the House closes or after this debate is over. Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, that political blackmail was attempted on me this morning, in that he would arrange to tur-n this around to an attack on the minister, as he has now tried to do in this press release since that time, sweep it under the carpet and attack the minister in order for me to be nice to him in the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear-! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. MI TCHELL: The press is not laughing. MR .

MORGAN: Hon. members of the caucus on that side may very well laugh, but, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same members laugh on other issues, and other- things this hon. gentleman has said over- the years. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a most ser-ious thing. There were witnesses. The walls of the member-'s office, I would say, are not that sound-pr-oof; the conversation that took place in No. 20 Rl015

the member's office this morning had to be heard by all the secretaries around. Why did he lose his temper and lose his control in the office? Why? Because I told him what to do with his little blackmail tactic. That is why he was so mad. That is why he was so mad. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPRAKER: Order, please! MR. MORGAN: I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: All right. MR. MORGAN: What I want to say is, I can see it now. Jim, stop casting those comments at me like you made in the House yesterday. What comments did I make yesterday? Did I speak in debate yesterday?

I did not even speak yesterday in debate. What is he worried about? Something that I know that he ·knows I know. What is it all about? Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience. I am going to conclude by saying again, I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition in a most serious way to, in the name of common decency, have courage enough to say it was a mistake made by his caucus. There is no foundation . It is not substantiated.

As he says in his press release, and as he told me this morning, he did, and he quotes it in his. press release: "I told him at the meeting that the Liberal caucus would apologize for anything said or implied that could not be substantiated." This cannot be substantiated, so let L1016 April 20, 1988 Vol XL them apologize, Thank you. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. Speaker. If the hon. the member for Port de Grave has some comments to make I will hear him, otherwise, I have heard enough on this matter and I would like to study it and rule.

The hon. member had his opportunity of speaking, so did the hon. the member for Bonavista South and the hon. the Minister of Fisheries. If the han. the member for Port de Grave has a comment to make, I will certainly listen to that. The hon. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORO: Just a couple of minutes, Mr . Speaker. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the MHA for .Bonavista South need not call the Leader of the Opposition to ask this member to apologize. I will very clearly apologize to anybody in this hon.

House, or outside the House, any time I make an incorrect statement. SOME HOM. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! No. 20 Rl016

MR. EFFORD: Make no mistake about it. But, Mr. Speaker, the facts very clearly speak for themselves, and I want to clarify the misleading information given by the MHA and the Minister of Fisheries. Fact number one very clearly stated a question to the Minister concerning, was he aware of the marketing done last year? Fact one. Fact two, that my concern was the fishermen of this Province did not receive a decent income last year. That is the reason why the money was put in place. Fact three was there was already a market set up and approved by the budget and the Estimates Committee of this House for that purpose.

Fact four is that I have no reservations about the fact that the MHA for Bonavista South was involved in the marketing in that herring and mackerel fishery. There is absolutely no case here, Mr. Speaker. The MHA got up and totally misled this House again this afternoon in his reference to the meeting that took place this morning, and he knows it full well. And I will, if any time I ever make a statement anywhere professionally or unprofessionally, apologize. In this particular instance, Mr.

Speaker, my questions were very clearly directed to the Minister of Fisheries and he has an obligation to answer those questions. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think I have heard enough on this matter. I am going to study Ll017 April 20, 1988 Vol XL the Hansard of today and yesterday, and also the statement that was made, and I will seek advice from other sources. I should be able to have more to say on this matter in the next day or two. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege, the han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. WELLS: I will only take a couple of minutes, Mr.

Speaker. It is improper to use the word 'liar' in this House and I will not use it. I will just say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the statement just made by the hon. the member for Bonavista South, I do not know what meeting he attended this morning, but his description of it does not match any meeting that he attended with the hon. the member for Port de Grave and myself. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: The other people around heard what was said. MR. WELLS: Mr.

Speaker, I will not dignify it with any more, but I want the record to indicate that the total statement was without any accuracy whatsoever. It is just totally without accuracy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: No. 20 R1017

To. the point of p~ivilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the P~esident of the Council. MR. SIMMS: The han. the Leade~ of Opposition kept it b~ief, will keep it b~ief. the so I Two points I will make: First of all, the app~oach by the Leader of the Opposition, we are all very familiar with it and the people of this Province are very familiar with it, but they a~e not going to be fooled by it, his pious app~oach. ".M~. Speaker, he says, starting off, "it is imp~ope~ to say 'lia~· in this House. M~. Speake~, it is also imprope~ to say indi~ectly what you a~e not allowed to say directly. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hea~! MR. SIMMS: That is a b~each of Pa~liament. That is a b~each of the rules. If he is supposed to be so knowledgeable, he should also know that. So he said indirectly what he is not permitted to say directly. The othe~ question I want to ask him, Mr. Speaker, is very simple: Did he or did he not offer to make a deal with the hon. the member for Bonavista South? That is the question. MR. WELLS: Absolutely not! moment. SOME HON. MEMBERS: . Hear, he a~! Neve~ Ll018 April 20, 1988 for a Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of p~ivilege raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I cannot see any prima facie case in that. Today is Private Members' Day and I now call on the hon. Minister of Forest Resources. He has nine minutes left. MR • SPEAKER: He has nine minutes left. MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: O~de~, please! MR. TOBIN: Wheeler, dealers. MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few mo~e wo~ds on the proposal put forth by the member for Humbe~ Valley (Mr.

Woodford) on the establishment of a NATO base in Happy Valley - Goose Bay area, Mr. Speaker. Once again I want to state that me, as a member of this House, and I know the Gove~nment of this House, a~e very supportive of the establishment of a NATO t~aining centre in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay a~ea. M~. Speake~, we did see a couple of amendments put to this House last week, one amendment and one sub-amendment. On the No. 20 R1018

sub-amendment, given by the members for the NDP here, I understand why they are having so much trouble with the problem of a NATO base in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker. There was quite a good documentary or a news report done on it last night on CBC and I would not hesitate to criticize what CBC has said when I do not agree with them. I will congratulate them on a show that I think they did a fair job on explaining the position of the local NDP on this issue. Mr. Speaker, they are for it and they are against it. They are for it and they do not know where they are right now, Mr. Speaker.

According to this amendment, they are partially for it or partially against it, but I am still not sure, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to understand why they are confused on the matter because their own national party, where they get their direct guidance on this issue, is itself in disarray on the establishment or the acceptance of NATO within a Canadian system. They are against NATO one day. Their leader came out and said that he is not fully against NATO. He will wait a year or so if he ever makes a government, which will never happen anyway.

He thinks he might have a chance at it now, so he is not fully against NATO. He will probably wait until the first term is finished before he would withdraw Canada from NATO. But then, when his supporters or some of the people in his own caucus wanted to come on, they say, 'No, this is a cop-out. We should be out of it right away. As soon as we get a chance, we should drop out of NATO.' L1019 April 20, 1988 Vol XL So, Mr. Speaker, I do understand why the two members in our House have difficulty in supporting or not supporting or maybe they are for it or maybe they are not for it.

When they get their directions directly from Ottawa and there are such confusing signals being sent from their national party, and the NDP or the Socialists factions in this country, Mr. Speaker, are directed, lean towards more than any other party, a centralist philosophy and that is where they get their direction from, the central party in Ottawa or the Ottawa thinking people, I guess, within that social group. Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing before I fin ish my remarks.

I do want to congratulate the Mokami Project Group on the efforts they are having in not only the NATO development in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area, not only promoting the NATO development, but promoting other things in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area. Mr. Speaker, they have done a good job in g~v~ng the advantages, I guess, of development in Labrador, especially in Central Labrador, Happy Valley Goose Bay area.

But they have also taken on other projects besides the NATO base and they have made presentations on behalf of the Innu in the Sheshatshi t area to get some economic development stimulated for the Innu people in their general area. I know there was good co-operation. They did make a presentation to ACOA in Labrador West and on behalf of the NMIA Council for Sheshatshit and Davis Inlet. They ar~ doing a good job in promoting the Happy Valley Goose Bay area and Labrador, generally, through their No. 20 Rl019

organization. Mr. Speaker, not only are they promoting NATO, but somebody in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area has to represent the view of the vast, vast majority of Labradorians when they suggest that they want this development to occur in Happy Valley Goose Bay. It is easy for people who are against this project to get press coverage.

The peace groups, the anti-nuclear groups, or the anti-NATO groups can get coverage by sticking two people, with a couple of plaques in their arms, around the War Memorial down on Water Street and they will get television cameras coming out off their ears and radio and newspaper people to come down to interview two or three, maybe half a dozen of them. Any peace demonstration that I have seen against this NATO base, every one of them that I did see personally, and did see on television, I figured they were two different groups.

Every one I have yet seen there were more media people there than there were active participants. There was one held here, I believe, on the lawn with two or three camps put up out there one day, and at that time I counted the demonstrators, I guess, and I counted the media people at the time and there were as many media people at that one as there were demonstrators. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to get recognition to be against something. The Mokami Project Group .is making an effort to represent the vast majority of people in Labrador. From my last portfolio, I talked with many of them, Mr.

Speaker, Ll020 April 20, 1988 Vol XL even the people from the riding of the district of Menihek, who were very, very supportive of this particular development in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area. I do commend the Mokami Project Group on their efforts, not only their efforts to attract the NATO facility to Goose Bay, but also their efforts to encourage as much, even with the development that is there now, the low level training, to encourage as much local benefit to local businesses and local operations as is possible, even with the present setup as there is in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

They are trying to maximize job opportunities for the local people in Happy Valley Goose Bay. They are working on these efforts. They are trying to get as many local supplies come into the base as they can from the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area, or the general Newfoundland area. One amazing f i.gure I did see recently is that the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area is being serviced more from Halifax, Nova Scotia than it is from stations in St. John's, which is not very acceptable and the Mokami Project Group are making efforts to change this around.

One of these efforts recently was where the Chairperson or the president of the Mokami Project Group came to St. John's and spoke with the St . John's Board of Trade which has initiated a trade mission now coming from the Island part of our Province to go to Happy Valley - Goose Bay and see what benefits the Province can have by supplying the market demands that are existing and expanding in the Happy Valley Goose Bay area by the military activities that exist there. No. 20 Rl020

Happy Valley Goose Bay is prospering. There is quite a bit of construction going on in the area now. They are developing a considerable service centre, even moreso that they ever have been, for other parts of Labrador, particularly Coastal Labrador. Happy Valley Goose Bay is becoming a service centre for the rest of the Labrador area. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention one sub-amendment that we have here . There was also an amendment put: forward by the official Opposition party in this House, Mr.

Speaker, and before I sit down I do want to say that I can see that I could personally support the amendment that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition and I do plan to vote for that amendment as it is put forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure toda .y to rise and debate on the Private Members' motion put forward by the MHA for Humber Valley. Tt is a motion that I think all hon. members are pretty well in support of.

I also support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Naskaupi, in whose district this development mainly lies. I think it is a development which we in the provincial House of Assembly should support, taking into account the concerns of all peoples that are to be affected in Ll021 April 20, 1988 Vol XL the future. One thing about the democracy we have, Mr. Speaker, is it allows the views of all peoples to be taken into account in the development of a policy or in any future developments that occur, and how these developments affect our people.

So the concerns of Native peoples, the concerns of people in the Labrador area, the concerns of all Newfoundlanders and Canadians, whenever a decision is made, are allowed to be passed on to the people who make those decisions and their case put forward in whichever way and however they want to do it. They can do it in _ a strong manner. They can do it by lobbying. There are a whole variety of ways to do so. In our country with our good democracy, we allow that and I welcome it. I think it is the best democracy in the world and I think it is something we should be thankful for.

When we look at bringing a development into Goose Bay and into Labrador, when we say we want to support it, we are also saying we want to make sure that all of the effects, be they good, bad, or whatever, be looked at, be analyzed, and we take into account the concerns of these people, no matter how large or small they number. I think that that is being done, and, from what I have seen of the reports that have been put forward and the many views that have been put forward, those concerns are being addressed in the best possible manner.

Mind you, some people and some groups may not be satisfied that all of their views are all taken and encompassed in various reports, but, at the very least, their opportunity to present those No. 20 Rl021 ..

views is there they have an decision that is conditions are decision. and, T impact made, put believe, on the and what on that So I welcome the resolution. I think this development would be good for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not feel that the Government of Canada has that Newfoundland recognized also and Labrador strategic position and that we are a place that should be looked at for defence monies in Canada. I think it is shocking to see how far they come down, Mr.

Speaker. has a They come down to Halifax and they stop and they seem to think we do not exist out here, especially when it comes to DND spending. It is unfortunate. It is something that has existed for 'many years, but I think our Pt"ovince and our people are starting to say we want to be part of the protection of Canada, especially with our. location, and that we should get a shat"e of this social spending that is spent in other. parts of Canada.

Our unemployment rate and the economy of the Province are in desperate need of such expenditures which would help people in our Province stay here and help develop the economy, which we have been trying to do for many years. So I would welcome and I would hope that Newfoundland and Labrador will get 1 ts chance to access these monies and to be able to take its rightful place in this Confederation when it comes to the defence of Canada.

In looking at the development a little closer in Labrador, I think my district of Stephenville, which is a former American base, had Ll022 Apt"il 20, 1988 Vol XL good things and bad things, Mr. Speaker, in ter.ms of the effects on the people there. But the overall impact is that Stephenville is a town that is a stable town. It has a good population. They have a good economic base because of defence spending. So, Stephenville has been able to grow. It has been able to stride ahead and to make its future. We were not able to do that before because we did not have an economic base.

We have learned our lessons from previous times. The overall benefits are there. The overall costs, and the things that you want to watch out for, we can look at and watch for. But. that is no reason, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with development. We are in need of development in this Province, and defence spending is the way to go . Because we support such a development, Mr.. Speaker, with NATO coming into Newfoundland and Labrador, that does not mean that the members o.f this House are warmongers, Mr. Speaker, or they want to beat everybody over the head with a stick.

What it means is we temper our support with making sut"e that everybody's op1n1ons are able to be taken into account and we are able to address concerns that at"e put forward. t'lle all want peace, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, on the world front last year we saw effot"ts by the two super powers that are seen as the first positive sign that there is going to be some more disarmament. There is an effort, and hopefully a sincere one, to addt"ess this wot"ld problem. We have seen those things happening No. 20 Rl022

and going on and that is a good sign. It does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that you do not look at the reality of the world. We have to make sure we have protection, that our interests are insured and that we are able to defend ourselves. We would welcome peace as everybody welcomes it. Canada has been a country that pushed for many years, wi.th its leaders, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Lester. Pearson, former Prime M.i.ni.ster. Trudeau, and indeed all the previous Pri.me Mi.n i.sters and the present, I think, pushed Canada's image as a country which 1 i.kes to mediate and likes to promote world peace.

While we have done that, we have also to be aware of the reality that we are participants in NATO. We have to put our resources forward as a participant in this group, which is for an overall defense of the Western World. I think, for us not to do that, for us not to address that concern and address a need of NATO, is shirking our responsibility as being part of it. While I can look at concerns that are addressed, we also have to look at a reality, Mr. Speaker. We are a participant and one where we have benefited a great deal from NATO. We also have to sacrifice somewhat. The question, Mr.

Speaker., of course, is i.s this a real sacrifice? I do not think \t is overall, I think it is going to bring tremendous benefits to this Province and I thi.nk it i.s time we all got together and pushed as much as possible in a coherent fashion the policy of this government, the policy of the federal and provincial governments, in trying to get the L1023 April 20, 1988 Vol XL NATO base. We should all take into account what concerns people have, but to make sure that we are on a concerted effort and a concerted path to attract this development. I would commend the efforts of my colleague from Haskaupi (Mr.

Kelland) who has been involved and, indeed a 11. Labrador members, including my other colleague. I feel that they have done a good job in putting for.ward the views. There i.s now the Mokami Group in Labrador that i.s based in Goose Bay which has been formed to put forward a lobby and to put forward a strong case for this development. I will support that group. I know they have been very active, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that must also be brought to the attention of the people of the Province is that, in getting our fair share of defense money we, at the present time, are experiencing a problem in Labrador with people working on Department of Defense contracts, federal government contracts. In Cartwright and Saglek in Labrador we have a third year coming up of construction and we have trades people in this Province who are unable to get work on these projects, Mr. Speaker, in coastal Labrador. There has been a great deal of correspondence going on.

There has been a great number of telephone calls made and concerns expressed but, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the federal government and indeed the province to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians work on these projects, Mr. Speaker. These are projects being developed· in Newfoundland, defense contracts are being put here and our workers Mo. 20 Rl023

are not getting their shot, they are not getting their fair shake. We brought those concerns to the Provincial Minister. of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) . They were brought to him again last night in Estimate Committees. They tell me that they are working on this. But, Mr. Speaker, the time is getting short. I have talked to some people in the labour movement who are very concerned that our Newfoundland and Labrador people are not able to avail of these opportunities.

I think that is something that has to be addressed, especially if we are going to try and welcome and try to push for a future development which we would see defence spending in the Province. If that is to occur, then the benefits should accrue to Newfoundlanders first and as much as possible since our employment and our development i.n this Province is not at all at a hi.gh level. We would want to see the benefits brought Province. as much as l::o all people possible in this This is a problem that is presently going on, Mr. Speaker. It is a problem that has not been addressed.

I recently got a letter back from the federal Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Jelinek) , who indicated they were making their best efforts to try and straighten out the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, there is an easy way to do it. All they have to do is tell the contractors to start looking at Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for employment. ·The problem is, it does not seem, Mr. Speaker, that the will is up there.

That is something that we as a Province and a House of Assembly have to T.1024 Apri 1. 20, 1. 988 Vol XL bring home to the hon. members in Ottawa. t think it is time that they rea U.zed what our plight and our situation is down here. It is time, Mr.. Speaker., because we are in desperate need of development and we are in desperate need of seeing things happen when it comes to defence spending. I welcome a policy that would see us get more monies down here. We lobbied for a Sea Cadet base for two years. We lost out because there was a Halifax firm that did a report.

The Halifax firm recommended a site in Nova Scotia, which is understandable, Mr. Speaker, being from Halifax. The problem is that there was no case for Nova Scotia, there was a great case for the Province, and we lost out. That sends to me and all of us warning signals about whether or not our. concerns are being addressed, Mr. Speaker. T think it is time that the province made their views known mor.e strongly in Ottawa. We have a good case, Mr. Speaker, for more defence money. We have a very good case for the NATO base.

We ar.e also want to make the federal government aware we are a part of the Confederation and our geographic location was good enough for the Americans, Mr. Speaker. They came here and they put three bases in Newfoundland. Here in Canada we are not too sure about whether or not they want to put anything. When it comes to developing economically, that is one of the things that can be done, one of many, Mr. Speaker, mind you, but it is something that should be looked at. Mr. Speaker, last week there was a well known speaker internationally here in our Province, and she No. 20 Rl024

spoke on disarmament. Helen Caldicott I believe her name is. Unfortunately, I could I could not get there, Mr. Speaker, due to a previous engagement, but I saw the news report. It was welcomed to see her talk about disarmament and the need to seek peace. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, want to see peace, but you also have to face the reality of what you are dealing with, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, you have to jive both things together and you have to come up with a policy. You have to deal with the real world.

You have to deal with the fa.ct that we are a part of a group o.f nations that have .formed themselves together during the recent past to protect themselves. We have a role, we have a responsibility with that and it is time that we helped and fulfilled that role. It does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we are advocating nuclear weapons all over Canada. It means that we advocate participation in such a thing. I believe we should support that concept. I notice now that the NDP federally have reviewed their policy. I am still not clear as to what that policy is, Mr.

Speaker, but t would hope that that policy will be straightened out in the reality of this world that we work in. t think that there should not be a question, Mr. Speaker, as to everybody, especially in this House of Assembly and, of course, in Canada, working towards a peaceful solution, because T think our. country has gotten a great reputation for that and has been very effective in pursuing that, Mr. Speaker. So nobody should take it upon themselves to indicate or say that because L1025 April 20, 1988 Vol XL .. members support a development that they are against peace or whatever else. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that takes the argument out of logical persuasion and puts it into another realm. We can all wrap ourselves up and say we are against this because we are all for peace, but we also are for peace, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the ways, I think, that can help promote peace, as a matter of fact. I would l i.ke to see more monies spent on other projects for employment, Mr.. Speaker. But we also have the responsibility that comes to the defence of NATO and the defence of Canada. We have to work towards that end and fulfill that responsi.bi li ty. So we should welcome and take into account all concerns, Mr.

Speaker, including the major concerns of Native peoples and their rights that has to be a major concern and has to be addressed and other concerns of other people. They have to be addressed, because, if we are going to have a development, we should try and make sure everybody who is involved with this development and who are going to be affected by it, that their concerns are addressed by the policy that will be put down by NATO and by the federal government. t am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what. our chances are. I hear that we have a pretty good chance. At other times you hear that we are not so sure.

But T hope that all members and all people across Canada are on a concerted line to see that this development occurs. I do not think that we who support this, are people who advocate military spending all over the No. 20 Rl025

place, and that we are for building up the world with arms wherever we can do it. We are, Mr. Speaker, for peace, but there is a way to achieve that peace and there is also r.eali ty that you have to deal with. T would hope that the hon. members from the NDP will consider. that in their discussions of their. position due to this fact. Mr . Speaker., I am all for. peace, and I will borrow the line from my colleague from St. Barbe, 'but I am not for Greenpeace.' So I hope that the policy they advocate, Mr.

Speaker, will be something that deals with the reality because, like I said, we can all go along and preach and preach and preach, but one of these days you may get there and you may have to do something about it. What you are going to have to do about it becomes the reality, and you have to deal with that reality. T would rather, Mr. Speaker, be const~ctive about what T am going to do than say something that is not going to be what T am going to do. You want to advocate your. position on a matter. You want to say what you would do if you were there.

I would hope that all members of this House wi 11 carry out that responsibility, take it seriously, and take it upon themselves to make sure that when they are putting forward this position that they understand what the reality is, Mr. Speaker. I again say that all members are very concerned about the ramifications for such a development, but the benefits, I think, Mr. Speaker, far outweigh the costs. This House has a social conscience just as big as any, or bigger than Ll026 April 20, 1988 Vol XL any in this country, Mr. Speaker.

T would hope that people will r.ecogn ize that and not impute to this House and members of it because i. t supports a proposal which would see many benefits, both social and economic to this Province, and impute motives that were against peace, Mr. Speaker. I believe that that i.s the farthest notion from what the reality is, Mr. Speaker. Reality is something that we have to deal with. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to seeing this proposal adopted, I hope by NATO countries, and that all concerns are addressed by the federal government in the development of the policy which will be forthcoming.

I also hope to see, Mr. Speaker, that future defence spending will come forward. Also, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be employed i.n these defence contracts. T think it is something that we have to get straightened out and I hope that the Province undertakes to get the matter. underway and straightened out. Mr. Speaker, T support the resolution put forward by the hon. member. for Humber Valley and our amendment put forward by the member for Naskaupi . Thank you, Mr.. Speaker.. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the Minister of Fisheries. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

RIDEOUT: No. 20 R1026

There is time for another speaker. MR. LONG: Let me go and you go next. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me begin my few remarks on this important resolution today by complimenting my colleague, the member for Humber Valley, who brought in this resolution. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is very timely.

We have been engaged in debate about internally wi.thin the Province, within the country, and internat i.ona lly, over the last several years on this particular issue, trying to attract to Canada, first of all, and secondly, trying to attract to Newfound land, a very, very large economic development. that there are those, who oppose it. There who oppose it for Now, I know Mr. Speaker, are those political But, I was I think it purposes, I suppose. thinking this morning, was about twenty after six or so this morning, as I was dressing I was listening to The Morning Show on CBC. AN HON.

MEMBER: You do not get up that early . MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I did this morning because I had to drive somebody to the airport. But, I was list.ening to The Morning Show on C.BC, Mr. Speaker, and T believe, again, like I said yesterday, maybe it is the history training coming out in me, but I always pay a little · bit of extra attention to This Day in History. Ll027 April 20, 1988 Vol XL This morning on the CBC morning show, the article, This Day in History, pointed out that today, 99 years years ago at 6 : 00 p.m. , Adolf Hitler was born.

The greatest scurge, the greatest cancer, I suppose, ever inf lie ted on humanity was born on this day 99 years ago. He was a socialist, Mr. Speaker. He lead a socialist movement in Germany. I would not make that comparison, but he lead a socialist movement in Germany. MR. FENWICK: What! He moved the socialists to the gas houses. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, what is operative, what I am trying to say i.s that as T was listening to this particular part this morning, it occurred to me, trying to collect my thoughts for speaking on this particular resolution today, that we do not have the luxury, living in the kind of world that we are living in, to take positions that are so extreme as to not be able to defend democracy and to defend ourselves. That was the operative phrase that was going through my mind while thinking about this debate today, and thinking about that particular programme. We do not have the luxury.

I notice the party that continues to oppose this particular development, the NDP, have tried to double talk this last number of days, this last number of weeks, and, in fact, T believe it is fair to say, this last number of months. The socialist hoards, Mr. Speaker, have begun to realize that they have to modify their extreme positions. The Leader of the NDP, Mr. No. 20 Rl027

Speaker, in this Province is, on this particular issue, in a very uncomfortable position. CBC, last night, I thought, did an excellent expose to explain to the people in Ming's Bight, or Harbour Round, or Brent's Cove that we do not have the luxury of supporting this kind of extreme political naivity. CBC did a fantast.ic job on that expose last night. What the NDP had to do here, Mr. Speaker, on this particular. issue is nothing short of scandalous.

They have tried to adopt a policy provincially that says we can speak out of both sides of our mouths; we can be for the military use of Goose Bay, but we can put so many restrictions on it that we cannot allow it to happen. That is exactly what this particular poll tical party is trying to sell to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as their policy. MR. LONG: It is a popular position, boy. MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it is a very popular position, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very, very popular position and T have no doubt that the people in Naskaupi district and in the Eagle River district, and other. districts in Labrador and on the Island, will speak to that populas movement at the appropriate time, and they will be so justly rewarded, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt about that. The other part, Mr. Speaker, of the double-talk approach is what the NDP nationally is now trying to tout because they were up there in the polls. They had this vision of glamou .r, this vision of grandeur that they may have an opportunity to form a government nationally.

L1028 April 20, 1988 Vol XL Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many more decades before that calamity is going to be inflicted on Canada. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: .But they had the poll tical grandeur, when they were riding relatively high in the polls, that the only thing that was keeping them from the corridors of power nationally, the only thing that was keeping them from the Cabinet room in Ottawa, was their particular policy on defence. They were getting the vibes, Mr.

Speaker, from all across the country that if you had a defence policy that was not so anti-NATO, then maybe, just maybe, the people of the country might be so naive as to give you a shot at the reigns of government. So they performed another great verbal and intellectual gymnastic trick, Mr. Speaker, another great flip flop perpetrated on the body poli . tic of Canada by those socialist hordes who are knocking on the doors of power those days, or thought they were knocking on the doors o.f power, they performed another · great intellectual exercise, Mr. Speaker. Tt was not a very new exercise.

It was not something that had not been tried, and with some degree of success, in Canada before. They adopted the

Part i Quebecois policy, Mr. Speaker, that in our first term we will not change anything. That is what Rene Levesque went to the voters of Quebec in his first general election that he won back in 1979, Mr. Speaker. He said, "Elect us, but we will not take you out of No. 20 R1028

the country in the first term that we are in office.' The people of Quebec took him at his word and elected him. Those people are so desperate, Mr. Speaker, that they are proposing now to go to the electorate of Canada and say, 'Elect us, but in our first term we will not dare take you out of NATO. We will not take you out of NORAD.' This is the infantile, childish, political policy, Mr. Speaker, of the socialists. If you are going to have a policy, have a policy, -Mr. Speaker. If you are going to stand for taking Canada out of NATO, then stand for it.

Do not try to hoodwink and blindfold the people to think that you do not stand for it, but after you get one term in off ice, you will reconsider it again. That is the PQ approach. That is not the approach of this party, Mr.. Speaker. Tt is not the approach of the official Opposition. That is the wimp approach. That is the socialist approach, Mr. Speaker, blindfold the people, do not tell them exactly what you are going to do, and when you get in there, if ever you get in there, then we will do something else. That is the approach, Mr.

Speaker, that was politically used in Great Britian for several years of socialist government. It has taken that country now almost a decade or more to recover from the economic straits that they were put into by the socialist policies. Mr. Speaker, the approach on NATO is the same kind of approach that those hon. gentlemen ar.e proposing to take today on this resolution with their. sub-amendment on the military use of Goose Bay. Ll029 April 20, 1988 Vol XL Mr. Speaker., if you look at the original motion, it says: "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that social and economic development be an integral

part in this promotion" in promoting the use of Goose Bay as a military site. The very sensible amendment proposed by the official opposition only further enhances that. It only further enhances the objective of the resolution which is to promote the social and economic development of the Goose Bay area. So, the official opposition amendment, Mr. Speaker, is sensible. It gives a bit more teeth to the motion and it allows for a committee of this House to join with government, an all-par.ty committee, to join with government in promoting - · MR. SIMMS: Not all parties, all parties that support the resolution. MR.

RTDEOUT: All parties that support, yes, to join with government in promoting the bringing to Newfoundland and Labrador, the bringing to an economically deprived part of our Province a very, very good development. So the Opposition amendment is sensible. It is supportable, Mr. Speaker, and I do believe that most o.f us on th.is side of the House will be able to support amendment. that particular. Now, then, of course, then you come to the sub-amendment, as put down by the Leader of the NDP.

The sub-amendment does not add anything to the objective of the original resolution which was to get this development for Goose Bay, for Canada and for Newfoundland, but to do it .in such a way that you protect the social and economic development of the region and of the people in the No. 20 R1029

area. It does not add to that, Mr. Speaker. It does not add to anything th!lt the official Opposition amendment tried to accomplish. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that you will never live long enough in this country to see, in an official way, the military use of Goose Bay Airport. That is what the sub-amendment, if it were passed and accepted by this House, would do. That is the effect that tt would have, Kr. Speaker, and that is why the NDP down in the corner here, the socialists down in the corner, Mr.

Speaker, they have been on that sticky-wicket since the first resolution was brought into this House a couple of years ago, on this particular item. They were forced, Mr. Speaker, to act like school children. Yes, I am in the House. No, I am not in the House. AN HON. MEMBER: They voted for it the first time. MR. RIDEOUT: They voted for it and then when there was another vote called they made sure they ran out through the door and into the corridors so that their names would not be recorded, Mr. Speaker. Now you have this other. unique approach, consistent, T might say, Mr.

Speaker, consistent with the NDP philosophy nationally on defence. If you cannot develop a position on this particular issue that is supportable by the. masses, that is supportable by the majority of people out there, well try to fudge it with this kind of an amendment. So, it is a 'but' approach. L1030 April 20, 1988 Vol XL MR. FENWICK: (Inaudible.) that. MR. RIDEOUT: You should mention That is exactly what I mentioned a short while ago, in this global community that we are living in, Mr. Speaker, and I think the hon. the gentleman for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward) put. .i.t very well none of us are warmongers.

None of us want to learn from experience the horror and the misery and the torment and the chaos of war. The NDP do not have a monopoly on that kind of thinking, Mr. Speaker. That is not their monopoly. There are just as many Liberals or just as many PCs who believe in that overall philosophy. But we have to as well, Mr. Speaker, be conscious of the reality and the reality, Mr. Speaker, as it has been on this planet for centuries, the reality is that there is our side and there is another•side. MR. FENWICK: Reality changed in 1945. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr.

Speaker, if this party can do so much to change reality, then maybe they should arrange some kind of an international summit so they can bring everybody together, whether they are government or not, bring everybody together, get everybody to sign on a piece of paper that all nuclear weapons will be done away with, all conventional weapons will be done away with, the armies of the world will be disbanded, and when they reach that golden summit, Mr. Speaker, then and only then wi 11 they have the right to be able to be so pious in their manifestations on the use of No. 20 R1030

mi Utary equipment and/or the use of Goose Bay as a t~aining centre. That is all this is, Mr. Speaker. We as a government and as a people are cognizant of the rights of the Native groups, the aboriginal groups in Labrador. We have said publicly on numerous occasions that we are prepared to sit down and negotiate their land claims with them. We have said that, Mr. Speaker. We are not prepared to accept a back seat to anybody when it comes to being fair and reasonable and equitable to the first inhabitants of this land. It takes two, Mr. Speaker. You cannot sit down and negotiate with yourself.

It takes two to come to the table. It takes two to get the process working, and I think that over the last several months there have been some progress made in that ~egard. So if you are going to say to the world that we are not going to let this development go until land claims are satisfied, T mean, you could be talking several years. MR. FENWICK: (Inaudible). MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman never negotiated a thing in his life. He does not know what negotiations are all about, Mr. Speaker.

So he has no right to expect the people of this Province or the majority of members in this House to believe that he has some kind of a gift that no other person has. MR. SIMMS: On the other hand, he did negotiate himself out of prison earlier than he would normally get out. Ll03l April 20, 1988 Vol xr. MR. RIDEOUT: Yes. Has he some kind of a magic wand that he and his party can raise that is going to solve all those major questions overnight? The first question you have to get resolved and in terms of the LIA, the Labrador Inuit Association, is resolved.

They recognize the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a legitimate government. They are prepared to sit down and talk. The Innu, on the other hand, have consistently said they do not recognize us. How can you sit down and begin negotiations and that kind of a process? What the NDP have done here, Mr. Speake~. is an attempt to do nothing only try to stay on the side of the saints. They are trying, Mr. Speaker., to stay on the side of the saints and the angels by trying to ensure through the method of a sub-amendment to this resolution that this project is effectively scuttled.

That is the bottom line of their approach. That is the bottom line of the approach of the party nationally. MR. FENWICK: That is not so. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman protests too much. He can say, 'It is not so' all he likes, but if this particular sub-amendment were accepted by this legislature today, you could kiss good bye to NATO involvement in Labrador for decades and decades. That is the bottom line, Mr. Speake~. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. 20 Rl031

Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: On the other hand, if the very sensible resolution and a very sensible amendment that was made by the official Opposition is accepted by this House, as I have some reason to believe it will, then it will enhance the ability of Canada and enhance the abi 1 i ty of Newfoundland to bring this development, with all of the economic spin-offs that. it will bring, to this Province. Kr. Speaker, none of us are for militarization.

All of us are against nuclear weapons, but T cannot understand how in the reality of our times a Newfoundlander who knows that we get the lowest per capita defense spending of any province in Canada, how a Newfoundlander worth his salt could attempt to blind fold the people of this Province into trying to believe, if this does not go to Goose Bay, it is going somewhere, Mr. Speaker! If it does not go to Goose Bay, it is going somewhere. In this particular case, the od